UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • John Glen – 2016 Speech on the Advertising Standards Authority

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Glen, the Conservative MP for Salisbury, in the House of Commons on 23 May 2016.

    This evening, I want to raise an ongoing challenging issue with the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd, commonly known as the ASA, and related companies, including the Committee of Advertising Practice Ltd, the author and publisher of the CAP code.

    I have been involved with two separate cases relating to the ASA on behalf of constituents. I intend to spend the balance of my time on the second, but the first is the case of Innovate Product Design, an excellent Salisbury company that provides a complete service to inventors, from patent search and product protection to design and prototyping and advice on marketing. It has had six complaints, not upheld, against it but still has outstanding concerns about the material subject to the ASA’s ruling and whether it was within the scope of the advertising code. I hope to resolve this with a meeting that I have asked Craig Jones of the ASA to convene with ASA representatives, but for now it would be helpful if the excellent Minister could confirm that Innovate has no outstanding ASA complaint against it and that it has never had a complaint upheld against it. It is a company that offers a first-rate service and there is nothing to suggest that it has misrepresented anything in its promotional literature.

    The second of the two cases, which I will speak about in some depth, relates to my constituent Dr Alyssa Burns-Hill, PhD, MSc, fellow of the Royal Society for Public Health and member of the Institute of Health Promotion and Education. Dr Burns-Hill first came to see me on 13 November 2015 and explained that in November 2012 the ASA had upheld one complaint made against her. The first part of the complaint was that she was making misleading claims about saliva testing being able to detect hormone levels. My constituent believes that the study submitted as evidence was cited inappropriately in the ruling, demonstrating a lack of deep expertise in interpreting health-related data. The second part of the complaint was that she was being misleading in using the academic title “Dr”, as while she had a PhD, she was not a medical doctor.

    Following the ruling, Dr Burns-Hill was told in an email from the ASA to change her website, business cards and publications to say only her name followed by “PhD” and then the phrase “doctorate in healthcare”, followed by the rest of her post-nominals, including her MSc and professional memberships. Dr Burns-Hill refused to comply as she felt it conveyed that she was the holder of two doctorates, a PhD and a doctorate in health. After being rebuffed by Lord Smith of Finsbury and Guy Parker, managing director of the ASA, she went through the extended process of an independent review at her request, while the original judgment was still published on the ASA website. After the independent review, the ASA partially admitted its mistake but still insisted that she had to qualify that she was not a medical doctor next to any listing of her qualifications. She had already made it absolutely explicit on her website’s “About” page that she was not a medical doctor as well as issuing substantial information on her qualifications and work practice, as was acknowledged in the ruling. Yet Dr Burns-Hill is held up by the ASA as a misleading advertiser, and is even referenced in the CAP advice and guidance.

    Dr Burns-Hill refused to comply with this ruling, as she felt that the proposed remedy was still inconsistent with established conventions of listing academic qualifications and served only to justify the ASA’s initial ruling. In response, the ASA imposed sanctions on her, including taking out Google adverts claiming she was a misleading advertiser, which she claims has damaged her business and reputation in what is a narrow and specialist field. She also contends that, as a means of persuasion or sanction, the ASA is itself in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. She was also advised that to pursue the case through judicial review would cost at least £20,000—a prohibitive cost by any estimate.

    Since first speaking to Dr Burns-Hill about her case, I have been in contact with the ASA and have been very grateful to have had an in-depth phone conversation just before Christmas last year. I subsequently received a detailed letter from Craig Jones, the director of communications at the ASA. None the less, my constituent still feels aggrieved, as she feels that the underlying issues surrounding her case have not been adequately addressed or remedied.

    First, there are legitimate concerns about the transparency of the ASA in terms of its processes and in particular with regard to its status and relationships to trading standards. I have looked into the legal framework within which the ASA operates, and I realise that it will always be complex for a self-regulatory body with a legal backstop. I understand that the ASA is recognised by the courts and the Government as the “established means” for the purposes of section 19(4) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Judicial review is therefore possible because the ASA is recognised as a public body. However, the advertising codes it enforces are not enshrined in law; it is funded by industry and its council is appointed by industry, so it is also a self-appointed, regulatory body. I do not doubt that the legal status of the ASA is sufficiently robust, but it is extremely complex, and was certainly opaque to my constituent, a well-educated professional.

    In preparing for this debate, I have even heard differing views from the ASA and from the House of Commons Library on the ASA’s legal position and authority, which I think suggests that there is unacceptable and misleading uncertainty. This has fuelled Dr Burns- Hill’s sense that the ASA is not operating legitimately and is not accountable in the way that statutory bodies are.

    I am aware that similar concerns about the ASA have been raised previously in the other place by Baroness Deech. My constituent also feels that the recent South African High Court judgment against ASA Ltd reflects some of these concerns, and I understand that barrister Richard Eaton is raising questions with regard to the Competition and Markets Authority and its relationship to the ASA. I believe that there are some genuine transparency concerns here. The reasoning of the independent reviewer is not publicly available, and nor are the details of any original judgments that have been subject to revision, although it is noted when a judgment has been revised.

    Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)

    I, too, met the ASA in relation to a case raised in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are inconsistencies regarding transparency in the ASA? One of the challenges is that where complaints have been made but not upheld, parts of the investigation are still published online, yet other evidence is not published and is withheld from the public.

    John Glen

    I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. She raises other issues, which I hope the Minister will pick up on in his response.

    To return to my case, after the independent review process, the only avenue remaining is expensive judicial review. Dr Burns-Hill was referred to trading standards in January this year, three and a half years after the ruling, but only heard from trading standards today— as a result, I believe, of the tabling of this debate. That referral is only on grounds on non-compliance, despite my constituent asking to be referred since the original ruling in 2012 and reiterating that request to them in January and September 2013. Would the Minister consider an option for an advertiser to require a referral to trading standards after independent review, who would then conduct their own investigation?

    Secondly, I am concerned about the depth of the ASA’s technical expertise. In October 2015, Lord Smith of Finsbury, the chair of the ASA, said in the other place that in 2014 the ASA had used expert support in only 16 out of 900 cases. My constituent strives to reach the highest professional standards, and is a member of several professional bodies. Because of her significant experience in the healthcare sector, she is well aware that individuals with PhDs can call themselves “Dr” without having to qualify expressly that they are not medical doctors. That is true even in hospital settings, where, for example, holders of PhDs in public health and psychology often work.

    I believe there is a concern that the ASA did not pay sufficient attention to established academic practice, and, indeed, to the codes of professional healthcare bodies. I was told only recently that it consulted such bodies. That fact appears nowhere in the public ruling, and the evidence from the consultations has not been published. My constituent was put in the invidious position of respecting the authority of those bodies in relation to how she presented her professional and academic qualifications, and being confronted with the opaque authority of the ASA, which initially demanded that she use a completely non-standard way of conveying her qualifications and did not use the title “Dr”, as was her right.

    An advertiser without the tenacity of my constituent would probably have passively accepted the substandard—and subsequently adjusted—ruling of the ASA, the suggested remedy of which was to include the phrase “doctorate in healthcare” throughout her website and on her business cards. If the ASA did consult on the established professional and academic conventions for displaying qualifications, why was the evidence of those consultations not made available and cited specifically in the judgment? If the ASA is not seen to make use of readily available expertise in such an important area as academia, it is difficult for it to retain its full credibility as a self-regulating body. Will the Minister require the ASA to publish when it has drawn on external advice, what that advice is, and by whom it was provided? That would surely be a sensible step to improve the authority and credibility of the ASA in such specialist matters.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is clearly an important personal issue in his constituency. Many of us have had cause to have dealings with the ASA, and, all too often, have seen it go far beyond its intended reach. No doubt it does good work in rooting out misleading advertisers, but are there not occasions on which it goes too far? I hope that the Minister will assure us tonight that it possible to achieve a balance between credibility and responding to constituents’ concerns. If we can achieve that balance, we can do better.

    John Glen

    The purpose of this debate is not to undermine the ASA—obviously, I am raising a very specific case—but I believe that its credibility is at stake, and that there are sensible steps that it can take to improve the transparency of its decisions and the way in which it represents them.

    For my constituent Dr Burns-Hill, it is too late. She is left feeling aggrieved, because she had an uncertain basis for action given the opaque authority of the ASA, which required a remedy that did not fit her understanding of established academic and professional conventions. It is very difficult for her to have confidence in the ASA, given its apparent lack of relevant expertise in its dealings with her. I recognise that there is a difference between the academic recognition of a qualification and the implications of the marketing of that qualification to lay prospective consumers, and I recognise that the ASA’s role is to examine those matters. However, my constituent does not recognise the right of the ASA unilaterally to require an individual to adopt a non-standard use of post-nominals, when someone could work in a hospital and use the title “Dr” without the need to qualify it, if they were the holder of a PhD.

    I am grateful to the ASA, and in particular to Craig Jones, the communications director, for their engagement with me and my constituents and for their detailed responses to date. They have sought to answer my questions and address the case as far as possible. However, I have raised this matter today on the Floor of the House as my constituent still feels aggrieved and besmirched. I want to give satisfaction to my constituent on this matter and I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to address the specific points I have raised. I would also be grateful if he would use the authority of his office to facilitate a meeting between the ASA and Innovate, the first set of constituents. I very much look forward to hearing his response.

  • Jacqui Smith – 2008 Speech at the Philip Lawrence Awards

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jacqui Smith, the then Home Secretary, on 2 December 2008.

    I am very pleased to be here today to meet the Philip Lawrence Award winners.

    The Awards recognise the tremendous achievements of the many young people spending their own time to make a positive change in their communities.

    Not only that, but they stand as a tremendous tribute to the memory Philip Lawrence and as a testament to the determination of Frances to honour that memory in a very meaningful way.

    Continued support for the Awards

    It is my privilege to be here today to show our continued support for the Awards that were first set up by Michael Howard in 1996 with the full approval of Frances.

    She has been a great example to us all over the years and the Awards have provided an important platform for recognising the many people who work so hard to combat violence, vandalism, bullying and racism wherever they find it.

    Far too often in the media, young people are portrayed as criminal or yobs. But these youngsters represent a tiny minority of the youth of this country.

    I share Frances’ view that every child is capable of greatness. I also believe that the vast majority want to play a role in making our society a better place to live for everyone.

    Celebrating outstanding contributions

    That’s why we are here today. To celebrate the outstanding contribution that young people make to our society. To redress the balance and to show that young people can – and do – make a positive contribution to our communities.

    The fact that we received so many nominations from all around the country clearly demonstrates the positive impact that young people are having across our towns and cities every day.

    I met the initial panel in September when they were sifting through the mountain of entries and I have to say they had their work cut out for them. But the effort was well worth it and what fantastic winners we have.

    We have ‘Reclaim’ from Manchester who have been working hard to challenge negative stereotypes and behaviour, as well as tackling youth violence in their area.

    Giving young people a voice on social issues

    We are also recognising the work of the ‘Young Muslim Voices Listen Up’ Project in London.

