Tag: Adam Afriyie

Below is the text of the speech made by Adam Afriyie at the Renewal of Conservatism Conference held in Windsor on 22nd September 2012.

Good morning and welcome to Windsor.

This conference is a significant moment for both Windsor and the Conservative Party.

It also promises to be a significant moment for centre-right thinking and the future of our country.

Windsor is a wonderful town and this is a great constituency.

It has lakes and great parks and tourist attractions and some magnificent historic buildings.

Windsor is steeped in political and military history.

Windsor castle has been a birth place and home for our Royal Family for centuries.

It was in Windsor that the conference preceding the signing of the Magna Carta was held.

Many battles have been fought here.

It is the perfect place to fight the political battles to come.
Windsor has been an agent of change in the past and I hope it will be instrumental in the renewal of Conservatism for the future

I’d like to thank the organisers, speakers and participants.

With the support of the Windsor Conservative Association, Richard Hyslop and Phil Sage have worked tirelessly to pull together today’s event.

The leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, David Burbage, is a legend. He has improved services across the borough, while reducing the council tax to the lowest of any council outside London. He is here today.

The Taxpayers’ Alliance, the Freedom Association and the Centre for Social Justice are well-know right-thinkers. You are welcome.
And I want to thank those MPs, MEPs, Councillors and GLA members for remaining loyal to Conservative values. They are again making a contribution today.

With Toby Young, James Delingpole, Tim Montgomery, Jill Kirby, Daniel Hannan, Syed Kemall and so many others, the quality of participants will speak for itself.

There will be keynote speeches, panel discussions and breakout sessions.

I hope that you will not only contribute to the revitalisation of the Conservative vision in these sessions, but will also stay for the supper with Roger Scrutton if you can.

Of course, at an event like this, one cannot avoid mentioning the Coalition.

We are in difficult political territory.

The last Government left our country in a hell of a mess.
In 2010 the Conservative-led Coalition was confronted with big government, massive debts, rising taxes and a growing budget deficit.

Our national control and self-determination were being eroded by European jurisdiction over our borders and our criminal justice system.

Great Britain had become humbled, indebted and subservient place.
Thankfully, the Coalition has being doing good work in the area of Welfare Reform, debt reduction and improving school standards.
But despite some good progress the tensions and constraints of coalition are taking their toll.

There is headway to be made on so many fronts.

Our job today is to identify the policies that will underpin a government that truly is on the side of people who work hard and aspire to better themselves by merit and endeavour.

We need policies that will help to secure a solid Conservative majority.

But those policies must also influence the current Government.
Now, if I were Europe Minister, I’d want to know how to regain control of our borders and secure our criminal justice system.
Businesses are the engine of the economy.

If I were Chancellor, I’d be concerned about removing the age-old obstacles to growth.

I’d want to release our risk-takers and wealth creators to generate the jobs and economic growth the country so desperately needs
If I were Party Chairman, I’d be concerned about the support base of my Party. I’d want to ensure that the policies adopted had been endorsed by the Party. And I’d want my Party to be motivated and ready to campaign, wholeheartedly, at the next election.

And if I were Prime Minister, I’d want to be in tune with my Party and I’d want the right ideas for the country on Europe, taxation and the economy.

But above all I’d want to have a clear Conservative majority.
So our challenge today is to forge those policies that will secure the freedom and prosperity of the British people, and assert the ideas for an election-winning strategy.

With the participants here today, I am confident we can rise to the challenge.

So in closing let me say this.

Whatever your views on the current state of the nation and our party, please remember:

Governments and Coalitions, they come and they go, but our Conservative principles endure.

– A commitment to individual liberty, self-determination and equality of opportunity,

– A belief in lower taxes as a moral and economic good and,

– The defence of sovereignty through an EU relationship based on economic cooperation, not political subservience.

It is these Conservative principles that must inform the next manifesto, in the meantime, hold the Coalition to account in the meantime.

And I suspect these values will endure long after Nick Clegg has departed public life.

