UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • David Davis – 2016 Speech on Iraq Inquiry Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Davis in the House of Commons on 14 April 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That this House calls on the Government to conclude the National Security checking of the Iraq Inquiry report as soon as possible in order to allow publication of that report as soon as possible after 18 April 2016, and no later than two weeks after that date, in line with the undertaking on time taken for such checking by the Prime Minister in his letter to Sir John Chilcot of 29 October 2015.

    As an aside, Mr Speaker, I never cease to be impressed by your short-term memory.

    The second Iraq war was started to liberate the Iraqi people. Instead, it shattered their country. It was intended to stabilise the middle east. Instead, it destabilised the middle east. It was intended to remove a threat of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Instead, it exacerbated and massively increased a threat of terrorism that does exist. It was supposedly fought in defence of our values, but it has led to the erosion of civil liberties at home and the use of torture abroad. Because we were misled on the matter, Parliament voted for the war by 412 to 149. So there were very good reasons for setting up the inquiry in the first place.

    The war led to the deaths of 4,800 allied soldiers, 179 of them British. The lowest estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties was 134,000, but plausible estimates put the number up to four times higher. The war immediately created 3.4 million refugees, and half of them fled the country. It cost the British taxpayer £9.6 billion, and it cost the American taxpayer $1,100 billion. It has done untold damage to the reputation of the west throughout the middle east and, indeed, among Muslim populations at home and abroad. Initiated to protect the west from terrorism, it has, in fact, destroyed the integrity of the Iraqi state and triggered a persistent civil war that has created the conditions for perhaps the worst terrorist threat yet to the west: ISIL or ISIS. The war has done huge harm to the self-confidence and unity of the west, in effect neutering our foreign policy. The war was, with hindsight, the greatest foreign policy failure of this generation, and I say that as someone who was misled into voting for it.

    It has been more than six and a half years since Gordon Brown launched the Iraq inquiry and more than five years since it heard its last evidence. It has been more than a year since this House, in a similar debate, called for the Government to publish the Iraq inquiry report as soon as possible, and yet that report has still not been published. It is no surprise that one of the most pre-eminent politicians of our era, the highly respected and very civilised ex-Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, branded the delays a scandal. He is right. They are a disgrace.

    In 2009, the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now Prime Minister, was scornful about the suggestion that the report would not be published before the 2010 election. In 2009, Sir John Chilcot told families that he would complete the inquiry in a year if he could, but that it would definitely not take more than two years. In fact, the evidence taking did not conclude until 2 February 2011. Nevertheless, at that time—more than five years ago—Sir John Chilcot said:

    “It is going to take some months to deliver the report itself.”

    It has been 62 months and counting.

    Then the inquiry started the classification process. Under the inquiry protocols, there are nine different categories of reason for turning down the classification—for preventing Sir John not from seeing the information, but from publishing it. What the inquiry can publish is determined by a series of protocols that have criteria so broad that a veto on application can be applied virtually at Whitehall’s discretion.

    Compare that with the Scott inquiry into the Iraqi super-gun affair. It also covered issues of incredible sensitivity in terms of national security, international relations, intelligence agency involvement, judicial propriety and ministerial decision making—the whole gamut. Sir Richard Scott was allowed to decide himself what he would release into the public domain, unfettered by Whitehall, so that whole tranche of time—that couple of years—would have been unnecessary. By contrast, Sir John Chilcot, a former permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office who chaired an incredibly sensitive inquiry into intercept—some Members of the House may remember that—and who is considered a responsible keeper of the Government’s secrets, is tied up in protocols subject to the whim of Whitehall.

    There have been long negotiations between the inquiry and Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, and his predecessors over the disclosure of some material, most notably correspondence between ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair and George W. Bush. There is no point whatsoever in the inquiry if it cannot publish the documents that show how the decision to go to war was arrived at. That is, after all, the point of half the inquiry. Chilcot wrote in a letter to the Cabinet Secretary:

    “The question when and how the prime minister made commitments to the US about the UK’s involvement in military action in Iraq and subsequent decisions on the UK’s continuing involvement, is central to its considerations”.

    The negotiations between Chilcot and Jeremy Heywood concluded only in May 2014, when it was announced that an agreement had been reached. The process was clearly frustrating for Sir John. He queried why it was that

    “individuals may disclose privileged information (without sanction) whilst a committee of privy counsellors established by a former prime minister to review the issues, cannot”.

    He was of course referring to Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell’s respective diaries, which quoted such information, again without Whitehall veto.

    Then came the excruciatingly long process of Maxwellisation. This is meant to be a process of notifying any people criticised in the report so they can correct factual errors and be ready to respond to those criticisms when they become public. It is not intended to allow protected negotiation between the commission and teams of expensive lawyers—incidentally, those expensive lawyers are paid for by the taxpayer—who negotiate ad nauseam, at any cost, to protect their client’s reputation, even over and above the national interest. That is what is happening.

    We know that finally, after all that, the Iraq inquiry is now due to submit its report to the Government next week. The next stage will be security clearance before publication. The Prime Minister stated last October that he fully expected security clearance to take less than two weeks, the time taken by the equally enormous Saville inquiry. Let us remember that the Saville inquiry took decades to come to its conclusion, but it was cleared in two weeks. I cannot believe that clearance will take any longer than that, given, as we already know, that every single piece of this report has already been negotiated with Whitehall, presumably on the basis of security considerations.

    Given that, and the Prime Minister’s declaration that he is as exasperated as anyone by the delays to publication, the public ought to expect the report to be published in the first week of May. That should be the reasonable conclusion, but that is not the case. There are now reports that the publication of the report will be postponed until after the EU referendum at the end of June. This is frankly outrageous. It is for this reason that I, together with right hon. and hon. Members from all parties in this House, have called for this debate. We demand that the Government publish the report as soon as security clearance is complete, and certainly no more than two weeks after its receipt.

    While this inquiry has lumbered on, there have been at least three significant foreign policy decisions that could have been dramatically different had we had the benefit of the Iraq inquiry’s findings. The decision to intervene in Libya was intended to prevent a massacre, but since then, partly because we changed the aim to regime change, the country has descended into civil war and miserable, fractured chaos. On the question of regime change, when the Prime Minister first asked this House to support military action against the Assad regime in Syria in 2013, the House turned him down. Had the House not blocked military intervention, we could have ended up as military supporters of our now sworn enemies, IS. In Iraq, the UK is of course involved in the ongoing civil war that has raged since the invasion in 2003.

    There are lessons to learn from the Iraq war about our foreign policy, our political decisions to go to war and our military operations. The longer we leave it, the less useful these lessons will be, and the more likely it is that we will make the same mistakes. When decisions such as those that were made in Libya, Syria and Iraq are made without knowledge of the facts, mistakes are made and sometimes people die as a result. Therefore, it is not hyperbole to say that the delay to the Iraq inquiry could cost lives because bad decisions may be made. I would go further and say that it probably has cost lives because bad decisions were made. Indeed, many of the revelations in the report will come too late to be useful in relation to decisions that have already been taken. This is the irrecoverable harm that has been caused by the delays—the unconscionable delays—in this inquiry.

    Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab) The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Iraq war was the most appalling miscalculation and the most idiotic way of conducting foreign policy in living memory. As he is looking to the future, does he accept that the fracture within Islam that the war exacerbated and the Pandora’s box that was then opened of violence and extremism within Islam, both in the middle east and internationally, are sadly the gift of the Iraq war that will keep on giving, and that there may be decades’ worth of interventions from extreme Islamic elements across the globe?

    Mr Davis I do not think it is a question of “may be”; I think there will be the continued disruption of international affairs and the continued threat of terrorism. Europol’s assessment that there are 5,000 jihadists in Europe implies an arrival rate of 1,000 a year, and the rate is going up, not down. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

    That brings us to a significant point. When the individual Prime Ministers involved in each of the decisions I mentioned made their decision, I am sure that in their own mind they were doing the right thing—they were trying to save lives, to save a civilisation or to intervene to prevent further terrorism. The trouble is that every single one of them made simplistic decisions, without detailed understanding. The complexity of the issues they were reaching into was beyond their knowledge. It is correcting, enhancing and improving that knowledge that the inquiry report is all about.

