UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2012

  • Theresa May – 2012 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to the Conservative Party Conference on 9th October 2012.

    Wasn’t it great to say goodbye – at long last – to Abu Hamza and those four other terror suspects on Friday?

    So let’s pay tribute to the work of the police, prosecutors and Security Service who keep us safe every day.

    And in particular, let’s thank them for delivering a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic Games.

    And let’s thank the officers of the West Midlands Police and others, who are doing such a good job for us here in Birmingham.

    I’d also like to introduce my excellent team of ministers. James Brokenshire, the Security Minister, who did such good work in planning for the Olympics. Lord Taylor of Holbeach, our excellent minister in the House of Lords.

    Damian Green, who will continue police reform and get to grips with the criminal justice system. Jeremy Browne, our Lib Dem minister who wants to get tough on organised crime. And Mark Harper, who shares my determination to keep on cutting immigration.

    This year’s Conference marks the halfway point of this Parliament.

    And I’ve been in politics long enough to know that every day counts. We waited thirteen long years in opposition.

    We’ve been back in government for two and a half years. And in just two and a half more we’ll be facing the country again. Fighting for an overall Conservative majority and a Conservative government.

    But now we’re half way through our first term in office since 1997, I think it’s time to look back at some of the things we’ve already achieved.

    Welfare reform, so never again will it make sense to sit at home instead of getting a job.

    Taxes cut for people who do the right thing, go out to work, and earn a modest wage.

    School reform, so every child in Britain can achieve their potential, no matter where they’re from.

    The first veto of a European treaty ever issued by a Prime Minister.

    Proper controls on immigration, the first significant falls in net migration since the 1990s, and much more to come.

    None of that would have happened without the Conservatives back in government. So let’s be proud of what David Cameron and this Government are achieving.

    Everybody knows that our biggest task is the economic rescue mission our country so desperately needs. Dealing with a record deficit and Labour’s debt crisis takes time and it takes difficult decisions. We’re a government prepared to take those difficult decisions, and by doing so we’ve already eliminated a quarter of the deficit we inherited from Ed Balls and Gordon Brown.

    My first job was at the Bank of England. So I know there isn’t a shortcut to economic growth, especially after a financial crisis and while our biggest export market, the Eurozone, is in such trouble. But government can lay the foundations for growth by keeping down interest rates, minimising business taxes, cutting out red tape, and investing in our infrastructure. And that is exactly what George Osborne and this Government are doing.

    To those who think there is an alternative – that if only we turned the tap back on and started spending again, everything will be better – let’s remember what Margaret Thatcher said in 1980:

    “If spending money like water was the answer to our country’s problems, we would have no problems now … Those who urge us to relax the squeeze … are not being kind or compassionate or caring. They are not the friends of the unemployed or the small business. They are asking us to do again the very thing that caused the problems in the first place.”

    Mrs Thatcher’s words were right then, and they’re right now.

    So let’s hold our nerve and be confident of what we’re doing in government. Because that’s how we’ll win the next election – staying the course, doing what is right and not just what is easy, governing in the national interest and making clear that the Conservative Party is the home not just of those who have already made it, but the home of those who want to work hard and get on in life.

    Like you, I spend a lot of Saturdays knocking on doors. And one of the issues that comes up most often is immigration. Maybe that’s why Ed Miliband gave a speech recently and told us that it’s not racist to worry about immigration.

    Thank you, Ed, we knew that, but it’s not what the Labour Party used to say. And we won’t take you seriously until you say sorry, admit immigration is too high, and support us in bringing it under control.

    I want to tell you about our immigration policies and what they’re achieving. But first, it’s important to explain why we want to control immigration.

    It’s not because, as the liberal elites would have you believe, the British public are bigots. It’s because, if we want our communities to be real communities, with a shared pride in our British identity instead of fragmented, separate identities, we have to understand that a nation is more than a market, and human beings are more than economic units.

    It takes time to establish the social bonds that make a community, and that’s why immigration can never again be as rapid or on the same scale as we saw under Labour.

    Uncontrolled, mass immigration undermines social cohesion. And in some places, it overburdens our infrastructure and public services. It’s behind more than a third of the demand for all new housing in the UK. And the pressure it places on schools is clear. We see it in London where almost half of all primary school children speak English as a second language.

    And we must be honest about the fact that, in some cases, uncontrolled mass immigration can displace local workers and undercut wages. You know, the people who lose out under those policies aren’t the liberal elites. Several studies show that the people who lose out are working class families and established immigrant communities themselves.

    When we came to office, we found that official government assessments assumed that there was absolutely no displacement of British workers by immigrants. No wonder all the Whitehall departments were lined up in favour of more and more immigration. So when we asked our independent advisers to look at the effect of immigration on jobs, they found that every 100 non-European working age immigrants were associated with 23 fewer British-born people in work.

    And, by the way, Labour knew just what they were doing. According to Jon Cruddas, Ed Miliband’s policy chief, Labour were “using migration to introduce a covert 21st century incomes policy.” That’s right, Labour – the party of the working man and woman – admit that they deliberately used immigration to keep down British wages.

    So we will reduce and control immigration.

    We’ve put a limit on work visas. We’ve set a minimum salary for people who come here to work. We’ve made it mandatory to speak English if you come here on a marriage visa. We’ve set a minimum income level for anybody who wants to bring a spouse to Britain. We’re looking at the abuse of free movement of people across Europe.

    We’re cutting out the abuse of student visas, which was a backdoor route into Britain under Labour. We’re accrediting colleges, restricting the right to work, preventing most students from bringing dependants, and limiting the time they can stay here as a student.

    The student visa system was so badly misused that in the last year, we’ve reduced the number of visas issued by more than 90,000, just by cutting out abuse. And that means we can expect immigration to keep on falling. But we will keep on doing everything to get annual net migration back down to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.

    Last year, for example, I came to conference and I said “enough is enough” on the misuse of human rights laws. You might remember the speech – Ken Clarke and I spent the next few days arguing about a cat. I said we’d change the immigration rules to end the abuse of Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. One year later, the new rules are in place and ready to be tested by the courts.

    I still believe we should scrap the Human Rights Act altogether – but for now, we’re doing everything we can to stop human rights laws getting in the way of immigration controls.

    I know there are powerful vested interests who will oppose our immigration policies every step of the way.

    They argue that more immigration means more economic growth. But what they mean is more immigration means a bigger population – there isn’t a shred of evidence that uncontrolled, mass immigration makes us better off.

    They argue that our cap on economic migration makes us less competitive – but the limit stops economic migration getting out of control; it hasn’t been reached once since it was introduced.

    They argue, too, that we need evermore students because education is our greatest export product. I agree that we need to support our best colleges and universities and encourage the best students to come here – but to say importing more and more immigrants is our best export product is nothing but the counsel of despair.

    We were elected on a promise to cut immigration, and that is what I am determined we will deliver.

    Three weeks ago, the country was united in shock and grief following the brutal murders of Police Constables Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes.

    Their deaths were a dreadful reminder of the risks our police officers take in protecting their communities every day: putting themselves in harm’s way, going into dangerous situations unarmed, not knowing what they might come up against.

    We have the finest police officers in the world, and we owe them all a deep debt of gratitude.

    The terrible events in Manchester exposed a hidden underbelly of organised crime in this country: criminal gangs, dealing in drugs and guns, laundering money through supposedly legitimate companies, intimidating witnesses and ruling communities by fear. Many of the thugs behind these gangs think they’re untouchable, and in too many cases, they have been.

    Official estimates suggest that 30,000 people and 7,500 gangs are involved in organised crime in Britain, at a cost of up to £40 billion to our economy every year. And it’s not an invisible or victimless threat. The drugs pushed on young people on our street corners have been imported by organised gangs. They control the supply of guns and weapons and use them to intimidate entire neighbourhoods. Their huge profits are laundered through seemingly legitimate businesses so the crime bosses can spend their money, free from risk.

    We’re getting tough on organised crime. Last year, we launched the first ever cross-government organised crime strategy, so we can bring to bear the full power of the state and its agencies against organised criminals. We’re already seizing more criminal assets than ever before. And we’re establishing the National Crime Agency, which will lead the fight against organised crime, child exploitation, economic crime and border crime, like human trafficking.

    I’m determined to give the police and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to take on these gangs. For years, as part of their investigations, law enforcement agencies have had access to telephone records. But now, organised criminals, paedophile rings and terrorists are taking advantage of new technologies, communicating using internet phone services and even video games. That’s why we want to legislate to give the police access to the same information for internet communications as they already have for telephones.

    Some say this is a charter for state snooping. I say it’s a nightmare for criminals.

    The power would only be available when it’s necessary and proportionate, under the supervision of a senior officer. It would be regulated and overseen by independent watchdogs. And remember, we’re talking about who contacted whom, when and where, nothing more.

    So let’s be clear: I don’t want to read everybody’s emails. As Home Secretary I’ve strengthened civil liberty safeguards – not weakened them.

    But do we want to see criminals take advantage of new technologies? No. Do we want to see the internet become an unpoliced space? No. Do we want to see terrorists, criminals and paedophiles get away scot-free? No.

    We are the Conservative Party, not the Libertarian Party. As Conservatives, we believe the first duty of government is to protect the public. That is why the Conservative Party will always be the party of law and order.

    It’s because we are the party of law and order that we are also the party of police reform. And let me be clear: while we have the best police officers in the world, there is every need for reform.

    We need to cut the bureaucracy and get back to fighting crime. So we’ve taken an axe to police red tape, saving up to 4.5 million police hours a year and getting the equivalent of an extra 2,100 officers back onto the streets.

    We need to give the police the freedom to use their judgement. So we’ve scrapped all police targets and given them a single objective – to cut crime.

    We need police forces to be run efficiently with their resources in the right places. So we’re rooting out waste, joining up procurement, and reforming police pay so we reward crime-fighting, not just time served.

    Put simply, we need police forces that are single-minded about fighting crime.

    But it’s not as simple as me, the Home Secretary, telling the police what they have to do. For years, politicians and bureaucrats have tried to direct police forces in places as different as the West Midlands and Wiltshire. It simply hasn’t worked. So we’re putting the people in charge of policing.

    We’ve introduced street-level crime maps so you can find out what is happening where you live, and police.uk has already attracted more than 500 million hits. We’ve made beat meetings compulsory, so neighbourhood policing teams hold meetings with local residents.

    But our most transformative change will take place next month. On Thursday 15 November everybody living in England and Wales outside London will have the right to vote for a Police and Crime Commissioner.

    These are important jobs, and big elections. The Commissioners will lead the fight against crime in their communities, and they will have significant powers.

    They will be responsible for setting police budgets and deciding how much the public pays for policing through council tax.

    They will be able to hire – and, if necessary, fire – chief constables.

    They will set the policing plan for their force area.

    And they will hold their chief constable to account for delivering that plan and cutting crime.

    But the Commissioners will be important figures not just because of their formal powers, but because their mandate from the public will allow them to get things done.

    Another benefit of giving the public a real voice.

    If the police and the local council aren’t working together to deal with problems like noisy neighbours, the Commissioner will be able to bring them together.

    If the police need more support from local health services to deal with offending by drug addicts, the Commissioner will be able to make sure they get it.

    And I can announce today an important new duty on Police and Crime Commissioners to make sure that victims have a greater say in the punishment of people responsible for anti-social behaviour.

    We will change the law so when a criminal receives an out-of-court community punishment, the victim will be given the power to choose the form it takes. They’ll be given a list of options. They might want something restorative or punitive. They might want it to be carried out nearby or as far away as possible. But what matters is that the punishment will be chosen by the victim.

    For too long, victims of crime have had no voice – but this Government is giving victims back their voice.

    The most important thing about Police and Crime Commissioners is that they will need to stand up for the public and cut crime. If they don’t, they’ll be voted out of their job.

    So when you’re telling people to decide who to vote for on 15 November, tell them to ask this: which candidate has the best plan to cut crime in their community?

    We’ll be hearing from some of our excellent Commissioner candidates in just a moment, but the thing that sets the Conservative candidates apart in this election is their laser-like focus on cutting crime.

    While Labour candidates use these elections to play politics, and the Lib Dems try to make up their minds whether they should even take part, our candidates are talking about how to help their communities by getting tough on crime.

    The other important question is: which candidates have the track records that prove that they will be able to get the job done?

    Conservative candidates include a former Air Chief Marshal, several magistrates, business men and women and former police officers.

    Looking at Labour’s candidates, they seem to think the public are desperate for one last reunion tour of the politicians they rejected at the last election – Lord Prescott and the Has Beens, coming soon to a venue near you.

    Labour were the people who told us it was impossible to cut police spending without crime going up, who told us it was impossible to cut spending and protect frontline policing at the same time.

    They were wrong on both counts. Thanks to our reforms and the leadership of chief constables, the police are delivering and service to the public is being maintained.

    Frontline policing is being protected, there are more neighbourhood police officers, public satisfaction is going up, and crime is going down.

    Police reform is working, and the Police and Crime Commissioner elections are the next step towards our vision of police forces that are single-minded about fighting crime, and which answer to the communities they serve.

    So go out and tell people to vote Conservative on 15 November.

    The Conservative Party:

    The party that will take the fight to the criminals.

    The party of law and order.

    The party that will win the next general election.

  • Theresa May – 2012 Speech on Immigration

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, on the subject of immigration. The speech was made on 12th December 2012.

    A clear promise

    Two and a half years ago, the coalition government was formed, and we made a clear promise to the British public. After thirteen years of uncontrolled mass immigration, this government would reduce and control immigration.

    As yesterday’s census statistics show, the legacy we’ve been left with is a substantial one. Between 2001 and 2011, more than half of the growth in the population of England and Wales was accounted for by immigration.

    Since we came to government, we’ve taken action across the board. We’ve capped economic migration, reformed family visas, and cut out the widespread abuse of the student route into the country.

    And the results of those changes are beginning to show. Official statistics, released two weeks ago, show that in the year to March, we cut net immigration to Britain by one quarter – that is, by 59,000 people. That’s the biggest fall in net migration since 2008.

    And we can expect immigration to continue to fall. Home office visa statistics, which are more recent than the net migration figures, show falls of four per cent in work visas, fifteen per cent in family visas, and 26 per cent in student visas.

