UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Ruth Davidson – 2017 Speech at Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, at the Conservative Party conference held in Manchester on 2 October 2017.

    Thank you conference.

    It’s great to be here in Manchester. Or as I call it, the Southern powerhouse.

    I want to talk to you about the general election. In fact, I want to talk to you about two of them.

    The first one – two years ago.

    And for us in Scotland, the same old story.

    Knocking our pans in.

    Hitting countless doors, delivering thousands of leaflets, too many conversations to count, another pair of boots ruined.

    And at the end of it all?

    We started with one MP. We ended with one MP.

    We’d survived the SNP tsunami, but were no further forward than when we began.

    …we were still outgunned by those sodding pandas.

    But, two years later, we had a second election – this June.

    Back on the stump.

    Back knocking those same doors, delivering more leaflets, having thousands more conversations and – yes – by the end of it, another pair of boots totalled.

    But this time, it was different. This time people were looking for a serious alternative to a nationalism that had let down our schools and was more concerned with division than delivery.

    And we went from one MP to 13. Our best result in decades.

    After years of heroically holding the line on his own, suddenly David Mundell got some company.

    The pandas are going to have to go some, to catch up now…

    It’s been quite a ride, conference.

    And we’re not done yet – far from it.

    But, conference, we didn’t turn things around in one seven-week campaign.

    We did it through grafting hard between elections. By organising. By making and remaking the argument.

    And I have watched. With incredulity, the response to the Labour party conference this week.

    Commentators, who should know better, declaring Jeremy Corbyn as a shoo-in to number 10, just because Glastonbury chanted his name to the White Stripes. Folks, he hasnae even won a raffle.

    Well, conference I have been here before and I can tell you how this story ends.

    I have watched as Nicola Sturgeon sold out rock venues. As she released a line of signature clothing. As she sold foam fingers to the faithful so they could point at the sky as she flew in a helicopter she’d slapped her face on, over their heads.

    I’ve read the commentary that said her momentum was irresistible, that everything would be swept before her.

    And all the other parties in Scotland should just pack up, and go home.

    Well, conference, I don’t like anyone telling me where to go.

    Politics is not for faint hearts. It’s not about what’s in fashion or who is the absolute boy.

    It’s about making the case for what you believe in.

    It’s about service and duty and getting the job done. Delivering for others. And giving everyone the chance to get on.

    And, just as the SNP came crashing down to earth. Just as they lost 40 per cent of their seats in June. Just as half a million Scots chose to take their vote away. So too can the Corbyn bubble burst, but only if we work hard to make it so.

    Because, you know what? People tire of being offered free unicorns. Of easy promises that don’t add up.

    They want serious solutions to the issues facing their world.

    They want opportunities to make their own lives better.

    A good school so their children can do anything they set their mind to.

    A strong economy so they’ll always have the security of work.

    Well-funded public services to look after their needs

    And to keep more of their own money because they make better decisions for their family’s future than the state makes for them.

    That’s what we offer. That’s what Theresa May offers.

    A belief in country, duty, service and the power of people.

    And that’s what we fight for.

    Always. We fight.

    ……

    We may have five years, but I tell you – we need to get to work right now.

    Because the in-tray is full.

    Firstly. Brexit.

    It’s time to get the best deal we can.

    And you know what?

    It’s time we in this party made it clear – that we’re not Leavers or Remainers anymore – we’re just Brits.

    People who were asked to make a decision. Did. And now want to deliver that decision in the best way possible. Who now must unite behind our leader to get the best deal for us and the right deal for Europe as well.

    Next we’ve got to deliver that strong economy and world-class public services.

    Ten years of tough times since the crash – it’s time to show working families right across the UK – from a tenement in Glasgow, to a one-bed in Grantham – that we’ve got their back.

    Yes, we’ve got record employment in the UK today – but we also need to recognise the pressures faced by the job-juggling generation, where two or even three jobs are needed to make ends meet.

    The sheer effort that takes – just to keep going.

    The strain it puts on relationships.

    The stress of not knowing if you’re going to make your rent.

    And what will happen if you can’t.

    These people are looking to us for answers – and for action to make their lives easier.

    It’s our duty to deliver.

    Also, to make our country fairer.

    To make it clear: this party isn’t there for those at the top of the ladder – this party IS a ladder.

    It’s what we’re about: to help people move up and get on.

    To be the party of home-building.

    The party that enshrines excellence in education – no matter the school.

    The party that will take action on the low wage economy and help lift living standards.

    Further, to be a beacon in the world. To help those that are hurting and fight for those who can’t fight for themselves. To go into bat for our friends and allies.

    To be able to say when you go abroad that despite the financial hit of the last few years – that my country, our country, kept its commitments to the world’s poor and will continue to do so.

    And finally, conference, to stay united.

    To stay one United Kingdom.

    By being a nation that realises the ambitions of everyone in this country. That seeks to be a home for all who live here.

    And I mean everyone.

    From the people who voted to leave the UK, to the majority who voted to stay…

    From the people who voted to remain in the EU to the people who voted to leave.

    From the people who can trace their ancestors back through generations, to people who’ve settled here from somewhere else.

    …who pursued that innate Conservative instinct to better themselves and their families and build a new life in a new land.

    We need to stand together, Not defensive in this diversity and our sometime disagreement – but to be confident in our ability to embrace difference and debate.

    And to have the courage to confront not just our strengths but our weaknesses too.

    We are a remarkable Union, conference.

    Because of the leadership of this party – our Union is known the world over as a Union of choice, not of force.

    A Union that, three years ago, put our democratic right to choose whether to leave before its very survival.

    That’s not nothing. In fact, the more time passes, the more remarkable it becomes.

    And let’s say it loud and proud – that this is a Union that that does not hoard power to the centre, but has sought to push it out.

    And again, did so thanks to a Conservative party which – as Edinburgh, as Cardiff, Manchester and Teeside will attest – is now THE party of devolution.

    Not Labour, certainly not the LibDems. Us.

    And a party that now wants to use Brexit to go further – to ensure that the power surge that will hit Britain when we leave the EU is felt in Edinburgh, in Cardiff Bay and in Stormont too.

    I’m proud of that, conference. I’m proud of all we’ve done in the last few years to keep this country together and move forward as one.

    But we should recognise that these huge changes to our nation pose challenges too.

    Devolution of power has transformed our nation for the better. It has put power closer to people.

    But – at the same time – while we’ve built vigorous new devolved structures, we’ve not done enough to nurture that which binds us.

    As the Prime Minister said in Scotland earlier this year, all too often, Whitehall devolves and forgets.

    And the danger is that we become a country that stays together, but lives apart.

    With the cracks exploited by those who would pull us apart for good.

    So let me make a plea today.

    Yes – let’s absolutely press on with more devolution. But it’s time for a bit more Union too.

    More Union right across Britain.

    More Union in all parts of our nation – benefiting us all.

    More Union spread evenly– and not just based in London.

    ***
    Now let me make this clear: conference, I love London.

    No plans to move there myself, but great to visit.

    And it’s wonderful that our small island nation plays host to the capital of the world.

    But the truth is: for all the devolution of power in the last twenty years, our Union continues to be far too London-centric.

    Compare us to our friends around the world. New York’s global status doesn’t diminish Washington’s political clout, or LA’s creativity, or Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurialism. Instead, America has a cluster of great global cities.

    Or look at Germany – where Berlin’s political heft is balanced by the financial hub of Frankfurt and the industry of Munich.

    We’re the odd one out – in fact, among major global capitals, only Moscow accounts for a greater share of national product than London.

    And this imbalance is getting crazy.

    We live in a country where the property values of London’s top 10 boroughs are worth more than all of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales combined.

    Where you can sell a three bed semi in Ilford, and buy half of Sutherland.

    Where, in a capital city already zooming forward on the jet fuel of high finance, the economy is further boosted by enough civil servants to fill Wembley.

    It is time for change – to fulfil the plans we set out at the election this year…
    …to give Britain a shake and spread more of our Union outside the capital.

    To see our great metropolitan cities have a larger share in the government of our country.

    To ensure that – if our civil service and cultural bodies are to claim to be UK institutions – they must be present across our whole United Kingdom.

    To move more of the infrastructure, the people and the administration of our country out of the capital and into the country.

    It is happening to a degree already of course.

    More civil service jobs coming to my constituency in central Edinburgh.

    The fantastic new V+A museum rising up in Dundee, ready to show the best of Scottish and British design.

    And here in Manchester, the Northern Powerhouse now showing the way ahead.

    But I want to see more. We need to see more.

    The government’s industrial strategy is designed to boost growth in places across all four nations of the United Kingdom.

    And it’s reviewing the various agencies based in London to see which ones could be ready for a move.

    So I want us to seize the opportunity to ensure more of them come to Scotland.

    Conference, here’s the bottom line.

    The success of our Union cannot and should not be measured by the fact the alternative has failed.

    That separation is a busted flush.

    No – our success must be measured by our determination to always improve.

    By going the extra mile. By refusing to accept the status quo as a given. And being restless for change.

    By recognising that thousands of our fellow countrymen and women no longer see this country as theirs.

    By seeking not to shun them, or dismiss their complaints – but to answer them with action.

    And that must be our task as we go forward from conference this week.

    In Government, across the United Kingdom, united behind our Prime Minister, determined to face the challenges of the future.

    To tackle injustice.