    I am no pacifist, but I find myself horrified at the thoughtless, aggressive and unnecessary interventions by the west in areas that it does not understand. I did not like the Gaddafi regime; I did not like the Saddam Hussein regime; I do not particularly like the Bashar Assad regime, but ripping them out has led to something even worse. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is therefore absolutely right in his analysis, which demonstrates why this report and its speed of preparation are so important.

    Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) My right hon. Friend is making an immensely compelling point. Does he agree that when the report is published, which, I like him, hope will be as soon as possible, although the tendency in the British media will be to use it as a trial of the former Prime Minister—Blair guilty or innocent—the great gain of the report will be in showing how the whole mechanism of government worked in the run-up to the decision to go to war? A Prime Minister is not Dr Strangelove; this is about how the whole machine in Whitehall works.

    Mr Davis My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow him down his comparison between Dr Strangelove and past Prime Ministers, but he is right in one respect: the most important element of this is what we learn from our mistakes. However, there are also issues of accountability and closure, which I will return to in a moment.

    Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) I am reluctant to interrupt, because I am very much enjoying the powerful case that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but I invite him to ignore the representations of his colleague, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), because this war is bound up with one key individual: Tony Blair. For ever and a day, he will be associated with this particular war. It was personalised around the personality of that Prime Minister. As far as I am concerned, he could have a tattoo across his forehead reading “Iraq”, such is his legacy. This will be a comment and a statement about his day. I was in this House when we voted to go to war, as was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and I had to listen to the nonsense and drivel that was that former Prime Minister’s case for war. Please let us make sure that where blame is to be apportioned, it is apportioned rightly.

    Mr Davis I will come back to this issue in the latter part of my speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and I have a very dear common friend who thinks that Mr Blair should be at The Hague, so there is a range of opinion on this, but to come to that conclusion today would be to pre-empt the report. I do not intend to do that, but I do intend to turn to the issue of accountability in a minute.

    Mr Graham Allen Just to get the balance correct, if we go back to the time of the vote, a majority of the non-payroll vote in the Labour party—122 Members, and I was proud to be one of the organisers—actually rebelled against their own Government. Had the Conservative party supported us we would not have gone to war. Those are historical matters, but it is important to place on the record that the biggest ever parliamentary rebellion within a governing party was by the Labour party on the issue of taking us to war. Many of us at the time realised that it would be a disaster, but none of us realised what an appalling disaster it would be—one that would carry on for decades and influence us domestically as well as in the middle east.

    Mr Davis The hon. Gentleman has made his point well, but one of the issues that the report will face up to, one hopes, is the veracity of what was told to the House that day. That will be one of the key issues, which is why the argument between Sir John Chilcot and Whitehall is very important. Reading between the lines of his letters, that argument was very much about what decisions were taken before the House made its decision and after—what was told to the House, whether it was accurate, whether it was based on impartial briefings and whether, indeed, the politics of the issue coloured the views of important components of the state. I am not going to attempt to answer those questions today, but I would be incredibly disappointed if the commission’s report did not actually answer them in plain English. That is why I would not be drawn by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, who is a very great friend of mine. The report has to answer those questions; what the tabloid and other press do with the report the day after publication is not for me.

    I will press on, briefly, with the lessons to learn not just about the war but about how we should conduct these inquiries. The Government now intend to review the Maxwellisation process, in which those who have been criticised in a report are given the chance to respond. That is to be welcomed, as Maxwellisation has been responsible for half the delays here. It is clear that strict time controls are needed for future inquiries. It cannot be right that those who are to be criticised can delay publication for their own interests, so I hope that strict time controls will arise as a result.

    There is no reason for further delay. It has been suggested that the delay between the report being security cleared and its publication is because it needs to be proof-read and typeset. That would be unacceptable if true. The report is already in electronic format. It has already been repeatedly checked for accuracy, and will be checked again by the security services. It will have been read by more people than some newspapers. The fact is that the report has been pored over by many people for five years. We are in the 21st century, not the era of hot lead typesetting. Someone said to me this morning that I might have summarised the rather long motion rather more crisply by saying, “This House instructs Sir John Chilcot simply to press ‘send’.”

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the public at large, and bereaved families in particular, deserve answers, so redactions must be kept to an absolute minimum. Those families should not have to endure any further suggestions of a cover-up.

    Mr Davis The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but, to be honest with her, I will be astonished if there are any redactions in the report. I remember that once, when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, a report was given to me about the overrun of MI5 and MI6 on their buildings. It had four chapters: the introduction, the chapter on MI6, the chapter on MI5 and the conclusion. The chapters on MI5 and MI6 were virtually identical, except that all the redactions were different. We rang up MI5 and said, “MI6 has agreed to all these,” then we rang up MI6 and said, “MI5 has agreed to all these,” and then we removed nearly all the redactions. They were political—they were redactions to preserve the interests of the bureaucracy involved, not the national interest. The simple truth is that the facts in the report have already been cleared. That is what two years of the argument was about. If there is a single redaction, I and others will be looking at it very closely and asking why it was not redacted years ago instead of now. The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the rights of the families in this affair.

    There is no doubt that the whole country is fed up with waiting for the final report, but none more so than the families of those 179 British soldiers who died fighting for their country in Iraq. The families have suffered for years as this inquiry has dragged on and on, and it would be disgraceful to make them wait for months longer, just because the Government are worried about what effect—if any—the report will have on the referendum. I cannot imagine what impact that might be, given that there is no party political advantage in this to either side.

    The Conservatives and Labour both supported the war. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, half the Labour party stood back or voted against it, and there is no advantage either way. The inquiry was started by Labour and supported by the Prime Minister. It is therefore inconceivable that the Government should seek to wait until after the June referendum to publish the report, and I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will make it clear that that will not happen—I am sure he will address that point directly.

    Let us put this issue in context. If the report waits until June, it will be seven years since the inquiry started, and some parents of the dead soldiers will have been waiting 10 or 12 years for an answer. To give the House a simple comparison, the Israeli Government appointed the Winograd commission in 2006 to investigate the war with Lebanon. It produced its interim report not in seven years but in seven months, and it was highly critical of the existing Government that had set it up. The final report was produced after 17 months. Any argument for delay on grounds of political sensitivity or national security would be far more pressing in Israel, where that is a matter of daily life and death to all its citizens. Because of that, it is also a matter of very high and extremely important politics. If Israel can produce a report in seven and 17 months, we should be able to do it in a lot less than seven years.

    Some people will, of course, be held to account in this report; otherwise it will properly be dismissed as a whitewash. That is to be expected and must be right. However, this is principally about learning from mistakes that we made as a nation, and ensuring that we do not make the same mistakes again. It is also about remembering those who have suffered great loss, and giving them some measure of solace in the truth and some degree of closure. This is about doing the honourable thing by those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of their nation, and to delay any further for no good reason would be an insult to those brave soldiers who died in the Iraq war, and a cruel insult to their families who have waited more than six years for a proper answer.

  • David Lidington – 2016 Speech on the UK in a Reformed Europe

    davidlidington

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister of State for Europe, at the Central Hall Conference Centre in London on 14 April 2016.

    Tomorrow marks the start of the formal referendum campaign. In 10 weeks’ time the British public will take an historic decision.

    I am convinced that remaining a member of a reformed European Union is in the economic, political and security interests of this country.

    That does not mean I think the EU is perfect. Frankly, you can’t serve 6 years as Europe Minister and think that this is an organisation that does not need some further reforms. But neither are the alternatives perfect and as I’ll indicate later in my remarks, I think that those alternatives carry much greater risks for the prosperity and security of the United Kingdom.

    If we look at the record we see that while we may not win every battle, though neither does any other country, the evidence shows that 9 times out of 10, the UK does manage to get its own way.