    The benefits are beginning to show. The number of people in work is up by more than half a million compared to last year. But in contrast with what happened under the last government, 87 per cent of that increase was accounted for by British-born workers.

    So our policies are beginning to bite – but we are not yet all the way there. With annual net migration still at 183,000 we have a way to go to achieve my ambition to reduce that number to the tens of thousands by the end of the parliament.

    I want to talk today about the measures we’re taking to make sure that the immigration system truly works in our national interest, by bringing down net migration to sustainable levels, while still attracting the brightest and the best talent from around the world.

    In particular, I want to talk about measures we’re taking to make us more discerning when it comes to stopping the wrong people from coming here, and even more welcoming to the people we do want to come here.

    Why we need to control immigration

    But before I do that, I want us to remember why it’s important that we do control immigration. I believe there are three main reasons: its effect on social cohesion, on our infrastructure and public services, and on jobs and wages.

    First, social cohesion. The debate around immigration often focuses on its economic costs and benefits, but the social consequences are often ignored. This is a big mistake, because not only is the social impact significant and important in itself, it’s often what bothers the public the most.

    As Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator of the financial times, says: ‘The desirability of sizeable immigration is a matter more of values than of economics. It is not a choice between wealth and poverty, but of the sort of country one desires to inhabit.’

    The point is quite simple. It takes time to establish the personal relationships, the family ties, the social bonds that turn the place where you live into a real community. But the pace of change brought by mass immigration makes those things impossible to achieve. You only have to look at London, where almost half of all primary school children speak English as a second language, to see the challenges we now face as a country.

    This isn’t fair to anyone: how can people build relationships with their neighbours if they can’t even speak the same language? After years of mass immigration, we now face the enormous task of building an integrated, cohesive society. Allowing more and more immigration would make that impossible.

    The second reason we need to control immigration is its impact on infrastructure and public services. It seems obvious that immigration should have an impact on things like the availability and cost of housing, the transport system, the National Health Service or the number of school places. But in the past, government impact assessments didn’t measure the effects of more immigration or determine where its effects would be felt the most.

    That’s something I plan to fix – but in the meantime we are left to deal with the consequences of more than a decade of uncontrolled, mass immigration.

    One area in which we can be certain mass immigration has an effect is housing.  More than one third of all new housing demand in Britain is caused by immigration.  And there is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices could be ten per cent lower over a twenty year period.

    Facts like these need to be carefully considered, and I look forward to seeing the results of the work we’re doing in the home office, but I think we can already be confident that mass immigration puts pressure on infrastructure and public services.

    Even if you accept that immigrants contribute to an increased tax take, there will be a ‘congestion effect’, that is, a significant lag between the increased demand for services and the distribution of those funds. And services in the parts of the country that experience the most sudden and sustained increase in immigration will suffer the most.

    The third reason we need to control immigration is its effects on jobs and wages.  Again, when we arrived in government, we found that the official impact assessments assumed that the job displacement of British workers by immigrants was zero.

    Now, we all know that the ‘lump of labour’ argument – that there is a fixed number of jobs to be divided up and handed round – is wrong, and that things are far more complicated than the idea that all immigrants come to Britain and ‘take British jobs’. But it was surely wrong that those impact assessments assumed absolutely no job displacement of local workers.

    So we asked the migration advisory committee to look at the effects of immigration on jobs, and their conclusions were stark. They found a clear association between non-European immigration and employment in the UK.

    Between 1995 and 2010, the committee found an associated displacement of 160,000 British workers. For every additional one hundred immigrants, they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed.

    So, there is a ‘lump of labour’ fallacy in the immigration debate, but there is also a ‘zero displacement’ fallacy. And government must never again make the mistake of falling for it.

    There is evidence, too, that immigration puts a downward pressure on wages.  Drawing on several academic studies, the committee found that immigration can increase wages for the better-off, but for those on lower wages, more immigration means more workers competing for a limited number of low-skilled jobs.

    The result is lower wages – and the people who lose out are working-class families, as well as ethnic minority communities and recent immigrants themselves.

    So uncontrolled, mass immigration is damaging to social cohesion, puts pressure on public services and infrastructure, and can lead to job displacement and undercut wages, particularly for the lowest paid.

    And yet one of my predecessors used to talk about the ‘purity of the macroeconomic case for migration’. As a result of that mistaken belief, the last government presided over total net immigration of 2.2 million – the equivalent of two cities the size of Birmingham.

    That is evidence of an immigration system that does not work in the national interest.

    But to say we want to reduce and control immigration is not to say that we want no immigration. We have always been clear that we want Britain to attract the brightest and best talent from around the world – the top academics, brightest students, the best businessmen, investors, skilled workers and entrepreneurs who will contribute to our society, our economy and our way of life.

    Family visas

    So when we reformed family visas, we introduced a new requirement to the immigration rules. If you want to sponsor a spouse or partner who wishes to come to Britain, they will have to prove they can speak English, and you will have to prove that you can provide for them. A minimum income level for family visa sponsors – of £18,600 for a spouse or partner with additional requirements for children – will protect the taxpayer by making sure that family migrants pay their own way.

    Work visas

    We wanted to make sure that economic migration works in the national interest too. But that is not what the system we inherited did.

    To be frank, that system was a joke. Tier one of the points-based system – supposedly reserved for high-skilled immigrants only – allowed people to work in unskilled jobs. I remember the ‘highly-skilled’ immigrant who we discovered was working as the duty manager at a fried chicken restaurant. But he was no one-off – we found that thirty per cent of people here on a tier one visa were working as shop assistants, security guards, supermarket cashiers and care assistants.

    That’s why we closed down the tier one general route and said if you want to come to Britain on a work visa, you need to have a proper job offer with a minimum salary. Business told us they prioritised the tier two route – for skilled workers with specific job offers – and we listened.

    So even though we delivered our manifesto promise to cap economic migration, and bring the overall numbers down, by clamping down on the abuse of tier One we were able to set the tier two limit at 20,700, higher than the number of people who came to Britain through tier two the year before.

    Business also told us they valued intra-company transfers, and we took the decision to exclude them from the limit. But to make sure that these transfers would not be abused, we raised the salary limit for intra-company transferees coming to Britain for more than a year to £40,000.

    As a result, ICT numbers have remained steady and business tells us that our ICT system is one of the most user-friendly in the world.

    And, to make sure that we could still attract the best experts, scientists, artists and performers, we created a new route, consisting of a further 1,000 visas for people of exceptional talent. Take-up in that route has been low, and I’m looking forward to working with UK trade and investment to encourage more exceptional people to take advantage of it.

    But I also want to build on the principle of appealing to exceptionally talented people, so I intend to add a further 1,000 places a year for MBA graduates who want to stay in Britain and start up businesses.

    We also want to be more proactive in attracting the wealth creators of the future.  We have made changes to the investor and entrepreneur routes to make it easier for major investors to settle in the UK. We have introduced a new prospective entrepreneur visa and a graduate entrepreneur visa. And last week, the chancellor announced that we will work with UK trade and investment to extend the graduate entrepreneur scheme to the best overseas talent.

    And we want to make sure that people in emerging markets continue to see Britain as a place to visit and do business.

    That’s why we’ve made it easier for Chinese visitors to come here, by simplifying documentation requirements, establishing a new business network across China, extending our express visa service, and introducing a new passport pass-back scheme for visa applicants.

    So our reforms to economic migration have struck a balance, and they send a clear message. If you have skills we need, and a company is willing to give you a job, come to Britain. If you have an investment to make, do it in Britain. And if you have a great business idea, bring it to Britain.

    But we are also clear that Britain doesn’t need any more unskilled immigration. The abuse of tier one has been ended. And work visas are capped, with the number of visas down by four per cent in the last year.

    Student visas

    The principles we applied to work visas we have applied to student visas too.  Again, the system we inherited was a mess, and it was abused on an industrial scale.

    Students were coming to Britain not to study but to work. Many colleges were selling not an education but immigration. And students, supposedly temporary visitors, were staying here permanently in huge numbers.

    When the last government capped unskilled economic immigration at zero, all that happened was student visas rocketed by thirty per cent to a record 303,000. The surge in numbers meant that in some parts of the world the Border Agency had to suspend student applications altogether.

    When we came to government, we found ‘students’ turning up at Heathrow unable to answer basic questions in English or even give simple details about their course.  We found colleges that sent students on ‘work placements’ hundreds of miles away from where they were meant to be studying.

    And of course, in each case we’re not just talking about one bogus student working in Britain – often they would bring their whole family with them, who would also work here, use public services here, and accrue the legal right to settle here.

    These students weren’t the best and the brightest, they weren’t coming to Britain to study, and they weren’t making a meaningful contribution to our economy. So we changed student visas to make sure that while we still attract the brightest and the best, and we still protect our world-class education establishments, we eradicate this kind of abuse from the system.

    The first thing we did was to require any institution that wanted to bring foreign students to Britain to pass inspection checks to prove they were selling education, not immigration.

    Overnight, more than 150 colleges – one third – chose not to undergo the checks.  To date, almost six hundred institutions have been removed from the tier four sponsor register.

    We also took action to make sure that students who want to come to Britain really are students. So the new immigration rules make clear that if you want to study here, you have to be able to speak English, support yourself financially without working, and prove that you are studying a legitimate course at a genuine college or university. In addition, there are new restrictions on the right to work and bring dependants. To prevent switching courses – a tactic that kept some students here for years – we set maximum time limits for study.  And to make sure that only those who contribute can stay at the end of their study, we set a minimum salary level of £20,000 and a requirement to get a real graduate job for students who want to work in Britain after their studies.

    Our policies are starting to bite, and they prove the massive scale of abuse in the student visa system. Just by cutting out abuse, we have reduced the number of student visas by 26 per cent – that’s almost 74,000 – in the year to September.  And what is more, we have cut the overall numbers at the same time as the number of foreign students coming to our universities has increased.

    Because we have always been clear that in cutting out the abuse of student visas, we want the best and the brightest minds in the world to come to study in Britain, and we want our world-class universities to thrive.

    So today I can announce a further measure to encourage top students to come to Britain and, if they have something to contribute, to stay in Britain.

    In future, all PhD students who have completed their studies will be allowed to stay here for longer to find skilled work or set up as an entrepreneur within the rules.  From April, all such students will be allowed to stay in Britain for twelve months after they have completed their PhD before having to find a job or start a business.

    We want to work with our universities to continue to protect not just the integrity of the immigration system but the reputation of the British education system around the world. We will continue to monitor strictly the adherence of universities as well as colleges to our rules that make sure only legitimate students come here.

    Where universities don’t meet those standards, we maintain the power to suspend highly-trusted status, as we did with the Teesside university and Glasgow Caledonian university, and even where appropriate to revoke a university’s right to sponsor foreign students, as we did earlier this year with London metropolitan university.

    Since then, as a result of their compliance checks, colleges and universities have informed the border agency of some 90,000 notifications about foreign students whose circumstances have changed and who may no longer have any right to be here. We will work with those universities – and indeed the whole sector – in a system of co-regulation to make sure we enforce student sponsorship obligations and protect the interests of legitimate students.

    Welcoming legitimate students and identifying and rejecting bogus students is at the heart of our changes to the student visa regime. And I want to announce today a further change in the border agency’s operational policies to make sure we get even tougher on bogus student applications.

    Last year, I instructed the border agency to undertake pilots in which high-risk student visa applicants would be interviewed, rather than undergo the usual paper-based checks. Starting first in Pakistan and moving to other countries, more than 2,300 prospective students were interviewed. The lesson from that pilot was clear – abuse was rife, paper-based checks weren’t working, and interviews, conducted by entry clearance officers with the freedom to use their judgement, work.

    So I can announce that, from today, we will extend radically the border agency’s interviewing programme. Starting with the highest-risk countries, and focusing on the route to Britain that is widely abused, student visas, we will increase the number of interviews to considerably more than 100,000, starting next financial year. From there, we will extend the interviewing programme further across all routes to Britain, wherever the evidence takes us. I believe this new approach will help us to root out the abuse of British visas, and improve the integrity of our immigration system.

    So, as with our changes to economic immigration, so our changes to student visas strike a balance, and send a message. If you can speak English, and you can get a place on a legitimate course at a genuine university, you can come to study in Britain. There is no cap on the number of students able to come here – and there are no current plans to introduce a cap.

    But we are also clear that student visas are not a backdoor route into working in Britain. We are clamping down on that kind of abuse. Colleges have lost their right to sponsor foreign students. Bogus students have been turned away. And, through more and more interviewing, we are getting better at identifying and rejecting people we don’t want to come to Britain.

    The official statistics show that we are achieving what we set out to achieve.  The number of student visas issued is down, while the number of successful applicants to study at British universities is up. That success means we can now look forward to a period of stability on student migration policy.

    Tackling some misconceptions

    But those statistics also show that there are some misconceptions about our immigration policies that need be corrected.

    One, that all foreign students coming to this country are good for the economy. In fact, many so-called students have been applying for low-grade courses at bogus colleges in order to work here in low-skilled jobs.

    Two, that foreign students are only temporary visitors, so they’re not really immigrants. In fact, one in five foreign students are believed to stay here for more than five years.

    Three, that our student visa regime is damaging Britain’s universities. In fact, while we have cut the number of student visas, just by tackling abuse, the number of foreign applicants to British universities is up.

    Four, that the cap on economic migration is hurting British businesses. In fact, because of the abuse of the old tier one system, we’ve been able to set a reasonably generous limit for tier two visas, and that limit has not yet been reached.

    Five, that you can’t control immigration without hurting the economy. In fact, uncontrolled, mass immigration displaces British workers, forces people onto benefits, and suppresses wages for the low-paid. Controlled immigration means you can attract the brightest and the best who genuinely contribute to our economy and society.

    Six, that wanting to control immigration in future is an attack on people who have already settled here or their children. In fact, the evidence suggests that recent immigrants and ethnic minority Brits are amongst those who lose the most from mass immigration.