    This particular group gives young people a voice on social issues through film, music, discussion, and even sports – as we saw with the ‘Kick Islamaphobia’ football tournament.

    That particular scheme involved two local Mosques, Arsenal Football Club, Connexions and the Police.

    Other winners hail from Ayrshire and Yorkshire and from the Midlands to Merseyside. Each group has shown how young people can work together to deal with some really challenging issues like strengthening links across the generations; sexual health; drug abuse and knife crime.

    The commitment, enthusiasm and energy of these young people stands as an example to us all of how we can work together to tackle these issues head-on.

    At the same time, they are building new skills, forging new friendships and setting the foundations for the stronger communities we all want to see.

    I know that many previous winners have gone on to be involved with the Philip Lawrence Awards through joining the judging panel or taking part in interviews or other events. This is also something that I’m sure this year’s winners will want to do as well.

    Positive about the future

    Before I finish, I want to make one more point.

    What’s very clear from today is that we don’t live in a ‘broken Britain’. In fact, seeing the energy and commitment of the groups represented here today, I believe we can be quite positive about the future.

    You only need to meet some of the young people here to know that there are all sorts of people up and down our country giving up their own time for others.

    So I’m thrilled to have had the opportunity to be here and I want to congratulate you all again on your achievements.

    Thank you.

  • Jacqui Smith – 2008 Speech on Preventing Violent Extremism

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jacqui Smith, the then Home Secretary, at the Conference on Preventing Violent Extremism on 10 December 2008.

    Good morning.

    It may only be the second Prevent Conference, but we have come a long way over the past year and for that I want to thank you for all your hard work.

    The importance of our work has been brought into stark relief by recent events.

    The horrific and savage attacks on innocent people across Mumbai demonstrate all too clearly that terrorists do not care who they kill.

    The victims were Muslim… they were Sikh… they were Hindu… they were Jewish… they were Christian… indeed, whatever faith they were, it’s clear that the terrorists made no distinction.

    In September, we saw an attack at the Marriott in Islamabad. Again, innocent people were killed and maimed indiscriminately – taking no account of age, colour or religion.

    And going back through all the terrorist attacks in recent years, we have seen the same tale of horror and misery repeated, including here in the UK – in London, in Glasgow and in Exeter.

    Our sympathy goes out to the families of all those killed and injured – not just in India or Pakistan or Britain, but in every country that has had the misfortune to suffer from such attacks.

    But again we are left asking “Why?”

    There are extremists out there who suggest that these attacks can somehow be justified by some twisted interpretation of Islam. They cannot. Indeed, many of the victims of these attacks were themselves Muslim.

    That’s why so many groups around the world have utterly condemned these terrorist acts.

    Influential religious bodies in both India and Pakistan have this year proclaimed suicide bombing to be forbidden by Islam. Former high-profile terrorist supporters have denounced the use of violence.

    And here in the UK – The Hindu Forum of Britain, the British Muslim Forum, and the Muslim Council of Britain have all come out to condemn the terrorist atrocities in Mumbai, to name just three from a long list.

    It is clear that violent extremists do not truly represent any religion or community. They are simply criminals and terrorists.

    Rapidly evolving terror threat

    It is also clear we are facing a rapidly evolving terror threat that spans the globe, as well as being relevant at local level.

    As such, we all have a duty to be even more prepared, more vigilant and more determined than ever to prevent further terrorist attacks taking place – no matter where that threat arises.

    As you know, the threat level in the UK remains severe. In other words, an attack is highly likely.

    The police and the security services are working all-out to disrupt and negate that threat. But we also need the public to remain vigilant – to trust their instincts; to pass information to the police; and to keep our shared responsibility to help keep each other safe.

    In addition, we have to make sure the infrastructure is in place at national level and international level – whether that means getting the right legislation on the books or enhancing coordination across the various agencies.

    However, even that will not be enough. We cannot simply arrest our way out of the threat.

    That’s why our long term strategy is ultimately about stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism in the first place.

    That is why we have to work particularly hard at local level to make sure that we are tackling violent extremism before it can take root – before the ideologies of fear and hatred can infiltrate and poison our society.

    And that is why your work with Prevent is so important.

    More funding for Prevent

    You are key in delivering this – and as we will hear from Hazel in a moment – it’s already working.

    I know that Hazel will want to talk about the success of the Pathfinders scheme, so I won’t go into any detail myself. However, I do want to commend the police for the way they have responded to the challenges of Prevent.

    The Police have recognised that the community needs to be at the heart of their strategy in tackling this threat. They have prioritised a partnership approach that includes working closely with schools, colleges, universities, and across communities.

    This marks real progress and to support these activities even further, we are funding more than 300 new Prevent police posts over three years.

    £16 million will be spent this year creating new posts across 24 priority forces, as well as funding several other initiatives such as the Channel programme, which is currently up and running in 6 forces.

    I’ll just say a little bit about Channel since it is an excellent example of partnership in practice.

    This scheme identifies individuals that may be vulnerable to getting swept up in violent extremism and refers them toward multi-agency support.

    Since it started in April 2007, the two pilot sites in London and the North West have received over 100 referrals. We are going to expand this further and the aim is that by the end of the financial year, we will bring the total number of sites up to approximately 25 operating across 12 police forces.

    Prevent is still a relatively new strategic programme and I think the successes we’ve seen to date show that it is effective. But as always, there is more to do.

    I am determined to make sure that we continue to support your efforts and, to that end, I am delighted to announce we have just granted a further £5.8 million to Prevent.

    This funding comes in addition to the £12.5 million we announced in June this year and the extra money will be used at local level to fund a wide range of projects to disrupt radicalisers, strengthen institutions and support vulnerable individuals.

    Future projects

    One project we have in mind is a scheme to develop a Pan-London Somali Youth forum that will operate across 16 boroughs and work with Somali youths who may be vulnerable to radicalisation.

    Another programme we’ve identified involves boosting the Prevent capacity and capability in universities.

    We are not stopping there though. A further £5 million will be made available this financial year for local authorities, government offices and the police in support of our work in schools and colleges.

    Focusing on younger age groups is important and these funds will help local schools and colleges put into practice the advice in the DCSF toolkit that Ed Balls published in October.

    We are constantly analysing our performance and trying to find out how we can do more. We are also listening to you.

    That’s why, for example, Hazel and I will be setting out simply and clearly how all these different funding streams will sit together ahead of the next financial year.

    Some of you have also raised the point that your would like more information about the threats and vulnerabilities in your area.

    So from the New Year we are introducing a process for sharing information that will enable all local authority chief executives and police borough commanders to see a ‘CT local profile’.

    This includes an assessment of the vulnerabilities in a particular area, as well as an analysis of the factors that can contribute to radicalisation. It will also detail further research on extremist groups active in the UK and the ideologies they try to promote.

    Again, this is part of our commitment to ensure that you have all the tools and information you need to target activities and resources as effectively as possible.

    Where necessary, we will support you with changes that can only be delivered by national government. As such, we have introduced legislation to tackle those who incite violence.

    Not only that, but just in the past few weeks we made it easier to exclude from the UK any foreign national who promotes hate.

    More than legal solutions

    But tackling extremism cannot just be about legal solutions. It is about supporting those who have real knowledge within Muslim communities, who can point authoritatively to how violence and separateness are not part of our shared values.

    A great example of how we are doing this is the work we are doing on the Internet.

    We know that radicalisers use the internet to prey on vulnerable individuals. As a result, we recently worked with companies that provide internet filtering products to strengthen the protection they offer against online material that can promote violent extremism.

    And for the first time tomorrow we will host a core network of people who will put forward positive messages from the British Muslim community on the internet, directly challenging the extremists that set out to groom vulnerable individuals.

    This readiness to make a civil challenge to extremists wherever they are is important and I can illustrate that with another recent example.

    A couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to visit Luton and see at first hand the ‘ambassadors for Islam’ scheme funded by the local authority and supported by the police and other partners.

    This initiative is doing a great job working with young Muslims in the community. It aims to build understanding and equip them with the tools they need to counter extremist ideologies and develop them into role models of the future.

    What is even more important than the skills they are learning, though, are the values that underpin the mentoring scheme.

    There was a strong sense of pride in being Muslim AND being British. A recognition of what they could contribute and a determination to make the most of the opportunities this country has to offer.

    These young people – like the ones I met recently at a similar project in Waltham Forest – are our future, just as much as any other group of confident, articulate, challenging young adults. So it is vital we get them engaged and the project is doing a good job on that.

    But I have noticed something else during my visits around the country.

    As we have rolled out the Prevent strategy and become more effective in challenging extremist ideologies, we have seen a greater challenge from extremist groups who are careful to avoid promoting violence.

    Instead they cynically skirt the fringes of laws that rightly defend free speech to promote hate-filled ideologies.

    They may not explicitly promote violence, but they can create a climate of fear and distrust where violence becomes more likely.

    These are the groups that fail to speak out and condemn violence when any reasonable person would be outraged.

    In many cases, mosques, community centres and other institutions are being targeted by the Far Right, as well as by those peddling their particular brand of antidemocratic ideology in the guise of religion.

    On both sides, these extremists are trying to create the idea that being Muslim and being British are incompatible.

    Clearly, they are not. But the lesson here is that we need to respond to the extremists out there who are working to undermine the democratic and inclusive values that these young Muslims exemplify.

    Confident as they are, these young people are having to put up with threats, intimidation and general abuse and that is something we all need to make a stand on.

    This is not the only example. Take the case of Derby where an extremist group sought to take over a community centre by worming its way into the management structure.

    The community banded together and drove this outside pressure away.

    We applaud that and want to support it.

    That’s why we have to work even harder to ensure that we are supporting the positive individuals in our communities, especially when it sometimes takes real bravery to make a stand.

    That is why we are getting money and support into the grassroots of all our communities so they can respond.

    Emphasising all that we share

    Tackling extremists cannot just be about legal solutions. That is why we are giving a strong governmental lead by supporting and funding those who promote shared values. And this is why we are calling for a civic, as well as a legal challenge, against those who seek to undermine us. All of these elements are central to the Prevent strategy.

    Hazel has made this case strongly and David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has been up and down the country in the last few months setting out our position on key foreign policy issues.

    He is responding to the legitimate concerns of Muslim and other communities, but he has also been very ready to challenge those who want to twist their concerns into a general critique of our inclusive and liberal democracy.

    We won’t win the argument by running scared. And we certainly will not be intimidated.

    The message is loud and clear – we have the intellectual, moral and emotional confidence to take on the extremists and we will defeat them using every democratic means at our disposal.

    We must all challenge the extremists, racists, and apologists for both, and not define any community by its extreme elements.

    For despite what the extremists may want, our country is not built on hatred. It is built on shared values – tolerance, compassion and a respect for democracy and the rule of law. At heart, it is about fair rules and a fair say for everyone.

    The threat we face is significant. But our most profound response is to have the confidence in people of all faiths and backgrounds to stand up for our shared values.

    The appetite to fight for these shared values is there and that’s why – despite what the extremists may try – I’m confident that we will succeed.