    And the new settlement the Prime Minister secured in February represented a further success. I’m sure you will be familiar with what we achieved – boosting European competitiveness and cutting red tape, ensuring fairness between euro-ins and euro-outs, securing a UK carve out from ever closer union, and restricting access to our welfare system.

    Looking at it a different way, that February agreement did something vitally strategically important. We persuaded all other members to accept the principle that one size does not fit all; that different countries, as the EU develops further, should have the right to choose different levels of integration, while all remaining part of the Union.

    When I consider the way in which the debate has developed so far in this country; I think the thing I have found most dismaying about the leave campaigns is that the advocates of a UK exit display a dispiriting lack of confidence in the ability of the United Kingdom to lead or shape the future course of Europe; a paucity of ambition.

    Yet if we look at the history of Europe in the 40 years since Britain joined, we can see how this country has contributed to – or, I would say, driven – the EU’s greatest achievements.

    The creation of the single market has brought benefits of higher economic growth, greater inward investment, and lower prices for consumers.

    It was made possible by a formidable, if somewhat unexpected, partnership between Margaret Thatcher and Jacques Delors. Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister realised that striking down barriers to trade and opening up Europe as the home market for British business made sense, and was worth the downside of moving to majority voting on those matters, as long as there was a strong British voice present at the table making those rules.

    Benefits have followed too from the enlargement of the European Union to the new democracies of Central Europe.

    Now like the single market, this was not something that was bound, inevitably to take place. At the time it was a controversial policy. And both Margaret Thatcher and John Major fought successfully to persuade their fellow leaders that this was the right thing to do.

    The measure of their achievement can be seen if we compare the 25 years since the Velvet Revolutions, with the fate of the infant democracies that emerged in Central Europe after the First World War.

    The first time round, every one of those democracies fell – under pressure of home-grown extremism or invasion by one or more neighbours.

    In this last quarter of a century, we have seen the democratic process take root and flourish.

    The difference is that this time, the complex, detailed work of EU accession negotiations – with their multifarious chapters and benchmarks – provided a mechanism which we could use to embed the rule of law, democratic institutions and human rights in parts of our continent where those values and traditions had been crushed for most of the 20th century.

    But these 2 achievements of the single market and the enlargement of democracies in Central Europe are of the past generation.

    So what are the great economic and political challenges that face Europe – and which require British leadership – today? I will talk about 4.

    None can be overcome by one country acting on their own – not us; not France; not Germany. And I look forward with optimism and determination to our country leading and shaping the European response to those common challenges.

    The first challenge is economic.

    Global competition and digital technology are now dramatically shaking up the ways in which we and other advanced economies do business.

    Unless we raise our game in terms of competitiveness, the next generation of Europeans will not be able to afford the standard of living or the social protection or the public services that our peoples expect to enjoy as their entitlement today.

    We need to give all British and European businesses, whether they sell goods or services, the advantages of a home market on a continental scale.

    At the same time we need regulation that is proportionate to the problem it is designed to tackle – which is why the Commission’s acceptance of sectoral regulatory burden reduction targets, and the ability to review the existing acquis, that we secured in February are so important.

    And we need to redouble efforts to remove the costs that harm growth and stifle the creation of new jobs.

    We also need to harness the collective weight of Europe – 500 million people – to forge new trade agreements: with the US, Asia and Latin America.

    That would give our businesses easier access to world markets, so they can seize the opportunity to sell our goods and services to hundreds of millions of new customers in the emerging economies.

    Tackling the economic challenge must start with the single market.

    I understand why people sometimes complain about EU regulations, and sometimes they have good reason to do so. But we should not forget that having one set of regulations governing trade across 28 countries and 500 million people, can simplify bureaucracy, strip out transaction costs and allow firms to do business across our continent with astonishing ease.

    And if we consider the alternatives; even if EU regulations did not have the force of law here, they would in the other 27 member states places UK businesses will want to carry on selling to even in the event of exit. Which means that firms could face having to follow one set of rules to sell here and other to sell into the rest of Europe. Not a recipe for success or for keeping costs down.

    Since its launch the single market has added an estimated £200 billion a year to the EU economy, in today’s prices. That means trade, investment and jobs.

    And this is not benefiting big businesses alone, 80% of Federation of Small Businesses members who export do so into the EU.

    Even those who don’t – even those who don’t export at all – benefit from access to the Single Market. It means a more competitive supply chain. And a wealthier domestic consumer.

    At the most obvious level, the single market means exporting to the EU without paying tariffs.

    Previously, trade with the EU was clunky, confusing and costly. You faced a bewildering array of tariffs, from 14% on cars to 32% on salt.

    Today, there are no tariffs.

    Would we get that deal outside of the EU? It frankly seems unlikely.

    What is the alternative? It depends which advocate of exit you listen to. Norway maintains access to large parts of the single market. But they pay nearly as much as we do per head into the EU budget. They accept free movement. And they have no say in the rules they nevertheless have to adopt.

    Some have pointed to the Canadian model. But the EU/Canada trade deal took 7 years to agree and is still not in force. And it contains a raft of exemptions to free trade demanded by one side or the other.

    It works for Canada. But we are not in their position. We are much more entwined economically and geographically with our immediate neighbours in Europe.

    If not Canada, perhaps we could fall back on our membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

    But that would mean even more trade restrictions. Under the WTO ‘most favoured nation’ rules, we’d face tariffs of up to 10% on cars, 11% on clothes and 36% on dairy products.

    Considerably worse than zero, that we currently have.

    We all know that eliminating tariffs is not enough in a modern economy.

    We must go further, and extend the benefits to trade in goods to other areas.

    With four-fifths of the UK economy based on services, removing non-tariff barriers is essential.

    As the Prime Minister has said, Britain is the country that “designs the building, consults on the deal and insures the premises”. I would add that we fly people to do the deal – EasyJet have said they simply wouldn’t exist without the EU – and then publicise it on social media afterwards – our tech sector is the biggest in the EU. The EU allows UK businesses to provide those vital services throughout Europe. And it allows individuals to work in any member state, with their professional qualifications recognised.

    That is why the Prime Minister made this a focus of the UK’s renegotiation. And he achieved a clear commitment to continue deepening and liberalising the market in services, energy and digital.

    Let’s look at trade.

    The UK has always been the EU’s most vociferous and powerful champion of free trade in Europe. It’s an enormous British success story that the EU has signed trade deals with more than 50 countries – with more to come.

    I well remember the Prime Minister intervening personally to get the South Korea deal over the line.

    The EU has 9 more Free Trade Agreements on the way, including with Japan, India and America. Last year the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) estimated that when they are all completed, they will cover 88% of all UK trade.

    If we left, each one of these would have to be renegotiated, bilaterally, one by one.

    Of course, we could attempt to do this. But how long would it take? And would we really carry as much weight on our own as we would as one of 28, benefitting from the leverage in negotiations of the biggest market anywhere in the world? I think not.

    Both the EU and Australia have signed deals with South Korea. The EU got a better deal: it eliminates tariffs nearly 4 times as quickly as the Australian deal.

    So being part of the EU gets our business access to better terms for global trade.

    Membership also gives the UK the opportunity to shape the rules that govern trade.

    We are leading the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and US, the 2 of the most important markets in the world. When that deal is finalised, it will set the standards for trade across the world.

    Where would you rather be in that transatlantic negotiation – standing on the sidelines hoping everyone gets to the right place? Asking our friends to tell us what has been going on inside the Council room in Brussels? Or at the forefront of the negotiation, pushing hard to get the best deal possible? I know where I would rather be and what outcome I believe is in the best interests of the people of this country.

    The second challenge is one of security.

    Some say we would be safer outside the EU. I simply do not agree.

    The world faces serious challenge from the globalisation of crime; terrorism; drugs; sexual offences; people-trafficking. The list goes on.

    These problems do not stop at national borders. Pulling up the drawbridge and hoping that things will be all right, as some wanting to leave the EU seem to want, is not realistic in the modern world.