    Seven, that you can’t control immigration because you can’t do anything to restrict European immigration. In fact, net British and European migration is broadly in balance. And we can introduce transitional controls on new member states, we can take action to restrict the demand for European workers from British employers, and we can be smarter about the benefits and services we provide for foreign nationals. These are all issues I plan to return to in the new year.

    Conclusion

    But overall, the biggest misconception is that by saying some immigration can be good for Britain, we shouldn’t try to control it at all.

    Our record is disproving that false belief. We’re proving that it is possible to get the immigration system to work in our national interest. We are bringing down the numbers to sustainable levels, and we are continuing to attract the brightest and the best talent from around the world. And we are doing that by making the system much more discerning – we’re welcoming the people we want to come to Britain, and we’re stopping the wrong people from coming here.

    With family visas, the applicants must speak English, and the sponsors must prove they can provide for them.

    With work visas, if you have the skills we need and a proper job offer, you can come to Britain. If you have an investment or a business idea to bring here, you can come to Britain. But we don’t need any more unskilled immigration, and we are closing down the routes – both formal and informal – for unskilled workers to come to Britain.

    And with student visas, there is no cap on the number of legitimate students able to come here to study legitimate courses at genuine institutions. But we’re cutting out abuse and stopping the student visa system being used as an easy route to working in Britain.

    The evidence is vindicating the government’s policies. The rise in employment over the last year has benefited British workers, not migrant workers as has happened in the past. Net immigration is down by one quarter in a single year. The visa statistics suggest further falls in net immigration to come.

    Two and half years ago we made a clear to the promise to the British public. We still have some way to go, but we’re delivering on that promise.

    Thank you very much.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2012 Speech to SNP Party Conference

    nicolasturgeon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicola Sturgeon to the 2012 SNP Party Conference on 21st October 2012.

    I am immensely proud of what was achieved in the past 5 years – not by me, but by those who work day and daily to care for the sick and vulnerable.

    Today, in our Scottish Health Service, we have the lowest waiting times on record. We have the lowest ever rates of hospital infection. Patient care is safer than ever.

    And, unlike in England, our NHS is secure as a public service.

    There will be no privatisation of the NHS in Scotland – not by this government. Not now, not ever.

    Today, I want to pay a personal tribute to our National Health Service. To all of the doctors, nurses, managers, allied health professionals, cleaners, auxiliaries – to everyone who works so hard – I say a heartfelt thank you.

    I owe you a debt of gratitude. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

    Delegates,

    Moving on from the NHS was always going to provoke mixed emotions in me.

    But there were no mixed emotions about accepting the First Minister’s invitation to be the new Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and the Constitution.

    My first job was to agree the transfer of power that puts beyond doubt the ability of our Parliament to legislate for an independence referendum.

    That job was started by Bruce Crawford and I want to take this opportunity today, on behalf of the whole party, to thank Bruce for his excellent and vital contribution to the Scottish Government over the the past five years.

    Delegates,

    As you know, the agreement with the UK government was signed on Monday.

    I have it here.

    An original, signed copy of the Edinburgh Agreement.

    Delegates,

    This piece of paper allows me to stand here before you and say, without a shadow of doubt, that there will be an independence referendum.

    It will be in the autumn of 2014.

    And just as we promised, it will be a referendum made here in Scotland.

    Young people who can marry, have kids and pay taxes will get the right to vote on the future of our country.

    Not to give us an advantage.

    But because votes for 16 and 17 year olds is the right thing to do.

    There will be just one question on the ballot paper.

    One question.

    And to that one question, there is only one answer.

    That answer is Yes.

    Delegates,

    This will be a referendum made in Scotland.

    And it must also be a referendum decided fairly and squarely.

    The issue that most exercised the UK government during the negotiations was campaign funding.

    They think that the limits proposed in our consultation are too low.

    Well, let me be clear. We will set the spending limits with care. We will listen to our consultation. We will listen to the Electoral Commission. We will listen to both campaign organisations.

    And then we will take a decision that is right for Scotland. A decision that guarantees a level playing field and a fair contest.

    Make no mistake, this time around, Scotland’s future will not be bought and sold for anyone’s gold.

    Delegates,

    Our government’s top priority is economic growth.

    The GDP and employment figures this week remind us just how fragile our economy is.

    As a government we are doing everything we can to get the economy growing again.

    But as we push in one direction, Westminster pulls in the other.

    Last week, David Cameron stood up at his party conference and said that, despite all the problems in the economy, he thought that Britain was on the right track.

    He made that claim less than 24 hours after the IMF predicted that the economy will shrink this year.

    And this week we had the sorry spectacle of the Prime Minister making a complete mess of energy policy.

    As families face rising bills, David Cameron came up with a plan that quickly looked more like a practical joke than a practical policy.

    Unfortunately, energy price regulation is reserved.

    But where we can act, we do.

    So while the fuel poverty budget is being cut to zero in England, our government will invest £200m in this and the next two years to tackle fuel poverty.

    That is real, tangible help to the people of Scotland from this Scottish government.

    Delegates,

    The hard fact is that the Tories have failed Scotland.

    And the overwhelming case for our independence is made all the stronger by the unfair, destructive, self-defeating policies of this arrogant, incompetent, out of touch Tory government.

    We need a change of direction.

    If we are to get our economy back to long term health, get our people back to work, create opportunities for our young people and make sure that our nation’s wealth is used to build a stronger and fairer society, then we need control of our own resources. We need the power to take our own decisions. We need independence.

    Without it, we are working with one hand tied behind our back. While we want to invest in the modern infrastructure our country needs, the Tories are slashing our capital budget by one third.

    And they are doing it at a time when we should be supporting our construction industry, not attacking it. Creating jobs, not destroying them.

    Delegates,

    Housing investment benefits the construction sector but it also delivers a vitally important social return.

    As a government, we have a proud record on housing.

    In the last Parliament, we increased investment by 40% compared to the previous administration.

    We built more houses for social rent.

    And it was this government – our government – that started a new generation of council house building in Scotland.

    Just last year, councils built more than 1000 houses.

    Do you remember how many council houses Labour built in their last four years in office?

    Let me remind you. It was 6. A grand total of 6 council houses – each and every one of them in Shetland.

    That is why this party will never, ever, take lessons from Labour on housing.

    Today, I can announce a further shot in the arm for house building in Scotland. A boost for the construction industry that so badly needs our help and support.

    Thanks to the sound decisions announced by John Swinney in his budget last month, I can announce a package of £45 million that will go directly to supporting the delivery of 1,200 new houses across councils, housing associations and the private sector.

    Action that will protect up to 800 jobs.

    Action from a government doing everything in our power to get our economy moving.

    Delegates,

    We are doing everything we can but our economy needs more.

    So I have a very direct message for the Chancellor today. A message on behalf of every construction firm clinging on by their fingertips, on behalf of every unemployed person desperate for some light at the end of the tunnel.

    Our economy needs a capital stimulus and it needs it now.

    If the Chancellor cares about getting growth back in our economy, if he cares about getting people into work and giving our young people hope of a brighter future, then listen – not to us – but to the growing band of economists and business organisations who say it is time to take a different course.

    Use the Autumn budget statement to increase capital spending and accept, once and for all, that we will not cut our way out of this recession.

    We must build our way out of recession.

    Delegates,

    I don’t meet many people who think the economic policies of successive UK governments have been good for Scotland.

    But I do meet people who ask, how do we know independence will be better?

    Friends, there is no country in the world – big or small – that is guaranteed success.

    But the combination of our natural resources and the skills and intelligence of our people make us just as capable as any other nation in the world of being a successful, prosperous independent country.

    That Scotland could thrive as an independent nation is not, never has been, never should be in doubt.

    And shame on any politician who ever suggests that it is.

    But we’re not nationalists just because we believe Scotland could be independent.

    We are nationalists because we believe Scotland should be independent.

    For us, independence is the means by which we build a wealthier, healthier and fairer Scotland.

    The last Government Expenditure and Revenue calculations – the GERS figures as they are commonly known – showed that in 2010/11, Scotland was better off than the rest of the UK to the tune of £2.7 billion.

    That’s £500 for every person in Scotland.

    Delegates,

    Only independence will ensure that, in future, Scotland’s resources are invested for the benefit of Scotland’s people.

    Never before has it been more important to make and win that argument.

    In the last few weeks, we have seen the emergence of a new Tory/Labour effort to write Scots off as subsidy junkies.

    According to Johann Lamont, we have a something for nothing culture.

    Ruth Davidson says that nine out of ten of us make no contribution and are little more than scroungers on the state.

    What an insult to each and every hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of this country.

    Now, I don’t expect any better of the Tories. But what has happened to Labour?

    The truth is Scotland doesn’t have a Labour Party and a Tory Party any more.

    What we have is the Thatcherite Tories of Ruth Davidson and the one nation Tories of Johann Lamont.

    One Scotland, two Tory parties.

    Labour should be ashamed of itself.

    Delegates,

    The unionist parties don’t just oppose independence – they want to roll back the hard won gains of devolution as well.

    Free personal care, medicines free at the point of need, bus travel for pensioners, education based on the ability to learn not the ability to pay.

    These are not signs of a something for nothing society.

    They are the hallmarks of a decent society and we will fight to protect them.

    And to those who say they can’t be afforded when the Tories are cutting our budget, we say this.

    The answer to Tory cuts is not to hit the elderly, the sick, the struggling family or the young person aspiring to a university education.

    The answer to Tory cuts is to control our own resources.

    Control our own resources so that we can get our economy growing.

    Control our own resources so that we can choose the priorities of our people over weapons of mass destruction on the river Clyde.

    Delegates,

    We will be better off with independence.

    Not just economically. We will be better off as a society too.

    The welfare reform agenda of the UK government is a real cause for concern.

    Not because its wrong to encourage people into work. I agree that the best route out of poverty is work.

    But I do not agree with that being used as the excuse for crude budget cuts that will hit the disabled and the vulnerable hardest.

    Last month, Citizens Advice reported that the number of Scots needing food parcels had doubled as a result of welfare changes and benefit delays.

    Food parcels in energy rich Scotland.

    That is unacceptable. It offends our sense of decency.

    And if that is what our opponents mean by better together, then I say the case for independence is unanswerable.

    Because, you see, I don’t accept that it is inevitable.

    Yes, money is tight. Yes, Labour and the Tories have put us in debt.

    But there are still choices to be made.

    In his last budget, George Osborne made a choice for us.

    He chose to cut the top rate of tax for people earning over £150,000 a year from 50 to 45p.

    A tax cut that will cost more than £10 billion over the next three years. A tax break funded by cuts in welfare for the poorest.

    Delegates,

    That is just wrong.

    Its robbing Peter to pay Paul. Except that’s probably not the best way to describe it. Because while those who benefit from top rate tax cuts are usually men, those who are hit hardest by welfare cuts are women and children.

    Delegates,

    I do not believe that would ever be Scotland’s choice.

    That is why each and every one of us has a duty to explain to our friends and our neighbours the reality of independence.

    It’s not about waving flags.

    It’s about the kind of society we want to build for ourselves and our children.

    Independence is about having the powers we need to eradicate, once and for all, the obscenity of child poverty in our rich society.

    Delegates,

    Make no mistake, we need independence to ensure that we have a welfare state that reflects our values.

    But, as a government, we are determined to do everything we can now to mitigate the worst impacts of these cuts.

    Next April, responsibility for the Social Fund passes from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. The Social Fund comprises Community Care Grants, small amounts of money to help vulnerable people live independently, and Crisis Grants for people who have nowhere else to turn and who need access to small lifeline grants to provide the basics like food for their children.

    I welcome the transfer of responsibility. But the amount of money being transferred with it – £24m – is less than was spent on the Social Fund back in 2005.

    Delegates,

    I can announce today that we will replace the Social Fund with a new Scottish Welfare Fund.

    And we will go further.

    We will reverse the cuts that have been made to that Fund by both Labour and Tory governments.

    We will increase it by £9 million and provide essential crisis support in these difficult times for 100,000 more of our most vulnerable people.

    Our Scottish Government will not desert any of Scotland’s people in times of need.

    Friends,

    The case for independence is strong and it is compelling.

    Over these next two years, we will set out for the people of Scotland the opportunities of independence.

    But we will also set out the cost of Scotland not being independent.

    Without independence, regardless of which unionist party is in power, billions more of our oil revenues will be spent on Westminster priorities rather than on our own.

    We will see our welfare state continue to be dismantled.

    And, make no mistake, promises of more powers will disappear without trace because Westminster will think it has put Scotland firmly back in its box.

    And, without independence, we will have to bear the cost of a new generation of nuclear weapons on the river Clyde when we should be getting rid of Trident from Scottish waters once and for all.

    Delegates,

    The stakes are high but the choice is clear.

    It is a choice of two futures.

    A future shaped by those of us who live and work here. A future that reflects our values and speaks to who we are. Or a future shaped by a Westminster system that is increasingly out of touch with Scotland and the values we hold dear.

    I trust – we trust – that the Scottish people will make the right choice and their answer will be yes.

    Friends,

    Our opponents will do everything they can to misrepresent what we stand for.

    But we know and Scotland knows that our cause is a noble one. The Scotland we seek is modern, welcoming and inclusive.

    We want a new relationship of equals with our friends in the rest of the UK. One that is based on co-operation and solidarity.

    I am as proud a Scot as its possible to be. I’m also the grand-daughter of an English-woman. I represent a constituency where, in one primary school alone, more than 20 different languages are spoken.

    Some of the strongest supporters of independence I know are people who have come to Scotland from other countries.

    They understand that important though national identity is to each and every one of us – be it Scottish, English, Irish, British, European, Pakistani, whatever – that’s not what independence is about.

    Independence is about making sure that those of us who choose to live here have the political, social and economic powers that we need to build a prosperous, successful, confident and outward looking country.

    That is our independence and we are proud to champion it.

    Delegates,

    I often imagine visiting that multi-lingual school in my constituency ten years from now to speak to children who aren’t yet born about the days before Scotland was independent.

    I imagine the look of incredulity on their faces as they struggle to comprehend that their country was ever not independent.

    And the really wonderful thing is knowing that no-one will ever tell these kids that Scotland is too wee, too poor or too stupid to stand on our own two feet.

    No-one will tell them that because we will have proved it wrong and they will be the living embodiment of the modern, successful country we know an independent Scotland can be.