    Britain has always been stronger and more united because of its rich mix of people and cultures and the values they share.

    That is who we are, and that is why we will face down this challenge together.

  • Jacqui Smith – 2008 Speech at the Intellect Trade Association

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jacqui Smith, the then Home Secretary, on 16 December 2008.

    Today I’d like to address one of the most pressing questions we face as a modern society – how we secure our rights and liberties as individuals, at the same time as ensuring the wider protection of all in our society against terrorism, crime and disorder.

    Balancing these individual and collective rights has always been a key responsibility of government. And in an era of rapid technological change, it is right that we should constantly satisfy ourselves that we have got the balance right.

    Looking back over the year, we’ve seen the question raised in some new – and it’s fair to say, peculiar – ways.

    In June, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden booked himself a footnote in the history books by resigning from parliament and the Conservative front-bench, only to return to the Commons a month later.

    And one night in April – less than a mile from here, just off Oxford Street – the artist Banksy left his calling card, with a piece of 30 foot high graffiti that proclaimed ‘ONE NATION UNDER CCTV’.

    Eight months later, it’s still there – with a CCTV camera watching over it. And while it’s probably done wonders for the value of that gable wall, we’re entitled to ask how much this effort, and others like them, have hit the right target.

    A nation under CCTV?

    Are we, really, a nation under CCTV? Do we, today, live in what critics call a surveillance society?

    I don’t believe so, not for one moment. But I welcome the debate. And while not condoning graffiti per se, I understand the need to keep revisiting these issues in an open and democratic society.

    We are – all of us, as citizens, consumers, businesses and government – now presented with a host of new ways to capture, analyse and use data.

    And there are clear benefits:

    – retailers, banks, and insurance companies delivering more personalised and efficient services

    – nurseries using online webcams to reassure parents that their children are in good hands

    – sat nav technology making people’s everyday lives easier, whether it’s working out the route of a journey or accessing information from your mobile phone

    – strengthening the frontline against crime, with handheld computers and mobile fingerprint devices meaning the police can spend more time out of the station

    In the space of a century, we have moved from setting up the first fingerprint branch in Scotland Yard in 1901 to the regular use of DNA today to extend and backdate the ability to investigate crime.

    To put it another way, we have seen elementary policing progress from the deductions of Sherlock Holmes and his dear sidekick right through to the forensic use of the discoveries of Francis Crick and Dr Watson’s namesake.

    These developments have brought opportunities and challenges in their wake.

    In some cases, like with DNA or the use of covert surveillance powers, it means rethinking our regulations and ensuring high standards of safeguards.

    In other cases, as with the rapid growth of online communications, new technology demands that we find new ways to maintain the protections we currently rely on for the public good.

    Early in the new year, we will consult on how to best continue tracking information relating to serious and organised crime and terrorism in this new environment.

    As today’s verdict in the trial for the murder of Rhys Jones has shown, communications data can form an important part of prosecution evidence. And indeed this information – on the fact that communication has taken place, but not on its content – plays a role in some 95% of all really serious criminal cases, such as murder, drugs trafficking, and child sex abuse.

    If this capability isn’t to be lost due to the growth of online communications, it’s clear that we need to respond and adapt to technological change.

    As always, of course, new technology presents opportunity gaps for criminals as well – a set of early adopters if ever there was one, always on the look-out for new ways to exploit weaknesses.

    Identity fraudsters, child pornographers, and international terrorists – all have made extensive use of the internet. And, our response – working with industry on the responsible use of social networking sites, for example, or to develop filtering software – has had to adapt constantly to stay ahead of the game.

    One thing is clear. The eager take-up of innovation in the consumer sector does not mean that government itself can proceed without caution, or without robust safeguards in place.

    Common sense guidelines

    The public expect us to make use of technology to protect them – and that is a clear priority for me. We would be failing in our duty to do otherwise.

    When we talk about fingerprints…CCTV cameras…DNA swabs…or scanning machines at airports…I think that people instinctively understand that these technologies, used properly, are vital tools against crime, terrorism and illegal immigration.

    But I also recognise the absolute necessity of getting the balance on privacy right.

    And so today I want to set out some basic tests, and set out the direction of travel for some of our key policies.

    Are there appropriate safeguards in place – to keep data secure, for example, and to provide independent oversight where appropriate – as we have progressively built into how the National Identity Scheme operates?

    Are we being as transparent as possible – and as with ID cards, how do we provide individual citizens with the right level of choice and control?

    Where surveillance powers are used, are they kept in proportion to the damage and the threat they are seeking to prevent?

    And perhaps the toughest question of all – does it stand up to the test of common sense?

    Safeguards, openness, proportionality and common sense.

    For the public to have confidence that we will protect them and protect their rights, it is our responsibility as a government to ensure that these standards apply even as technology evolves.

    RIPA consultation

    Ten days ago, on a trip to Tower Hamlets, I saw how an entire neighbourhood had had their daily lives made a misery for months by the behaviour of people in one particular flat – until the local council and the police got a premises closure order and boarded it up. That order was only made possible because covert CCTV had helped capture the evidence of anti-social behaviour and crime.

    There are literally hundreds of cases like this, where the police and local authorities access investigatory powers like covert surveillance and communications data under RIPA – the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act – and use these powers fairly and squarely to help law-abiding people to hit back against the yobs and bring criminals to book.

    But even as we recognise the usefulness of RIPA, we have to be sure that it is being used properly. Even with the clear safeguards that RIPA requires for the use of communications data and covert surveillance, I am concerned at the level of misunderstanding there is about what these powers are, who has access to them, and what they can be used for.

    Let’s be clear. RIPA is not anti-terror legislation, as is sometimes suggested. RIPA limits the use of investigatory powers, and makes sure they are used properly and proportionately. The legislation provides for oversight by independent commissioners and routes for individuals to complain if they feel the use of these powers has been unjustified.

    While most of the investigations local authorities carry out are important – like protecting the public from dodgy traders, trapping fly tippers who dump tonnes of rubbish on an industrial scale across the countryside, or tackling the misery caused by noisy and disruptive neighbours – there are clearly cases where these powers should not be used.

    I don’t want to see them being used to target people for putting their bins out on the wrong day, for dog fouling offences, or to check whether paper boys are carrying sacks that are too heavy.

    Local council requests amount to a tiny proportion of the overall numbers – but nonetheless, it’s essential to make sure we’ve got the balance right. And it’s these tales of ‘dustbin Stasi’ and examples of excessive intrusion that give the responsible and respectable use of the powers a bad name.

    Early next year, we will consult on a number of proposed changes to RIPA – and we will look at:

    – revisions to the Codes of Practice that come under the Act;

    – which public authorities can use RIPA powers; and

    – raising the bar for how those powers are authorised, and who authorises their use.

    One question I will be asking of local authorities is whether the powers are authorised at a high enough level. Would it reinforce public confidence, and avoid frivolous use of the powers, if they could only be done with the consent of a senior executive, and subject to a form of oversight from elected councillors?

    I am determined to maintain robust powers to tackle crime and disorder. But to allay public fears of excessive intrusion, and to keep people’s trust and confidence in the wider necessity of these powers to tackle disorder, crime and terrorism, I am equally clear that we have to measure these efforts against our standards for safeguards, openness, proportionality and common sense.

    DNA

    The same principles apply to DNA evidence. Having looked at this area particularly closely over the past year, I’ve found there are few areas where the balance between rights and protections comes into such stark relief as on DNA.

    The recent European Court judgement in the S and Marper case has put the issue back in the spotlight.

    Many of you will have seen the response of victims’ families to the recent ruling – notably the family of Sally Ann Bowman, whose killer was convicted as a result of DNA taken after he was arrested following a pub brawl and subsequently acquitted.

    I have real sympathy for all those with concerns that any move could undermine a system that helped trap Sally Ann’s killer. And I want to reassure Sally Ann’s father that I will not let that happen.

    In this and other cases, we’ve seen convictions for serious crimes of culprits who had had their DNA taken and retained for a previous crime where they were arrested, but not convicted.

    In May 2002, Kensley Larrier was arrested for the possession of an offensive weapon. His DNA was taken and loaded to the DNA database, although the proceedings were then discontinued. Two years later, DNA from a rape investigation was speculatively searched against the database and matched his sample. This was the only evidence in the case, and when found guilty Larrier received a 5 year custodial sentence and was entered on the sex offenders register for life.

    These cases and others tell me that the DNA database is crucial to public protection. It not only helps to lead to the guilty. It helps to prove innocence and to rule people out as suspects.

    There is more we can do to strengthen the dividing line between guilt and innocence. For those who have committed a serious offence, our retention policies need to be as tough as possible.

    But for others, including children, I am convinced that we need to be more flexible in our approach.

    The DNA of children under 10 – the age of criminal responsibility – should no longer be held on the database. There are around 70 such cases, and we will take immediate steps to take them off.

    For those under the age of 18, I think we need to strike the right balance between protecting the public and being fair to the individual.

    There’s a big difference between a 12 year old having their DNA taken for a minor misdemeanour and a 17 year old convicted of a violent offence, and next year I will set out in a White Paper on Forensics how we ensure that that difference is captured in the arrangements for DNA retention.

    We will consult on bringing greater flexibility and fairness into the system by stepping down some individuals over time – a differentiated approach, possibly based on age, or on risk, or on the nature of the offences involved.

    That may mean letting the 12 year old I mentioned come off the database once they reach adulthood. And it could mean limiting how long the profiles of those who have been arrested but not convicted of an offence could be retained.

    We are also re-examining retention arrangements for samples. Physical samples of hair and saliva swabs that represent people’s actual DNA are much more sensitive than the DNA profile that is kept on the database – which only uses a small part of non-coding DNA.

    This was a key point flagged up when we set up the Ethics Group under the National DNA Database Strategy Board, and we will pursue improvements to the safeguards around the handling of samples.

    These changes will see some people coming off the system. But as I said, we need to strengthen the dividing lines between innocence and guilt – and so I want to do more to ensure we get the right people onto the system as well.

    No matter when they were convicted, I want to see the most serious offenders on the database. That’s why we are working with the police to increase the number of convicted offenders on it, starting with those now serving time in prison for rape and murder. And we will also look at whether we need to extend powers so that the police can take DNA samples for a longer period after conviction and from those convicted overseas when they return to the UK.

    As I said at the beginning, the use of DNA in investigations is one of the breakthroughs for modern policing. And it’s an area where I’m proud to say that Britain is leading the world.

    The strengths of the DNA database can only be safeguarded if they enjoy the confidence and trust of the public – and so the changes we will set out in the White Paper will deliver a more proportionate, fair and common sense approach.

    CCTV

    It may disappoint Banksy to hear it, but one area where I am quite clear that we have the confidence and support of the public is on the use of CCTV cameras.

    I mentioned the use of CCTV to help evict noisy neighbours. On a wider scale, CCTV has helped to reclaim our town centres and public spaces for the law-abiding majority. It’s playing a key role in crime prevention and in reducing the fear of crime – in turn bolstering the confidence of communities to stand up to vandalism and anti-social behaviour.