    Our security relies on co-operation and collaboration with our allies.

    We already exercise control at the border. We can refuse entry or deport individuals where we believe that they pose a threat. Since 2010 we’ve refused access to 6,000 European Economic Area (EEA) nationals.

    But in order to do all this work effectively, we need to act in concert with our neighbours. EU membership helps us exchange criminal records with other Member States. Leaving is not going to help us share the intelligence we need with our European allies. It would make it harder.

    And thanks to the EU’s police and judicial cooperation, we can work effectively across borders to tackle crime and terrorism.

    Some here will remember the bad old days of the so-called Costa del Crime. When you could spend months trying to bring British criminals back from the continent to face British justice. Extraditions that failed because of different systems, incompatible bureaucracies.

    Those days are gone. And they are gone because of progress made at the European level. Before the European Arrest Warrant was introduced, extradition took a year on average. Now there is a maximum of 90 days, and the average is only 48 days – or just 16 days if the suspect surrenders.

    So it is not surprising that the men and women actually on the front line today, in the police, in the intelligence agencies and in the military have emphasised the security offered by the European Union membership.

    Rob Wainwright, the British director of Europol, called the EU “critical to the UK’s attempts to fight serious crime.”

    Of course, we can and should go further and the Home Secretary is at the forefront of these efforts. We are leading Europe in tackling the movement of people and weapons linked to terrorism by pressing for increased information-sharing, stronger control on the movement of firearms and enhanced aviation security. We have now secured stricter deactivation standards for firearms across Europe and shaped the Passenger Name Records directive.

    In a world fraught with risk, we need more cooperation, not less.

    The third challenge is an aggressive and truculent Russia.

    We have seen aggression in Ukraine, through the destabilisation of the Donbas, the aggression in Georgia and – in defiance of the Helsinki Final Acts and international law – the illegal annexation of Crimea. And only a few months ago an independent inquiry found what we have long thought: that the Russian state probably directed the cold-blooded murder of Alexander Litvinenko here in London.

    Yes, in facing that challenge the role of NATO is key: meaning that the UK’s role of ensuring the EU is aligned with and supports and complements NATO is all the more important.

    It is vital, as we face this major diplomatic and security challenge, to ensure that the relationship between Europe and the United States remains strong. And we have to do this at a time when it’s very apparent that the American public, and many American politicians, are becoming impatient with what they see as Europe free-riding upon American taxpayers in financing the provision of security. So the historic role of the United Kingdom in ensuring that Europe and the United States remain in lock step, that we support and build a still vibrant and relevant trans-Atlantic western alliance is more important today than any time since the end of the cold war. And the EU is essential when it comes to imposing tough economic sanctions on Russia; responding to Russia’s use of energy as a tool of political interference; in ensuring defence against potential cyber attack; and strengthening the rule of law in countries in Eastern Europe.

    Here too the UK is playing a leading role in Europe – in keeping the EU focussed on the gravity of the challenge posed by Putin’s Russia, and in ensuring that the positions of the EU and the US are aligned.

    Finally, the fourth challenge is the collapse of effective governance in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

    This has created safe spaces for terrorist groups to plan strikes against us. And the chaos has led to a humanitarian disaster, driving people out of their homes and across borders.

    It’s not the only cause of the migratory pressures Europe is facing. There are pressures that arise, from economic underperformance in countries in African and Asia where 60% of the population are under 30, pressures that I think are building from climate change in certain parts of the world. But those phenomena together add up to a picture of sustained migratory pressures on the European continent.

    We see the results every day in Greece, in Macedonia and elsewhere.

    We simply cannot turn our backs. These problems are not going to go away. Quitting the EU is going to do absolutely nothing to stem the pressures from migration. What our priority ought to be is to help build an effective European response to this challenge.

    Working with and through the EU, as well as with other international partners, the UK can help direct a comprehensive approach to the crisis. Working with our friends and allies to bring diplomatic pressure to bear where necessary; to build capacity in the local police, armed forces and courts in those countries; to help countries in Africa and the Middle East to create greater political and economic stability; to use aid and trade to give people in those developing countries the hope of a decent life and fulfilment of ambition in their own country. So they don’t feel the need to get out.

    The EU-Turkey agreement for the first time means we have a plan that – if properly implemented – breaks the business model of the people smugglers by ending the link between getting in a boat and settling in Europe.

    And the initial signs are that the deal is having an effect. It’s still early days, but the average number of daily arrivals to Greece so far in April is almost half of that in March. Turkey accepted over 300 returnees from Greece last week. Turkey, Greece and the EU will need to maintain efforts to ensure quick and effective implementation of the deal, and of course more will need to be done with the newly established, but still quite fragile, Government of National Accord in Libya.

    The UK is playing an active, and I would argue a leading, role. We are contributing £2.3 billion in humanitarian assistance to support Syrian refugees, and the London Conference galvanised others to increase their support. British experts are now working in Greece to support the EU-Turkey agreement, and we are considering how future UK support could be most effectively deployed. We are already cooperating closely with Turkey to support their generous hosting of nearly 3 million refugees, and improving the effectiveness of their migration management. We stand ready to do more.

    Responding to this challenge is not going to be easy, there are no instant overnight solutions. But I think that British work within Europe in recent years, in Somalia and Mali in particular, show that when the EU brings its range of assets to bear on international problems, we can succeed.

    Now some like to portray the EU as something ‘done to’ the UK. The truth is that we are a leading member of the EU, and responsible for some of its key successes. The record shows that – whether we’re talking about the economic, security or foreign policy– where we seek to lead, we are able to do so.

    We have helped already to shape the current state of the European Union – one of the world’s most important economic and political entities – I would argue we have done as much as if not more than almost any other Member State.

    And I look forward to the UK continuing to play a leading role, through the European Union, in helping to shaping the future of our continent in the interest of the people of every one of the EU Member states.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2016 Speech on the EU

    jeremycorbyn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, at the Senate House on 14 April 2016.

    The people of this country face a historic choice on 23rd June whether to remain part of the European Union, or to leave. I welcome the fact that that decision is now in the hands of the British people. Indeed, I voted to support a referendum in the last Parliament.

    The move to hold this referendum may have been more about managing divisions in the Conservative party. But it is now a crucial democratic opportunity for people to have their say on our country’s future, and the future of our continent as a whole.

    The Labour Party is overwhelmingly for staying in because we believe the European Union has brought: investment, jobs and protection for workers, consumers and the environment, and offers the best chance of meeting the challenges we face in the 21st century. Labour is convinced that a vote to remain is in the best interests of the people of this country.

    In the coming century, we face huge challenges, as a people, as a continent and as a global community. How to deal with climate change. How to address the overweening power of global corporations and ensure they pay fair taxes. How to tackle cyber-crime and terrorism. How to ensure we trade fairly and protect jobs and pay in an era of globalisation. How to address the causes of the huge refugee movements across the world, and how we adapt to a world where people everywhere move more frequently to live, work and retire.

    All these issues are serious and pressing, and self-evidently require international co-operation. Collective international action through the European Union is clearly going to be vital to meeting these challenges. Britain will be stronger if we co-operate with our neighbours in facing them together.

    As Portugal’s new Socialist Prime Minister, Antonio Costa, has said: ‘in the face of all these crises around us. We must not divide Europe – we must strengthen it.’

    When the last referendum was held in 1975, Europe was divided by the Cold War, and what later became the EU was a much smaller, purely market-driven arrangement. Over the years I have been critical of many decisions taken by the EU, and I remain critical of its shortcomings; from its lack of democratic accountability to the institutional pressure to deregulate or privatise public services.

    So Europe needs to change. But that change can only come from working with our allies in the EU. It’s perfectly possible to be critical and still be convinced we need to remain a member.

    I’ve even had a few differences with the direction the Labour Party’s taken over the past few years but I have been sure that it was right to stay a member some might say I’ve even managed to do something about changing that direction.