You are very welcome here in Windsor.

Please enjoy the rest of today’s conference.

And do come again.

Thank you.

 

Below is the text of the speech made by Adam Afriyie on 22nd October 2009.

I come to politics from a business background in technology and innovation. And, to me, the phrase ‘Government innovation’ sounds like a paradox.

After twelve years of big spending, and even bigger promises, it’s easy to understand why people are just a tad cynical. Labour came to power with high hopes for what government could achieve.

At the height of the dot.com boom they wanted to ‘modernise’ the public sector with IT solutions. So they created an e-unit, an e-envoy and even an e-minister. In fact, they slapped an ‘e’ in front of anything that moved. They set up a task force, appointed a tsar, and of course set a target: 100% of government services will be online by 2005.

Thankfully, the Guardian realised they had gone too far when civil servants were required to tell people to ‘apply online’ for permission to be buried at sea. So none of us were surprised when the target was abandoned in 2004.

Labour did have some worthy objectives, such as joined-up government and personalised public services. But their approach has been deeply flawed.

While the pace of technological change was breath-taking, the response from government was not.

Internet access empowers people. It improves productivity and opens the door to self-improvement. But while the internet was empowering individuals to take control over their lives Labour was attempting to maintain the old bureaucratic machinery.

Ministers were mesmerised by the transformative potential of technology but failed to integrate it seamlessly into everyday use.
In many ways, theirs has been a government populated by ‘digital immigrants’. The results have been disastrous.

Cost overruns. Procurement failures. Security breaches. These are the hallmarks of a failed IT policy. And the spectre of the NHS IT system sends a shudder down the spine of even the most-hardy minister.

As consumers increasingly take control of their personal information, we have watched with horror as the database state has extended its reach. As businesses swiftly moved services into the new online world of cloud computing, government continued to develop cumbersome in-house systems.

My background is in IT. It’s been painful to watch these disasters unfold.

So today I’m going to talk about the principles that underpin an emerging Conservative approach to IT policy. The principles are clear and I think they represent a more flexible and coherent approach that embraces the realities of the modern world.

There are three main principles.

Big is not always better

First, big is not always better. Large scale IT projects increase the risk of failure. Big projects narrow the number of companies able to supply government, reduce competition and fail to deliver value for money.

The Government spends about £16 billion on IT annually. Future budgets are tight and we really cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.

One option we are considering is the use of multiple proof-of-concept pilot projects. If several suppliers are asked to come up with working solutions, they can then be piloted, and the most successful can be scaled up and rolled out nationally. The use of multiple early-stage pilot projects could reduce reliance on a handful of big vendors and increase the proportion of IT budgets spent with innovative young companies.

Openness

The scale of projects could be significantly reduced by adopting our second principle: openness.

By using standard data formats, like XML, government can open up the procurement process to the widest possible base of suppliers. With inter-operability, large projects can be split into manageable, modular chunks. The outcome is a more flexible procurement process where it is easier to change suppliers and resolve problems as they emerge. Francis Maude and his Implementation Unit are developing these ideas right now.

We need more small systems that talk to one another, and fewer monolithic mega-projects of no return.

Open procurement has a further implication: a level playing field for open source software – software that can offer significant cost reductions.

Open source is not a panacea. But it would be senseless to continue to buy proprietary systems by default. One study suggests that open procurement might save £600 million every year. That’s a saving worth making in the current climate.

But if our IT policy is to be genuinely open it must look to the market for innovative solutions. It must be free to discover new and novel solutions. And it must dictate the desired outcomes, but not the technological inputs.

Perhaps the biggest emerging trend is the shift towards software and infrastructure as a service. Cloud computing is transforming our world. And Conservatives recognise that there are massive benefits and savings to be gained, including more flexibility for users, better value for the taxpayer, and even improved energy efficiency, as remote data centres fire-up only when needed.