    Delegates,

    That dream can become our reality. That is the prize now within our grasp.

    Be under no illusion, the next two years will be the toughest of our political lives. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

    But when did we ever let that put us off? If we had, I wouldn’t be standing here as Deputy First Minister and Alex Salmond would not be the outstanding First Minister of Scotland that he is today.

    We won a majority last year because we had the best record, the best team and the best vision for Scotland.

    And we will win the independence referendum because we will put forward the best case, the strongest case, the positive case for our country’s future.

    Fellow nationalists,

    We are so lucky.

    Not many people get the chance to shape a nation.

    And yet this is the opportunity that each and every one of us has been given.

    What a privilege for our generation of Scots.

    So let us make this promise today, to ourselves and to future generations.

    We will win our independence.

    Yes, we will.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2012 Speech on Universal Benefits

    nicolasturgeon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicola Sturgeon on 3rd October 2012.

    It’s always good to start on a note of consensus, so let me say that there is one thing that I agree with Johann Lamont about.

    We do have big questions to ask and to answer about the future of Scotland – about the kind of country we want to be.

    So I don’t criticise Johann Lamont for asking the questions.

    But, unlike her friends on the Tory benches, I take issue with the conclusion she has reached.

    It’s a conclusion that has its roots in the deeply misguided belief of Labour that this parliament should be responsible for divvying up the national cake but have no power to influence the overall size of that cake.

    A conclusion – no matter how much she tries to duck and dive and deny that this benefit or that is under threat – that puts at risk many of the hard won social policy victories of this parliament, like free personal care.

    And policies, like the council tax freeze, that just five months ago were backed wholeheartedly by Labour when they promised to continue it for another 5 years.

    Presiding Officer,

    We’ve had Nick Clegg apologising for breaking his promises in government – Labour must be the first party on record to manage to break its promises from opposition.

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. It beggars belief that a Labour leader would reach the conclusion that the best response to Tory cuts is to take away benefits and opportunities from pensioners, the sick, families already struggling to make ends meet and working class kids who aspire to a university education.

    And how does Johann Lamont describes policies designed to take a bit of the pressure off household budgets, to give our elderly some dignity and peace of mind in their later years, to ensure that education is not the preserve of the wealthy but open to all who have the ability to learn?

    She calls these policies part of a ‘something for nothing’ culture.

    What an insult to those who work hard, pay their taxes, save what they can and simply expect that their government gives them something back in return.

    What a betrayal of the values that once defined the party she leads. The party of Nye Bevan reduced to attacking the very principle of universality.

    Now, Labour tries to say it’s about making the well-off pay more – that it’s about people like her and me.

    Well, let me tell her the truth. Let me tell her who she has really put in the frame, who she has chosen to make this debate about.

    It’s the pensioner in my constituency – who has worked all of her life – who told me recently that before concessionary travel, she rarely got to see her elderly sister who lives in Inverness but is now able to do so regularly.

    It’s the woman with a serious, life-limiting chronic condition – earning little more than £16,000 – who told me that she had often had to choose which of her medicines to take because she couldn’t afford to take them all.

    It’s the dementia sufferer whose free personal care might just make the difference between her having to sell her family home or not.

    And it’s the young person from a working class family who dreams of going to university but knows that, no matter how supportive and encouraging her parents are, she would never be able to if she had to pay tuition fees.

    And since Johann Lamont likes to make these things personal, let me tell her this: that one is about me because it is exactly the position I – and I am sure many others in this chamber – was in.

    We are beneficiaries of free education – we have no right to pull up the ladder of opportunity and deprive today’s young people of what we were able to take for granted.

    So, presiding officer, these are the people that Johann Lamont has chosen to make this debate about.

    No wonder voices in her party are calling it chaotic and shambolic.

    And no wonder the Tories are queuing up to congratulate her.

    Because these are the people she thinks should bear the brunt of Tory cuts – the people that she would subject to the indignities of means testing for their bus pass or their personal care.

    Well, we think differently.

    We will protect the council tax freeze, free education, bus passes and personal care for our elderly and the principle of healthcare free at the point of need.

    We will continue to do so within a balanced budget – a budget that every year is presented to this parliament for the kind of debate that Labour say they want.

    A budget that, yes, is being cut by the Tory government that Labour is so keen to team up with, but that will nevertheless strive to boost growth, protect jobs and household budgets and make Scotland a fairer place to live.

    A budget that despite the nonsense talked by Labour, has and will continue to be informed by the Beveridge and Christie reports – whether that is in our approach to preventative spend, our focus on efficiency, our difficult decisions on pay restraint or our ambitious programme of public service reform.

    We have and will continue to take the tough decisions. We will make our choices and stand by them.

    And let’s not forget that the choices we have made were overwhelmingly endorsed last year by the Scottish people.

    But the choices we make within the fixed budget we have at our disposal are not the only differences between Labour and the SNP.

    Nor, perhaps, are they even the biggest.

    The fundamental difference is this.

    Labour is happy to accept a future for Scotland that has us simply deciding how to pass on Tory cuts. We are not.

    The real tragedy of Johann Lamont’s speech is that she has allowed herself to be imprisoned in a Tory straitjacket, accepting forever the inevitability of decisions taken elsewhere.

    Accepting a situation where we have the responsibility for dividing up the cake, but no power to influence its size.

    We think differently.  We want all of Scotland resources to be available to this parliament so that we can seek to chart a different course and shape a different future.

    I have said before and I will say again, independence is not a magic pill. It will not take away the difficult financial climate that we live in – thanks in no small part to the economic mismanagement of successive UK governments. Nor will it remove at a stroke the difficult decisions that flow from that.

    But it will open up different choices.

    In Johann Lamont’s world, the only choice is whether to punish the pensioner or the student, to pass on cuts to the sick or to the family struggling with council tax.

    With independence, we will have different choices. We will have the ability to make economic choices that might get our economy growing faster so that revenues increase.

    We will have the choice to shape a welfare system that seeks to reduce welfare costs by lifting people out of poverty, rather than have imposed on us one that pushes people deeper down into poverty.

    And we will have the choice – the real choice – not to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on Trident nuclear weapons and invest instead on the things that really matter.

    So that’s the real debate – the one that this country needs to have.

    It’s a debate about who is going to determine the choices that define our politics. Who is going to shape our future as a country?

    A right wing Tory government or this parliament and the people whose lives are affected by the decisions we take.

    I know this wasn’t Johann Lamont’s intention, but I have no doubt that her interventions of the last week will lead many more people to the latter option – to the conclusion that our own destiny should be in our own hands.

    The conclusion is that Scotland will be better off independent.

  • Hugo Swire – 2012 Speech on Global Economic Growth

    hugoswire

    The below speech was made by the Foreign Office Minister, Hugo Swire, on 6th November 2012 at Wilton Park.

    This is my first visit to Wilton Park, and I am particularly pleased to have been asked to open discussions on such an important subject: how international rules and standards can help to stimulate global economic growth.

    It is the first time we have tackled this issue in this forum. And with such a distinguished group of people here, I am confident that discussions over the next day and a half will be productive.

    I am sure we are all agreed that we are sailing in unchartered economic waters. Few would have predicted at the onset of the global economic crisis in 2008 the long-term impact it would have on the global economy. How we navigate our way out of the current difficulties remains open to debate.

    That said, we do know that increased and freer trade plays a major part in driving global growth. But to be sustainable and responsive to the interests of even the most vulnerable, this must respect the core values that underpin prosperity.

    Over the next few minutes I will argue that a shared set of rules and standards governing the global economy is crucial to achieving this.

    The situation we face is, in many respects, daunting. Economic uncertainty is eroding business confidence and dampening growth prospects, particularly in the Eurozone.

    Businesses, SMEs in particular, are finding it harder to access finance. Confidence in the banking sector has ebbed. The Doha global trade deal has stalled, and many countries are struggling to reduce their deficits. Growing protectionism and falling demand are impacting on business.

    There is no easy solution. Different countries will – rightly – adopt different approaches, recognising the differences in our economies. But as these problems have global implications, we should all be concerned about how we respond.

    The IMF recently announced that growth in the volume of world trade was projected to slow this year to 3.2 percent, driven by lower demand, especially in the Eurozone. GDP growth expectations for advanced economies were downgraded from 1.6 to 1.3 percent. Last month Eurozone business activity contracted at its fastest pace for almost three and a half years due to austerity measures and continued uncertainty. Vulnerable Eurozone economies are at a critical stage: Greece’s growth this year is projected to slump to minus 6.1 percent.

    Christine Lagarde has referred to the “ripple” effect that the crisis is having on the wider economy. It stands to reason that when growth in the world’s largest economic bloc – the European Union – is faltering, it will have a knock-on effect elsewhere. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why faster-growing developing economies are also predicted to slow this year.

    The big markets of China, India, Russia, and Brazil are all experiencing slower growth. In the second quarter of 2012 China’s growth hit a three-year low.

    And although the IMF projections are weak, the reality could be even weaker.

    What happens on one side of the world should matter to the other. When demand weakens in one part of the chain, it is felt elsewhere. In that sense, economic uncertainty is contagious, and as we have seen through the latest growth projections, no-one is immune.

    I am not saying that we do not all have our own individual challenges to overcome. For many countries the biggest challenge is reducing harmful deficits. For others it is rapid population shifts, high food and energy prices, or slowing export demand. These will inevitably require their own unique solutions.

    But one thing is clear: the choices we make individually in response to these economic challenges will, in one way or another, impact on others. So we also need a co-ordinated international response.

    But what kind of response? We recently asked businesses in the UK what they saw as the greatest challenges facing them in the global market place. Their answer was unequivocal: protectionism and corruption.

    Britain, with its history of mercantile adventurism, has long been a strong advocate of free trade – and we have had to learn lessons along the way.

    We all know that at times of economic difficulty, it can be tempting to close ranks and protect domestic industries and markets. It is only natural for countries to want to secure jobs and livelihoods for their own people. So we should not be surprised to have seen a rise in protectionism in recent months. Between November 2011 and June 2012, at least 110 protectionist measures were implemented globally – 89 of which came from G20 members themselves.

    Be in no doubt: protectionism is a short-term response that has long-term and often unintended consequences. The current impasse in the Doha trade round is thought to be costing the world around $180 billion a year. And protectionism can often lead to tit-for-tat measures that result in an inevitable race to the bottom.

    If we really want to support our domestic industries, we need to make them more efficient and more competitive, rather than choosing to build a protectionist wall which will ultimately undermine competitiveness. Securing international trade agreements that open access for our businesses is the way forward – and it is a sad fact that protectionism tends to make these harder to attain.

    I also believe that corruption remains a scourge on the global economy. It is a corrosive element with long-term economic, social and political consequences. And by adding as much as 10 percent to the total cost of doing business globally, and up to 25 percent of the cost of procurement contracts in developing countries, it inflicts damage on the most vulnerable in society.

    I know this is a difficult subject. Some continue to downplay its potential to damage the global economy, classing it as a necessary evil in normal business behaviour.

    But we should not fall into this trap. Make no mistake: corruption is global. In Europe, we have had to take tough measures to deter it. In developing economies, domestic concern about corruption is also rising, as a growing private sector tries to compete with state-run and protected assets. And in some of the world’s poorest countries, the lack of strong, transparent and accountable institutions means that citizens remain unable to share in the benefits of growth.

    A recent report by the International Chamber of Commerce, Transparency International, the UN Global Compact and the World Economic Forum provides a stark reminder of the costs of corruption to business. The report states that corruption is the biggest single obstacle to economic and social development around the world. It put the price tag at around $2.6 trillion, or 5 percent of global GDP, each year. And it is not just a question of the direct cost: corruption damages business confidence, deters investment and distorts the market.

    I see the domestic and international application of rules and standards as an essential part of building the confidence the market needs. Corruption is exactly the sort of threat they can help to address.

    And on this the UK is showing global leadership. Our Bribery Act, which sets out a framework for dealing with corrupt business practices, has been a brave step to take. Indeed, it was initially met with nervousness in some quarters. But a year on, British companies are telling us that they see it as a real reputational asset in securing trade.

    As the Prime Minister, David Cameron, made clear in an article in the Wall Street Journal recently, if we are to successfully tackle global poverty we need a radical new approach, supporting what he calls the “the golden thread” of conditions that enable open economies and open societies to thrive: the rule of law, the absence of conflict and corruption, and the presence of property rights and strong institutions. He will make this a key focus of his role as co-chair of the UN’s High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, as well as for the UK’s G8 Presidency.

    Responding to these two challenges – protectionism and corruption – is therefore crucial. And I think this is where the subject of this conference comes in.

    The current framework of global economic rules and standards covers a broad range of activity, from corporate governance, anti-corruption to competition law and rules governing trade. But the coverage, breadth and depth of these rules is patchy. Crucially, most were drawn up at a different time, when there was a different global economic dynamic.

    The global economy is even more interconnected today that it was 50 years ago, with a range of new and influential economic actors. So there needs to be an architecture within which we can maximise the benefits of trade – one in which everyone sees the imperative to engage. This was a clear recommendation of the Prime Minister’s report to the G20 last year on global governance.

    After all, if we all played a game according to different rules, it would not be much of a game. Business needs the assurance of a level playing field, underpinned by basic rules, to have the confidence to engage and export – no matter where in the world you are operating.

    These rules are not about constraining business, and we would not back them if they were. They are about ensuring that businesses remain flexible and responsive, yet resilient enough to build a solid foundation for future global trade and economic engagement.

    We need to show countries that are currently hesitant that these rules are relevant, and ensure that the process through which new and existing standards are updated and developed is transparent and open to all. The architecture needs to be fit for purpose. And it will be important for key players such as the OECD to continue adapting to the changing global dynamic, while recognising that different countries are at different stages of economic development.

    But we should also recognise that if we disagree we risk the system breaking down, with partners reneging on their commitments and others free-riding from the sidelines. During this period of global economic stagnation, we should all be pushing for partners to implement existing commitments. At the same time, we should encourage new partners to join the fold.

    The economic challenges we face today are complex and multifaceted. They will require individual solutions, but – I hope I have shown this afternoon – within a collective framework.