    To be the ladder.

    To create real social cohesion.

    And – in opposition in Scotland – we must be ready to change, and to win.

    Because, I don’t know about you, but after ten years of SNP Government, it seems to me like it’s time for a new broom.

    It’s not going to be Scottish Labour, by the way.

    They swap leaders so often that Trump’s communications director feels sorry for them.

    But us? We’re serious.

    …serious about restoring Scotland’s reputation as the education capital of the world.

    ….serious about boosting our productivity – to get Scotland’s economy firing once again.

    And serious about running a government in Scotland that just gets on with the job for once.

    A government you can trust to focus on the tough choices.

    To dump the tedious grievance politics and the petty complaints.

    Instead, to act as a grown-up partner within a reformed United Kingdom – eager not just to better Scotland but – in so doing – to better our wider nation too.

    As a party that, in Scotland, is re-engaging with our roots.

    A party as Teddy Taylor once put it, isn’t just there for the people in the ‘big hooses’.

    But for those who clean their tenement step as well.

    That’s the party we are building in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

    A party that speaks to the hopes of our nation as a whole.

    From car production lines in Coventry to contact centre staff in Cardiff.

    From ship workers in Glasgow to software designers in Dundee.

    A party that reaches out to every corner of our country with a level head, but also an open heart.

    And with a clear set of values.

    …That strong families are the foundation of a stable society.

    …A good education is the key to a lifetime of opportunity.

    …That everybody should have a safe and secure home.

    …That there should be a job for everyone who wants to work – and that pay should be fair.

    These are the things I believe in – and I know you believe in them too.

    So it’s time for us – all of us – to unite and fight.

    Unite and fight for the union of our nation

    …For the security people want.

    …For the prosperity families need.

    …For the future our young people deserve.

    Unite and fight for this country we are proud to serve.

  • David Gauke – 2017 Speech at Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Gauke, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, at the Conservative Party conference held in Manchester on 2 October 2017.

    In 2010, our economy faced a crisis.

    We were borrowing more than at any time in our peace time history.

    Unemployment had risen by nearly 850,000 in the previous two years, we had just under 4 million workless households.

    Our welfare system had become much more expensive, increasing in real terms by £82 billion over 13 years. But we still had a dysfunctional benefit system that failed to properly reward work and left too many trapped in a life of dependency.

    And where are we today?

    Youth unemployment down by over 400,000
    Long term unemployment down by 400,000
    600,000 more disabled people are in work

    Today, do not let anyone forget, there are over 3 million more jobs in this country than seven years ago.

    And only a very small minority of those jobs have been filled by George Osborne!

    This country’s remarkable jobs story is one of the reasons why it is such a privilege to have been appointed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to build on the work of Iain Duncan Smith, Stephen Crabb and Damian Green.

    Helping millions into work is not the only way the department supports those in need:

    We have established auto enrolled pensions. By the end of August, over 8.5 million people had been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension.

    We are giving employers the tools they need to recruit, retain and support disabled people. Almost 5,000 employers have signed up to the Disability Confident scheme so far, and this number is growing rapidly.

    And I’d like to thank my excellent ministerial team. Penny Mordaunt, Damian Hinds, Caroline Dinenage, Guy Opperman and Peta Buscombe. I’m fortunate to have such a strong team and I would like to thank them – and all the department’s frontline staff up and down the country – for all that they do.

    The work that we do touches on the lives of millions of our fellow citizens.

    We know that to improve the living standards of the poorest in society, we need a strong economy and a job creating economy. Without the tax receipts that a strong economy provides, we cannot support those that need it most. And we also know that it is through work that people have a chance to progress and to provide for their own economic security.

    As Conservatives we do not believe, we have never believed, that we can turn our backs on those most in need.

    As Conservatives we believe in a strong and compassionate welfare state that helps everyone fulfil their potential.

    In truth, the strength and compassion of a welfare system should not be measured just by the money you spend, but by the lives you transform.

    Among the people that need more support are those with mental health conditions.

    Helping them has rightly been a priority for the Prime Minister. The UK is increasingly a world leader in treatment and Jeremy Hunt is doing great work here. We understand more than in the past that mental health conditions are a barrier to work but, if we can help people into employment, for many, work can be part of the solution.

    That’s why we have trained 1800 Universal Credit work coaches in how to support claimants with mental health issues. To further support Jobcentre work coaches, we have developed an enhanced mental health training programme. Following testing, I can therefore confirm that by the end of the year, it will be made available to all those work coaches who would benefit from it.

    Of course, there are some people who suffer from such severe disabilities that they will never be able to work. Last year, my predecessor, Damian Green, announced that we were looking to exclude those with severe lifetime health conditions from any requirement to be reassessed for out-of-work benefits. After early tests of this approach, it has now been implemented and I can tell you that around twice as many people are expected to benefit from this reform than were originally thought.

    It is right that we focus our disability benefits on those that need it most. We will support those who are unable to work, while helping those who can work to maximise their potential.

    And this is consistent with our approach to the welfare system. An effective welfare system is about eliminating the barriers to work. And it is working, with an employment rate higher than the US, and an unemployment rate half that of the Eurozone.

    Of course, we should acknowledge the importance of the job creators in this country. The entrepreneurs, the businesses that have created opportunities, taken on staff and given people the chance to earn a living, and support themselves and their families.

    And we should celebrate the determination of the so many of the British people to get in work and to stay in work, so often showing an ability to adapt and be flexible.

    The phrase ‘hard working families’, is sometimes seen as a bit of a politicians’ cliché. (And, frankly, it is.) But it is also a fair description of so many people in this country.

    Our job-creating businesses and our hard-working people. They are the real heroes of the British economy. And the Conservative Party will always value them and always be on their side.

    But let us not hide our light under a bushel. Even with all the excellent businesses out there and our industrious workforce, the British jobs miracle would not have happened without the measures we have taken in government.

    The cuts in income tax that meant the low paid could keep more of what they earnt.

    The cuts in corporation tax that have encouraged investment.

    And the welfare reforms that have put work at the heart of our system – ensuring better results for claimants, and fairness for the people whose taxes pay for it.

    All of this has meant that every day we have been in office, 1114 jobs have been created. A remarkable achievement.

    I talk about work a lot. After all, it is in my new title.

    But we should all talk about it – we have a great record.

    I have given you the statistics, but these are not abstract numbers. These are lives transformed, prospects raised, economic security provided. We should be proud of that.

    And let us be very clear. None of that would have happened had Labour been in power. And all of it would be put at risk if Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell got their hands on the British economy.

    The unreconstructed socialism they offer has failed every time and in every country it has been tried.

    Let me tell you who would pay the price if they got the chance to inflict their failed ideology here. It wouldn’t be the super-rich – they’d just up sticks and move abroad. But it would be:

    – those struggling to get by
    – the hard pressed worker who couldn’t afford higher taxes
    – the person who lost their job when a business pulls out of the country
    – the young person who can’t even get on the jobs ladder because of higher unemployment.

    There is nothing compassionate about destroying the public finances, driving out businesses and passing on huge debts to future generations.

    And remember, unemployment always increases under a Labour government. Even when the relatively sensible ones were in charge!

    We have achieved much, but there is more to do.

    We inherited a welfare system that puts in place barriers to people fulfilling their potential.

    The person working part time, worried about working more than 16 hours a week because they will move from one set of benefits to another – and then will have to move back again if there is a fall in their hours.

    The worker reluctant to take on more responsibility because they’ll lose almost as much from reduced benefits as they gain in pay.

    The person who just wants to do all they can to provide for themselves and their family.

    Too many lives have been held back by a complex benefits where progressing in work is seen as a risk not worth taking.

    That is why Iain Duncan Smith came forward with Universal Credit, the most radical reform to our benefits system since the Second World War. Scrapping six benefits and replacing them with one and ensuring that work always pays. And, a point that should be appreciated more, we are giving claimants the increased personalised support of work coaches. They are working with claimants to help eliminate their barriers to work.

    It is the right vision and I want to pay tribute to Iain for having the courage and determination to pursue this transformative change.

    In 101 job centres up and down the country, it is already in operation. The evidence is already clear. It is helping more people into work and it is helping more people in work to progress to better jobs.

    Delivering a simpler system that encourages work and supports aspiration.

    I understand the concerns that have been raised that, when people first claim, they have to wait six weeks or more before they receive a penny.

    It is the case that what you get in Universal Credit depends on what you have earned over the previous month, so payments are made in arrears.

    But I am determined to ensure that those who need support earlier in the month will get it. It is already the case that if people need help before the first full benefit payment, they can quickly get an advance to help tide them over.

    Increasing numbers of people now claim this – since June, the majority of claimants did so. However, I can announce today that we are refreshing the guidance to DWP staff to ensure that anyone who needs an advance payment will be offered it up-front. Claimants who want an advance payment will not have to wait six weeks. They will receive this advance within 5 working days.

    And if someone is in immediate need, then we fast track the payment, meaning they will receive it on the same day.

    Universal Credit is working. So I can confirm that the rollout will continue, and to the planned timetable. We’re not going to rush things – it is more important to get this right than to do this quickly, and this won’t be completed until 2022. But across the country, we will continue to transform our welfare system to further support those who aspire to work.

    Universal credit is the next step on our journey. A journey to a welfare state that gives people the help that they need but does not trap them in dependency.