    And it was footage from CCTV cameras, of course, that was crucial in the prosecution of the men who planned suicide bombings on public transport in London on 21 July 2005.

    Up and down the country, MPs and local councillors are inundated with requests for more cameras on the streets.

    And on the boulevards, too, perhaps – with President Sarkozy now arguing that France should follow our lead and increase the use of CCTV in public areas.

    With the growing number of business-related CCTV cameras in operation, there are clear opportunities for closer working in the fight against crime.

    I want to see more police forces follow the lead of Cheshire constabulary, who are now mapping out the location of CCTV cameras in shops and offices in their region, so that if they do need to access footage for a serious crime like murder or child abduction, they can get to the source quickly before the evidence is lost.

    Conclusion

    It’s by using new technologies and new resources in an innovative way – particularly when they’re combined with tried and tested approaches – that we can keep ahead in the fight against crime.

    And where we can demonstrate that different arms of the state can tackle those who wilfully persist in crime or anti-social behaviour – like checking persistent offenders against TV Licensing and DVLA databases, and running checks for benefit fraud and council tax payments – I think there are few who would argue that it was not common sense, proportionate or public-spirited to do so.

    At a time when technology is moving more quickly than ever before, and in an age where the public has never been better informed and more rigorous in their scrutiny of authority, it is fitting that the age-old question of how we get the balance right between individual and collective protections should continue to be asked.

    This afternoon, I have outlined how we will continue to set the highest standards for ourselves in recalibrating that balance for today’s world, and how we will ensure that fair rules continue to be fairly applied.

    Over the next few months, I want to engage the public in a discussion based on the protections and security we all derive from getting this balance right.

    The public are our best defence against crime and terrorism. But I know they will not thank us if the systems we design to protect them are too intrusive. And so I will continue to put safeguards and openness, a sense of proportion and above all common sense, at the heart of everything we do.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Colvin – 1987 Speech on GP Training

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Colvin, the then Conservative MP for Romsey and Waterside, in the House of Commons on 27 October 1987.

    I wish to raise the problems of the funding of general practice training for medical students. We all accept that primary health care is the foundation of the National Health Service, yet it is the one aspect that we need to take more seriously when medical students enter their clinical courses. It is an issue with which I came face to face when visiting the Aldermoor health centre on the edge of my constituency last summer. I wish to thank the head of that facility, Professor John Bain, for having sparked off the inquiry that led me to ask parliamentary questions on this subject and also to introduce this debate.

    Everyone knows that there have been remarkable technical advances in medical care during the past three decades, and more can be expected. At the same time, there has been a matching growth in awareness of the importance of the social and psychological implications of being ill. General practice in this country must respond to both developments. Teaching medical undergraduates about medicine in the setting of the family and community and about how patients should be most sympathetically and effectively cared for outside the hospital is a special responsibility of all departments of general practice which have been created in the 31 medical schools in this country.

    Such new departments face important problems. Most are understaffed and all are under-resourced. They practise, teach and research a discipline which attracts high public demand but which does not enjoy the drama of acute hospital services to catch the public eye or perhaps the public purse. Their teaching is necessarily based on small groups and clinical experience on one-doctor to one-student attachments. We accept that such methods are expensive of the time which would otherwise be given to patient care.

    The shortage of university funding also puts pressure on medical school budgets. Although NHS funding may be well ahead of the rate of inflation, it is not ahead of public wants and expectations, and the ability of the NHS to supplement the shortfall in medical school budgets has been exhausted. One good way to guard against the misuse of high cost specialist services in the NHS is to promote their more sensitive use through more teaching of medicine in the setting of general practice, but this comes at a time when the NHS and medical schools are finding it difficult to fund this new and major academic discipline.

    I shall say a little about the background to the debate. Just over a year ago, the Mackenzie report, which is entitled “General Practice in Medical Schools of the United Kingdom”, described the achievements of the departments of general practice in the years since the first chair was established in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the first chair anywhere in the world was established in Edinburgh in 1963. The report also described the problems that are faced by the discipline in the immediate period ahead, and referred to the need for simple and relatively inexpensive measures to be taken to allow proper growth to take place.

    I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Professor John Howie, head of the department of general practice at Edinburgh university. As one of the main architects of the Mackenzie report, he is a leading campaigner for the implementation of its recommendations.

    The interdependence of the links between the DHSS and the DES in the funding of medical education is well known. The DHSS contribution to undergraduate education, which is required under section 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977 for England and Wales and section 47 of the parallel 1978 Scottish Act, is recognised, or perhaps rationalised, in what is known as SIFT, the service increment for teaching element in the teaching hospital funding, and ACT, the additional for clinical teaching in Scotland.

    It is difficult to quantify how much money this involves and what proportions represent the tertiary health care service, and the teaching and research functions of teaching hospitals, but the total sum involved is now between £20,000 and £30,000 per clinical student year, which, for 4,000 students in each of three clinical years, represents between £240 million and £360 million annually.

    Alas, by a series of mischances—mainly historical—departments of general practice do not benefit from the notional budget, although their present and potential contribution to medical practice, medical thinking and medical education is considerable. Their need for service increment is as great as that of any of the hospital components of medical education. Their request for new investment to correct that anomaly is modest — £4 million a year. That is only a little more than 1 per cent. of the NHS contribution to teaching research in hospital specialties.

    That raises three questions: first, is the cause a good one and does it attract widespread support; secondly, is it affordable and will it create benefit; thirdly, is there a mechanism for meeting the request or, if not, can one be found, and found quickly? On the first question, there seems no doubt that the cause of providing proper resources to allow properly supported departments of general practice to make a proper contribution to medical school and medical education is a good one. In the Green Paper on the future development of primary health care, Cmnd. 9771, the Government stated: However, the undergraduate course content varies widely between medical schools, and in some general practice still forms only a relatively small part of the curriculum. There is scope for greater emphasis on the role of primary care and its interface with the hospital and specialist services. This would benefit not only those who then decide to seek entry to a general practice vocational training scheme, but also those students wishing to pursue a career in a hospital speciality since they would carry with them a greater understanding of the central role primary health care plays in the health of the nation. No one argued with that during the consultation period on the Green Paper. When the Social Services Select Committee discussed it during the 1986–87 Session and published its report entitled “Primary Health Care”, it specifically requested investment in that area. Paragraph 25 states:

    The case for introducing all undergraduates to primary health care is surely overwhelming and we suggest that University Departments of General Practice should be expanded to become Departments of Primary Health Care, not only to allow future general practitioners to be introduced at an early stage to medicine in the community but, perhaps more importantly, to introduce doctors who will spend their careers in hospital to an area of health care responsible for the majority of episodes of illness and which, to be successful, must integrate closely with the secondary care provided in hospital. Furthermore, the education sub-committee of the General Medical Council has now joined in calling for proper investment, which it sees as an essential prerequisite to the basic medical education of the nation’s future doctors. The responses to the Green Paper from the GMSC and the Royal College of General Practitioners, which are sometimes seen as representing the “political” and “educational” wings of general practice, are also agreed that the case presented in the Mackenzie report needs to be met urgently. The medical sub-committees of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom and the University Grants Committee have been equally wholehearted in their support.

    Only today I received a letter from the British Medical Association, which sent me a copy of the resolution that was passed by the Conference of Medical Academic Representatives in 1987, which states: That this Conference supports the Mackenzie report and is disturbed by the low level of government funding which is available to academic departments of general practice. Hearts and minds seem to have been won across a remarkable and probably unique width of political, medical and educational opinion.

    What about the cost? Of course, the £4 million for which the departments of general practice are asking is either a lot of money or not much money, depending on how it is viewed. Compared with the £1.5 billion that was the cost of the general practice prescriptions issued in England in 1985–86, or with the sum of about £10 billion that was spent on the acute hospital services that are used when patients are referred to hospital for investigation and treatment, the sum is negligible. However, for hospital doctors and future general practitioners, attitudes to the prescribing of drugs, the investigation of patients and the use of hospital services are learnt early in medical training. A more broadly based early undergraduate teaching with greater emphasis on the role of good general practice will produce a more balanced use of services, which will be better for the patient and less expensive for the nation. The investment of £4 million, representing 1 p in £50 of NHS resourcing, will be recouped many times over. It is good value for money.

    On the mechanism, I am aware that active discussions are in hand involving, among others, representatives of the heads of departments of general practice and senior officials at the DHSS. Those discussions are mentioned in the recent GMC report. But similar discussions have fallen in the past because of legal advice to the DHSS that no mechanism existed to allow a payment giving the same benefits as SIFT to be paid by the NHS to ensure adequate base line funding of departments of general practice.

    The purposes of the debate are, first, to hear confirmed the Government’s acceptance of the merit of the case being argued by departments of general practice; secondly, to hear from the Government that they accept the need to allocate an annual figure equivalent to £4 million at current prices to be paid through DHSS channels; and, thirdly, to ask whether a mechanism has been found to allow such funds to be administered, or whether such legislation is needed and, if so, when it can be expected. To work equitably and efficiently, the mechanism will need to reflect medical student numbers and to be available through the regional health authority budgets, or their equivalents in Scotland, where our 31 medical schools are sited. The distribution will need to reflect the different legal arrangements which apply and will thus need to be apportioned on the advice of the head of the department of general practice in each medical school.

    My hon. Friend the Minister has a reputation for getting things done, so I should be grateful if she would reassure the House of effective progress on all three fronts. May we be told how soon the discussions, which in one form or another have occupied the time of three Administrations, can be satisfactorily completed? In short, will the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science acknowledge that they have a joint responsibility for funding medical education and get their act together rather than continuing to pass the buck to and fro?

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech on the EU Referendum

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at B&Q in Eastleigh on 23 May 2016.

    Thank you very much, thank you. Well, thank you for that and a very good morning. Great to be back at B&Q, and thank you all for coming today.

    This country has worked incredibly hard to recover from the recession of 7 years ago. Businesses have invested, people have taken risks, companies have come to this country, but above all the people of Britain have worked incredibly hard to get over that recession. And the 2 of us have worked together to try and put the right framework in place. Now we haven’t got every decision right, but the deficit is right down, the economy is growing, we’re creating jobs. Britain is making things again, and making its way in the world again. 2.4 million more people in work. We’ve got low inflation. We’ve almost got a million more businesses than when we first got our jobs in 2010. But yes, we still have a long way to go; yes, there is more to do. But I think there can be no doubt: Britain is on the right track.

    Now I don’t want us to do anything that sets us on the wrong track. After all, that’s really the job description of a Prime Minister: to safeguard the nation’s security. Exactly a month from today, we’re going to make a decision that will determine our future security. I believe that leaving the EU would put our security at huge risk, that it would be the wrong track for Britain.