    We are beyond the point where we can credibly argue that economic progress can be best served through isolation and protectionist policies; globalisation remains our only option. Of course, we should recognise that there is no magic bullet, and I would certainly not argue that the current rules and standards are a perfect model.

    But one thing I am sure about is that economies across the world need to complement each other if we are to meet our common objective of sustained, long-term growth, in which our businesses and peoples can thrive.

    So I want to finish today by posing some practical questions. Of the global rules and standards that already exist, which need fixing most urgently, and how? What more can we do to improve enforcement? Are there areas of economic activity that fall outside the current architecture, and if so, should – and how – do we bring these in? Are there rules that are out of date and no longer applicable?

    I do not expect you to find concrete answers to these questions in the next day and a half. But I hope that in your discussions you will be able to explore comprehensively the rationale behind the rules-based economic system and how it can contribute to the global recovery.

    I look forward to seeing the report Wilton Park will produce after the conference. We will study it carefully as we review our responses to these challenges.

  • Hugo Swire – 2012 Speech on Human Trafficking

    hugoswire

    Below is the text of a speech made by the Foreign Office Minister, Hugo Swire, on 24th October 2012 at the Foreign Office in London.

    Thank you Susannah for your kind introduction, and indeed to your whole team for organising this important event with the Home Office.  The problem of human trafficking is fresh in our minds following Anti-Slavery Day last week.

    And it is an area on which I have been engaged for some time.  In my previous job in the Northern Ireland Office, I was proud to work with my old friends, Anthony Steen and Baroness Butler-Sloss, to promote the good work of the Human Trafficking Foundation on both sides of the Irish border.

    Of course, my new home – the Foreign and Commonwealth Office – has a rich history of fighting slavery, human trafficking and other international violations of basic human rights – the legacy of William Wilberforce and his brave colleagues.

    And it would be remiss of me to pass up the opportunity to earn some ‘brownie points’ with my new boss, the Foreign Secretary, by drawing your attention to his excellent, well-researched and fascinating book – ‘William Wilberforce’ by William Hague – still available in all good bookstores!

    So I am delighted that we have such a wide range of distinguished participants here this evening to discuss how we can all work more closely on combating this particularly pernicious crime.

    In my brief remarks, I want to focus on the big picture: the global nature of human trafficking and how the international community needs to work together to combat it.

    I will then hand over to my colleague, Mark Harper to concentrate on this government’s strategy to tackle the problem and how it is being implemented here in Britain.

    It is difficult to know precisely how many people directly suffer from human trafficking.  However, according to some estimates, at any given time as many as 27 million men, women and children are captive to human traffickers.

    To put the scale of this problem in its historical context: today more people are trafficked each year than the total number of those trafficked in the 350 years of the transatlantic slave trade.

    People talk about the abolition of slavery.  But slavery has not been abolished.  It continues on an unprecedented scale and with unparalleled barbarity.  Today, human trafficking involves not only slavery, but blackmail, kidnap, rape and murder.

    So the fact that slavery is universally illegal is no reason for complacency.  Human trafficking is the second most lucrative organised criminal activity in the world, worth around $36 billion annually.

    It is a phenomenon that is not restricted to any particular country, region or continent, and it is certainly not restricted by national boundaries.  Many victims find themselves in countries foreign to them where they are particularly vulnerable – they may not speak the language, may have no contact with any family or friends, and may fear the authorities.

    Why we need to act

    So there are two fundamental reasons why governments should take action, and take action together.  The first is that this crime is particularly abhorrent.  It ranks among the worst forms of human rights abuse.  There is surely nothing more degrading, demeaning or dehumanising than being sold into the sex trade or being forced into manual labour and criminal activity.

    Some people are trafficked for spare parts – organs that extracted by their purchaser.  Many of the victims are children, abducted from their families to fight in wars, to suffer sexual abuse, and to have their chances of a normal life robbed of them.  I believe we have a moral duty to take action.

    The second reason for governments to work together to fight this scourge is that it does not only affect the direct victims.  Human trafficking is the lifeblood of many organised criminal groups.  The $36 billion that it generates could well feed terrorism and trade in drugs and arms.

    So the effects of human trafficking are broadly felt across societies.  As governments, we have a duty to protect our citizens from these threats.

    But we cannot effectively tackle the problem in isolation.  It is a transnational crime, and it requires a transnational response.  That is why this we are here this evening in the Locarno Room of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  Because while the Prime Minister has made clear that fighting human trafficking is a “Coalition priority”, in order to be effective, we need to be able to work closely with other countries.

    In particular, we want to focus on how we can break each and every link in the human trafficking chain. Let me take you through each in turn.

    Prevention

    The first link in the chain is the targeting of potential victims.  To break this link, we have to reduce the vulnerability of people to human traffickers.  I am sure that Mark will go into detail about the victims that we find here in the United Kingdom.  But the vast majority of those victims originate from outside Britain.  So we want to work with governments to prevent their citizens from falling prey to traffickers in the first place.

    At a very basic level, this involves alleviating the conditions of vulnerability – such as poverty, lack of education, and lack of employment opportunities – that lead people into the arms of traffickers.  This is central to much of the work of our Department for International Development.  But it also runs specific programmes in South Asia and West Africa which target communities in which human trafficking is particularly prevalent.

    Prevention also requires educating potential victims about the threat of human trafficking.  I understand that the vast majority of victims are deceived into captivity, being unaware of the dangers inherent in migrating to find work.  So part of our preventative work is focussed on raising awareness among vulnerable groups.

    Embassies and High Commissions across our network have partnered with local NGOs to this end.  For example, our embassy in Prague has launched a project with La Strada and Diaconia, both local charities, which raises awareness of human trafficking in socially excluded groups across the Czech Republic.

    Transit

    The next link in the chain which needs to be broken is the transit of victims across borders.  For those unfortunate enough to fall prey to human traffickers, it is important that police and border officials are able to work together to prevent victims from being removed from their own countries.

    The Metropolitan Police run joint operations with their counterparts across Europe and beyond.  And we are eager to expand cooperation with other law enforcement agencies across the world.  Assistant Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney and Detective Chief Inspector Nick Sumner will tell you shortly more about this good work.

    Further cooperation will also help to break the next chain-link: identifying trafficked individuals and their captors, rescuing the former and prosecuting the latter.  Intelligence sharing is needed to capture and convict trans-national criminals.  So we are particularly proud of the Arrest Referral Programmes that we have developed with the State Police forces in India and hope that we can set up similar programmes with other partners.

    Repatriation and reintegration

    But liberating the victims and apprehending the perpetrators is by no means ‘job done’.  I am horrified by some of the bureaucracy required for victims to be able to travel home after the terrible ordeals that they have endured.  It can take many months to obtain the requisite travel documentation, which seems like pouring salt into the wound.  I sincerely hope that we can find a way of expediting the safe return of victims desperate to get home to their families.

    The final link in the chain that needs to be broken is the one connecting rescued victims with the risk of further human trafficking.  Because those returned to their communities following captivity or forced labour are especially vulnerable.  We are therefore keen to work with governments and organisations in helping to protect victims from ever being subject to human trafficking again.  That is why we are funding a reintegration centre in Lao Cai, Vietnam, to support girls rescued from trafficking.

    Conclusion

    This government cares deeply about human trafficking.  It has been highlighted as a Coalition Priority, the Prime Minister is personally engaged on the issue, and last week the Foreign Secretary spoke about his commitment to tackling the problem.

    At the heart of this commitment is an acknowledgement that that human trafficking is a transnational threat that requires a transnational response.  As the Foreign Secretary said, it is a threat ‘that we cannot inure ourselves against through unilateral action alone’. I will hand over to Mark to go through our own government strategy and where we require international coordination.

    We have invited you here this evening because we want to work with you – NGOs, charities, representatives of other governments.  We want to explore where we can deepen our cooperation and collaboration.  Human trafficking is a plague that affects all of our countries – it fuels organised crime, it exacerbates the drugs trade, and it endangers our citizens.  But worst of all, it destroys the lives of some of the world’s most vulnerable people, stripping them of their freedom, their dignity, and their humanity.

    In the 19th century, Great Britain was at the forefront of efforts to abolish the slave trade.  With courage commitment and tenacity, it was able to change global norms and have the practice universally repudiated.  Now in the 21st Century, slavery is less visible than it was then, but we do not kid ourselves that it has gone away.  We realise that we must work together with the same courage, commitment and tenacity to ensure that we finish the work that we began to eradicate this hideous crime in all of its forms.

  • Owen Smith – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Owen Smith, the Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, to Labour Party conference on 2nd October 2012.

    Chair, Conference: in music and movies, they say you’ve only really made it when you’ve made it in America.

    Well by that yardstick, and in political terms, Wales has arrived.

    First we saw Ann Romney feeding dodgy-looking Welsh cakes to unsuspecting members of the US press corp.

    But last week was the real breakthrough – when, on the Letterman Show, David Cameron was asked the killer question.

    No not the one about Rule Britannia or the Magna Carta – the one about the Welsh.

    “What about Wales”, asked Letterman, “they didn’t vote for you in Wales, did they?”

    At last, I thought, 106 years of not voting Tory in Wales, and we finally get some credit for it!

    And in a week in which the media has complained that we haven’t laid out our full manifesto yet, I want to offer one cast iron guarantee: Wales won’t be voting Tory next time either.

    No, in Wales we’ll be playing our part in returning a Labour Government led by Ed Miliband at Westminster, to work alongside the Labour Government led by Carwyn Jones in Cardiff Bay.

    A Labour Government in Wales that is standing on the side of ordinary people:

    Tackling youth unemployment, with a Jobs Fund which we maintained when the Tories were pulling the plug.

    Reforming and restructuring our hospitals – not marketising them as would the Tories.

    And investing in education – building new schools, modernising our curriculum and holding down tuition costs, keeping open the door to social mobility through educational achievement.

    We’re able to do these things because devolution – designed and delivered by Labour – is delivering for Wales.

    It is delivering increased local democracy and political accountability – things that people hold dear in our globalised World.

    But delivering too a confident country – at ease with its place in the United Kingdom.

    The Tories, by contrast, have just one interest in Wales – not how to protect it, but how to exploit it for a political game of ‘divide and rule’.

    Whether it is the Prime Minister talking down the Welsh NHS, or Michael Gove smearing Welsh Education, the strategy is the same: creating division instead of respecting devolution, attacking Wales, to attack Labour.

    In some ways this should come as no surprise, because the Coalition tactic of divide and rule is clear not just in their approach to the nations of the UK – but to its people too.

    Public versus private, North versus South, privilege versus the plebs.

    These are the faultlines that the Tory-led Government sees in Britain and that they seek to exploit.

    In Labour we believe such division can only weaken Britain.

    Our heritage is a party that seeks to unite and unify – classes and countries.

    And we remain a meeting place for British people of different faiths and nations, ages and wages.

    That’s why Labour would be making different choices, choices informed by our deep roots in communities throughout the UK and our understanding of the tough times being faced by ordinary families.

    Choices designed to respect devolution – but also to unite the people and the nations of Britain.

    That’s why, for example, we reject Government plans to scrap national pay bargaining.

    Yes, because UK-wide deals are more efficient – but most of all because they are fair for workers throughout the UK.

    Regional pay would increase inequality and division in Britain – at the very time when we must pull together.

    On this issue, as on so many, we are so much stronger, so much better together.

    And we believe that the majority of the British people – in all our nations and regions – believe that too.

    Now that does not mean that Britain will not change.

    People in Wales, Scotland and England too want more local decision making, and devolution or other constitutional change may be needed to accommodate those ambitions.

    But separation or independence remains a minority interest – outweighed by economic and emotional reasons for Britain and the British people to stick together.

    That point was brought home to us all by the Olympic and Paralympic games.

    Patriotism and pride in Team GB swept people up, from Plymouth to Perth – and seemed for a few brief weeks to wash away divisions in our society.

    They reminded us how successful our society has been at embracing different cultures and capabilities – and so enriching those of the UK.

    That solidarity of people across Britain is just as important a legacy of the games as the bricks and mortar left behind.

    And just as it fell to us to build those bricks to last, so too it’s up to us to retain the hope and optimism, tolerance and togetherness that were the Games’ richest prize.

    A Tory-led coalition can’t do that. They cannot speak for Britain – just for the rich and the rip-off merchants, whose interests they protect.

    Only Labour can speak for Britain.

    Only Labour can unite people ordinary working people in England, Wales and Scotland too.

    We alone can do that because the Labour movement has always believed that together we are stronger.

    We believed it a hundred years ago in the Rhondda Valley, when my great grandfather, Dafydd Humphrey Owen, fought for better prices and wages in the Cambrian Combine strike and the riots that followed it.

    One of the legacies of that struggle was a campaign for workers’ rights and education which brought people together from South Wales, Lancashire and Lanarkshire.

    It was called, of course, The Plebs League – and it’s been tempting in recent weeks to think about reviving it.

    Yet the truth is that its moment is past – ours is not.

    Unlike Andrew Mitchell, or Alex Salmond for that matter, our movement is about uniting people across these isles.

    And especially today, in these difficult times, we have to be the party that says: “we are always better together.”

    So let’s unite the nations and people of Britain behind Ed Miliband and his vision of a more equal, socially just and democratic Britain.

    Better Together. Better with Labour.

  • Chloe Smith – 2012 Speech at the Westminster Forum

    chloesmith

    The below speech was made by Chloe Smith, the then Economic Secretary, on 16th July 2012.

    Good afternoon, and thank you all for joining me here today, it’s good to see so many people from across government, regulators, and industry joining us to discuss the important issue of energy and taxation.

    A journalist, Gro Brudtland, in Time Magazine, once said ‘I do not know of any environmental group in any country that does not view its government as an adversary’.

    Often the same is said of business.

    The world of energy policy is often portrayed as a pitched battle – between corporations and environmental campaigners, with Government trying desperately to broker a compromise between the two, only to be accused by each of kowtowing to the other.

    I don’t believe it has to be this way. Before we came to office, we pledged to be the Greenest Government ever.

    And we will stick by this commitment.

    But I believe we need to do so by working both with environmental campaigners, and with businesses to find an energy policy that is at once kind to the environment, affordable to households, and acceptable to businesses.