    A welfare state that believes we have to support the vulnerable but that simply signing a cheque is not enough.

    A welfare state that is on the side of all of those who aspire to fulfil their potential.

    It is a vision of the welfare state that is compassionate, practical and aspirational. It is, in short, a Conservative vision for a modern welfare state

  • Archie Norman – 1997 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Archie Norman, the then Conservative MP for Tunbridge Wells, in the House of Commons on 3 July 1997.

    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech on the important subject of the Budget. I congratulate Labour Members who have made their maiden speeches today and welcome their interest in the businesses in their constituencies, especially the highly profitable ones in Leamington Spa. I share their interest and that of the Chancellor in the business community, but perhaps in a more substantial way. I should declare that I am chairman of Asda—the largest private sector employer based in the north of England—a director of Railtrack and a former director of British Rail. That establishes my public sector credentials as well.
    I have tried to speak in the Chamber in previous debates, and I think this is about my 11th hour of taking assiduous notes. I have listened to many excellent maiden speeches and, as a result, my geography has been much improved. On this occasion, I do not intend to give the House a guided tour of my constituency, but I should like to speak about my predecessor, Sir Patrick Mayhew, who is now Lord Mayhew of Twysden.

    It is not difficult to pay tribute to Lord Mayhew. He was a distinguished Attorney-General and his contribution as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was remarkable. He undertook the role with an open mind, great objectivity, integrity, enthusiasm and relish, and he brought the prospect of lasting peace in Northern Ireland closer than at any time in the previous two decades. In the constituency and in the House. Sir Patrick was, in all respects, larger than life. He succeeded in making a contribution which was in many ways beyond politics. His halo still shines brightly in Tunbridge Wells and, as I am constantly reminded, he leaves large shoes to fill.

    Mine is a delightful constituency, situated in Kent in the heart of England. Its focal point is Royal Tunbridge Wells, a spa town which was famous in the 18th century for its royal visitors who, I suspect, were able to get there rather more quickly than today’s commuters. It has two major public finance initiative projects which are important to the local community and which were supported by the Conservative Government. The first is the long-awaited dualling of the A21, which is the main arterial route from London to Hastings. The second is a desperately needed new hospital because the Kent and Sussex hospital is divided into two parts and has outdated facilities. A PFI project for a new hospital is at an advanced stage.

    Regrettably, both projects have been called in for one of the new Government’s ubiquitous reviews. That means that, within two months of the election, my constituents fear that they may have to pay a steep price for a Labour Government. I hope that those fears are unjustified. The people of Tunbridge Wells are famous, apart from anything else, for the forthright expression of their views in national newspapers. They are vigorous letter writers, as the Minister will find out before long if our transport and health projects are not approved.

    My warning may be a little too late for the Chancellor. He will hear from many home owners in Tunbridge Wells and especially from those whose incomes are less than £15,000 a year. The majority of those who benefit from MIRAS are in that income range, and their incomes have been cut as a result of the Chancellor’s action.

    Many of my constituents are retired or saving for retirement and their pension funds will be hit by the changes to advance corporation tax. The abolition of tax relief on private medical insurance affects many of my constituents who are in nursing homes and many people in the insurance industry. It is short-sighted, mean-spirited and economically insignificant and can only add to the pressure on the health service. It is greatly regretted by my constituents. My ambition is to rebrand my constituents “Contented from Tunbridge Wells”, but I fear that the Government have done little in their first few months to help me to achieve that aim.

    Two of the Chancellor’s main themes were business and employment. Unlike many Labour Members, I believe that experience in business, enterprise and industry is good for the Government and for the House. I am proud of my record in business and of the companies that I served. I welcome the Chancellor’s intention to be business-friendly, and I also welcome the promotion of people with business experience to the Government. The appointment of the Paymaster General and of David Simon, the former chairman of British Petroleum, are a welcome recognition of the contribution that business can make to the policy and process of government. I am glad to see that my friend Howard Davies has been given a leading role in the Securities and Investments Board. It is good to see a former McKinsey man in gainful employment in public services. Hopefully, he will not be the last.

    It was reported at the weekend in, I think, The Sunday Times that Martin Taylor had turned down a ministerial job. Of course, BP and Barclays are among Britain’s 10 largest companies: Asda is about the 50th. Perhaps as the Chancellor works his way down the list I will eventually receive a call. My badge from my shopkeeping days reads, “Happy to help”, which has always been my motto, but, of course, I cannot be certain that my help would be the sort that the Chancellor has in mind.

    It is not long since the Secretary of State for Health described people like me as stinking, thieving, lousy, incompetent scum. Even as I read the words I find them amazing. One of the great strengths of the House is that hon. Members are able to speak freely, and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I hope that there is a little truth in the last part of his epithet because my dictionary defines scum as matter which rises to the top in an otherwise murky liquid. The right hon. Gentleman’s words were, in the main, different from the more honeyed prose that we have heard from the Labour party in the past two years. Its business manifesto states that a Labour Government would create a dynamic and supportive environment in which business can prosper and thrive. We hope that they will succeed in that endeavour, although it will be hard to better the achievement of the Conservative Government in the past 18 years, during which period there has been a comprehensive managerial revolution in the way in which we manage and employ people, create success and invite investment into the United Kingdom. To date, the words from the Government have been friendly, but the substance, I fear, has been increasingly hostile.

    The Chancellor said that this is a Budget for investment and to secure our future. Business people are, in the main, practical, and we will wonder quite what he means. Our economy’s future depends on competitiveness and profit and, so far, the balance sheet does not look too good. To start with, business people will wonder whether it is logical for a Government, who make much of the need for investment in infrastructure, transport and the waterworks, to reduce the prospect of further investment with a windfall tax.

    The Chancellor said that the tax will not affect investment, employment or the cost of services. In fact, it clearly will. It takes investment cash from those companies, and it defies belief to suppose that obliging utilities to gear up and take on more debt will have no effect on investment. Surely we are all financially literate enough in this day and age to understand that taxing more means investing less. Stage two, we fear, may be regulation to force the investment, which the Government have made less attractive, by other means.

    Business people will wonder also where the logic is in Labour’s plans for the proceeds of the tax. They are to be used, apparently, to subsidise wages to create temporary jobs, but permanent jobs will be threatened as wage costs will be driven up with the introduction of a minimum wage. Those of us with experience of employing people and of being employed do not need to be the principal of the London business school to know that a minimum wage will mean fewer jobs. It will hit the most vulnerable people in society—in many respects, those whom the welfare-to-work programme is supposed to help, including the unskilled in particular, the handicapped, the young, the old and, yes, single mothers who work part time.

    There is a piece of hypocrisy floating around that the minimum wage is a form of competitiveness—that it will even up the competitive field between employers who exploit employees by paying less and those who do not. The reality is that big business will not be affected by the minimum wage, but small business will. The companies affected will not be large and profitable; they will be the corner shop, the local pub, the small hairdresser and those that we need to support most.

    Business people will wonder also how opting into the social chapter will help our competitiveness. I was curious and interested to hear the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) say that businesses in Leamington Spa were not concerned. That is not my experience. Many small businesses throughout the UK are in favour of a free-trading Europe, but wholly opposed to further regulation in the form of the social chapter. New regulations in the form of works councils, supervisory boards and paternity requirements can bring us only closer to a European model of inflexibility and ossification.

    Business people will wonder also how taxing pension contributions by limiting tax relief on advance corporation tax can do other than raise the cost of employment. It is irrelevant for the Chancellor to justify that measure by claiming, as he did yesterday: Many pension funds are in substantial surplus”.—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 306.] If they are in surplus, that is a consequence of the funds that have been injected and of their investment performance. Those companies with surplus funds are taking advantage of that by improving their profits through a pension holiday. By definition, eliminating the scope for pension holidays means reducing those profits. It follows that, if those pension funds are in deficit in future, the money to fund them will have to come out of corporate profits. The £5.4 billion that this measure will raise has to come from somewhere. The cost of the Budget is in company profits and individual savings. That is corporation tax by another name for companies and a savings tax by another name for pensions.

    It would be churlish of me not to welcome the cut in corporation tax, particularly for small businesses, many of which will benefit in my constituency, but the balance sheet for businesses in the first eight weeks of this Government is in the red—a small cut in their tax bill for a large slice of their pensions and a large increase in pension contributions.

    After this Budget, business people will ask whether we have a Government who mean what they say about business, or a Government for whom business was simply a nice idea and who simply said what the electorate hoped they would. The Chancellor’s grand words about investment and long-termism belie a fundamental shift in Government tone and policy—a shift towards a belief that it is Governments who create jobs and shape the economy. The question that business people will be asking is whether new Labour means a new form of socialism—not the ownership socialism of the past, but the regulatory socialism of continental Europe.

    The assumption behind the Budget appears to be that the Government can engineer investment, whereas, in the business world, we know that subsidised investment is often the worst form of investment. The other assumption is that the Government can engineer and create jobs, whereas, in the business world, we know that subsidised jobs are often of the poorest quality and temporary.

    It is not my intention to be unreasonably contentious, The Chancellor’s aspiration to improve competitiveness and long-termism is, of course, one which we share. It is the means that we contest. This Budget is not a people’s Budget, as the people will have to pay more tax. It is not a Budget for competitiveness or for enterprise. It is a Budget of taxation to enable a Labour Government to pursue political policies that involve spending more of the “people’s money” on their well-meaning, but perhaps ill-judged, projects.