    In contrast to four decades ago, the EU of today brings together most of the countries of Europe and has developed important employment, environmental and consumer protections.

    I have listened closely to the views of trade unions, environmental groups, human rights organisations and of course to Labour Party members and supporters, and fellow MPs. They are overwhelmingly convinced that we can best make a positive difference by remaining in Europe.

    Britain needs to stay in the EU as the best framework for trade, manufacturing and cooperation in 21st century Europe. Tens of billion pounds-worth of investment and millions of jobs are linked to our relationship with the EU, the biggest market in the world.

    EU membership has guaranteed working people vital employment rights, including four weeks’ paid holiday, maternity and paternity leave, protections for agency workers and health and safety in the workplace. Being in the EU has raised Britain’s environmental standards, from beaches to air quality, and protected consumers from rip-off charges.

    But we also need to make the case for reform in Europe – the reform David Cameron’s Government has no interest in, but plenty of others across Europe do.

    That means democratic reform to make the EU more accountable to its people. Economic reform to end to self-defeating austerity and put jobs and sustainable growth at the centre of European policy, labour market reform to strengthen and extend workers’ rights in a real social Europe. And new rights for governments and elected authorities to support public enterprise and halt the pressure to privatise services.

    So the case I’m making is for ‘Remain – and Reform’ in Europe.

    Today is the Global Day of Action for Fast Food Rights. In the US workers are demanding $15 an hour, in the UK £10 now. Labour is an internationalist party and socialists have understood from the earliest days of the labour movement that workers need to make common cause across national borders.

    Working together in Europe has led to significant gains for workers here in Britain and Labour is determined to deliver further progressive reform in 2020 the democratic Europe of social justice and workers’ rights that people throughout our continent want to see.

    But real reform will mean making progressive alliances across the EU – something that the Conservatives will never do.

    Take the crisis in the steel industry. It’s a global problem and a challenge to many European governments. So why is it only the British Government that has failed so comprehensively to act to save steel production at home?

    The European Commission proposed new tariffs on Chinese steel, but it was the UK Government that blocked these co-ordinated efforts to stop Chinese steel dumping.

    Those proposals are still on the table. So today I ask David Cameron and George Osborne to to start sticking up for British steel and work with our willing European partners to secure its future.

    There are certainly problems about EU state aid rules, which need reform. But if as the Leave side argues, it is the EU that is the main problem, how is that Germany, Italy, France and Spain have all done so much better at protecting their steel industries?

    It is because those countries have acted within EU state aid rules to support their industries; whether through taking a public stake, investing in research and development, providing loan guarantees or compensating for energy costs.

    It is not the EU that is the problem, but a Conservative Government here in Britain that doesn’t recognise the strategic importance of steel, for our economy and for the jobs and skills in those communities.

    The Conservative Government has blocked action on Chinese steel dumping. It has cut investment in infrastructure that would have created demand for more steel and had no procurement strategy to support British steel.

    A Labour government would have worked with our partners across Europe to stand up for steel production in Britain.

    The European Union – 28 countries and 520 million people – could have made us stronger, by defending our steel industries together. The actions of the Conservative Government weakened us.

    The jobs being created under this Government are too often low skill, low pay and insecure jobs. If we harnessed Europe’s potential we could be doing far more to defend high skill jobs in the steel industry.

    And that goes for other employers of high skilled staff too – from Airbus to Nissan – they have made it clear that their choice to invest in Britain is strengthened by our membership of the European Union.

    Of course the Conservatives are loyally committed to protecting one British industry in Europe – the tax avoidance industry.

    The most telling revelation about our Prime Minister has not been about his own tax affair, but that in 2013 he personally intervened with the European Commission President to undermine an EU drive to reveal the beneficiaries of offshore trusts, and even now, in the wake of the Panama Papers, he still won’t act.

    And on six different occasions since the beginning of last year Conservative MEPs have voted down attempts to take action against tax dodging.

    Labour has allies across Europe prepared to take on this global network of the corrupt and we will work with them to clamp down on those determined to suck wealth out of our economies and the pockets of our people.

    On Tuesday, the EU announced a step forward on country-by-country reporting. We believe we can go further. But even this modest measure was opposed by Conservative MEPs last December.

    Left to themselves, it is clear what the main Vote Leave vision is for Britain to be the safe haven of choice for the ill-gotten gains of every dodgy oligarch, dictator or rogue corporation.

    They believe this tiny global elite is what matters, not the rest of us, who they dismiss as “low achievers”.

    Some argue that we need to leave the EU because the single market’s rules are driving deregulation and privatisation. They certainly need reform. But it was not the EU that privatised our railways. It was the Conservative Government of John Major and many of our rail routes are now run by other European nations’ publicly owned rail companies. They haven’t made the mistake of asset stripping their own countries.

    Labour is committed to bringing rail back into public ownership in 2020. And that is why Labour MEPs are opposing any element of the fourth rail package, currently before the European Parliament, that might make that more difficult.

    The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is also a huge cause for concern, but we defeated a similar proposal before in Europe, together when it was called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, back in 1998.

    Labour MEPs are rightly opposing the Investor-State Dispute Mechanism opposing any attempt to enforce privatisation on our public services, to reduce consumer rights, workplace protections or environmental standards.

    The free market enthusiasts in the Leave campaign would put all those protections at risk. Labour is building alliances to safeguard them.

    We must also put human rights at the centre of our trade agreements, not as an optional add-on. We already have allies across Europe to do that. And the EU is vital for promoting human rights at home. As a result of EU directives and regulations, disabled people are protected from discrimination. Lifts, cars and buses need to be accessible, as does sea and air travel.

    And it was the Labour Government that signed the Human Rights Act into UK law that transferred power from government – not to Brussels – but to individual citizens.

    Climate change is the greatest threat that humanity faces this century. And Britain cannot tackle it alone. We could have the best policies possible but unless we act together internationally, it is worthless. Labour brought in the Climate Change Act, John Prescott played a key role in getting the Kyoto Protocols agreed. Labour has led the debate within Europe.

    But despite David Cameron pledging to lead the greenest Government ever, Britain still lags far behind most of Europe in terms of renewable energy production. We have much to learn from what Germany has done in particular.

    The Conservative Government has cut subsidies for solar power while increasing subsidies for diesel. It has cut regulatory burdens on fracking yet increased regulations on onshore wind. They say one thing, but do another.

    Again, it has been regulations agreed in Europe that have improved Britain’s beaches and waterways and that are forcing us to tackle the scandal of air pollution which will kill 500,000 people in Britain by 2025, unless we act.

    Working together in the European Union is vital for tackling climate change and vital in protecting the environment we share.

    No doubt debate about EU membership in the next couple of months will focus strongly on jobs and migration. We live in an increasingly globalised world. Many of us will study, work or even retire abroad at some point in our lives.

    Free movement has created opportunities for British people. There are nearly three-quarters of a million British people living in Spain and over two million living in the EU as a whole.

    Learning abroad and working abroad, increases the opportunities and skills of British people and migration brings benefits as well as challenges at home.

    But it’s only if there is government action to train enough skilled workers to stop the exploitation of migrant labour to undercut wages and invest in local services and housing in areas of rapid population growth that they will be felt across the country.

    And this Government has done nothing of the sort. Instead, its failure to train enough skilled workers means we have become reliant on migration to keep our economy functioning.

    This is especially true of our NHS which depends on migrant nurses and doctors to fill vacancies. This Government has failed to invest in training, and its abolition of nurses’ bursaries, and its decision to pick a fight with junior doctors is likely to make those shortages worse.

    As a former representative of NHS workers, I value our NHS and admire the dedication of all its staff. It is Labour’s proudest creation. But right now, it would be in even greater crisis if many on the Leave side had their way. Some of whom have argued against the NHS and free healthcare on demand in principle.

    And of course it is EU regulations that that underpin many rights at work, like holiday entitlement, maternity leave, rights to take breaks and limits to how many hours we can work, and that have helped to improve protection for agency workers.