    Why? Because, as we know, and as even Leave campaigners now freely admit, we’d lose full access to the European single market. We’d be abandoning the largest marketplace in the world, half a billion people. It’s a market which Britain helped to create, and which is the source of so much of our economic security. Inside that market, our businesses can trade freely and investors can invest here easily. That keeps our economy growing. That keeps our jobs safe, keeps the pounds strong, keeps our families secure. It means that a business from here in Eastleigh can get their goods to market anywhere in the EU, and get better access to all the places with which the EU has trade deals. So no Spanish importers saying to our manufacturers, ‘That doesn’t fit our regulations.’ No French minister saying to our farmers, ‘We don’t buy British beef.’ No tariffs, no barriers, just Britain doing what we need to do, getting out there and trading with our neighbours.

    Now leaving this arrangement, our special status in the EU, is a leap in the dark, because no one has said what we’d have in its place. Now we already heard last month, from the Treasury, that the long-term impact of leaving would be a cost to every household equivalent to £4,300. Today we publish analysis of what would happen in the short term, in the immediate months and years after a British exit. As businesses freeze up, confidence drains, uncertainty clouds over, and an economic shock shakes our nation.

    Now, the Chancellor will go into the details shortly, but I just want to focus on the impact it would have on your life, the job you do, the home you live in. Your weekly shop, your monthly bills. These things are all at risk. As the Bank of England has said, as the IMF has underlined, and as now the Treasury has confirmed, the shock to our economy after leaving Europe would tip the country into recession. This could be, for the first time in history, a recession brought on ourselves. As I stand here in B&Q, it would be a DIY recession. And it really matters to everyone.

    Someone actually asked, in this debate, the other day, you know, “That’s the economic case. What about the moral case?” But don’t they realise that the economic case is the moral case? The moral case for keeping parents in work, firms in business, the pound in health, Britain in credit. The moral case for providing economic opportunity rather than unemployment for the next generation. Where is the morality in putting any of that at risk for some unknown end? This government was elected just over a year ago to deliver security at every stage of life, to build a greater Britain out of a great recession, and, after all the pain, all the sacrifice of the British people, why would we want to put it at risk again? It would be like surviving a fall and then running straight back to the cliff edge. It is the self destruct option.

    So much of this debate is muddied and overshadowed by speculation about who says what about whom, and who’s in this camp or that camp. We need to strip away the drama, and focus on real life, because this isn’t about political parties or personalities or Prime Ministers. It’s about you, about your money and your life. The stakes couldn’t be higher, the risks couldn’t be greater, and, in my view, the choice couldn’t be clearer. Leave Europe and put at risk what we’ve achieved; stay in Europe, and stay on the right track.

    And now it’s time to hear that analysis of the short-term impact. So over to you, Chancellor.

    [The Chancellor’s speech is available here.]

  • George Osborne – 2016 Speech on HM Treasury Analysis of Leaving the EU

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at B&Q in Southampton on 23 May 2016.

    Prime Minister, thank you very much.

    The Treasury has already published detailed analysis of what a vote to leave would do to Britain’s economy over the long term.

    And the results showed that Britain would be permanently poorer to the tune of £4,300 per household – £4,300 each and every year.

    That’s the long term bill for leaving the EU.

    But what about the immediate impact on our economy? What will it mean next month, next year? And what will it mean for you?

    Today the Treasury is publishing its detailed and rigorous analysis of the immediate impact of leaving the EU on growth, jobs, prices, wages, house prices and our nation’s finances.

    And the conclusion is that all would be hit.

    Why is that?

    Well, first households and businesses will know that Britain is going to be poorer in the future, so they’ll start cutting back on spending now, and avoiding big investments.

    And that has an effect on the economy now.

    Second, leaving the EU creates a huge amount of uncertainty.

    We’d have just two years to work out how to leave the EU; two years to find a new working relationship with our neighbours; two years to do trade deals with over 50 other non EU countries; two years to introduce a load of new regulations here at home.

    In other words, two years at the very least of complete uncertainty – and probably more.

    And what will British businesses be doing during those two years?

    They will be watching and waiting nervously.

    They will delay purchasing new machinery, put on hold making plans for new premises.

    They won’t take new people on; some will let existing people go.

    And what about families – how are they likely to respond?

    Families will also be uncertain about what is coming next.

    If you don’t know what’s going to happen to your job, your partner’s job, your pay or the fortunes of the firm you work for – it would make sense to delay spending on things.

    People will put off trying to buy a home, or starting their own business.

    Put together millions of individual decisions like that and there is real damage to the economy.

    And then there’s the impact on financial markets – and we’ve all learnt to our cost during the financial crash how that can affect us all.

    Markets would be volatile, banks would be more cautious, the value of things like shares would likely fall.

    So stack all these things together…

    the fact we’d be heading towards a poorer Britain,

    the fact we’d be surrounded by uncertainty,

    the fact the financial system would be volatile,

    and it builds up to a profound economic shock if Britain leaves the EU.

    The Treasury asked one of the country’s leading economists and a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Professor Sir Charles Bean to review the work, and he concludes that it “provides reasonable estimates of the likely size of the short term impact of a vote to leave on the UK economy”.

    So what are the numbers from the Treasury analysis?

    Economists looked at two scenarios – one where Britain experiences a shock, the second where it’s a severe shock. Under both scenarios here are the results.

    This is what happens if Britain leaves: the economy shrinks,

    the value of the pound falls,

    inflation rises,

    unemployment rises,

    real wages are hit,

    so too are house prices,

    and as a result – government borrowing goes up.

    The central conclusions of today’s Treasury analysis are clear – a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession.

    Within two years the size of our economy – our GDP – would be at least 3% smaller as a result of leaving the EU – and it could be as much as 6% smaller.

    We’d have a year of negative growth – that’s a recession.

    The pound would fall in value – by between 12% and 15%.

    That doesn’t just mean it’s more expensive when you have a holiday abroad.

    It means everything we import becomes more expensive, which increases inflation and hits family budgets.

    Within a year of the Referendum, inflation would be over 2% higher.

    And let’s be clear who that would hit the most: the lower income families who spend the largest proportion of their income on things like food and energy bills.

    In the financial markets, tougher conditions would lead to higher mortgage costs for families.

    By 2018 house prices would be hit by at least 10% and as much as 18%.

    So that’s what it means to vote to leave the EU.

    Incomes fall.

    Mortgage rates go up.

    And the value of the family home falls too.

    Behind all this – what people can afford to buy, where they can afford to live – are people’s jobs.

    And so I want to talk to you about the impact on jobs too.

    The Treasury’s analysis published today finds that a direct consequence of a vote to leave the EU would be significant job losses across the UK.

    Within two years, at least half a million jobs would be lost.

    That’s 80,000 jobs in the Midlands.

    Over 100,000 jobs across the North.

    Over 40,000 in Scotland; over 20,000 in Wales; almost 15,000 in Northern Ireland.

    In London over 70,000 jobs would be lost.

    Here across the South, almost 120,000 jobs would go.

    And that’s the lower end of the estimates – across Britain as many as 820,000 jobs could be lost.

    As always, it would be young people leaving school and college, and those already in insecure work who would be hit hardest.

    Youth unemployment would rise by over 10%.

    And for those that stay in work, wages will be hit too as firms see their profits fall.

    The Treasury’s analysis finds that real wages will fall by almost 3% in the first two years compared to where they’d be if we remain in the EU.

    To put it in perspective – that’s a pay cut worth almost £800 a year to someone working full time on the average wage.

    The analysis today is clear: the uncertainty that would be caused by a vote to leave would put the brakes on investment, would cost over half a million people in our country jobs, and would cut people’s wages too.

    And of course, all of this would have a big impact on the nation’s finances and how much we have to spend on things we value like our NHS and schools.

    If we vote to leave, evidence shows that the deficit would be higher than it would be if we remain.

    The borrowing bill for leaving the EU would be between £24 billion to £39 billion a year.

    Let me end by saying this: it’s only been 8 years since Britain entered the deepest recession our country has seen since the Second World War.

    Every part of our country suffered.

    The British people have worked so hard to get our country back on track.

    Do we want to throw it all away?

    With exactly one month to go to the referendum, the British people must ask themselves this question: can we knowingly vote for a recession?

    Does Britain really want this DIY recession?

    Because that’s what the evidence shows we’ll get if we vote to leave the EU.

    And to those who say we should vote to leave I’d say this: you might think the economic shock is a price worth paying.

    But it’s not your wages that will be hit, it’s not your livelihoods that will go, it’s not you who’ll struggle to pay the bills.

    It’s the working people of Britain who will pay the price if we leave the EU.

    None of this needs to happen if we vote to remain.

    Yes, we’ve got improvements to make to the EU – but we know what they are and we’re clear about what the future holds.

    If we remain, major British car manufacturers will go on selling hundreds of thousands of cars to Europe tariff-free. If we remain, British farmers will go on selling their beef and lamb to Europe tariff-free.

    If we remain, British building firms will go on building homes, and people will have the confidence to do-up their own homes and shop with companies like yours.

    And if we remain, our economy won’t lose half a million jobs, but instead we’ll create more than a million jobs over the coming years.

    That is the brighter future on offer for our country.

    We’ve spent 6 years dealing with what happens when recession hits this country – we’ve got one month to make sure we don’t do it to ourselves all over again.

    One month to avoid a DIY recession.

    The Treasury analysis shows Britain will be stronger, safer and better off if we vote to remain in the EU on 23 June.

  • John McDonnell – 2016 Speech on the Economy

    John McDonnell GB Labour MP Hayes and Harlington

    Below is the text of the speech made by John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, in London on 21 May 2016.

    Thank you very much for coming here today…

    I think this is the first event of its kind organised by a shadow chancellor.

    I wanted to lay out, briefly, our strategy on the economy.

    As Jeremy made clear this week, speaking at the Ralph Miliband lecture, Labour is not a party only of protest.

    Protest matters, and protests make a difference.

    I hope we’ve shown, over the last eight months, how an effective Opposition can make a difference.

    We’ve helped win U-turns on cuts to tax credits, cuts to disability payments.

    We’ve won U-turns on forced academisation.

    The government has U-turned on cuts to solar panel subsidies, and on the tampon tax.

    They’ve U-turned on Sunday trading, and on taking child refugees, and now even on the inclusion of the NHS in TTIP.

    It’s almost dizzying, watching them from the opposite benches.

    That’s what an effective Opposition can help do, alongside the protests and the movements outside of Parliament.

    But it’s not enough to block and protest.

    If we want to make a lasting difference to people’s lives, we have to offer an alternative.

    So Labour is not only a party of protest.

    It is a party of government.

    The Tories may be in disarray. But even as they fight like rats in a sack over Europe, they will agree on one thing.

    That is the need to tear up hard-won rights, and smash up the civilising institutions previous generations have won.

    From the BBC to the NHS, from our schools to the welfare state, nothing remains safe whilst they are in power.

    That means we have a responsibility to show the British people how Labour is not just an effective opposition, but a credible alternative government.

    We will defend the good that has been won already.

    But we can go further than this.

    We should aim to show how we can improve on what we have.

    Labour’s great reforming governments have always had a vision, whether in creating the NHS, or introducing the first national minimum wage.