    It is not a good Budget for business, for middle Britain or for my constituents in Tunbridge Wells. The business world is pragmatic, not ideological. Most business men operate in their commercial interests and in those of their shareholders and employees. We judge people by what they deliver, not by what they say. As far as we can, we call a spade a spade. Substance triumphs over style, decisions over reviews, and we will hold the Chancellor to account for his promises. Today, the jury may still be out, but the first signs for business and enterprise are ominous—very ominous indeed.

  • Dadabhai Naoroji – 1893 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Dadabhai Naoroji, the then Liberal MP for Finsbury Central, in the House of Commons on 28 February 1893.

    MR. NAOROJI (Finsbury, Central) said he did not wish to go into the question of the merits of monometallism and bimetallism. He wished merely to refer to the chief argument of bimetallists, which was that France had stood by bimetallism for 70 years, and had thereby introduced a fixed ratio between gold and silver. The question now was whether the bimetallism of France had been the cause of keeping the ratio between gold and silver steady, or whether it was not the fact that the ratio of gold and silver was not steady even when the system of bimetallism existed in France. He would ask if bimetallism had steadied that ratio why had it been broken up, and why had France given it up?

    When bimetallism existed in France there had been no universal consent between France and the other nations of the world, and why was that universal consent required now if bimetallism had any virtue in it? His contention was that when the time came that the ratio between gold and silver had become steadier they might have bimetallism or not, for it would come to the same thing. But India was the subject on which he wished to address the House principally. It had been said over and over again in the course of the Debate by one side that India had been largely benefited by the fall in exchange, and by the other side that India had been injured by the fall in exchange. It was difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to which side to believe, for each side had said it had official authority for its assertion. Instead of making general statements of that kind he would lay before the House a simple ordinary trade transaction from which they would be able to judge how far the difference in the two currencies in England and India, and the rise and fall in exchange, affected India. But in considering the subject they should always remember that India was in an unfortunate economic condition.

    They should consider India in two aspects—both as a self-governing country, like China independent of outside political influences, and as a country under foreign domination, with many important forces influencing her for evil and for good. Let them first take India as situated like China or any other self-governing country that had a silver currency.

    As far as trade and commerce between two independent countries were concerned it made no difference what currency existed in those countries. He would illustrate that by a simple trade transaction. A trader in India had to sell a hundred bales of cotton which cost him R.10,000. He sent the cotton to an agent in England to sell with directions to forward him the net proceeds of the sale. When the exchange stood at par rate of 2s. a rupee the trader had in calculating his profits to take that into consideration, as well as freight and insurance, and he would know exactly that he had to get a certain price, say 6d., for his cotton, in order to get his original R. 10,000 back and a profit of say another R.1,000. But suppose the rupee stood at 1s. instead of 2s. in exchange. In that case the trader would get only 3d. per pound instead of 6d. per pound for his cotton to cover his R.11,000. As exchange fell prices fell with it proportionately in England, and all the talk about India getting immense quantities of silver when there was a fall in exchange was simply absurd. The Manchester manufacturer was not such a fool as to pay 6d. per pound for cotton in England when by sending a telegram to Bombay he would be able to get the same cotton for 3d. per pound.

    His contention was, that whether there were two separate currencies in the two separate countries or not it had no weight or effect on the one country or the other, commercially, and in any case the Indian trader in the business transaction he had mentioned got back the money he had invested and in ordinary circumstances a profit of 10 per cent. In these controversies there was always a reference to prices. It was said that on such and such an occasion prices were high, and that on such another occasion prices were low. That was a very fallacious test, because the ultimate prices of commodities were not the result of one particular force, but the result of many forces, such as supply and demand, exchange, cost of production, &c. He was exceedingly thankful to those hon. Members who had shown so much sympathy towards India, but somehow or other the argument was always on the side for which it served its purpose. India was at one time exceedingly poor, and at another time exceedingly prosperous. But whatever the state of India might be, the system of exchange had nothing to do with it. Then take India, as it was, under foreign domination. It was true that India, under her peculiar circumstances, felt the pinch. India had to remit £16,000,000 sterling to this country every year. This year, or perhaps next year, it would unfortunately be £19,000,000, because for several years the India Office had got capital paid by Railway Companies in England, and did not require to draw their bills in India to that extent.

    The whole evil arising from the fall in exchange was this: that the disease already existed in India, and that fall in exchange came in and complicated it. If the disease of excessive European Services did not exist it would not be the slightest consequence whether the exchange was 6d. or 1s., or 2s. or 4s. the rupee. The position was, therefore, this: India had to send from her “scanty subsistence” a quantity of produce to this country equal to the value of £19,000,000 in gold. As gold had risen, India had to send more produce in proportion to the rise in gold, no matter what the currency was — silver, or copper, or anything. The sympathies of those who wished well to India in the course of the Debate were therefore a little misdirected. The remedy for the evils from which India was suffering did not lie in introducing bimetallism, or changing the currency into gold or restricting the silver currency, but in reducing the expenses of the excessive European Services to reasonable limits.

    After a hundred years of British administration—an administration that had been highly paid and praised— an administration consisting of the same class of men as occupied the two Front Benches, India had not progressed, and while England had progressed in wealth by leaps and bounds—from about £10 in the beginning of the century to £40 per head—India produced now only the wretched amount of £2 per head per annum. He appealed to the House, therefore, to carefully consider the case of India. He knew that Britain did not want India to suffer—he was sure that if the House knew how to remedy the evil they would do justice to India, but he wished to point out that bimetallism and the other artificial devices that had been put forward were simply useless, and that India would get no relief from them whatever. On the contrary, much mischief would be the result. With regard to the meeting of the Conference again, he thought it would be useless.

    In 1866, when Overend, Gurney, and Company failed, when many of the East India banks broke or were shaken to their foundations, and Bombay was in ruins, entirely on account of the fall in the price of cotton, no man in his senses tried to save this or that merchant, and raise the price of cotton somehow or other. The storm raged and ran its course. Many a well-known name passed into oblivion, but in a year or two no one thought anything more about it; cotton came in as usual from the interior, new men came into the field, and all the ruin was forgotten. The mischief was done in the present instance by the United States.

    There was a commercial disturbance, coming from demonetisation in Germany, or the excessive production of silver in America; just as storms arise in the physical world. The United States undertook the absurd feat of trying to stop it, and keep up the price of silver, and the result was that the more it was stemmed the greater force it acquired. Twenty years of suffering had been due entirely to this one mistake. The Indian people would be the greatest sufferers, but the storm must take its course. They could no more stop it than they could order gravitation to become non-existent, or make water run upward. Silver would go on falling until it had reached its proper bottom; the Indian and Chinese currencies would remain; there would be silver-using and gold-using countries, and the amount of silver that would come into operation would be useful in one way or another.

    On the one hand they were told that it was law that had made all this confusion, and the very same gentlemen who told them so would rush to the same law again to produce an artificial and worse condition of affairs. They must allow laws, commercial, physical, moral, or political, to be governed by nature. If they tried to stop the storm, the result would be far more disastrous. Conferences might meet, but they would not reach any conclusion except some artificial device which would merely cause more mischief. It was said that France was anxious for bimetallism and laid the blame of her not adopting it on England. But when France and the other Latin nations had bimetallism silver took its own course, and there was no use laying the blame on England now. He was of opinion that England must stick to the sound scientific principle of currency that she had adopted. Nor should she allow the currency of India to be tampered with. He thanked the House for the favourable hearing accorded to him, and hoped that before any step was taken to change the currency system either of this country or of India they would think once, twice, and three times.

  • Stephen Barclay – 2017 Speech at FT Investment Management Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Barclay, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to the FT Investment Management Summit on 28 September 2017.

    The UK is currently the best place in the world for asset management.

    That’s not my bias talking, as someone who’s worked in the City and is now the industry’s leading advocate in government.

    It was the assessment of the Global Financial Centres Index just last month – ranking London top for asset management activity, ahead of both New York and Hong Kong.

    So today I will speak about what the government has done to support that reputation, and what the government will do to preserve and enhance it going forward.

    We’ve got the largest asset management industry in Europe here, with around £8 trillion in assets under management – more than France, Germany and Italy combined.

    Globally, there are $69 trillion in assets under management and 7% growth over the last 12 months. This presents the UK with a great opportunity to use our proven strengths to gain an increasing share of this business.

    And the UK asset management industry is truly global.

    Just five years ago, UK firms managed £790 billion on behalf of non-EU investors. Today, that figure has surpassed £1 trillion.

    But there are huge opportunities for further growth, with the UK poised to capitalise on developments in emerging markets.

    In China, there are already £6 trillion in assets under management and that figure is growing at over 10% per year.

    In India, there are £1.8 trillion in AuM.

    And around 83% of all Masala bonds are listed in the UK, which is worth £1.8 billion.

    While in South America, the opportunities in Brazil with £900 billion in AuM are well known.

    But there are also emerging opportunities in other countries such as Argentina, Chile, Peru and Columbia.

    Having this specialism here in the UK brings a lot of tangible benefits for people.

    Obviously, there are the tax revenues this sector brings in. Which is particularly pertinent from government’s perspective.

    But there are also the jobs it provides – over 90,000 all in all – not just in London, but in cities across the UK, like Edinburgh, Leeds and Bristol.

    There are the funds it manages that allow British savers to plan for their future.