Take our approach to IT in the National Health Service. As an alternative to building an expensive in-house system we are exploring ways for patients to take control of their own health records. With easier access they might examine records more carefully, they might choose where to store them, and they might demand that GPs present them to the hospital of their choice. It’s an approach that could accelerate the take-up of electronic records through public demand – and all at little or no cost to the public purse.

Empowering citizens

Of course, openness is not just about how government interacts with suppliers. It’s also about the relationship between government and the citizen.

So our third principle is empowering citizens.

Trust in politics has reached historic lows, and the expenses scandal has magnified the suspicions that arise when information is hidden.
So if you visit the Conservative website you’ll see our expenses published openly online in Google Docs, updated in real time. That’s because David Cameron recognised early on that technology would enable unparalleled transparency and help to restore confidence in public life.

I believe that information is power. And thanks to the internet it is now easier than ever to put that power in the public domain.

In a digital economy, access to information fuels innovation. It drives up standards because people are aware of what’s going on around them and have the power to choose on the basis of that information.
That idea underlies the crime mapping pioneered by Boris Johnson in London. Crime maps give people real-time information on where crime hotspots are located and how effectively the local police are dealing with them.

Crime mapping sits alongside George Osborne’s commitment to publish online every item of government expenditure above £25,000. With soaring levels of public debt, people have the right to know how their money is being spent.

We want to empower individuals to hold government to account and incentivise government to meet public demands.

But we won’t stop there, because there is a mountain of data hidden offline in Whitehall vaults. If it were online and accessible it could be highly valuable to families, businesses and social enterprises.
Think about census data, overseas aid data, environmental and air pollution data. This information could be mashed up and re-used in innovative ways.

Most of it is public information paid for by the taxpayer. If it is not classified or personal, it should be freely available for re-use. That’s why David Cameron has promised a ‘right to data’ – so that you can tell government which data sets are useful to you. And in my view this is the unfinished business of the Freedom of Information Act.
But we’re not waiting for the election. We are already taking action. I am extremely proud that my local council is leading the way. In Windsor we have started to publish online everything that costs over £500.

MyConservatives

The next election is likely to be something of a technological breakthrough, and it’s about time. The Conservatives’ New Media team are onto it with the launch of myConservatives.com – a social network inspired by Obama but built in Britain. It is a UK first. And I think it will make a bit of a splash during the election.

With online tools enabling users to build campaigns and tele-canvass from home, MyConservatives turns the very nature of political campaigning upside-down. It moves on from the top-down, centrally controlled politics of the past, to the politics of the future – built by individuals from the ground up.

Rather than politicians taking charge of the internet, it is about individuals, through the internet, taking charge of politics. That’s what Conservatives mean when we talk about the post-bureaucratic age.

And if we can do it in the election campaign, if we can do it with the publication of expenses, if we can do it for local authorities, then I’m quite sure we can do it in central government too.

So I am optimistic. I am optimistic that a Conservative government will finally deliver the benefits of IT for taxpayers, exceeding what was promised 12 years ago, with more responsive public services, better-connected government and unprecedented value for money.
In future, ‘Government’ and ‘innovation’ need not be mutually exclusive.

We will move beyond the top-down and state-centric assumptions of Whitehall. Because for too long the transformative potential of IT has been imprisoned within an old-fashioned bureaucratic model. But with open procurement, with information to empower individuals, and with hundreds of ‘little platoons’ organising at the grass roots, we can have an open, accountable and innovative politics.
And that’s what we call progressive.

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Shadow Science and Innovation Minister, Adam Afriyie, on 23rd November 2009.

I come to politics from a background building hi-tech businesses.

And it seems to me our nation’s in trouble.

We’re stuck in the longest recession since records began. Millions of people have lost their jobs, their homes and their businesses. Britain has generated the biggest budget deficit in the G8. And government debt stands at £86,000 for every household in Britain.

Just one year’s interest on this debt will lose us £43 billion. To put it in perspective, that’s about 10 times the entire science budget.

We cannot escape the reality. Whether Labour or Conservative, the next government will be confronted with an empty financial cupboard.