    When we return to government, we must aspire to be another great reforming administration.

    I want us to surpass even the Attlee government for radical reform.

    The situation demands nothing less. Simply undoing the damage inflicted by David Cameron and George Osborne will be a huge task.

    But we should aim higher than this.

    Not just cleaning up the mess and addressing the challenges, whether that is inequality or climate change.

    But making the most of the opportunities that could be opened up.

    New technology and new ways of working could help create a better, more prosperous society.

    Our whole society could do so much better than we are.

    What we’ve attempted, over the last eight months, is to lay out the framework by which Labour can win the next election and then set about the fundamental business of transforming capitalism.

    We should aim at nothing less than that.

    It’s important that we state our objective clearly.

    Our aim is that is that in the life of one Parliament we lay the foundations of a new society that is radically fairer, more equal and more democratic, based upon a prosperous economy which is economically and environmentally sustainable and where that prosperity is shared by all.

    And we aim to introduce a new era of transformative economics to achieve that goal.

    That means we have to be ambitious. We have to “rewrite the rules” of the economy, in the words of Economic Advisory Council member Joseph Stiglitz.

    The old rules have failed too many.

    They have meant rising inequality, and wasted talent.

    Prosperity has become too concentrated in the hands of too few, and the best opportunities in life restricted to a gilded set at the top of society.

    We have trampled all over the natural world, and squandered its resources.

    This is a bigger project than offering just a few appealing policy tweaks here and there.

    It means striving for a transformation in how capitalism in Britain operates.

    That means a fundamental shift in how future governments relate to the economy.

    We are a long way from the election. But in outline this rewriting of the rules has three parts.

    First, we need to make an absolute commitment to responsible financing by a future Labour government.

    Let me spell out what that means.

    The old rules meant the last Labour government relied too heavily on tax revenues from financial services, and too heavily on off-balance sheet spending through the Private Finance Initiative.

    It didn’t do enough to clamp down on tax evasion and avoidance.

    It helped create an unfair tax system.

    In Opposition today we are doing all we can, here and at an EU level, to hold this government of tax dodgers to account.

    This country will no longer act like a tax haven for the super-rich under Labour. And nor will those other places it exercises jurisdiction over.

    And on the other side, it means every penny of government spending will be accounted for.

    Unlike the current government, we won’t gamble with the nation’s finances, setting unachievable targets and leaving black holes in their accounts.

    If we don’t show that we are responsible custodians of the people’s money, they will not give us the right to govern.

    We can reject the dreadful choice of austerity and maintain solid government finances.

    We’ve enshrined these commitments in our Fiscal Credibility Rule, drawn up with help from the world-leading economists on our Economic Advisory Council.

    This Rule says we will close the deficit on day-to-day spending over a five year period, but we’ll make sure government has the capacity to invest in the future.

    If there was a single biggest failure for George Osborne, it has been his failure to invest.

    But he is the worst of a long tradition of weak investment by British governments. We want to break with that.

    Investment is the key to shared prosperity now, and in the future.

    We’re not just a Party that thinks how to spend money.

    We need to be a Party that thinks how to earn money.

    The clue is in our name. We are the party of labour – the party of the wealth creators, of technicians, designers, machinists, entrepreneurs, the self-employed – the party of workers and small businesses.

    Second, we need to reshape how government and the economy relate to each other.

    Another Economic Advisory Council member, Marianna Mazzucato has written about how what she calls the “entrepreneurial state” can help support new industries and technologies.

    This breaking with the failures of the hands-off approach.

    We’ve seen, just in the last few months, what happens when a government thinks a vital industry like steel can be left to the mercies of the market.

    It means plant closures and job losses, devastating communities.

    It means a key industry for the future left on the brink of disappearance.

    We responded rapidly to the steel crisis, arguing that government had to step in.

    To nationalise to stabilize the industry.

    Use government spending to buy steel from British plants, protecting jobs here.

    And work with, not against, our European partners to stop the dumping of cheap steel.

    I’m pleased to see our do-nothing Business Secretary has been forced to respond to pressure to act.

    But we need to think beyond crisis management.

    If, for instance, we’re serious about seeing a shift towards a low-carbon economy, we’ll need to transform how we produce and use electricity.

    More public transport and more renewables have to be a part of the mix.

    And that has to mean supporting a steel industry here.

    So we’re not just seeing industrial policy as a response to crisis.

    Too many governments in the past, and not just this one, thought government should only intervene when something goes wrong.

    We think government intervention should be there to make sure things go right.

    The swift actions taken by the previous Labour government, for instance, to support the car industry in the aftermath of the 2008 crash mean that, today, Britain exports more cars than ever before.

    So we know intervention can work. We have to apply it properly.

    Jeremy has argued before for a National Investment Bank.

    This could supply the investment needed for the big infrastructure projects, like high speed rail, that form the backbone of a modern economy and in which Britain is sorely deficient.

    It can help local and regional institutions provide the financing for our small businesses, still starved of funding by our existing banks.

    And we’ll look for ways to ensure new technologies get the funding they need not just for research but for dissemination and adoption.

    Renewables in particular need attention.

    As we develop our policies, we’ll be drawing on the best research and expertise to show how this new institution could work

    We must overcome the arrogance and isolation of government.

    Civil servants do not always know best. Nor do politicians.

    Too many governments in the past have believed that they do.

    But it should be fundamental to a genuinely democratic approach to economic policy that governments are there to bring people together, to facilitate discussion and to listen.

    Not to impose, but to seek consensus.

    When we return to government, I’ll be looking to set up an Economic and Innovation Forum which will provide a space where representatives of businesses, unions, and wider civil society can come together with government at a national level.

    We’ll create a real partnership in policymaking.

    We will restore that line of communication right from the shop floor, the office, the studio and the R and D department to the heart of government.decision making.

    We think we are far more effective when we work together, when we co-operate.

    But intervention can take place not only at the national level.

    Pioneering councils, under the cosh of Tory austerity, are having to think creatively about how to deliver local services and secure the local economy.

    Transformative councils like Preston in Lancashire are developing a “local entrepreneurial state”. The council there is working with major local institutions, like the university, to help support the local economy.

    Procurement spending is being rerouted back into local businesses. They’ve provided a multi-million pound boost to the economy in Preston and beyond.

    Alongside that, they’re helping workers set up co-operatives to sustain local employment.

    We think this bottom-up approach can be applied more widely.

    Take the scandal of the housing crisis.

    At the national level, Jeremy has made the shadow housing minister a fully-fledged shadow cabinet post for the first time in years.

    This reflects the high priority we are giving to housing and solving the serious housing crisis.

    Sadiq Khan has rightly highlighted the issue of housings costs in London.

    The cost of housing in London is arguably the biggest single blight on this city.

    Many, particularly young people, who are unable to get onto the housing ladder are then at the mercy of an unforgiving, unrestrained housing market.

    Other urban areas are suffering from skyrocketing rents.

    We’ll look to give local authorities the powers to impose rent regulation to secure fair rents where these are needed as Labour committed itself to at the last election.

    We know the supply of housing is simply not sufficient to meet demand.

    My colleague the shadow housing minister John Healey has set out his plans to build 100,000 new council houses a year, funded from savings in the Housing Benefit bill.

    With fewer new social rented homes built last year than at any time in over two decades, it will be a top priority for a Labour government to reverse the short-term and counter-productive cuts in housing investment made by George Osborne.

    But we have to also meet the aspirations of people to own their own home.

    We are also looking at how we can reverse the freefall decline in home-ownership amongst young people.

    There are now a third of a million fewer home-owners under 35 than when David Cameron became PM, and the biggest drop is among working class young people.

    We know that part of the reason why the Tories are failing on home-ownership is that their support is not targeted at those who need help the most.

    Thousands of households earning over £100,000 a year have benefited from the government’s ‘help to buy’ scheme, while their so-called ‘starter homes’ will cost up to £450,000 each.

    So Labour would make it a mission to ensure families and young people on ordinary incomes aren’t locked out of home-ownership as they are under the Tories.

    It is Labour councils providing innovative solutions to the housing crisis.

    Councils in Manchester, Warrington and Sandwell, offering cheap, local authority-backed mortgages to first-time buyers in particular.

    With too many first-time buyers excluded from the housing market by high-street banks, we’ll be looking at ways to securely expand local authority mortgage lending.

    We need action now to solve the housing crisis.

    With Mayors elected across major cities in this country, and more Mayoral elections to follow, there is a new enthusiasm and capacity to take the initiative locally.

    Bristol’s new Mayor, Marvin Rees, and his administration have announced plans to build 2,000 new homes every year.

    They’ve immediately released land the size of 80 football pitches for new building.

    Along with Jon Trickett, our Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I will be convening a Mayors’ Economic Forum to bring together local leaderships to participate in the development of economic policy making.

    For the first time, national economic policy making will be influenced directly by local decision makers representing their metropolises and local communities.

    Clearly one of our first agenda items will be solving the housing crisis.

    We can all learn from each other in this, but we need mechanisms to make it happen.

    This leads to the third policy area.

    We need to unlock the potential of the whole economy, and society.

    The economic institutions that we have were developed in an earlier age.

    Too many of them are not fit for purpose in the 21st century.

    Our banking system failed in 2008 and still fails too many small businesses today.

    As Lord Turner has detailed, it pumps lending into the property market, but fails to invest in the productive economy.

    No other major developed economy has a banking system so dominated by a few corporations.

    We need to end that domination, developing a range of new institutions including the National Investment Bank.

    We need to make sure every part of our economy has access to the financing it needs, not concentrate it in one sector and in one place.

    Similarly, the fixation on shareholder value and short-term results means that our giant corporations are sitting on giant cash piles – perhaps up to £700bn.

    Instead of investing money productively, creating new jobs and opportunities, our corporations are hoarding cash.

    And those responsible for running them are paying themselves obscene amounts of cash.

    Shareholders have risen in revolt against excessive executive pay.

    I think we need to open up the whole question of how our major corporations are structured.

    Put an end to the short-termism. End the fixation with shareholder value. Start to think how employees and customers can be brought into the decision-making process.

    These aren’t just good in themselves. There is a hard-nosed economic case for addressing these questions.

    We know that there is a clear boost to the economy from worker ownership and management.

    One recent academic literature thinks worker-managed companies enjoy a productivity bonus of 6-14%.

    I’ve said I want to at least double the size of the co-operative sector in Britain.

    Similar economies like the US and Germany make far more use of co-operatives than here.

    There is a long labour movement tradition in Britain of support for grassroots ownership and decentralized economies, from the Rochdale Pioneers onwards.

    That tradition has been buried for too long. After the Second World War, Labour adopted a model of centralized ownership and control for the economy.

    This model worked well enough, for a time. But it always had problems.

    Today, the proliferation of small-scale and digital technology can grant a new lease of life to the tradition.

    From community-owned renewable generation to open source software, collective and shared forms of ownership can provide fairer and more efficient ways of working than the older business models.

    So the future has an ancient heart.

    I’ve said before that democracy and decentralization must be the centerpiece of our economic policy.