    The finance it offers to our businesses to help them grow.

    The investment it can bring to our big infrastructure projects.

    And there’s the essential liquidity it provides to our financial markets.

    All in all, the asset management sector makes an enormous contribution to our economy as a whole – supporting British success in ways many people outside of the sector under appreciate.

    I want to be clear that the government understands the strategic importance of the UK asset management sector and, alongside insurance, it is an industry with truly global reach.

    That’s why we’re keen to keep the UK as the premier global location for asset management.

    Now I know we’ve heard people questioning whether that will remain the case after Brexit.

    I want to tackle that head on – I get that what the industry needs most is certainty and clarity around Brexit – and I want to reassure you that we’re working hard to get that as soon as possible.

    This is a government that will keep taking action to support you in the work you do. And we have taken action.

    When my colleague, Sajid Javid, was City Minister, we abolished Schedule 19, which acted as a proxy for the principal stamp duty reserve tax charge.

    This charge was previously seen as a major deterrent to domiciling funds in the UK and its abolition enhanced the competitiveness of the UK funds industry considerably.

    And now – assets managed in UK funds on behalf of UK investors have reached £1 trillion. A 13% increase in the past year alone.

    We worked with the FCA to cut fund authorisation time in half to a maximum of 3 months.

    We introduced the Private Fund Limited Partnership to reduce the administrative burdens for funds operating as a limited partnership.

    We overhauled how we do our overseas marketing and promotion – working with the sector to make the most of global opportunities to market the UK’s strengths.

    I was in Brazil myself for the Economic and Financial Dialogue earlier in the summer, and had the chance to discuss the significant opportunities that exist to further promote investment and capital flows between our two markets.

    These are opportunities that we’re determined to realise, whether that’s attracting Brazilian pension funds to the UK or enabling UK firms to do more business in Brazil.

    The Department of International Trade is also working to promote UK industry abroad and encouraging overseas firms to set up in the UK through the “one-stop-shop” approach adopted in 2013.

    That’s just an illustration –there’s much we’ve done to support this industry.

    And with your expertise, the UK’s economies of scale, the strong network of ancillary services, and our high-standard regulation, asset management has flourished here.

    So what we’re going to do as we manage our exit from the EU, is not let that go. Quite the opposite – I am determined to use the challenge posed by Brexit as a spur to capitalise on the underlying global reach of the sector.

    It is a central priority of the Treasury that the asset management sector thrives after the UK withdraws from the EU.

    Part of that work will include continuing to strongly support the global delegation model for portfolio management, in partnership with other countries that share our views on this issue.

    I know that a number of you are concerned about this, going forward.

    But I see the delegation model as an integral component of the asset management industry – not just for the UK, but for the US, Asia and the rest of Europe. And I know Megan Butler spoke about these points earlier today.

    It benefits everyone within the value chain, allowing firms to harness specialist expertise, promote efficient capital allocation and operate on a truly global basis.

    And this enables UK asset managers to sit at the heart of global investment allocation – turning the cumulative capital of millions of savers into investment beyond the UK.

    So I would like to reassure you that the government understands your concerns and is looking to preserve this global activity.

    And that is in the interests of Europe as well – a restricted delegation model would cause fragmentation and prompt funds located in Europe leave the continent for other financial centres such as New York or Hong Kong.

    But whether Brexit had happened or not, we would have still wanted to look at what more we could do to proactively enhance our competitiveness in this field.

    Brexit unlocks a renewed urgency for the government to turn its attention to the sector.

    Of course, some of you will have ideas for tax reform, and I am always happy to listen to those, especially where this unlocks growth.

    But beyond tax, there are four main areas I’ll be looking at.

    Firstly, I want to consider how we can ensure that the UK retains its status as a jurisdiction with gold standard regulation, in particular how we ensure simplicity in our regulatory approach.

    Because a robust and resilient regulatory framework provides the foundation for the growth and innovation that will be key to us moving forward.

    Secondly, I’ll be exploring FinTech solutions within the asset management industry.

    There’s huge potential in this area – for example, reducing investor charges through disintermediation or improving direct-to-consumer investments.

    As Europe’s largest centre for asset management and with the FCA’s world-class regulatory hub for the development of FinTech business, the UK is uniquely placed to take advantage of FinTech trends.

    Whether it is through innovative robo-advice models, helping consumers invest wisely or blockchain solutions to reduce back office costs.

    Thirdly, I’ll be considering how we can generate an environment that stimulates innovation within the sector.

    There are already a number of initiatives that asset managers can capitalise on – patient capital and green finance are just two examples.

    So far this year, $79 billion worth of green bonds have been issued across the globe and the market is expected to reach $150 billion by the end of the year – demonstrating the importance of this growth market.

    And I’m leading a Green Finance Taskforce with BEIS to make sure that government responds to this opportunity with cross-Whitehall collaboration and industry engagement at the most senior ministerial level.

    All in all, I want to ensure that government is engaged with the sector through these initiatives, and assess what further changes we can make to create a growth environment for asset management.

    And finally, skills.

    You don’t stay best in the world unless you can attract or develop the best talent in the world.

    That’s why I want to work with the industry to make sure we’re doing all we can to get that through. We are in close discussions with the Home Office to reassure, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that we want to attract the brightest and best.

    And with the Department for Education we are looking at ways to maximise the opportunities that the apprenticeship levy brings. So from next year firms will be able to pass on up 10% of funds to other firms in their supply chains. And it means bringing in scale – by 2019-20 the annual spend on apprenticeships in England will reach £2.45 billion, double what it was in 2010-11.

    So there are clear growth opportunities for the sector.

    And that extends beyond the UK, to our engagement with overseas markets across the globe – from Asia to South America – both through our existing Economic and Financial Dialogues and through new contact with emerging markets such as in Latin America.

    Both to ensure we are making the most of the opportunities to grow on the global stage, while also attracting more overseas asset managers, and international capital, to the UK – further developing our unique, diverse, and global financial services cluster.

    As part of the change in gear in government, I am delighted to announce that I am establishing an Asset Management Taskforce to look at how we stay ahead.

    This Taskforce will bring together CEOs within the UK asset management industry and senior representatives from investor groups and the FCA.

    It will be a forum to discuss how government, industry and the regulator can work collaboratively to stay competitive and deliver for investors.

    And it has come about in response to an industry request. After discussing the issues facing UK asset managers with CEO’s across the industry, there is a clear need for a discussion forum like this.

    So, you can rest assured that the government is listening and that it has delivered on this ask.

    It will help identify concrete steps that we can take to reinforce the UK’s position as a global centre for asset management.

    And this is what I intend for it to deliver:

    ideas that government, industry and the regulator can consider to ensure a thriving asset management industry that can respond effectively to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and make the best of global trading opportunities
    mechanisms by which industry can improve its offer to domestic savers
    a means of enhancing the sector’s contributions to the UK economy through investment and stewardship

    In conclusion, I am in no doubt of the importance of the asset management sector to UK Financial Services.

    There are clearly huge opportunities for growth in global markets. Brexit must act as a spur to accelerate our response to these global opportunities, not a distraction.

    And we will continue to drive support for the global delegation model, which is key to the interests of our European partners as well as an important element of the industry in the US and elsewhere.

    I look forward to working with you in the weeks ahead.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Fallon – 2017 Speech at Faslane

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 29 September 2017.

    It is a huge pleasure to welcome Permanent and Military Representatives of NATO to Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde.

    Our nation’s commitment to the Alliance – the bedrock of our defence – remains absolute.

    In the past year alone we’ve increased our NATO efforts: policing Black Sea skies, leading half of its maritime missions and upping our efforts to mentor Afghan officers. And today, our Prime Minister is in Estonia visiting the 800 UK troops who, supported by our French and Danish allies, are leading NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence providing vital reassurance to our Eastern European allies.

    But there’s no greater illustration of our commitment to NATO which, after all, remains a nuclear alliance than our investment in the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent submarine force. And today, we mark the milestone of its 350th patrol at its home base.

    So, before I continue, I would like to thank our brave submariners and our submarine enterprise as a whole. For almost 50 years their efforts and those of their forebears have kept us safe every hour of every day. They remain the ultimate guarantors of our security.

    And this event offers us a unique opportunity to remind ourselves why our nuclear programme remains so significant.

    Protect Our People

    First, it’s about protecting our people. Our nuclear deterrent remains our only defence against the most extreme threats to our way of life.

    Those threats are intensifying whether they come from North Korea’s latest nuclear testing setting off a hydrogen bomb, launching ballistic missiles and reinforcing her reckless defiance of the international community. Or Russia, which not content with aggression in Ukraine and Crimea, has over the last few years repeatedly ramped up its nuclear rhetoric and in its latest exercise involving some 50,000 troops massed on the borders of Eastern Europe will also test nuclear capable ballistic missiles.

    Now the UK remains firmly committed to the long term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State, I reduced the number of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40 and the number of operationally available warheads to no more than 120. Just as we remain committed to reducing our overall stockpile of nuclear warheads to no more than 180 by the mid-2020s.

    Yet, at the same time, we remain realistic. The total number of nuclear weapons in the world did not suddenly fall. Much as we would love to live in a world without nuclear weapons. We cannot uninvent them.

    Our deterrent ensures our adversaries are left in no doubt that the benefits of any attack will be vastly outweighed by the consequences.