    As fossil fuel supplies dwindle, sustainable, affordable energy is in the interests of all – of the firms that produce it, of the businesses that use it, and of the households that consume it.

    And it is imperative that the critical decisions that need to be taken today are not put off until tomorrow.

    But equally, at a time when incomes are being squeezed, the cost of living is rising, and many businesses are struggling, a sustainable energy policy will not be one that causes unaffordable increases to customers Bills.

    Nor, as some of you may have noticed, is there plenty of money sloshing around from the public purse….

    It is striking this balance that is the challenge of the Government, of the Energy companies and of the country.

    It is the challenge of business since time immemorial – how to do more, with less. That is the challenge of ‘greening the economy: the whole economy, not just a special, separate sector.

    And it is the very definition of sustainability.

    It is only by working together that we will achieve it, and through the steps we are taking, we are making excellent progress.

    Green taxes definition

    One way that we as Government are holding ourselves to account on this agenda is through the commitment in the Coalition agreement to increase, over the course of this Parliament, the proportion of taxes coming from environmental taxes.

    Today I have published the Government’s definition of environmental taxation, which will provide us with the baseline for meeting this commitment.

    What we have done is take a hard look at the taxes paid by businesses and households and asked some pretty fundamental questions

    Are these taxes that aim to achieve a genuine environmental benefit?

    Are they designed in a way to properly incentivise positive environmental outcomes?

    And do they fit with the Government’s wider environmental objectives?

    Taken together, using these principles, we have established a core list of taxes: the Climate Change Levy, the Aggregates Levy, Landfill Tax, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme , and the Carbon Price Support, which I shall come back to shortly.

    But we also acknowledge that a range of other taxes, while being primarily focused on raising revenue – quite important at the moment – also have positive impacts.

    Vehicle excise duty and company car tax, for example, are based on vehicles’ CO2 emissions.

    Fiscal instruments such as these help play a part, alongside increasing emissions standards, in encouraging manufacturers to make cleaner vehicles and for consumers to make choices with the impact on the environment in mind.

    We are also not resting on our laurels.

    We have said that we will continue to look closely at opportunities to reform taxes to make them genuinely green, or greener.

    And there are opportunities to introduce new environmental taxes.

    Let me be clear though, all of this is being done in a balanced way.

    The previous Government used the green agenda as justification for increasing taxes when the environmental impact was questionable.

    What we are doing is seeking a harmonised approach that gives a positive environmental impact but not at the cost of adding unnecessary burdens onto business or households.

    We do not want simply to load on more green taxes on top of those already in place.

    That is why, for example, we have recognised the complexities in the Carbon Reduction Commitment, and sought to simplify it.

    And we have said that if significant savings to business cannot be found we will consider options for a replacement tax.

    This is the approach I want us to continue with.

    I want to talk for a few minutes in a bit more detail about what we are doing to meet our commitments.

    About the progress we are making on climate change and environmental agenda – particularly the Green Investment Bank and implementation of the carbon price floor – and the work we are doing to ensure that costs to businesses are kept to a minimum.

    Carbon price floor

    It is clear we need significant new investment in low-carbon electricity generation over the coming decades if we are to meet our legal commitments on CO2 emissions – an 80 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

    A challenge that is made all the greater by the rises in electricity demand over the coming decades.

    It is only through working with the private sector that we will deliver the step-change in investment required in the most efficient way possible.

    But it falls to government to give private firms the incentives and long term assurance they need to make the significant investment necessary to secure this goal. So at Budget 2011 we announced that the UK will be the first country in the world to introduce a minimum carbon price: £16 per tonne in 2013, rising gradually to £30 per tonne in 2020.

    The is the first important step in reforming the UK’s electricity market, providing a strong and stable incentive for billions of pounds of new, low carbon investment in our electricity infrastructure – an early and credible long-term signal to investors that the Government is serious about encouraging investment in low-carbon electricity generation now.

    And this announcement is accompanied by a substantial wider package of reforms that will allow the UK to benefit from cheaper, more secure supplies of electricity, facilitating a shift to a sustainable low-carbon economy.

    • Introducing the Renewable Heat Incentive – £864m over this SR to increase the proportion of heat generated from renewable sources.
    • Supporting the commercialisation of Carbon Capture and Storage  £1 billion of funding available for CCS demonstration.
    • Supporting renewable electricity generation – publishing the levels of support for new renewable electricity to bring forward capacity and ensure policies remain affordable.

    The next stage will be to ensure that, as we implement this suite of low-carbon policies, we do so in a cost-effective way – promoting clean, secure supplies of electricity to support growth, and tackling the complex web of low-carbon support mechanisms we inherited.

    We will continue to review and amend those existing fiscal instruments to ensure they remain focused on achieving both economic and environmental objectives.

    GIB

    Incentives through tax and government spending are an important part of our approach to encourage green investment – but only one part.

    We need to ensure the sector has access to sufficient long-term finance to provide that change.

    The transition to a green economy will require unprecedented investment in key green sectors – an estimated £200 billion for the energy system alone over the period to 2020.

    To address this we are introducing the Green Investment Bank – due to be fully operational this year, subject to State Aid clearance.

    The bank is being allocated an initial capitalisation of £3bn and will be able to borrow from 2015/16 and when debt is falling as a percentage of GDP.

    The bank’s precursor, UK Green Investments, made its first investments in April, and already has over 20 individual projects under active consideration – including ventures in renewable energy, waste management and energy efficiency.

    Some have said that the initial capitalisation of £3bn is too little and the borrowing powers should be provided sooner.

    However green growth needs to be built on the back of fiscal responsibility. As business people you will appreciate the value of a stable economy and action to tackle the deficit.

    I believe the UKGIB’s initial capitalisation of £3bn and a further commitment to allow the bank to borrow in the future strikes the right balance between encouraging green growth and managing the national debt.

    Amidst action to reduce spending across the Government £3bn is a clear signal of our intent.

    By 2014-15, we expect around £18bn of additional investment in green infrastructure.

    Attracting investment in energy; ensuring energy security; meeting our carbon targets; and fully employing the nation’s natural resources.

    The Bank will become a key component of the transition to a green economy, complementing other green policies to help accelerate investment in green projects, while providing employment and strengthening the UK’s competitiveness in the rapidly expanding renewable energy sector.

    Supporting growth as well as the environment.

    Green deal

    The dual growth-environment goal is one major perceived trade-off that we need to address in the energy debate.

    The impact on bills is the other, something of relevance today given the Ofgem announcement this morning on investment in the National Grid.

    A key challenge for all of us – Government and industry – is to make sure we meet our green commitments while keeping energy affordable.

    Here, energy efficiency is key. Since 2010, over 1 million more homes have cavity wall insulation – and we are working to raise this further.

    Just as our policies promoting large scale energy investment will promote both growth and low-carbon energy, so our Green Deal will help us lessen both carbon emissions and the impact on consumer bills, through supporting households and firms to invest in energy efficiency.

    At the last Autumn Statement we announced £200 million of additional capital to encourage early uptake of this innovative scheme.

    Business costs and competitiveness

    This is just some of what the Government is doing to support a greener approach to energy.

    But at a time when UK businesses need to grow, matching our goals for environmental improvement, with our need to support growth and affordability means striking a fair balance between supporting low carbon investment and letting UK industry compete.

    This is particularly true given the recent global escalation in energy costs and the impact these have had on energy-intensive users.

    So we are taking action to ensure that our Green agenda is supported by the £250 million targeted package we announced at the Autumn Statement that addresses the needs of those whose competitiveness is most affected by Government policies.

    Increasing the climate change levy discount on electricity from the current level of 65 to 90 per cent from April next year;

    Compensating for indirect impacts of the EU emissions trading system on electricity costs from January next year;

    Mitigating the indirect costs of the carbon price floor to the most electricity-intensive businesses in internationally competitive markets; and

    Investigating how to reduce the impact of electricity costs from Electricity Market Reform.

    And at Budget we announced a package of measures that will lower headline tax rates to support enterprise, aspiration, and growth.

    Working with business

    And working with business means more than just keeping burdens low – though that is undoubtedly important.

    It means being pragmatic in recognising that as we transition to renewables, the more environmentally acceptable fossil fuels will still have their role to play – so we have published the call for evidence for our gas strategy, and continue to implement electricity market reform – recognising that gas fired electricity generation will continue to play a major role in UK energy supplies over the next decade and beyond.

    It means taking account of the ways different ways in which companies and their investments contribute towards the environmental agenda.

    So we have exempted input fuels used to produce heat in combined heat and power stations from the carbon price floor, subject to state aid approval.

    And it also means that businesses do their bit, and that consumers can do theirs.

    That is why we are requiring all businesses listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange to report transparently on their greenhouse gas emissions from April next year.

    Conclusion

    The need to take action on the environment, while keeping costs to businesses, households, and government low, is often portrayed as an irreconcilable trade-off.

    We are showing that with the right policies, these objectives can complement each other. Supporting growth through green investment; reducing bills through energy efficiency, and maintaining business competitiveness by keeping burdens low, and providing support where necessary.

    I hope that by doing so we are able to bring environmentalists and businesses with us as we take on one of the greatest challenges we all face – to deliver sustainable, affordable energy as we transition to a greener economy

    Thank you.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2012 Speech on Reforming Welfare

    Ian Duncan Smith
    Iain Duncan Smith

    The below speech was made by the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, at the Cambridge Public Policy lecture on 25th October 2012. The speech was titled “Reforming Welfare, Transforming Lives”.

    Thanks to Simon Heffer, Miranda Gomperts and others for arranging tonight’s event.

    It is a pleasure to be here this evening.

    With a new Masters degree in public policy starting at the University next year, I hope that vigorous policy thinking in Cambridge will filter through to Westminster…

    … strengthening the links I know my Department already has with the Centre for Science and Policy…

    … and bringing a network of knowledge, evidence and expertise to bear on what we are delivering in Government.

    In my area of responsibility – welfare policy – the challenge we face is not an abstract one.

    Nor is it simply a question of institutions and systems.

    My mission has always been about people – improving the life chances of the most disadvantaged and providing effective support to those in need.

    That was the reason I founded the Centre for Social Justice back in 2004, an organisation set up to better understand the drivers of poverty and to find effective solutions.

    And it remains my purpose in office – where tens of millions of people rely on the Department for Work and Pensions every day.

    We are currently delivering an extensive reform of the benefits system, and I do want to spend some time reflecting on this programme.

    But if we are to make a real difference to people’s lives, what we need to deliver is cultural change – both in society and even in Government itself.

    Beveridge

    To explain what I mean let me start by taking you back to the early 1940s, when Beveridge was laying out his vision for the modern welfare state.

    Beveridge was driven by a desire to slay the ‘five giants’ that he identified in society at the time: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.

    But he was also clear about the risks that were attached to this laudable cause.

    He warned that:

    “The danger of providing benefits, which are both adequate in amount and indefinite in duration, is that men as creatures who adapt themselves to circumstances, may settle down to them.”

    And he was clear that the system should not be allowed to “stifle incentive, opportunity, or responsibility”.

    In other words he was focussed on the kind of culture that the welfare system could underpin.

    Would it be one that fostered a society where people took responsibility for themselves and their families, and treated welfare as a temporary safety net in times of need…

    …or one that conditioned people to grow dependent on state support, and treat it as a long-term crutch?

    His fear was that if the balance was wrong it would lead to the creation of a semi-permanent underclass.

    70 years after the publication of Beveridge’s seminal report, I wonder what he would make of the system now?

    Welfare inheritance

    Some 4.6 million people –12% of the working age population – on out of work benefits.

    1 in every 5 households with no one working, and 2 million children living in workless families – a higher proportion than almost any country in Europe.

    This culture of entrenched worklessness and dependency was not just a product of the recession.

    There were over 4 million people on out of work benefits throughout the years of growth.

    Under the previous Government whilst employment rose by 2.4 million, more than half of that was accounted for by foreign nationals.

    Let me be clear, this is not even a point about borders.

    It was an issue of supply and demand.

    The facts serve to illustrate an issue with our workforce at home – and the enormity of the first cultural challenge we faced.

    Large numbers sitting on out of work benefits unchallenged, many unwilling or unable to take advantage of the job opportunities being created.

    Whilst companies were unable to get British people to fill these jobs, workers from overseas stepped in.

    Overburdened system

    Part of the problem was that while our economy was subject to a fundamental overhaul – freeing up the markets and moving power away from the state…

    … after Beveridge, governments of all hues seemed to forget about the need for social reform.

    They assumed that the renewed economy alone would do the trick of creating a more prosperous and more cohesive nation and so our welfare system was subject to an incredibly reactive process of change.

    A new challenge would emerge and governments would respond by tweaking things…

    … creating add-ons to employment support – at one stage, the New Deal for young people, the New Deal for those 50+, even the New Deal for musicians…

    …and introducing new supplements, even new benefits into the welfare system.

    Small wonder we were left with a hugely overburdened system, comprised of over 30 benefits.

    For disabled people alone a complicated muddle of 7 additional payments, 3 different premiums, 4 components in the main out of work benefits and tax credits… each with separate rules, rates and purposes… some means-tested, others linked, many overlapping.

    On top of this over 25 passported benefits in England, and around 20 in Wales and Scotland.

    For example:

    Non-repayment of children’s welfare loans. Healthy Start vouchers and vitamins . Exemption from paying the cost of board and lodging on residential trips. Energy Assistance Package Stages 3 and 4. WaterSure.

    Ah yes, WaterSure. I had to ask around to find out what this was, and it turns out it is to cap the bills of certain utilities customers who have a water meter.

    You might think this is an isolated benefit – but no, there is also one for reduced telephone tariffs called BT Basic.

    All these benefits introduced with the best of intentions – yet each with different eligibility criteria and each giving rise to confusion, fraud and error.

    It is a system of byzantine complexity.

    Worse still, it is a system set around the minority.

    An exemption here, an addition there, all designed around the needs of the most dysfunctional and disadvantaged few.

    Instead of supporting people in difficulty, the system all too often compounds that difficulty – doing nothing for those already facing the greatest problems, and dragging the rest down with it.