    From the ground up, we can start to transform how capitalism in Britain works.

    Previous Labour governments were content to only think about how to redistribute income.

    Today, technological change means we have to think more closely about ownership.

    I’ve spoken before of moving beyond the Tory Right to Buy and creating a Labour Right to Own.

    This can be at the centre of our offer to Britain.

    A radical decentralization of economic power and authority back to working people and local communities.

    If we are to make all this work, we have to go beyond simply thinking we can pull the levers of government, and expect to deliver results.

    The machinery of government that we have for overseeing the economy is looking increasingly rusty.

    Those levers cannot be relied on.

    We have an HMRC that, time and again, lets major corporations off the hook when it comes to their taxes – whilst hounding hard-pressed small businesses.

    I want to pay tribute to the staff of Revenue and Customs, who have been cut and cut again by Osborne.

    Staff at HMRC generate revenues. Cutting their numbers is self-defeating.

    But serious questions have to be raised about its management.

    Economists from across the political spectrum are questioning whether, after 2008, we need a new way of making monetary policy.

    Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, has raised interesting future possibilities for monetary policy, including more quantitative easing and even negative interest rates.

    The current architecture was established in 1997. We can raise a legitimate question as to whether the Monetary Policy Committee’s remit still fits changed circumstances.

    And then at the heart of economic policymaking in Britain sits the Treasury.

    Its powers, already expansive under Gordon Brown, have grown hugely under Osborne.

    It dominates not just economic policy, but the whole of domestic policymaking in Whitehall.

    Its staff are talented and dedicated. But, time and again, it has faced serious questions about its own role.

    Is it too short-term in its outlook? Too focused on London? Too unimaginative in its approach?

    Iain Duncan Smith has even gone so far as to call it “the worst thing in Britain”.

    I’ve commissioned a series of reviews, led by experts, to report on the functioning of these three critical institutions.

    Lord Kerslake, former head of the civil service, is reviewing the Treasury.

    Professor Prem Sikka is reviewing HMRC.

    And Professor Danny Blanchflower is conducting a review of the Monetary Policy Committee.

    All three will report back over the next period, and make recommendations that will feed into our own policymaking.

    We are creating our own architecture for sound economic policy making and implementation.

    Even in outline, this is a bold programme.

    But economics isn’t a spectator sport.

    I’m heartened to see so many here today, just as hundreds upon hundreds have turned out across the country for the lecture series.

    Everyone here has a critical role to play.

    Fundamentally, we have to reshape the narrative on the economy.

    It’s been dominated for too long not only by the ludicrous claims of the austerity-mongers.

    Going back further, it’s been the dominated by a particular belief that free markets are fundamentally always right, and that free market outcomes are always the best.

    We have to break with that.

    But that means winning the argument.

    It means all of us being prepared to take on and challenge the arguments when they arise.

    It means we’re all ready to make the case for a different way of doing economics, based on the best possible expert advice and with a clear vision for the future.

    So the debates and discussion we hear today aren’t supposed to stay on this campus.

    They need to be taken to every town and village in the country.

    If we want to realise the kind of programme I’ve laid out, we need to be prepared to take that message to every corner of the country.

    I’m convinced there’s a real thirst out there to see something new.

    You don’t need to spend too long convincing most people that things aren’t working as they should.

    But unless we have a credible alternative, and the people prepared to make the case for it, we won’t be able to change how things work.

    It doesn’t mean shouting and berating those who disagree with us, but patiently explaining how we can do things better.

    So I think this conference should be the first of many.

    Slowly but surely, we need to reshape the discussion.

    Each one of us has an important role to play in this.

    We need you all to help raise the quality of economic discourse in this country.

    We need you all to be the advocates of the transformative economics we are developing to achieve that fairer, more equal, more democratic, sustainable prosperous society we aspire to.

    And as we approach the election, we will work together to sharpen and develop our ideas collectively.

    If the Tories are the party of a failing past and present, Labour must be the party of the future.

    If the Tories are the party of fear, Labour must be the party of hope.

    That’s what this conference today is all about.

    Let’s go to it.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2016 Speech on the Economy

    jeremycorbyn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in London on 21 May 2016.

    Thank you all for coming today to Labour’s inaugural State of the Economy Conference … Thank you to John and his Shadow Treasury Team for organising

    Thanks in particular to Ha-Joon Chang … for his terrific speech on building a balanced and sustainable economy.

    And to Sue Himmelweit, Paul Mason, Linda Yueh, Adam Marshall and Len McCluskey for their engaging discussions …

    And thank you … most of all … to all of you who took part in the various workshops this afternoon … Debating some of the most important issues facing our economy and our society.

    These discussions are invaluable.

    It is only through active debate – like we’ve had today – between politicians and businesses … employers and employees … thinkers and educators … that we can build an economy for the future that delivers for all.

    I’ve said before that we must change the way our party makes policy.

    When politicians and their advisers sit round a table and devise policy … they rarely succeed in getting to grips with the real problems our country faces.

    We need to involve more people in decision-making and consult far more widely outside politics.

    I believe it’s essential to listen:

    To the growing army of the self-employed … often struggling to make ends meet, and falling through the cracks in our social security system;

    to entrepreneurs seeking to innovate and create wealth;

    to trades unions who stand up for workers’ rights;

    to our friends from progressive movements in countries across the world;

    to academics; and

    to business people shaping a more dynamic, responsive economy.

    Only by engaging and debating these crucial issues … as we have done today … can we develop a comprehensive plan … to forge a new economy and the kind of Britain we want to live in.

    I think we’ve come a long way already in the eight months since I became leader … John McDonnell, has started to lay out the framework of a new economics.

    As John repeated today … an economy that allows people to flourish and prosper in the 21st century will be a very different kind of economy from that of the 1990s … let alone the economy of the 1940s or 1960s.

    Building an economy for the future requires bold ambition … A New Economics … And that’s what today has been about.

    Looking forward … And tackling – head on – the reforms necessary to build a fairer, more equal, more just society.

    Today we’ve discussed the state of the economy. And the sad truth is… the economy is in a bad state.

    What’s clear is that this government is not creating the economy of the future we need … Six years ago George Osborne said austerity would wipe out the deficit and cut the debt.

    That’s the wonderful thing about George Osborne’s five year plans … they’re always five years away.

    What we have instead is an economy that works for the few, not for the many.

    Inequality is rising … And food bank queues are growing.

    We’ve seen an explosion of zero hour contracts … and a race to the bottom on pay, job security and workplace rights.

    A gender pay gap that is still wedged at 19 per cent.

    Despite George Osborne’s promises of a ‘March of the Makers’ … we have a government that won’t stand up for key strategic industries … like steel.

    Instead, they sought to abdicate their responsibilities when it came to the crisis in the steel industry …

    And it was only concerted pressure from the trade unions, from Labour MPs and from the steel communities that forced the government … kicking and screaming … into a change in position.

    The security of home ownership is moving further and further away for so many people.

    We have a government that … despite the growing economic consensus against austerity …. despite the fact the Prime Minister tells us we now have a ‘strong economy’ … is continuing to pursue spending cuts.

    A government that is failing to invest in our public services … leading to a crisis in our NHS.

    A government that is failing to invest in critical infrastructure.

    A government that is failing to invest in the skills that our young people want … and our businesses need.

    And let’s be clear. Austerity is a political choice not an economic necessity.

    Even Iain Duncan Smith is now parroting our mantra … saying after the Budget that Osborne’s cuts were … “distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest”.

    The Chancellor has utterly failed against every single one of its economic targets …

    · They have failed to eradicate the deficit

    · Failed to meet their target on the debt

    · Failed to rebalance the economy

    · Failed to address the productivity crisis

    This government has consistently made the case for austerity … George Osborne has staked his economic credibility on his austerity economics … and they are failing to deliver.

    But worst of all, this government does not seem to understand … that their cuts have consequences

    … when you cut adult social care … it means isolation and a loss of dignity for older and disabled people… and it piles pressure onto an NHS that is already being overstretched

    … when you saddle young people with more debt … you impede their ability to buy a home or start a family

    … when you fail to build housing and tackle sky-high rents … then homelessness increases and the number of families in temporary accommodation increases.

    … when you slash the budgets of local authorities … then leisure centres close … libraries close … children’s centres close

    … when you close fire stations and cut firefighters … then response times increase and more people die in fires.

    These are the very real consequences of the politics of austerity.

    Being in opposition can be frustrating … but Labour has proved you can still have influence and make a difference.

    We have forced the government to back down in a number of important areas … from tax credits to disability payments … and, most recently, to forced academisation.

    Together as a country … we must continue to stand up against the Conservative six year record of mismanagement of the economy …and stand up for the vital services on which we all depend.

    But what Labour stands for is far more than stopping the damage being done by this government.

    We want to see a break with the failed economic orthodoxy that has gripped policy makers for a generation … And set out a clear vision for a Labour government … that will create an economy that works for all, not just the few.

    We must be ambitious and bold to win the next election … and deliver the new economy that Britain needs.

    … An economy that tackles the grotesque inequality that is holding people back.

    … An economy that ensures every young person has the opportunities to maximise their talents … And that produces the high skilled, high value and secure jobs, they need.

    … An economy that delivers new, more democratic forms of ownership.

    … A zero-carbon economy that protects our environment.

    … A balanced and broad-based economy … supported by investment and a proactive industrial strategy that devolves decision-making to where it needs to be.

    We want to see a genuinely mixed economy of public and social enterprise … alongside a private sector with a long-term private business commitment … that will provide the decent pay, jobs, housing, schools, health and social care of the future.

    An economy based on a new settlement with the corporate sector that, yes … involves both rights and responsibilities.

    Labour will always seek to distribute the rewards of growth more fairly … But, to deliver that growth demands real change in the way the economy is run.

    Change that puts the interests of the public, the workforce and the wider economy … ahead of short-term shareholder interest.

    Wealth creation is a good thing: we all want greater prosperity.

    But let us have a serious debate about how wealth is created … And how that wealth should be shared.

    It is a co-operative process between workers, public investment and services, and, yes … often very innovative and creative individuals and businesses.

    So if wealth creation is a shared process … then the proceeds must be shared too.

    Technology is changing the way we work … Digital technology and robotics are transforming jobs and whole sectors of the economy.

    Globalisation means that greater international trade is altering where jobs are based … and where workers are in demand.

    Work for many has become insecure … and we want to change that because we believe that a happier, more secure workforce is a more productive workforce.

    That’s why I was at Ecotricity in Stroud on Thursday … launching Workplace 2020 alongside our shadow Trade Union minister Ian Lavery … and our shadow Business Secretary Angela Eagle … to kickstart a national conversation about what the world of work should look like in 2020.

    Only an economy that is run for all wealth creators … the technicians, entrepreneurs, designers, shopfloor workers, and the self-employed … and that puts them in the driving seat … is going to deliver prosperity for all.

    John McDonnell talked this morning about rewriting the rules of the economy … Because the old rules have failed.