    No credible alternative exists. And we see no reason to change our posture.

    Protect Our Alliance But this brings me back to the point at which I started. Our nuclear deterrent isn’t just essential for our security. it’s essential for NATO’s security as well. It forms one of the Alliance’s key centres of decision making that complicates the calculations of our adversaries.

    What is more, many nations, represented here today signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the late 1960s, safe in the knowledge they were covered by NATO’s nuclear umbrella including the United Kingdom deterrent. Not only did that deal help halt the nuclear arms race at the time, it has helped to cut the world’s nuclear stockpile by 85%.

    It is no coincidence there hasn’t been a major conflict involving nuclear powered states since the end of the Second World War.

    Protect Our Future

    Finally, our independent deterrent is a promise to protect our future. We don’t know what threats lie around the corner.

    Yet by giving the next generation every means necessary – from the conventional though to the nuclear – to deal with whatever comes round the corner.

    We are strengthening their hand ensuring that they will have the means to deter potential threats into the 2040s, 2050s, 2060s and beyond.

    That is why today we’re building four Dreadnought class submarines which will enter service in the early 2030’s.

    That is why we’re continuing to spend £1.3 billion over the next three years on facilities here at Faslane. And that is why we are building on the incredible advanced manufacturing skills found across Scotland to transform this base into a Royal Navy submarine centre of specialisation a base for all UK submarines providing 6,800 jobs now and 8,200 in the future.

    Conclusion

    So I hope you find your visit instructive and informative.

    You can rely on the UK to remain not just 100 per cent committed to our NATO alliance but 100 per cent committed to our deterrent – a message Parliament confirmed overwhelmingly last year when it voted to maintain CASD. At the same time, we can never be complacent.

    As we look towards next year’s NATO summit and beyond we must not just ensure the Alliance’s political and military leaders continue recognising the importance of nuclear capabilities as NATO adapts and modernise but continues to make the case about the importance of nuclear weapons to a new generation.

    Our national safety the strength of our Alliance and the security of the world depends on it.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Address to British Troops in Estonia

    Below is the text of the address made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at Tapa Military Base in Estonia on 29 September 2017.

    I’m delighted to be here today and to have this opportunity to pay tribute to all of you for the work you are doing in this vital NATO mission to protect the security of the Alliance’s Eastern flank.

    Russia’s continued aggression represents a growing danger to our friends here in Estonia – as well as in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. And our response must be clear and unequivocal.

    That is why this mission that you are carrying out is so important. By stepping up NATO’s deterrence and defence posture, you are showing that we are equipped to respond to any threat we face. You are showing that we are ready to do so. And you are showing – through our actions as well as our words – that our collective commitment to NATO’s Article 5 remains as strong as ever. And that an attack on any one of our NATO allies, would be treated an attack on us all.

    So I am proud that over 800 British servicemen and women are here leading a multinational effort, together with their French and Danish partners, and working alongside their Estonian hosts – and that this British deployment is one of the largest we have made to Eastern Europe in recent times.

    For when a nation like Russia deliberately violates the rules based international order that we have worked so hard to create, we must come together with our allies to defend that international system – and the liberal values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law by which we stand.

    I am clear that Britain will always stand with our allies in defence of these values.

    From the fight against Daesh in Iraq and Syria to our commitment to meet the target of spending 2 per cent of our GDP on defence, we have been at the forefront of the NATO alliance and that is exactly where we will remain.

    And while we are leaving the European Union, as I have said many times, we are not leaving Europe. So the United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. And we will continue to offer aid and assistance to EU member states that are the victims of armed aggression, terrorism and natural or manmade disasters.

    Our resolve to draw on the full weight of our military, intelligence, diplomatic and development resources, to lead international action, with our partners, on the issues that affect the security and prosperity of our peoples is unchanged.

    And our determination to defend the stability, security and prosperity of our European neighbours and friends remains steadfast.

    But these commitments are only possible because of the work that you are doing.

    It is your work across differences in language, culture and technology that has brought together an international combat-ready battlegroup able to defend the Baltic region by responding to the full range of threats that might exist.

    It is your part in the current series of major multinational NATO exercises that is helping to provide deterrence and demonstrate our military capability to counter those who would threaten us.

    It is your deployment – in the British case, the fielding of a combined arms battlegroup – that is reassuring our European partners of the scale and scope of our commitment to their security.

    And beyond your military contribution, the work you are doing in communities across Estonia is deepening the friendship between our countries and our peoples – and showing you to be some of the finest ambassadors we have.

    As with all our brilliant servicemen and women – and I know I speak for President Macron, Prime Minister Ratas and Prime Minister Rasmussen too when I say this: our countries have nothing but the deepest admiration for everything you have achieved and the exceptional courage and professionalism that you have demonstrated in achieving it.

    Away from your families for months at a time, the sacrifices you make, the expertise that you bring and that sense of service that you embody is what gives meaning to the commitments we make and the values that we stand for.

    So as many of you move on shortly to new deployments, I hope you will do so with an incredible sense of pride.

    And to the British servicemen and women in particular, let me say a heartfelt thank you, on behalf of our whole country, for all that you have done here in Estonia, for the security of this region, for the commitments of this Alliance and for the defence of the values and the way of life that we all hold dear.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Speech at 20th Anniversary of Bank of England Independence

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in London on 27 September 2017.

    Thank you, Governor, for that introduction.

    As one who began her professional life at the Bank of England some forty years ago, it is a great pleasure to address this conference today.

    When I first started working for the Bank, back in 1977, it was a very different institution from the one we see today. Central banking then was a profession shrouded in secrecy.

    The spirit of that time is captured in a story which the former Governor Mervyn King tells.

    When Lord King first joined the Bank of England, he asked Paul Volcker, the eminent Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Presidents Carter and Reagan, what quality a central banker should seek to embody: ‘mystique’ was his reply.

    Much has changed in the years since, and for the better.

    You, Governor, have contributed to that improvement, through the reforms you have led at the Bank of England. Today, openness and transparency are defining characteristics of a modern central bank.

    20 years of independence

    And this conference celebrates an important milestone in the evolution of this institution: the granting of operational independence.

    The newly elected Labour Government decided shortly after the 1997 general election that they would do what successive Governors, and indeed some Conservative Chancellors, had long talked about: give the Bank responsibility for setting the official short-term interest rate.

    As a newly-elected MP at that time, I remember those debates well. Looking back on them now, after 20 years in which independent monetary policymaking has become the norm around the world, the disagreements which then divided the House of Commons on the issue seem rather academic.

    The successful adoption of inflation targeting in 1992 had already taken much of the political heat out of rate setting.

    And fears that the absence of a formal dual mandate to protect employment as well as target inflation might put jobs at risk have proved unfounded.

    I would like to pay tribute to you, Governor, to your predecessors Lord King of Lothbury and the late Lord George, and to all the members who have served on the Monetary Policy Committee over the last two decades.

    You have been a dedicated group of public servants, motivated to serve the public interest and to discharge the responsibility which Parliament has given you to the best of your ability. There is much to be proud of over the last twenty years.

    Whatever the debates at the time, there was never any real disagreement about what the central aim of monetary policy should be – to eliminate the high inflation which had bedevilled the British economy for decades.

    From the start of inflation targeting in 1992, and operational independence in 1997, that is what the Bank has helped to achieve.

    As it has in other countries, central bank independence has helped improve credibility and accountability, has successfully anchored inflation expectations and has contributed to low and stable inflation.

    The results have been impressive.

    Since independence, UK inflation has been much more stable than it was in the previous twenty years, when it fluctuated from 1% to 22%.

    We know that high inflation hurts ordinary people, and that low and stable inflation benefits households and businesses.

    The fact that inflation of 22% sounds outlandish to us today is a tribute to your success.

    Ten years on from financial crisis

    But as we reflect on the undoubted successes of the last twenty years, we cannot do so with any complacency. Yes, inflation targeting and operational independence contributed to a period of steady growth, low and stable inflation, and general expansion in the ten years after 1997.

    But problems were developing which would later become apparent during the financial crisis of 2007-08.

    The Great Recession which followed that crisis brought some of the most challenging economic times our country has known.

    The Bank was inevitably caught up in the dramatic events of 2007 and 2008. The tripartite regulatory system, of which the Bank was a part, did not prove to be a success.

    It failed the country during the financial crisis and we have had to live with the consequences of that failure ever since.

    Our GDP fell by more than 6%, as the UK endured our deepest recession since the Second World War. Successive Governments have been forced to take difficult decisions to restore the public finances to order. These have been decisions which no government would ever want to take.

    The British people, who played no part in causing the financial crisis, have had to make sacrifices in order to return the economy to health and ease the burden of debt on future generations.

    Real progress has been made over the last seven years.

    The Bank has played its part, using its independent monetary policy tools of interest rates and Quantitative Easing to support our economy through the crisis and into the recovery.

    The Government has worked to repair our country’s finances and the latest public sector borrowing figures show that the deficit has been reduced by more than two thirds, from a post-war high of 10% of GDP in 2009-10 to 2.3% of GDP in 2016-17.

    But in truth, much work remains ahead of us, and for all our progress, we should neither forget nor underestimate the scale of the sacrifices which have been necessary to get us this far.

    A well-regulated free market

    The impact those sacrifices have had on ordinary working people has led some to lose faith in free market capitalism.