The challenge will be to rebalance our lopsided economy. We must break the over-reliance on housing and government debt and become less wholly dependent on financial services.

Science holds the key.

Sir James Dyson taskforce

I‘m optimistic for the future of British science. Not since the days of Sputnik and Kennedy’s New Frontier has science been more central to a nation’s future.

For me science is not a luxury to be indulged – it is a necessity to be embraced. We can be more than a nation of bankers and borrowers.

We’ve got an impressive scientific tradition, especially here in Cambridge.

British scientists are some of the best in the world. We punch above our weight for citations and Nobel prizes. But something’s gone badly wrong.

We’ve tumbled down the world league tables, to become less competitive. There’s a disconnect between our excellent research on the one hand, and the creation of the high-tech products and jobs we so desperately need on the other.

That’s the innovation gap. And that’s the gap we aim to close.
So I’m delighted that James Dyson is heading a Conservative taskforce. We’re looking to transform Britain into Europe’s leading hi-tech exporter. We’re exploring options for a Future Fund to boost investment into those start-ups.

And we’ve identified three priorities. First, to encourage our brightest young minds into science and engineering. Second, to maintain the excellence of our research base through these difficult economic times. And third, to close the gap between discovery and development – a gap that’s persisted under successive governments.

Continuity after the election

But, of course, before the election, you’ll want to know what a Conservative government means for science.

We mustn’t fight political battles over science. Science should be the least ideological area in government. It’s difficult enough to raise the level of public debate about science, without unseemly squabbles among politicians.

Science and innovation policy has been matured over the decades. William Waldegrave and Michael Heseltine pursued recognisable themes in the 1990s: commercialising research, building business-university links, and maximising the power of public procurement.
The current machinery of science policy looks broadly as it did in 1997. The dual-funding system continues – shared between HEFCE and the Research Councils. And, curiously, the science portfolio has returned to the old DTI, where John Major first put it.

The Technology Strategy Board is a new development. We welcome its arrival, and its functions will remain important.

Stability is what’s needed right now. So let me offer reassurance. I am not planning a major reworking of either the dual funding system or the apparatus of science policy.

After the election

But while there are points of consensus for science, I certainly envisage some changes for innovation.

Tomorrow marks the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species. For me innovation is an evolutionary impulse. It can’t be mandated regionally or forced through centrally. Innovation arises from a basic biological drive: we adapt to survive.

So our approach will be different. We are going to free people, businesses and universities to innovate. Picking winners, second-guessing scientists, expanding unaccountable quangos – that’s simply not our way.

But let’s cut to the chase. Let’s talk about spending.

If fortunate enough to serve as science minister, I’m going to fight tooth and nail for science. But it’s reckless to make undeliverable promises. Spending constraint will apply for any incoming party.

Gordon Brown has made a-song-and-a-dance over the ring-fenced science budget.

Vince Cable says there should be no ring-fencing at all.

To set out a more balanced approach: we respect the principle of the ring-fence. It operated in the last Conservative government. It’s sensible for Parliament to approve Research Council funding separately from the overall budget.

But I’m concerned that some of Labour’s ring-fencing rhetoric might lull the science community into a false sense of security.
The current ring-fence expires in 2011. The Government has allocated no-money-whatsoever to science beyond that point. The point is this: the Government can’t ring-fence money it hasn’t allocated.

Public investment in science

The value of public investment in science is not in question. Basic research is often too risky for commercial investors alone, and some research, such as ‘big’ physics like the Hadron Collider, can only be sustained at national levels.

David Cameron singled out Research Councils as the right kind of public body. They offer accountability and value-for-money. They also work at arm’s length from politicians to create excellent science over the long-term.

Long-term is the key phrase. The rewards of research can be unpredictable in the short-term. That’s why the public sector has a role to play.

We will never overlook the value of fundamental research. Twenty years ago, a famous chemist said: ‘It is mainly by unlocking nature’s most basic secrets, whether it be about the structure of matter or the nature of life itself, that we have been able to build the modern world.’