    Obsession with spending

    What do we find as a result?

    Under the last Government, spending on benefits and tax credits increased by over 60%, rising even before the recession – when growth was booming, jobs were being created, and welfare bills should have been falling.

    More money spent on welfare than ever before – by 2010, costing every household in Britain an extra £3,000 a year in tax.

    Small wonder that the Government racked up the largest deficit since the Second World War.

    We were unable to pay our way, with an economy built on debt and consumption.

    This then is the second cultural challenge I want to touch on tonight – a problem which lies, to a large extent, in the culture of government spending which has developed.

    This is a culture marked by an obsession with inputs – with pouring money into social programmes – so that governments are seen to be doing something.

    Of course big spending is attractive because it brings big headlines.

    Chasing media attention and placating lobby groups in the short term.

    But my concern is that no one asks about the outcome – in other words what impact the spending will have on people’s lives.

    Take the fact that 120,000 of the most disadvantaged families cost the Government some £9 billion per year in special interventions, from an array of agencies.

    The police, the ambulance service, the Council, youth offending teams…

    … all of them administering selective help, most often without discussion with other groups, trying to manage their own bit of the problem rather than addressing what was holding the family back.

    We were paying out some £75,000 per family, yet without doing anything to transform their dysfunctional lives.

    So we saw social breakdown on the rise at the same time.

    And income inequality stretched to its highest level since records began.

    That is what I mean when I speak about inputs versus outcomes – we have become comfortable with the idea of measuring the money we put in, but without really caring to ask what that money achieves in terms of life change at the other end.

    Pensions

    In many ways the problem I’ve touched on here is also relevant to our pension system.

    Irresponsible government spending is symptomatic of a wider problem – of a society reliant on debt, rather than saving and investment.

    Currently, some 11 million people the UK aren’t saving enough for their retirement.

    Why?

    Because under the pensions means test, hard-working people who try to save can find themselves retiring on the same income as their neighbour – someone who hasn’t saved at all but is eligible to claim for Pension Credit.

    What kind of message does that send out?

    It tells people on low incomes that it’s not worth saving – it’s not even worth working. Just sit back and wait for the government to pay out when you retire.

    Over the years we seem to have become addicted to debt instead.

    Even before the recession we accumulated one of the highest rates of personal debt in the whole of Western Europe, around £1.5 trillion – the size of the whole UK economy.

    We embraced a culture of ‘live now, pay later’ and looked to future generations to pick up the bill.

    Reform

    How far from Beveridge’s original vision.

    And clearly a system ripe for reform.

    But how do you reform when there is no money?

    Gone are the days when governments could buy their way out of a problem.

    This Government is rightly committed to the vital task of cutting the deficit – and no department is exempt when it comes to getting the public finances in order.

    We have already taken action to reduce welfare bills by £18 billion by the end of this Parliament, and with continuing economic uncertainty we will have to find further savings.

    But from day one we have resisted an approach which focuses solely on the amount of money to be saved.

    The solution, I believe, lies in structural change – leading to a complete shift in the welfare culture in this country.

    We are bringing spending back under control.

    But instead of simply top-slicing the budget, we are focused on tackling the demand for welfare…

    … changing the incentives in the system so that it acts as a springboard rather than a trap, rewarding those who move into work…

    … and redesigning the system in a way that restores fiscal stability whilst restoring lives at the same time.

    Journey to independence

    This Government will always stand by its promise to protect the most vulnerable and provide support for those whose sickness or disability puts them in difficulty.

    Nevertheless, my belief is that where they are able, those in the welfare system should be on a journey. It should be taking people somewhere, helping them move from dependence to independence.

    So if you are able to work the system should make work worthwhile and should both support and encourage you.

    What it should not do is tug you in the wrong direction, to a place where you receive so much in benefits that a return to work is unaffordable.

    If you are sick but able to work in time the system should support you, stay with you as your condition changes or improves, and make sure you can take the opportunities to work when you are able.

    What it should not do is consign you to a life on benefits, never check on your condition, assuming that you are better off languishing there indefinitely – as has been the case for the 1 million people on incapacity benefits for a decade or more, many unseen for the whole duration.

    To achieve this journey requires an internal and external cultural change – whereby the welfare system supports people in need, but not to remain in need.

    Early action

    Midway through this Parliament, we have already taken action to remove stumbling blocks on people’s way to independence.

    Let me give you just a few examples.

    First the changes we are making to cap Housing Benefit.

    Under the system we inherited, in certain cases where families were living in areas with incredibly high rents, it was actually possible for them to claim over £100,000 a year for help with housing costs.

    Think about what this means for someone who is considering taking a job.

    There’s a good chance they won’t, because they will fear losing their home as their Housing Benefit is tapered away.

    Unable to pay their rent from a salary, they cannot take that positive step.

    That is why we have limited the amount of Housing Benefit that a household can receive…

    … a change which means families face the same choices about where they live and what they can afford, regardless of whether they are on benefits or in work.

    Take our reforms to incapacity benefits.

    We are reassessing everyone, at a rate of 11,000 claimants per week.

    This is about staying with those who cannot work at the moment – regularly checking whether their condition has changed, worsened or improved.

    And again, for those who can, it is about moving back towards work, and an independent life beyond the state.

    Work Programme

    In many cases this process requires us to address the factors that cause people to be in difficulty in the first place.

    When you are dealing with people who are a long way from the workplace, who lack skills or the work habit… who are homeless or recently released from prison… you need a system that addresses these barriers in order to get them work-ready.

    That is what we are doing with the Work Programme.

    We have tasked the best organisations in the voluntary and private sectors to get people into employment, and then to help keep them there for up to 2 years.

    The Work Programme is already helping some 700,000 people – and is due to support 3.3 million over the lifetime of the contract.

    Results

    Without a doubt, there are no quick fixes to get people back to work – particularly in difficult economic times.

    But whilst the overall economic outlook is still unsure, the labour market is holding up better than many might have expected.

    Nationally, we have seen 4 consecutive quarters of positive job growth – up 212,000 this quarter alone – and 3 consecutive quarters of falling unemployment.

    There are now more people overall – and more women – in work than ever before…

    … and the latest migration data shows that over the past 2 years a majority of the increase has come from UK nationals.

    What’s more, we are seeing some positive signs that our reforms are having an effect.

    There are now 170,000 fewer people claiming the main out of work benefits than when this Government entered office – driven by falling numbers on incapacity and lone parent benefits.

    This is important. It means even though we’ve had four years of difficult economic times, we no longer let people just drift away from the labour market.

    Let’s contrast this with what has happened in America.

    There the unemployment rate has been similar – last month it fell to 7.8%, just below the UK figure of 7.9%.

    But since the recession, the inactivity rate in America has risen by 2 percentage points, that’s 2% of the working age population giving up on work.

    In the UK, despite the recession, and despite more young people staying on longer to study, the inactivity rate is close to the lowest in a generation.

    The biggest demotivating factor

    Despite these promising signs, there is still more to do.

    For if we are to build a new journey, we have to recognise a simple fact.

    Not everyone is starting from the same place.

    There is no point assuming – for example – that everyone understands the intrinsic benefits of work, the feelings of self-worth, or the opportunity to build self-esteem.

    For someone from a family or peer group where no one has ever held work, the pressure to conform is enormous, underscored by the notion that taking a job is a mug’s game.

    Thus, across generations and throughout communities, worklessness has become ingrained into everyday life.

    Take somewhere like the London Borough of Hackney, which has a high number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance – almost 10 thousand people in just one district.

    Yet in September alone, Jobcentre Plus took some 8,000 new vacancies in Hackney and the neighbouring boroughs.

    Overall, there were over 40 thousand new vacancies across London, and across the UK there are almost half a million unfilled vacancies at any one time – many in low skilled jobs.

    So as well as providing people with support to get back to work, it is vital to tackle the biggest demotivating factor that many people face…

    … the fact that the complexity of the system and the way it is set up creates the clear perception that work simply does not pay.

    Under the current mess of benefits and tax credits, people on low wages face losing up to 96 pence in every pound they earn as they increase their hours in work.

    In other words for every extra pound they earn, 4 pence goes in their pocket and the rest goes back to government in tax and benefit withdrawals.

    It is this factor which can stop someone’s journey back to work in its tracks.

    Universal Credit

    Changing this is what Universal Credit is all about.

    From 2013, it will replace the main out of work benefits and tax credits with single, simple payment withdrawn at a clear and consistent rate.

    By removing the cliff edges in the current system which mean it’s worthwhile working either 16 hours, 24 hours, 30 hours or not at all…

    … Universal Credit will make work pay – at each and every hour.

    80% of financial gains will go to those in the bottom 40% of the income distribution, lifting some 900,000 adults and children out of poverty.

    Rebalancing the system

    Importantly, our guiding principle in designing the new system is that it should be set around the majority.

    Over 75% of people in work are paid monthly in arrears.

    Over 78% of working age benefit claimants use the internet now.

    And over 71% of those receiving housing benefit in the private sector already take responsibility for paying their own rent.

    That is why as a default, Universal Credit will be paid monthly, online, and directly to claimants themselves.

    We are rebalancing the system so that it caters to the needs and expectations of the mainstream, and making it a seamless transition into work – meaning Universal Credit will be simpler both to use and to administer.

    But more than that, because we are no longer going by the lowest common denominator, Universal Credit will enable us to identify the most vulnerable people much more quickly than now.

    For the minority who cannot budget, cannot pay their debts, or are struggling to manage…

    … instead of maintaining them on benefits or waiting for them to crash out of work…

    …. we should be doing more to address the root cause of this hardship – whether it be financial illiteracy, addiction, mental illness, or another problem.

    Using interventions targeted and coordinated to restore stability to those who have been left behind, Universal Credit offers an opportunity to help these individuals rejoin the rest of society.

    A new contract

    Underpinning this improved support is conditionality.

    By this I mean the set of obligations that claimants must meet in return for benefit – too often confused, poorly communicated and inconsistently applied in the current regime.

    Under Universal Credit we are changing this, requiring everyone to sign up to a claimant commitment as a condition of entitlement to benefit.

    Just as those in work have obligations to their employer, much like a contract, this commitment will clearly set out claimants’ responsibilities to the taxpayer.

    Those who can work but are unemployed will be expected to engage with us, treating their search for work as a full-time job.

    If someone fails to do so without good reason, the commitment will also spell out the robust set of sanctions they face – losing their benefit for 3 months for the first offence, 6 months for the second and 3 years for the third.

    This marks the renewal of personal responsibility within the welfare system, just as for those in work.

    Clarity that will lead the claimant to commitment or to conditionality.

    By ending the something for nothing entrapment we can make a meaningful, sustainable change to people’s lives…

    …and one that is likely to be more affordable in the long term, as we put individuals on the path to independence and reduce the churn in the system.

    Pensions

    As in welfare, so too in my other area of responsibility. We are plotting a journey in our pensions system as well.

    Here we are looking to set people on the road to a decent and sustainable retirement.

    The solution here is to get people saving – and to get them started early.

    That is why we have introduced auto enrolment, helping up to 9 million people into a workplace pension scheme – making saving the norm.

    But that still leaves us with the problem of the means test, which acts as a disincentive to saving.

    So the second thing we are doing is pushing ahead with plans to radically simplify the State Pension system – creating a ‘single tier’ pension set above the level of the means test, so that if you contribute, you will see the rewards.

    Universal Credit and the single tier pension are two sides of the same coin – ensuring that it pays, first to work and then it pays to save.

    Positive action which will change lives.

    Going further

    In all this, we take our lead from Beveridge.

    His guiding belief, that a “revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching” is as true now as it was in the 1940s.

    All too often, Government’s response to social breakdown has been a classic case of “patching” – a case of handing money out… containing problems and limiting the damage… but supporting – even reinforcing – dysfunctional behaviour.

    This has to change, and is beginning to.

    Yet if we are committed to a radical overhaul, there is scope to scrutinise the existing system further still, driving out perverse incentives.

    First, you have to ask which bits of the system are most important in changing lives.

    And you have to look at which parts of the system promote positive behaviours, and which are actually promoting destructive ones.

    Should families expect never ending amounts of money for every child… when working households must make tough choices about what they can afford?

    Is it right that young people should be able to move directly from school to a life on housing benefit, without finding a job first… when so many of their peers live at home, working hard to save up for a flat?

    As Beveridge said: “The insured persons should not feel that income [from the state] can come from a bottomless purse.”

    Especially so, when the economy isn’t growing as we had hoped, the public finances remain under pressure and the social outcomes have been so poor.

    So these kind of questions need to be asked as we develop this theme.

    Government spending

    Yet there is one final piece to the puzzle.

    I have covered a cultural change in society at large, and cultural change in the welfare system.

    But we must also achieve a shift in the culture of government spending.

    We have to reject the old tendency to lavish money on programmes in the hope that they will succeed.

    The history of such programmes is of great hope followed by embarrassing failure… with taxpayers carrying the risk when they failed.

    Instead of focussing solely on money going in, we must open up a whole new dimension – one focussed solely on the impact that spending has.

    Every pound for life change.

    That means changing not just how much we spend, but how we spend it.

    Work Programme

    So let me return to the example of the Government’s Work Programme, where we have been pioneering the use of payment by results.

    We do that by putting the cost of helping people back to work onto the 18 Prime Providers who compete to deliver the Work Programme in different parts of the country.

    They raise the money to deliver the programme alongside their subcontractors…

    … we then pay them when they deliver the results – with the biggest payouts of up to £14,000 for supporting the hardest to help into work, and sustaining them there.

    Because we are paying for results we will only pay for what works, reducing the risk on the taxpayer…

    … and making sure each pound is having a transformative impact on someone’s life.

    Early intervention

    A payment by results system works best when the timescales for success are short and the metrics relatively straightforward.

    But across Government, we are prioritising early intervention – getting to the root of social problems before they arise, rather than waiting to pick up the pieces.

    Whether in welfare, health, education or family policy, we are focusing our attention and spending on improving life chances.

    Take an example in my own Department, where we are acting on Dame Carol Black and David Frost’s Sickness Absence Review…

    … preventing workers from dropping out of the labour market altogether when they become sick, rather than trying to catch them in the benefits system once they’ve fallen.