    The Tories and UKIP are on record as saying they would like to cut back EU-guaranteed workplace rights if they could.

    A Labour government would instead strengthen rights at work making common cause with our allies to raise employment standards throughout Europe, to stop the undercutting of wages and conditions by unscrupulous employers, to strengthen the protection of every worker in Europe.

    Just imagine what the Tories would do to workers’ rights here in Britain if we voted to leave the EU in June. They’d dump rights on equal pay, working time, annual leave, for agency workers, and on maternity pay as fast as they could get away with it. It would be a bonfire of rights that Labour governments secured within the EU.

    Not only that, it wouldn’t be a Labour government negotiating a better settlement for working people with the EU. It would be a Tory government, quite possibly led by Boris Johnson and backed by Nigel Farage, that would negotiate the worst of all worlds: a free market free-for-all shorn of rights and protections.

    It is sometimes easier to blame the EU, or worse to blame foreigners, than to face up to our own problems. At the head of which right now is a Conservative Government that is failing the people of Britain.

    There is nothing remotely patriotic about selling off our country and our national assets to the highest bidder. Or in handing control of our economy to City hedge-funds and tax-dodging corporations based in offshore tax havens.

    There is a strong socialist case for staying in the European Union. Just as there is also a powerful socialist case for reform and progressive change in Europe.

    That is why we need a Labour government, to stand up – at the European level – for industries and communities in Britain, to back public ownership and public services, to protect and extend workers’ rights and to work with our allies to make both Britain and Europe work better for working people.

    Many people are still weighing up how they will vote in this referendum. And I appeal to everyone, especially young people – who will live longest with the consequences – to make sure you are registered to vote. And vote to keep Britain in Europe this June. This is about your future.

    By working together across our continent, we can develop our economies protect social and human rights, tackle climate change and clamp down on tax dodgers.

    You cannot build a better world unless you engage with the world, build allies and deliver change. The EU, warts and all, has proved itself to be a crucial international framework to do that.

    That is why I will be am backing Britain to remain in Europe and I hope you will too.

  • Harriett Baldwin – 2016 Speech on Tax Avoidance and Evasion

    Harriett Baldwin
    Harriett Baldwin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 13 April 2016.

    I am again delighted to be given the opportunity to outline the action that the Government are proud to have taken to tackle tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning. No Government have done more to ensure that people and companies pay the taxes they owe and to crack down on those who do not play by the rules. That is why, from day one, we have introduced measure after measure to close down the tax loopholes we inherited, to increase the punishment for those who break the law, to drive forward tax transparency and ensure that the UK is at the forefront of new global standards, to ensure that international tax rules are fit for the 21st century, to reform the regimes in overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and to increase HMRC’s powers to collect the money that pays for the public services on which we all depend.

    Yes, individuals and companies should pay their fair share of tax, which is exactly what this Government have been ensuring that they do. The activities in Panama are already the subject of intensive HMRC investigation. It is imperative that the leaked data are examined closely, which is why we are setting up and providing funding for an operationally independent, cross-agency taskforce to sift through the millions of pages of data. Where there is evidence of any wrongdoing, rapid action will be taken. The Government also attach great importance to giving HMRC the resources to protect our tax base, which is why at last year’s summer Budget we announced an extra £800 million to fund additional work to tackle evasion and non-compliance by 2020-21. That will enable HMRC to recover a cumulative £7.2 billion in tax over the next five years.

    The Opposition motion talks about beneficial ownership. Thanks to this Government’s action, our register of company beneficial ownership will go live in June. We are the first major country to have such a list in place, free for anyone to access. In addition, we are consulting on requiring foreign companies that own property or bid on public contracts in England to provide beneficial ownership information, too.

    We heard from a range of speakers today. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has a new-found interest in a topic he asked no questions on during 13 years of Labour government, but he has managed over the past week to confirm his party as anti-aspiration and anti-wealth-creation, and as wanting to create an atmosphere of envy. We heard from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who was much more welcoming of the measures the Government have introduced, and he also attacked Labour’s lack of action in 13 years. We heard a very informed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), a member of the Public Accounts Committee, who shared with us his expertise in that area. We also heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who is chair and founder of the all-party group on anti-corruption. She will be aware of the proposed new offences that we are introducing in terms of prosecuting companies that fail to prevent evasion. She will want to participate in that consultation and in the process of legislation on that offence.

    My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) brought in his expertise in business, highlighting the steps the Government have taken to help low earners. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) used some fairly dodgy statistics, but I am pleased to confirm that the amount of £1.8 billion has been made available for compliance and enforcement, which is an increase in resources, over the last two Parliaments. She raised questions about trusts, asking whether the arrangements relating to the beneficial ownership of companies should be extended to trusts. There are many legitimate reasons for creating a trust and the vast majority of trusts across the UK are used for legitimate purposes. Setting up a blanket requirement would distract action from the areas of most concern, such as shell companies.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made an interesting speech, in which he recommended abolishing corporation tax completely. The Government are not ready to do that at this point in time. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made an angry speech that included rather a lot of personal attacks on individual Conservative politicians. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) made an excellent speech highlighting the Labour party’s politics of envy and our steps to make our income tax system even more progressive.

    The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) spoke up for the low-paid, but I detected a strong streak of the politics of envy for anyone else in his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) made a good speech about the credible action against corruption and criminality that this Government have taken. He gave an excellent and incisive summary of what we have done, drawing on his knowledge of the art world. We heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), and I can confirm that HMRC does work closely with Interpol and is indeed finalising the list for the anti-corruption summit as we speak. We heard helpful contributions from Members from Northern Ireland, who welcomed some of the steps the Government have taken.

    In conclusion, this country is leading the way on tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance, bringing in billions from offshore tax evaders since 2010 through the actions we have taken. We have made more than 40 changes to tax law in the last Parliament alone, and in this Parliament more than 25 have already been announced for legislation.

    Although Labour has suddenly decided to give lectures on tax, I remind the House that when we came into office there were foreign nationals not paying capital gains tax when selling UK property, private equity managers paying lower rates of tax than their cleaners, and rich homebuyers getting away without paying stamp duty by owning homes through companies. We have taken action to fix that. We have increased the amount paid in income tax by the top 1% from £31 billion 10 years ago to £47 billion now. We have made our taxes more internationally competitive. We have cut income tax for tens of millions of hard-working people, rewarded aspiration and made the tax system better, fairer and more efficient. That is our record. We are proud of it, and I urge the House to vote against today’s Opposition motion.

  • Sammy Wilson – 2016 Speech on Tax Avoidance and Evasion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sammy Wilson, the DUP MP for East Antrim, in the House of Commons on 13 April 2016.

    This debate is important for all the reasons that have been mentioned: public frustration at those who can earn money and not pay tax while the rest of the people have to pay it; the stretching of public finances at a time of austerity and the need to ensure that legitimate taxes are paid; and, of course, the concern that the ability to evade taxes and to hide sources of income leads to all kinds of corruption, including, as we have found in Northern Ireland, the ability to finance terrorism.

    Let me put it on the record that however much the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor beat their chests about the evasion of taxes, they showed friendship to and favoured the very people who used all kinds of fiscal fraud to finance murder in Northern Ireland for 30 years—and we have never heard an apology from them about it.

    As the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) said, we must approach this matter with a sense of maturity rather than a “politics of envy” approach. I know that some Opposition Members have denied it, but some contributions have demonstrated such an approach. Equally, on the Government side, there must be a willingness to listen to the genuine concerns and deal with the issues raised.

    I do not believe that we can deal with this matter simply by demanding that everybody produce and publish their tax returns. Someone who is going to evade tax is hardly going to put that down on their tax return in any case. Where does this stop? If the issue is all about how the creation of policy has been influenced, what about top civil servants, who are involved in policy making? What about the heads of many public sector organisations, who are also involved in it? What of the press? We cannot have the critics of what happens in this House avoiding the publication of their own tax returns. As I say, where does it stop?