    And globalisation, which has brought us a great many benefits, has also brought changes which have contributed to a wider sense that our economy is not working as it should for everyone in our society.

    These are understandable responses. There are genuine problems with our economy which need to be addressed.

    But as we do so, we should never forget the immense value and potential of an open, innovative, free market economy which operates with the right rules and regulations.

    When countries make the transition from closed, restricted, centrally-planned economies to open, free market policies, the same things happen.

    Life expectancy increases, and infant mortality falls.

    Absolute poverty shrinks, and disposable income grows.

    Access to education is widened, and rates of illiteracy plummet.

    Participation in cultural life is extended, and more people have the chance to contribute.

    It is in open, free market economies that technological breakthroughs are made which transform, improve and save lives.

    It is in open, free market economies that personal freedoms and liberties find their surest protection.

    A free market economy, operating under the right rules and regulations, is the greatest agent of collective human progress ever created.

    It was the new combination which led societies out of darkness and stagnation and into the light of the modern age.

    In essence, it is very simple.

    It consists of an open market place, in which everyone is free to participate, regulated under the rule of law, with personal freedoms, equality and human rights democratically guaranteed, and an accountable government, progressively taxing the economic activity which the market generates, to fund high-quality public services which are freely available to all citizens, according to need.

    That is unquestionably the best, and indeed the only sustainable, means of increasing the living standards of everyone in a country.

    And we should never forget that raising the living standards and protecting the jobs of ordinary working people is the central aim of all economic policy.

    Helping each generation to live longer, fuller, more secure lives than the one which went before them.

    Not serving an abstract doctrine or an ideological concept – but serving the real interests of the British people.

    Restoring faith in a free market economy

    And those of us who believe that the interests of the British people are best served through a successful open, free market economy need to be honest about where it is not currently working or delivering for ordinary working people today.

    That is why the Government is leading a determined programme of wide-reaching economic reform.

    We have already overhauled our system of banking regulation, to put the Bank of England at the centre of the new framework.

    The Financial Policy Committee protects financial stability through macro-prudential regulation.

    The Prudential Regulation Authority serves as a micro-prudential regulator.

    And the Financial Conduct Authority regulates the conduct of businesses in our vibrant financial sector.

    We implemented the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, putting in place strict new rules on bank ring-fencing and enhancing individual accountability to raise standards.

    Our economy has made great strides in the last few years, but we know that for too long, too many communities across the United Kingdom have not seen the benefits of economic growth and prosperity. That waste of potential is bad for the areas concerned and bad for our country’s wider productivity.

    The Bank has always taken the economic health of our whole UK seriously, as your formidable network of local agents, based out in the nations and regions of the UK, testifies.

    And through our Industrial Strategy, the Government is playing its part in promoting growth across the whole country. That strategy will help business invest in the latest technologies, turn local areas of excellence into national export champions, and support the skills and innovation we need to succeed in the industries of the future.

    A thriving financial services sector, providing high-quality jobs right across the United Kingdom, is vital to our future prosperity. That sector benefits from a strong and respected framework of regulation, which incentivises innovation. And we will work with the sector to ensure the UK remains the world’s financial centre and the global hub of fintech.

    Britain now has a record number of people in work and our flexible labour market has contributed to that success. Many people value the flexibility of our system, but that flexibility cannot be one-sided.

    That’s why I commissioned Matthew Taylor to conduct a thorough review into modern employment practices in our economy. His report recommended that all work should be fair and decent, with scope for development and fulfilment. That is an ambition we fully share.

    Britain has some of the world’s very best higher education institutions, researchers and engineers. But we know that our system of technical education leaves too many of our young people without the skills they need to get a job – that holds them back and hurts our economy.

    So our new T-level qualifications will reverse decades of drift and create a new, high quality, vocational equivalent to A-Levels.

    Britain sets the global standard for high quality corporate governance. International firms are attracted to the UK in part because of the strengths of our regulatory system. But we know that to stay competitive, we must keep our standards high and ensure that bad examples of corporate governance do not undermine the public’s faith in our market economy.

    So our reforms to corporate governance will give workers and shareholders a stronger voice in the board room and ensure that our biggest firms are incentivised to take decisions which are in the right long-term interest of their businesses.

    These reforms will bring greater transparency, openness and accountability to markets and to the corporate sector; the very same principles that the Bank has lived up to in its work through the Monetary Policy Committee.

    The need to reform

    Now, some argue that a free market economy is an end in itself, and that drawing attention to the downsides is somehow anti-business.

    Others would use the imbalances which are now apparent as a justification for the total rejection of the free market economy, which has done so much to improve our lives.

    Instead they advocate ideologically extreme policies which have long-ago been shown to fail, and which are failing people today in places like Venezuela.

    My argument has always been that if you want to preserve and improve a system which has delivered unparalleled benefits, you have to take seriously its faults and do all you can to address them.

    Not to do so would put everything we have achieved together as a country at risk.

    It would lead to a wider loss of faith in free markets, and risk a return to the failed ideologies of the past. A return to protectionism in international trade, and to inflationary policies at home.

    Far from somehow protecting the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, that outcome would surely hurt them the most.

    New economic partnership with the EU 

    This is a crucial time to address these fundamental economic questions.

    Last week in Florence, I set out my vision for the new economic partnership I want our country to build with the European Union in the years ahead.

    That vision is rooted in a belief in a well-regulated, open, free market economy, with sound money and stable prices.

    As I set out, in leaving the EU, the UK will no longer be members of its single market or Customs Union. That, of course, will mean changes. You cannot have all the benefits of membership of the single market without its obligations.

    So, our task is to find a new framework that allows for a close economic partnership, but which holds those rights and obligations in a new and different balance.

    In forging that new partnership, we start from an unprecedented position.

    At the point of our exit, we will have exactly the same rules and regulations as the EU, as our EU Withdrawal Bill will ensure they are carried over into our domestic law.

    The challenge, then, is not how to bring our rules and regulations closer together, but what to do when one of us wants to make changes.

    That fact should give us confidence. And I believe there are further good reasons to be ambitious and optimistic about what lies ahead.

    The UK is one of the largest economies in the world and EU’s biggest export market.

    Businesses and jobs across the continent rely on our shared trade.

    And, more fundamentally, we share a common commitment to the principles of an open free market economy, which I referred to earlier.

    We believe in free trade, in rigorous and fair competition, in strong consumer rights, and in a rejection of protectionism.

    And whether it is on goods or on services – including the excellent financial services for which the UK has a global reputation – creating needless new barriers to trade between the EU and its biggest market would benefit no one.

    The UK’s financial markets provide support for businesses and consumers right across the EU, reducing the cost of capital and supporting choice and innovation for consumers. It is in neither the EU’s nor the UK’s interest to see these financial service markets fragment, and that is another reason I am confident we can agree a new partnership that enables us to continue to work together to bring prosperity for all our peoples.

    A balanced approach

    And that is a responsibility which democratically elected governments, and institutions dedicated to the public good, like the Bank of England, both share: to promote the prosperity of the people we serve.

    For the Bank of England – strengthened and improved since the financial crisis – that means discharging its responsibilities to keep inflation on target and maintain the wider health and sustainability of the financial sector. For the Government, that means stepping up to its role, ensuring that the rules and regulations which define the free market are designed to make it serve the interests of ordinary working people.

    Success in this mission must be underpinned by a balanced approach to public spending.

    That means continuing to deal with our debts, so that our economy can remain strong and we can protect people’s jobs.

    At the same time, it means investing in our vital public services, like schools and hospitals, which our successful management of the economy has made possible.

    To abandon that balanced approach with unfunded borrowing and significantly higher levels of taxation would damage our economy, threaten jobs, and hurt working people.

    It would mean paying even more in debt interest, which already costs us more each year than we spend on schools.

    Ultimately, it would mean less money for the public services we all rely on.

    Conclusion

    So we can already see in outline the challenges and opportunities which will define the Bank’s third decade of independence.

    Building a new economic partnership with the European Union, which will deliver prosperity for all our people, and making the most of the opportunities which Brexit presents.

    Reforming our economy, so that the benefits of a well-regulated free market are felt in all parts of our country, and by everyone in our society.

    And taking a balanced approach to public spending, so debt falls as our economy grows, and we can invest in the public services on which we all depend.

    I have no doubt that Bank will continue its work to deliver the monetary and financial stability that is essential for a successful economy, as we make the most of the opportunities ahead.

    Governor, I wish you and your distinguished guests well over the next two days as you explore what the future may hold.

  • Karen Bradley – 2017 Speech at Bazalgette Review Launch

    Below is the text of the speech made by Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport on 22 September 2017.

    Thank you to Sir Peter for his hard work in completing such a broad, thorough and thought-provoking review – some really interesting and bold recommendations for both industry and government to pursue, and across a very wide range of areas. And made much more interesting than a normal review by the quotes across the document which are drawn from British creative life. I can certainly relate to Kate Tempest’s call to action – “move fast, don’t stop, you got things to do” – as I’m sure you all can too.

    And thank you to you all for making time to be here at such short notice. Turnout at a few days notice shows how much passion and commitment there is in relation to this subject, and how much interest in hearing what Sir Peter has to say.

    That we are here today is testament to the importance of the creative industries to the UK – increasingly recognised across government as a key sector of the economy. This is partly about a sector holding its own with more traditional industries such as manufacturing – industrial policy is no longer just about widgets and hardware. It is also too about a sector holding its own with tech and other celebrated growth sectors.