She was the only scientist to become Prime Minister. So, while I cannot promise spending increases with an economy on its knees, I can reveal this: a Conservative government will not turn the science budget into a short-term industrial subsidy.

Taxpayers’ money must of course contribute to public goals. But when science meets policy, there is the ever-present risk of politicisation.

How we identify our priorities is the essential question.
Research Councils must support excellent research without undue political interference. Yet the spectre of Lord Haldane haunts the corridors of power. There is confusion about the meaning and relevance of the Haldane Principle today.

The Lords and Commons science committees have been bold in this area. But Ministers have failed to give an adequate response.
The Haldane Principle has largely safeguarded British science from the ideological battles we’ve seen elsewhere.

Today, science is being driven as a tool of ‘industrial activism’. So it is more important than ever that we do not blur the distinction between appropriate strategic guidance and inappropriate political interference.

But, sadly, the Haldane Principle has never been written down. Whether it’s an inquiry, commission or consultation, we need to resolve the uncertainty.

We need a clear view going forward. For confidence and stability research spending priorities must be open. And if the present administration refuses to provide clarity, then we will seek to do so.

Scientific advice in government

Research council independence is essential. So too is the integrity of government scientific advice.

Many of our biggest challenges are scientific challenges: generating energy, securing food supplies, improving the environment, rebalancing the economy, caring for an ageing population. So Government and Parliament need sound scientific advice.
In many ways, Britain has been a world-leader. The last Conservative government setup the Foresight programme to scan the technological horizons. The current government has appointed chief scientific advisers for many departments.

Conservatives recognise and respect the importance of scientific advice. We also recognise the value of the scientific approach to policy-making – so much so that it is now compulsory for all incoming Conservative MPs to have science induction training.

There have been too many slip-ups and unnecessary controversies in the past: BSE, GM, MMR. Building systematically on acquired knowledge, is what unites all walks of a civilised society. For the sake of our economy and our society we must be clear that evidence matters.

And this leads me to the Professor Nutt fiasco. In principle, it’s right that a minister has the power to dismiss an advisor on any grounds they see fit. In political terms, some of the Professor’s statements may well have seemed ill-judged.

But let’s be clear: the science is not in question, only the handling of the situation by the Home Secretary.

Independent scientists are not subject to government whipping – and rightly so. Scientific advisers now need reassurance that they can continue to challenge perceived wisdoms within a clear set of rules.

Unfortunately, the existing rules fail to adequately define the relationship between ministers and their independent scientific advisers.

The Government has now been forced to consult on new guidelines.
A number of scientists have signed a Statement of Principles setting out how they think independent scientific advice should operate. I believe those principles offer a strong basis for a new framework. I support their efforts. And I urge the minister to develop these new guidelines as quickly as possible, to ensure they can be respected by independent advisers and ministers alike.

The next generation of scientists and engineers

Before finishing tonight, I want to say a few words about our plans to encourage the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Michael Gove has set out proposals for a new generation of Technical Schools, and plans to restore exam confidence with international benchmarking.

We’re going to revive careers advice with innovative online information, so that students can see the benefits of a science career.

And I want to identify the best ways to attract people into science.
Perhaps what’s missing is longitudinal research into existing interventions to discover what’s most effective. But, who knows? I don’t want to overlook the simple solutions.

The number of places on forensic science degrees has more than doubled since 2002.

Call it the CSI effect, or perhaps the Silence Witness has spoken. Maybe a sexy TV drama would attract more young people to science than all our STEM initiatives put together.

Concluding remarks

So in conclusion, with an incoming Conservative government there will be no ideological revolution in science policy. Whatever the rhetoric, all parties will be forced to face the realities of the debt crisis and budget pressure.

My priority is to deliver the best possible environment for British science and innovation.

Science has a great future with Conservatives.

We are going to lean towards science, engineering and high-technology. We need to rebalance the economy.

And I think we’re ready to make that change.

Thank you.