    In any case, the answer does not lie in publishing tax returns. I believe that three important points have been identified. I shall not go through all of them, but the first one is that we must know who is responsible for the income of a certain business or company and be able to trace it, because the issues of accessibility and transparency are important. How do we achieve that? I think that the Government have already gone some way along the road.

    Strangely enough, Labour Members believe that we should use Orders in Council against independent territories—a form of colonialism that I would have thought they would not support. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may say that is nonsense, but either we regard these places as independent territories that make their own laws, and seek to co-operate with and persuade them to do the right thing, or we impose the laws on them, which as far as I am concerned is a form of colonialism. I do not think it would work. I think the Government are right to seek to persuade those territories to come along and see the implications of allowing people to hide their identities in some of the businesses based in them.

    The second important point is about tax avoidance. Many Members have talked about it today, but millions of people in the United Kingdom engage in tax avoidance and think nothing of it, because it is within the law. When a tax code can run to 22,000-plus pages, with all the allowances and other provisions in it, of course people are going to find loopholes. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, the people best able to do that are people who have huge resources at their disposal. Many taxpayers do not have such resources, so a simpler tax system would help. Adam Smith, whose words have been cited in the Chamber today, laid down the canons of taxation, which he said were fairness, simplicity and the ability to collect taxes economically. Those are some of the principles that we should keep in mind.

    Thirdly, there is the issue of enforceability. I have reservations about the direction in which the Government are going. Of course we should find efficiencies in public services, but when I see how many tax offices are closing, especially in border towns in Northern Ireland, where hundreds of years’ worth of experience in dealing with some of the worst money launderers in the United Kingdom is being lost, I ask myself whether we are really serious about taking on the tax evaders. Even when we spot them, they are not always prosecuted. HSBC has been identified as one bank that enabled many people to evade taxes—I believe that there were 7,000, and that more than 1,100 were in the United Kingdom—but there has been only one prosecution so far. It is not just a case of having the resources to enforce. It is a case of making sure that when people are caught, examples are made of them and they are punished accordingly, so that the message that goes out is, “This will not be tolerated.”

    I believe that if we do not work to achieve greater transparency, an efficient tax system that does not leave loopholes and a proper method of enforcement, what is happening now will go on and on.

  • Joan Ryan – 2016 Speech on Rail Passenger Services

    joanryan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Joan Ryan in the House of Commons on 13 April 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Schedule 8 disruption payments between Network Rail and train operating companies to be allocated to specified projects aimed at increasing the quality, value for money or reliability of passengers’ experience of railway travel and associated services; and for connected purposes.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to present the Bill to the House today, the purposes of which are threefold. First, the Bill seeks to improve the services on offer to rail commuters across the country. Secondly, it aims to ensure that millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is directed towards benefiting passengers, rather than lining the pockets of train operating companies. Thirdly, the Bill seeks to shine a light on a part of the rail industry that is bewildering in its complexity, and to open it up to greater public scrutiny and accountability. The Bill would create a responsibility for the regulator to guarantee that any net income made by train operators from schedule 8 payments in totality is used to fund overall passenger benefits on the network. It is important to note that the Bill is not intended to stop or replace current compensation arrangements between train operators and passengers, which reimburse passengers for delays.

    Rail commuters in Enfield and throughout the country are getting a raw deal. They are paying sky-high ticket prices for a rock-bottom service. They are currently having to endure the worst performance in terms of train punctuality for almost a decade. In 2014-15, 47 million passenger journeys on the railways were either cancelled or delayed. Members of the public are shocked when they learn that train operators can actually make a profit from Network Rail failures. If trains are delayed or cancelled and the responsibility lies with Network Rail—for instance, when points do not work or power fails—Network Rail makes compensation payments to the train operators. These are known as intra-industry arrangements or schedule 8 disruption payments. However, train operators are not obliged to reinvest any of that money in services for the benefit of passengers.

    The payments received from Network Rail bear no relation whatever to the passenger compensation schemes between the train operators and their customers. Indeed, only a fraction of what train operators receive in payments from Network Rail is ever passed on to commuters whose journeys have been disrupted. Passengers are certainly not helped to claim what they are owed for delays, given that train operators make it so difficult for them to access compensation. It is really important that passengers are made more aware of their rights. I applaud the recent work of Which? and its “Make rail refunds easier” campaign, putting pressure on the rail regulator and train operators to make this whole process simpler, fairer and more accessible to commuters.

    I call on the Government to bring rail travel within the EU-compliant Consumer Rights Act 2015. The unfairness of the current structure of railway compensation payments is really brought to light when we consider how much money is involved and how poorly passengers are compensated compared with train operators. I commend the recent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and the shadow Transport team to expose this issue. Their analysis has shown that between 2010 and 2015 Network Rail paid out £575 million to train operators in schedule 8 payments. Over the same period, train operators provided compensation to passengers to the tune of only £73 million. That is a compensation gap of more than half a billion pounds, a substantial boost to train operating companies’ profit margins.

    I accept that train operators should be able to cover the costs of any loss of revenue they incur that arise from the unplanned delays caused by Network Rail. What they should not be able to do, however, is make a profit over and above those costs from train delays and cancellations. That is just plain wrong.

    In 2014-15, the Government provided a grant payment to Network Rail of £3.8 billion. Therefore, to add insult to injury, a significant amount of taxpayers’ money flows from Network Rail back to private train operating companies, many of them ultimately owned by foreign Governments, under schedule 8 payments. It is scandalous that a system can be designed in such a way that the very people using the rail network and who are most affected by the poor standard of service on offer—tax-paying commuters—can end up contributing to train operators’ profits out of their own misery! How can this be right? Where is the accountability to the fare-paying, taxpaying public for how this system operates and where this money goes?

    The rail expert Christian Wolmar has said:

    “In an ideal world, the train operators would only get back the actual money that unexpected delays costs them. However, instead the level is determined by an economic model that only very vaguely reflects the impact of delays felt by passengers. So vaguely, in fact, to be meaningless.”

    He went on to say that the current system

    “does the railways no credit and creates the perverse incentives that plague the industry.”

    I could not agree more; the situation must change. We need a way of linking schedule 8 payments to benefits that improve the customer experience of the railways. This Bill would make that happen.

    I want the rail regulator to be given the power to ensure that train operating companies have to provide full disclosure of any net profit they might make from schedule 8 payments. This information should be made available to the public. With rigorous monitoring by the regulator, this money should be put towards improving the customer experience and providing a high-value service. Such measures could include retaining ticket office staff; facilitating easier access to station platforms and trains; free wi-fi on trains; or using the money towards paying for a guarantee that trains will not miss out stops—a particular frustration for a number of my constituents. These are just a few suggestions, and I think that, should this Bill become law, it would be a very good idea to consult passengers on the improvements they want to see to their services.

    It is clear from recent evidence that the rail regulator understands many of the issues I am looking to address with this Bill. At the end of last year, the regulator and Network Rail agreed a £4 million rail reparation fund to benefit directly commuters affected by poor performance on routes provided by Thameslink, Southern and the Gatwick Express services. By increasing the number of staff at stations, employing more track workers to deal with disruptions and introducing incident management software to resolve issues on routes more quickly, the regulator sought to “enhance” the services for passengers affected by poor performance.

    I want a permanent rather than a temporary scheme in place that can benefit all passengers across the country. However, the rail reparation fund example is an important first step by the regulator. What it has set out to achieve reinforces the fundamental principle that lies at the heart of the Bill before us—that improving rail passengers’ services should be the top priority for Network Rail and train operators. Commuters should not be left waiting on station platforms while train operators pick up big profits from the rail industry’s complex, opaque and unfair compensation arrangements.

    I would like to thank colleagues from across the House who have agreed to sponsor my motion today. That support shows the extent to which we all want to see the rail industry reformed for the benefit of passengers—our constituents. It is for all these reasons that I commend this Bill to the House.

  • Harriett Baldwin – 2016 Speech on Financial Advice

    Harriett Baldwin
    Harriett Baldwin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, on 13 April 2016.