    In doing so, we will reap the benefits further down the line – alleviating the social problems which so are often more difficult to tackle once they become entrenched.

    But because these are dynamic interventions, the impact is trickier to measure and more difficult to forecast.

    So beyond payment by results, this makes it vital to establish a measurable quality to programmes that deliver over a longer period…

    … whilst unlocking new streams of funding.

    Social investment

    In particular, we are making good progress in opening up the social investment market.

    I see this as a huge and exciting opportunity to get much more private money working in pursuit of the social good.

    Historically it has been assumed that people could either be ‘good citizens’ and put their money into charitable works, but without expecting anything in return…

    …or they could be ‘profit maximisers’, who invest their money in commercial ventures and have to forget about the social consequences.

    Social investment is a way of uniting the two – it is about saying to investors:

    ‘You can use your money to have a positive impact on society, and you can make a return.’

    We are leading the field in putting this idea into practice.

    Of the 7 Social Impact Bonds established in the UK, 6 of them are being delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions…

    … with government money working in partnership with businesses and charities.

    This is the model being piloted in Peterborough, where investors are funding charities to run rehabilitation programmes with prisoners.

    If reoffending falls by 7.5%, the investors receive a return paid for out of the reduced costs of social breakdown.

    Just last week the Prime Minister announced his intention to roll out an outcome-based approach across the probation and rehabilitation services, making payment by results the norm.

    But to replicate the success of social bonds elsewhere, we need programmes that have a real chance of seeing a return.

    They need to be proven to be effective.

    That’s why we’re testing a variety of cutting edge programmes through our £30 million Innovation Fund, so practitioners can develop a proof of concept – in turn making it easier to access alternative funding streams.

    And it’s why we are establishing the Early Intervention Foundation which will accredit programmes of work and provide a rigorous assessment of their likely social returns.

    Huge potential

    There is still more to do to grow the market – with researchers and academics playing a crucial role in developing evidence-based policy.

    But if we can get it right, I believe social investment has huge potential.

    First, it has the potential to greatly increase the amount of funding available for social programmes by bringing in private investment money on top of that provided by Government or pure philanthropy alone.

    Second, it brings a whole new level of discipline and rigour to how government delivers social programmes. Because the money follows the outcome, it therefore requires that spending has a demonstrable purpose – we must invest in proven programmes that change lives, rather than chasing a few media headlines.

    But third – and perhaps most importantly – social investment could be a powerful tool for building a more cohesive society.

    The gap between the top and bottom of society is in many cases larger than it has ever been.

    We have a group of skilled professionals and wealth creators at the top of society who have little or no connection to those at the bottom.

    Yet in so many cases what divides the two is little more than a different start in life.

    I believe social investment gives us an opportunity to lock not just the wealth but also the skills of those at the top of society back into our most disadvantaged areas.

    Imagine you create a social bond in a particular deprived neighbourhood. Investors buy into it and as with any investment, will want to see it flourish – taking an interest in that community where they would otherwise be totally detached.

    At the same time, these wealth creators can have a dramatic effect on the communities themselves – showing those at the bottom that they have an opportunity to turn their own lives around and move up the social ladder.

    Conclusion

    Our failure to make each pound count has cost us again and again over the years.

    Not only in terms of a financial cost – higher taxes, inflated welfare bills and lower productivity, as people sit on benefits long-term.

    But also the social cost of a fundamentally divided Britain – one in which a section of society has been left behind.

    We must no longer allow ourselves to accept that some people are written off.

    Our reforms are about improving the life chances of the most disadvantaged – not changing people but restoring them.

    Breaking the spirals of deprivation, and giving them the opportunity to take control of their own lives.

    The prize for doing so could be immense.

    It pays to work…

    …. it pays to save…

    … and spending is about outcomes not inputs.

    Amounting to sound public finances and a modern economy, matched by a fairer and more unified society.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2012 Conservative Party Conference Speech

    Ian Duncan Smith
    Iain Duncan Smith

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, at the 2012 Conservative Party Conference on 8th October 2012.

    At the last election the Labour Government left us the largest deficit the UK has seen since the Second World War.

    £120 million a day spent on interest. And £1.5 trillion, owed in personal debt – the size of the whole UK economy.

    The Labour Government, spending and borrowing, too ready to leave our children to foot the bill.

    They have learnt nothing……

    WELFARE

    This culture of irresponsible spending had its roots in Britain’s welfare system:

    In government, Labour hiked spending by a massive 60%, rising even before the recession hit.

    Worse, in 2010, just before the election, in one year, Labour spent £90 billion on working age welfare – the same as the entire education budget for that very same year.

    Let me give you an example of this waste. Just 120,000 of the most troubled and difficult families cost us some £9 billion per year in special interventions, from an array of agencies – from health visitors to the criminal justice system.

    Imagine that, £75,000 per family with nothing done to transform their destructive lifestyles.

    To put this in perspective, by 2010 this increase in welfare spending cost every household in Britain an extra £3,000 a year in tax.

    And exactly what did we get in return for spending such vast sums of money?

    A complex system of over 30 different benefits

    Chaotic in work supplements, some paid at 16 hours, some 24 and some at 30, with benefits withdrawn at different rates – some at 40%, some at 65%, some at 100%, some net, some gross…

    You’d need to be a clever banker just to work it out…. well ok; you’d need at least to be clever.

    Those we should have been helping:

    The strivers, the tryers;

    The families trying to do the right thing;

    The people struggling to work, like lone parents desperate to ensure they bring their children up in a working household.

    Too many of them lost most of every £ they earned in work.

    And under Labour, income inequality, that is the gap between the incomes of the rich and poor, was the largest in modern times.

    I ask you, what kind of message does that send out?

    I will tell you – that it’s not worth working – that it’s not worth trying – that you’re better off playing the system and taking the money.

    Shameful!

    Small wonder then that Labour left us a growing army of those who don’t work.

    5 million people on out of work benefits after the recession – 1 million of them for a decade or more.

    1 in every 5 households in the UK with no one working……think about this – in the Britain left by Labour, almost 2 million children were living in workless households – proportionately higher than almost any other country in the EU.

    Youth unemployment at a record high.

    Yet half of the new jobs being created were being taken by foreign nationals.

    Labour attacked marriage but they also penalised couples staying together on welfare – Families on benefits were better off apart. As a result, too many children now grow up without their fathers. And 1 and a half million children grow up with parents addicted to drugs and alcohol.

    Small wonder street gangs were rampant in too many of our towns and cities

    We know Ed Miliband now says he believes in one nation….but let me remind him…

    Labour left a nation divided between those who work hard and pay their taxes and those locked into costly welfare dependency

    No, that Mr Miliband is what I call Two Nations, not one nation.

    Oh no, you can re-position Labour all you like but….

    You won’t solve an economic problem by denying it,

    You can’t heal a nation by attacking parts of it,

    And if you follow the Unions, you will never lead.

    In Government, we know that changing this bitter legacy requires a complete cultural shift.

    The end of the something for nothing attitude…

    And, the beginning of a journey back from dependence to independence.

    WORK PROGRAMME

    For those people who the last government left behind – such as the long term unemployed, we have created the Work Programme.

    Harnessing the knowledge, skills and experience of voluntary and private sector organisations it will support some 3.3 million claimants.

    And unlike the expensive failures of the last government, providers are paid only for the results they achieve paid, not just to get people into work but to keep them there.

    When we introduced this great programme, guess who opposed it – Labour opposed it…

    WORK EXPERIENCE

    Young unemployed people told me time and time again that their biggest barrier to employment is that no employer will hire them without experience, but they need work in order to get the experience.

    So we created the Work experience programme, helping young people to take up to 2 months with an employer, gaining vital new skills, and while they are doing this we’re letting them keep their benefits.

    This programme has been an incredible success.

    Half those taking part are off benefit within 21 weeks of starting.

    And we’ve even added the Youth Contract, a subsidy if they employ the young person or give them an apprenticeship.

    But the Unions, with Labour support have attacked the programme. They are trying to frighten off businesses, even going as far as calling it “slave labour.”

    Just how out of touch they are? Labour and the Unions would rather have the young people of this country living off state handouts, instead of being employed.

    … yet again…

    When we give work experience to young people crying out for such help, guess who opposed it – Labour opposed it.

    HOUSING BENEFIT

    Under Labour, Housing Benefit doubled in their last ten years – a rise from £11 billion in 2000 to £20 billion in 2010.

    Imagine – when we came to office there were some households getting more than £50,000 in HB alone and some over £100,000 – Staggering.

    So I moved fast to bring it under control by limiting the amount people could receive.

    This early action will result in annual savings of over £2 billion by 2014/15.

    We are delivering savings and returning fairness to a system spiralling out of control.

    Housing Benefit reforms, guess who opposed them – Labour opposed them.

    SANCTIONS REGIME

    Now we are toughening up the penalty for failure to seek work. Where claimants fail to meet their clear responsibilities, benefit will be withdrawn for 3 months for the first offence, 6 months for the second and 3 years for the third.

    At last, gone are the days when doing nothing was a long term option – a choice under Labour that someone was free to make. Whether to work, or not to work…

    Well from now on the message is clear – you must work. And if you won’t work with us to find work – you will lose your benefit.

    So when we toughened up on those shirking work, guess who opposed it – Labour opposed it.

    BENEFIT CAP

    And this government is going further still. Now we will cap the amount a claimant can receive in total benefits.

    Set at a maximum of average earnings it will save £275 million a year.

    Even before we bring it in, capping benefits is having an effect – a third of those affected by the housing benefit cap have said they will now seek work as a result.

    So, at long last we will restore fairness to the system for those who work hard and pay their taxes….

    Yet when we introduced the CAP, guess who opposed it – Labour opposed it.

    RESULTS

    And despite the economic difficulties, we are seeing results:

    Rising employment and falling unemployment.

    700,000 more in work than 2010 and over 1 million more in the private sector

    Youth unemployment lower than the last election

    2.5 million People once on sickness benefit now being re-assessed and two thirds preparing or looking for work.

    And 124,000 fewer lone parents on inactive benefits since 2010

    That’s why today I can stand before you and say;

    The number of people of working age who are not expected to work is at its lowest level since 1992.

    But guess who opposed all this – Labour opposed it.

    UNIVERSAL CREDIT

    The next stage is the Universal Credit – the most extensive shake up of the welfare system for years, replacing many out-of-work payments with a single, simple payment.

    It will be withdrawn at a constant rate, so that people know exactly how much better off they will be for every extra hour they work, to ensure that work always pays more than benefits…

    2.8 million households will gain.

    The poorest will be the biggest gainers.

    900,000 will be lifted out of poverty.

    It will save billions in fraud and error which is rife in the existing systems.

    And for the first time we will work with those who need help to manage their money so they are ready to cope with the world of work, giving them back their independence and self respect.

    Universal Credit, guess who opposed it – Labour opposed it.

    PENSIONS

    Labour nearly destroyed pension saving in the UK. Their means test meant those who tried to save too often retired on less than those who never saved at all. The result now is 11 million people who don’t save enough for retirement.

    So our auto enrolment reforms mean up to 9 million workers will be saving through a workplace pension. And we are creating a single tier pension – which will mean, if you contribute, you will receive a pension above the means test.

    The single tier will also ensure that those, such as mothers, who have taken a break in work, will receive full contributions for that time giving them a chance of their own full pension, for the first time ever.

    DISABILITY AND SICKNESS REFORMS

    We were all proud of what our brilliant Paralympians achieved this summer. Britain has a strong history in support for the disabled and we will continue that support for those in need. Yet, for too long it has continued unreformed, resulting in confusion for those eligible and incorrect payments of over hundreds of millions of pounds.

    So by ensuring our reforms get money to those who have genuine need and that they are supported we can build a more positive approach to disability which has too often seen disabled people on the margins to one where they are more and more part of the mainstream.

    EUROPE

    Now I, like all of you in this hall, know that the interference from the European Court of Human Rights is too often unwarranted and unwanted.

    But now I have to deal with the European Commission as they seek to interfere in our welfare arrangements, telling us we will have to pay benefits to anyone from Europe who comes here – from day one.

    This will destroy our existing tests which require claimants to live and work in the UK for some time, be job seeking, or self-sufficient…

    Ending these tests could cost of a minimum of £155 million or even more.

    Nation States run their own welfare and we are not prepared to change that.

    So Conference, let me simplify the message for the Commission, in case they don’t understand…..

    Ils ne Passeront Pas….. (They shall not pass)

    CONCLUSION

    Despite all of the progress we’ve made in the last two years, there is still much to do.

    We will have reduced welfare bills by £18 billion at the time of the next election and reformed welfare so it will be more effective.

    Early action to cut spending has helped reduce the deficit by a quarter but with the rest of Europe and the USA in trouble, its small wonder the UK economy isn’t growing as we had hoped.

    George Osborne and I recognise this means we will have to make further savings in the welfare budget, but as we save we are agreed we must relentlessly focus what we do on transforming lives.

    Gone must be the days when Governments spent money to buy their way out of a problem.

    For you don’t cure drug dependency by parking addicts on methadone…..

    You don’t help someone who’s ill by putting them on a sickness benefit and forgetting about them…..

    You don’t help family stability by paying families to live apart….

    You don’t support pensioners by penalising them when they save…

    And you don’t cure benefit dependency by giving people money to do nothing.

    That isn’t welfare, it’s unfair – and we have to change it.

    For even though we are in a coalition we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to show the British people that the party of Wilberforce, of Shaftesbury and Churchill oh yes and Disraeli too – The historic party of social reform – our party, is alive and well and determined to restore and strengthen British society.

    That is why we have all come together here in Birmingham, because we love our country. For this is a remarkable country. Britain has given the world the rule of law, democracy, the free market, the English language and so much more. We have fought for freedom when it has been under threat and never counted the cost.

    But if we care for our country we must care for all our people, for they are our country.

    That is why our reforms must improve the life chances for the least of us.

    That must be our mission, plain and simple – a mission, not to change people but to restore them. Through fair Government, give them the same hope and aspiration that we would all want for our children.

    To deliver this mission is to govern as Conservatives.

    That and only that is the way to win the next election.