    Now – as Business Secretary, Greg has to be even-handed across the economy. As Culture Secretary, I can be a little more partisan. To underline just how important creative industries are to the UK economy, Creative Industries Federation analysis of PwC data suggests that they deliver four times the GVA of the automotive industry, six times as much as life sciences and nearly 10 times that of aerospace. Between 2011 and 2015, the sector created three times more jobs than the economy as a whole. The UK is the third-largest exporter of cultural goods and services in the world – just behind China and the USA. I spend a lot of my time reminding my Cabinet colleagues of these kinds of fact.

    But they matter too for Britain’s place in the world – our values, soft power and influence. Creative Industries are in many cases at the very forefront of how the world perceives us. Whether it be music, film or design, they strengthen the UK brand, adding impetus to our growing creative content and services presence around the world, strengthening trading links in key emerging economies and influencing wider perceptions of the UK.

    And they also matter intrinsically. They produce the things that enrich lives and give them meaning. That’s true of the ‘content’ sub-sectors of the Creative Industries – TV, film, games, music, publishing, fashion. It’s also true of the services side – the architecture that RIBA, our hosts today, do such fantastic work to promote, the design that creates our products, the advertising that influences our desires.

    I hope it is clear to you that Government is committed to supporting the Creative Industries – for example, through the creative sector tax reliefs, which paid out over £600 million last year alone, securing in return nearly £2 billion. And more broadly in securing the best possible outcome for the sectors as the UK prepares to exit the European Union and looks to do trade deals around the world.

    But there is still more to do – and that’s what today is all about. Creative industries in Britain and beyond face both real challenges and opportunities. Much of that is driven by technology and changing patterns of consumer demand. The “D” word – Digital – is now at the heart of the DCMS as the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It is transforming the whole economy, but bears strongly on the Intellectual Property-rich, small and micro-dominated businesses that make up much of the creative industries. But change also arises from policy landscape – for example, the opportunities presented by the Government’s Industrial Strategy, and its clear focus on place, inclusive growth and rebalancing the economy.

    And that’s where the sector deal comes in. As Greg has said, the Government has essentially asked business to make it an offer it can’t refuse. In the words of the IS Green Paper there is ‘open door challenge to industry’ to be ‘driven by business to meet the priorities of business’. It seeks ‘a clear proposal for boosting productivity’ in order to ‘drive growth right across the United Kingdom… creating more high-skilled, high paid jobs and opportunities’.

    We have a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to capitalise on this through the promise of a sector deal.

    In devising a deal, the Creative Industries have made good progress so far thanks to the work of the sector and of course Sir Peter’s independent review, which we will hear about in a minute.

    We have a down-payment today with the announcement of the AHRC funding for research and development partnerships across eight creative clusters.

    The key challenge now is turning a lot of compelling ideas, at varying stages of development, into a tangible agreement. An agreement which is credible and has buy-in from both Ministers and the industry.

    There is definite appetite in Government to land an ambitious deal and this review is a really valuable input. But there are also real constraints – not least financial. As you would expect in a time of continued austerity, the bar to new Government money is very high. The starting point is spending existing resources better.

    There is also time pressure. As ever with these things it is more important to get it right than to get it fast. But we also want to get on and reach an agreement as quickly as possible, taking advantage of the platform the Industrial Strategy provides. Success will depend on the commitment behind the offer from industry, and how that fits with the strategic challenges set out in the Industrial Strategy Green Paper.

    So I encourage Creative Industries leaders to continue to work together and wow Government with a compelling proposal. As the statutory sector body, the Creative Industries Council will lead negotiations on the deal – and I pay tribute to Nicola Mendlesohn who has done a fantastic job as chair – with critically important input from the Creative Industries Federation, under John Kampfner’s outstanding leadership, as well as from others across the sector. We are keen for those discussions to move forward.

    Times are challenging but the prize is big so let’s be bold and ambitious; do what you do best – thinking creatively! – so we can deliver real change that takes the UK’s creative industries to the next level of success.

    I am now delighted to hand over to Sir Peter to tell you about the detail of his review.

  • John Ashworth – 2017 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, to the Labour Party Conference held in Brighton on 26 September 2017.

    It is a tremendous privilege to speak from this platform, humbled in the knowledge that it was this Conference over 80 years ago that demanded public universal healthcare.

    And this Party, almost 70 years ago, established a National Health Service, free at the point of use covering every man, woman and child in the land.

    So today we renew our commitment to that cause and dedicate ourselves to electing a Jeremy Corbyn Labour Government whose mission will be the rebuilding of a comprehensive, reintegrated, public NHS, free at the point of use, there for all who need it.

    And we must also speak out with a sense of urgency about what is happening to our NHS. In the past year: waiting lists topped 4 million and 2.5 million people waited over four hours in A&E; over the winter, patients crammed on trolleys in corridors; ambulances backed up outside overflowing hospitals.

    And the nation left shocked by a little boy, with suspected meningitis, waiting 5 hours in A&E without a bed, forced to lie on two plastic chairs. Some called it a humanitarian crisis. When you underfund the NHS and slash billions from social care let’s call it what it is, a Tory manufactured crisis.

    A crisis where waiting lists are so lengthy, more and more patients feel they have no option but to pay for a surgeon to come to their bedside, while the rest wait longer and longer.

    Friends, a person’s health should never depend on their individual wealth.

    So a Labour Government would allocate an extra £45 billion for our NHS and social care sector. And to avoid another winter like the one we’ve just had, we would establish a half billion pound emergency winter fund, so that patients and their families never suffer like that again.

    And we will invest in general practice too, and start recruiting so everyone can access a GP when they need one.

    This is the leadership Jeremy Hunt should be showing. Instead he ordered hospital bosses to a summit last week where they were instructed to chant ‘we can do this’. The NHS doesn’t need silly Jeremy Hunt gimmicks; it needs a Jeremy Corbyn Labour Government.

    I will be a Health Secretary, who will work closely with NHS staff.

    So let us send a message to the staff of the NHS, who work day in day out, at weekends too, whose hands deliver us into the world, who comfort us in our final moments, you have our gratitude, our backing and you have our commitment that a Labour Government will tackle vacancies, will bring back bursaries and scrap the pay cap to deliver fair pay for you all.

    To those who come to our shores from the EU and beyond, we say you are welcome, your rights will be secured, you are not bargaining chips, but part of our society and of the fabric of our NHS.

    Our NHS is undermined by millions of pounds wasted on endless tendering of services to private providers. It is patient care that suffers.

    Let me give a quick example, an ambulance contract here in Sussex handed to a private company who didn’t own any ambulances so they sub-contracted to 20 other companies. Two ceased trading, and ambulances drivers couldn’t be paid. Thankfully the contract was taken back off private hands.

    I had the privilege of meeting those ambulance drivers recently. They continued taking patients to appointments for 8 weeks without pay. Doesn’t that show public service is about a greater calling, is about compassion, care and public duty, not contracts, markets and commercialisation.

    So a Labour Government will legislate to reinstate the Secretary of State’s duty to provide universal care, we’ll reintegrate the NHS, reverse the Health and Social Care Act, fight fire sales of hospital assets and end Tory privatisation.

    Cutting beds, closing services and rationing treatments because of underfunding is not sustainable transformation. So we would stop the STPs and integrate health and social care.

    I also want a new approach to public health that protects people’s wellbeing for years to come.

    To prevent disease, to reduce the toll from cancer, stroke and diabetes it’s time to start tackling the causes of ill health too. We need to end the dismantling of our public health services, we need to tackle social isolation, build decent homes and improve the quality of the air we breathe.

    We have seen an increase in hospital admissions for malnutrition, and a stalling in the improvement in life expectancy for the first time in 100 years. We know a child born into poverty is likely to suffer far worse health outcomes in life.

    It was once said “there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”. This Party has long been committed to abolishing child poverty, so I can tell you today that the next Labour Government will commit to an all-out assault on child ill health too.

    No longer will we let squalor impair the health of our children.

    We’ll recruit more health visitors for our communities. We’ll invest in dentistry and, to tackle child obesity, we’ll give every infant a free school meal and ban junk food advertising on family night-time television.

    And we’ll end the disgraceful cuts to child and adolescent mental health budgets, end the scandal of children being treated on adult wards, and finally deliver true parity of esteem.

    I want to mention one other area. This year £43 million will be slashed from alcohol and drug addiction treatment services. Recently, I chose to speak out very personally about my own circumstances, growing up with a dad who had a drink problem. He was an alcoholic.

    His drinking hung over my childhood with the fridge empty other than bottles of drink. His drinking became so bad in his final years he couldn’t bring himself to come to my wedding because he felt too embarrassed.

    I tell this story not for your indulgence or sympathy. But because 2 million children grow up with an alcoholic parent, 335,000 children grow up with a parent with drug abuse issues.

    So as part of our assault on child ill health, I will put in place the first ever national strategy to support children of alcoholics and drug users and we’ll invest in addiction treatment and prevention as well.

    So conference, a fully funded public National Health Service; fair pay for our staff; an end to Tory privatisation; an assault on health inequalities. The very best quality of care for all, free at the point of use, there when you need it.

    This is what we strive for. We settle for nothing less. It’s the demand of a civilised society.

    So today we pledge ourselves to united effort: and resolve that the next Labour Government will rebuild our NHS.