    The old rules – Tory rules – have led to a lack of investment in our economy, which is failing our communities.

    They’ve led to a government that has failed to tackle our unbalanced economy … They are failing to support key strategic industries … like our steel industry.

    They have failed to invest in the infrastructure that communities across the country desperately need.

    They have failed to invest in housing … The government says it aspires to build a million new homes … The reality however is that housebuilding has sunk to its lowest level since the 1920s.

    They have failed to invest in developing the skills our young people deserve and our businesses need.

    The old rules mean failing to invest in Britain’s future.

    A Labour government will make different choices.

    If we want to create the economy of the future … then government has a vital role to play in making the long-term, patient investments … that are the foundations of long-term prosperity.

    We want to see the reindustrialisation of Britain for the digital age … That means putting public investment front and centre stage …. driven by a National Investment Bank as a motor of economic modernization … based on investment in infrastructure, transport, housing and the technologies of the future.

    John also talked this morning about the need for greater democratisation and decentralisation.

    This includes the contribution that co-operatives can make to our economy … to empower people to come together to take control of their own lives

    This is the complete opposite of the Conservative devolution plans … passing responsibility without the support and resources to enable people to take control.

    John has rightly talked about establishing a “right to own” for workers … to stop jobs and companies being treated like possessions on a Monopoly board … and to give workers the first refusal on taking over a company when it changes hands.

    The New Economics is also about economic justice.

    People expect companies that trade in this country … and people who live in this country … to pay their tax in this country … It funds our public services.

    Aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion are an attack on the NHS, on schools our care for elderly and disabled people and the social security system that prevents poverty, homelessness and destitution

    So I’m very grateful to Professor Prem Sikka who is reviewing HMRC for us to ensure it has the resources it needs to tackle this endemic problem … and to our Labour MEPs who are leading the tax justice fight in Brussels.

    I’m equally grateful to Danny Blanchflower for the work he’s doing to review the Monetary Policy Committee … and to Lord Kerslake who is reviewing the Treasury

    The machinery of government overseeing the economy must be fit for the reality of today’s economy.

    We believe that economic justice and economic credibility must go hand-in-hand … Which is why all our plans are underpinned by Labour’s Fiscal Credibility Rule … agreed following discussions with the world-leading economists on our Economic Advisory Council.

    Our rule makes clear that we will ensure solid public finances … while rejecting the politically motivated austerity that is strangling investment … and choking prosperity.

    We need a Labour government that will put investment, productivity and sustainable growth first … alongside a 21st century industrial policy.

    That is how we will provide the economic security that the Tories are failing to deliver.

    … Security and investment in jobs and skills.

    … Security and investment in housing.

    … Security and investment in our NHS and our schools.

    … And, yes, security and investment in our public finances too.

    We have the opportunity to build a fairer, more equal, more prosperous economy.

    But we must be bold and ambitious in our approach.

    It was the radical Labour government of 1945 that delivered so many of the social achievements of which we Labour members are so proud … the National Health Service, the welfare state, council housing, comprehensive education … institutions that were about the collective improvement of all.

    And we must harness that radical spirit to build an economy for the 21st century.

    This morning John laid out the framework developed over the last eight months … by which Labour can win the next election.

    It is a bold and ambitious programme.

    I don’t underestimate the scale of the task in front of us.

    There is no point being in politics if you are not ambitious not for yourself but to make your community your country and our world a better and more just place.

    And it’s a programme that we will continue to refine … With your help.

    As I said at the start … we need to involve more people in decision-making … and consult far more widely outside politics.

    It is essential that we continue a rich and diverse debate on these fundamental issues … To continue to build the New Economics from the ground up.

    So I hope you will all continue to engage in these important discussions and to contribute to this debate … to continue building a platform for economic and social justice.

    Thank you for your contributions today … and in the future.

  • Colin Shepherd – 1984 Speech on Leptospirosis

    Below is the text of the speech made by Colin Shepherd, the then Conservative MP for Hereford, in the House of Commons on 11 April 1984.

    I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for coming to the House this evening to discuss the—to me—very interesting subject of leptospirosis, and cattle-associated leptospirosis in particular. We can both heave a sigh of relief that we are here at a modest hour and not early in the morning, as has been the case of late.

    My hon. Friend will know that among the many important functions—and there are many—which go on in Hereford, the Public Health Laboratory Service has its leptospirosis reference unit. It is very much as a consequence of the work done by that unit, and by Dr. Sheena Waitkins in particular, that I have sought to utilise this opportunity to draw attention to the concern which should be shown in the dairy sector of the farming community in respect of one particular strain of leptospirosis—cattle-associated leptospirosis.

    In this matter the interface between this House and departmental responsibility is complex. The disease is one which affects cattle, with associated problems of cattle suffering abortion and milk loss, together with financial loss for farmers. It is also capable of being easily transmitted to man. The evidence points to a greater level of infection than was previously apparent.

    My purpose in drawing attention to the various interrelated problems is, first, to increase agricultural awareness of the disease; secondly to increase medical awareness of the condition; and, thirdly to sound out my hon. Friend—who is the Minister with particular responsibility for animal health matters—on the possibility of developing a programme of containment of the disease at source, that is to say, to deal with before it leaves the infected cattle.

    I raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who gave me a somewhat disappointing reply on 27 March. He said that he was satisfied that GPs have an adequate knowledge of the risks of the disease, especially in dairying areas.”—[Offical Report, 27 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 133.] My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility for the replies of a Minister in another Department, and I would not ask her to comment on that reply. It is worthwhile noting, however, that the disease is being discovered by those medical practitioners who have become attuned to look for cattle-associated leptospirosis. Other doctors may mistake it for flu.

    One Herefordshire milk producer, with a herd of 130 milkers, contracted human leptospirosis or CAL. His herd became infected in 1982, and he contracted the disease. He became very poorly. Because the illness was not like ordinary flu, his wife called in the doctor. The doctor said that it was a bad case of flu. He said, “It’s just a case of sweating it out.” The next day, the cowman went down with the disease and a standby cowman was called in to help with the milking. Four days later, the standby cowman, too, fell ill. Because of the dairy connection, his doctor, who lived in Hereford, suspected brucellosis, and treated him with penicillin. Because penicillin deals with CAL as well as brucellosis, the cowman recovered speedily. When his blood sample was sent to the reference unit and showed leptospirosis, Dr. Waitkins became aware of the problem. She went out to the farm, took blood samples and found that the producer and his cowman had the same problem. A few days later, after taking tablets and penicillin, they had begun to recover.

    That milk producer said, I have never had anything like it before. The NFU and the farmworkers’ union should press for urgent research into this disease, and if eradication is shown to be possible then they should be supported to the hilt. He had had a blinding headache, worse than anything he had ever known before. It was so bad that he could not bear to touch a single hair. He was miserably feverish—hot and cold—and poured sweat in torrents to no avail. One can understand his sentiments. Two years later, he still has to wear a woolly hat to keep his head warm, and so does his cowman.

    Today, when the dairy industry is under severe pressure, it is relevant that the economic losses which the disease can cause are also severe. One farmer in the Welsh borders with 250 cows lost some £11,000 in 18 months in 1980 and 1981. That was accounted for by 21 dead calves, half the normal milk yield from 10 cows that calved early, replacements for two dead cows which had developed chills while ill, lactation loss from 80 cows—the average loss being two and a half litres for 150 days—and milk from 80 cows held back for three days following antibiotic treatment.

    Another producer near Ludlow recently aggregated the losses that he had suffered at about £15,000 on his herd of 230 cows. Such losses are in no way inconsequential.

    A logical progression from the human and economic factors that I have outlined must take one to the conclusion that prevention is better than cure. But one might ask whether there is in fact a real problem to prevent.

    As brucellosis recedes into the past because of the extremely successful eradication of the problem, the wider extent of the human aspect of CAL is becoming more apparent. It has certainly been cloaked before. In a recent written answer I was told: The increase in cattle-associated infections”— of leptospirosis— in 1983 is thought to be due largely to increased awareness of the disease in the farming community and not to an increase in the disease in herds.”—[Official Report, 20 March 1984; Vol, 56, c. 424.] So far, so good, but the work done by Dr. Waitkins of the leptospirosis reference unit points to the probability that at least one third of Britain’s dairy herds are infected or show serological evidence of past infection. That shows that the problem could be far more serious than has hitherto been appreciated. In economic terms, that means that one third of dairy farmers will at some time stand to lose a lot of money. There seems to be an incipient problem which, if the experience of New Zealand is anything to go by, could increase. The rate of infection there is 90 per cent., and climatic conditions are not dissimilar to ours.

    Our Herefordshire milk producer who suffered asked for urgent action. In New Zealand it was the farmers’ wives who showed the greatest anxiety. It was the women’s division of the New Zealand Federated Farmers, the equivalent of the women’s section of the National Farmers Union, which built up the pressure for action. Action is being taken and vaccination is becoming much more frequent. Indeed, as many as 50 per cent. of cows in New Zealand are now vaccinated. Hitherto, vaccines have not been available in the United Kingdom although they have been made here. I am given to understand, however, that vaccines are now available for British herds. That is encouraging news. I do not want to pre-empt anything that my hon. Friend the Minister might want to say, but, as Dr. Waitkins put it: Once there is a vaccine for animals then the human problem should be reduced. Whilst vaccines don’t totally eracicate leptospira, treated cows become such low rate shedders that their urine does not contain enough bacteria for humans to be at risk. New Zealand is well ahead of the United Kingdom in the war against leptospirosis—as it should be with its 480 cases in humans which are notified each year. Although we have so far examined only the tip of the iceberg with our 40 cases last year and 100 cases in the past six years, it is probable that there are many more unnoticed and therefore unnotified cases. I do not want our problem to grow to the level of New Zealand’s. I am therefore asking my hon. Friend to do all that she can to promote understanding of the problem and to develop a vaccination programme, as the more vaccination that is carried out, the cheaper will be the cost to dairy farmers.

    One of the inhibitory factors so far has been the cost of vaccine. I should also like the Ministry’s advice service to draw farmers’ attention to the economic benefits of vaccination. The present anticipated cost of £4 per cow per year seems a good investment when compared with possible losses of £10,000, as has been experienced in several farms. I should also like there to be the provision of a continuous reporting system on Leptospira in the farming community, which involves collaboration between the central veterinary unit, the communicable disease surveillance unit and the Leptospira reference unit in Hereford.

    This would have the effect of broadening the base of knowledge of what is going on in the farming community and determining from that the direction that further research ought to take in order to get a full understanding of the nature of the disease and what needs to be done.

    Action now can prevent much bovine and human misery, and I will draw my remarks tonight to a close by giving the last word to that disease-hit Hereford dairy farmer, who said: We were told that all three of us had only a mild leptospirosis problem, but you can take it from me even the mild attack was agony. Anyone who comes in contact with cows should keep Leptospira in mind if their doctor blandly tells them they have ‘flu. That is the nature of the problem. It is the reality of the interface between the two areas, and I believe that the answer lies in terms of animal health, to get at the problem at source.