    Good morning – I’m very pleased indeed to be here today to discuss one of the most important priorities for the financial services sector: helping people make the right financial decisions at the key stages of their lives.

    Financial decisions are some of the most important a person will make during their lifetime. And it is therefore vital that people can get the help they need, and can choose the type of support that works for them.

    Currently, we have an advice market that works well for wealthier customers. But those without significant wealth have an ‘advice gap’.

    The average cost of advice is £150 per hour, and the average advice process takes over 7 hours for investment advice and 9 hours for retirement advice. This means that for many, advice is seen as unaffordable.

    And firms faced barriers too. I heard evidence from a firm that felt unable to list funds in order of risk, only alphabetically. Another felt unable to contact customers to let them know that they have not used their ISA allowance in a given tax year, or point out that a customer had never increased their pension payments, despite receiving a pay increase.

    So that is the context in which we launched the Financial Advice Market Review, which became immediately known as FAMR.

    As you’ll know, FAMR published its final report last month.

    It set out a new approach to financial advice through 28 recommendations. These recommendations are aimed at stimulating the development of a market that will provide affordable and accessible financial advice and guidance for everyone, at all stages of their lives.

    I was delighted by the response to the consultation.

    The FAMR secretariat received almost 270 responses, and conducted over 115 hours of meetings to hear your views and ideas.

    And I would like to thank all of you here who participated over the course of the review for your invaluable input.

    I hope that the recommendations made by FAMR will enable firms and providers to offer consumers different advice and guidance options that suit a range of needs.

    From robo-advice that enables people to select an investment fund that helps them meet their savings goals; to streamlined advice on how to protect their income after starting a family; to affordable, holistic retirement advice.

    So today I’d like to talk about FAMR’s recommendations, and how the government, the FCA, industry, employers and consumer bodies can work together to ensure that FAMR is a success.

    For our part, we have committed to take forward all of the recommendations for which we, as a government, are responsible, and I know that industry will continue to work with us to drive forward progress.

    So let me talk about some of these recommendations…

    A number of the recommendations focus on ensuring that the regulatory environment helps firms provide affordable advice services.

    I know how frustrating it is – for firms and customers alike – when there’s uncertainty about the boundary between “regulated advice” and “guidance” when all people really want is help.

    That is why we committed at Budget to consult on changing the definition of financial advice so that it reflects the EU definition of advice as a “personal recommendation”, and we will consult on this over the summer.

    I hope that this will do away with the current confusion surrounding multiple definitions, and enable firms to do more for their customers.

    I hope that the development of a new streamlined advice regime will also enable advisers to give affordable advice focussed on specific needs, without conducting a disproportionately long and expensive fact find.

    I am confident that these measures will give firms the flexibility to bring forward innovative new guidance and advice offerings, so that consumers can select a service that meets their individual needs.

    I am also a big believer in the potential for technology to have a significant impact on the supply of advice.

    I was delighted when last month the UK was ranked as the world’s leading fintech hub, according to an independent report by EY.

    One of the key factors that led to this success was the UK’s supportive regulatory environment, with the Financial Conduct Authority’s Project Innovate receiving special mention as a ‘best-in-class’ programme.

    The speed with which technology has changed our day to day lives is astonishing and wonderful. For many people, engaging with their finances online is becoming the norm. For example, over half of people use internet banking.

    High quality automated advice has the potential to help bridge the advice gap by bringing affordable options to the mass market. There are already a number of excellent examples on the market, for example LV=’s CORA.

    However, I know some firms have been cautious about bringing their models to market, for fear that they won’t comply with regulatory requirements.

    That is why FAMR has recommended that we apply our expertise as a global fintech centre, and build on the success of Project Innovate. So the FCA will provide regulatory support for high quality robo-advice propositions that will have impact on the mass market through a new ‘advice unit’, which Tracey McDermott will tell you more about shortly.

    A key objective of FAMR is to help consumers engage with their finances. And the development of fintech and the use of data will play an important part of this.

    Allowing customers to have easy access to their data is critical. That’s why we have taken action through the excellent collaborative work on Midata and the Open Banking Standard.

    And throughout the FAMR consultation, there was also overwhelming support for a Pensions Dashboard that would allow people to access their pension data easily, viewing all of their pension savings in one place.

    This would help them to engage with their pension, and gain a better understanding of what actions they can take to ensure a comfortable income in retirement. This matters to a lot of people.

    Since the start of auto-enrolment, over 6 million people have been auto-enrolled into a workplace pension. Once fully implemented, around 9 million people are expected to be enrolled, increasing the amount being saved into workplace pensions by around £15 billion per year. And this presents both a need, and an opportunity, to help consumers engage with their finances through the workplace.

    There are a number of exciting dashboard initiatives already going on, and I am keen to ensure that the government does what it can to support their progress.

    That is why I will act as ministerial champion to support industry in designing and delivering the dashboard, and I am looking forward to working together to bring this technology to consumers by 2019.

    Good financial advice is also imperative. Research by Scottish Widows found that 57% of employees want financial advice in the workplace. Employers have also told us that they want to do more to help their employees at retirement. While Unbiased, an independent UK directory of advisers, found that those who sought retirement advice increased their retirement savings by an average of £98 a month as a direct result.

    We want to support employers who give employees access to advice, so we announced at Budget that we will increase the tax exemption for employer arranged-pension advice from £150 to £500. We will also remove a cliff edge that meant that if the employer spends £151, all the tax benefit is lost. This will make advice more affordable for employers who want to provide it to their staff.

    But we want a benefit of this kind to be available to everyone, including the self-employed and those whose employers do not arrange advice on their behalf.

    We will therefore be consulting over the summer on introducing a pensions advice allowance.

    This would allow people to withdraw £500 tax free from their defined contribution pension pot before the age of 55, to redeem against the cost of holistic financial advice.

    The pensions advice allowance could also provide a ‘nudge’ to get people thinking about their retirement early, so that they can plan for their retirement, and if necessary step up their savings rate.

    I encourage the industry to engage with the pensions advice allowance consultation, and view this as an opportunity to tell us how the allowance could best meet the needs of consumers, whilst also working for firms.

    It is our intention that the tax exemption for employer provided advice and the pensions advice allowance could be complementary, so it would be possible for those who are able to use both to access up to £1000 of tax advantaged advice.

    For these measures to be a success, and for consumers to have the confidence to engage with financial services, they need to know that the industry is designed to work for them and that they will have access to redress. That is why FAMR did not recommend a reverse of the Retail Distribution Review, no return to commission, and no compromise on consumer protection.

    In the context of FAMR, it is also right that the government reassesses its public financial guidance provision.

    Changing the regulatory regime for advice will make much more financial guidance available to consumers by facilitating greater availability of alternatives to government-backed financial guidance, as both financial services firms and third sector providers come forward with innovative guidance offerings.

    Of course, some people will still require impartial financial guidance, particularly those with lower financial capability. But we need an approach to guidance that works with the market, and doesn’t duplicate it.

    The public financial guidance consultation was positive about the commissioning model the government currently uses for debt advice. This is why we have decided to replace the Money Advice Service with a new, slimmed down money guidance body that will identify gaps in the financial guidance market, and commission targeted debt advice, money guidance and financial capability projects to fill these gaps.

    This body will have no brand, and will not engage in direct delivery. Instead it will focus purely on commissioning services and will seek significant input from the financial services sector. Money will no longer be spent on marketing – allowing the new body to channel as much money as possible directly to the front line, via third parties and charities with local expertise.

    The new money guidance body will have a corporate, rather than a consumer-facing website, where details of funding opportunities will be published. We will ensure that useful budgeting tools and products created by MAS will continue to be hosted on appropriate websites

    We will, however, be continuing to offer government backed guidance. Many people find pensions a complex subject and are likely to have a range of questions in their lifetime that they will want help and support to answer.

    So we are pooling the expertise of the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise, and some pensions guidance provided by the Money Advice Service into a single pensions guidance body. This will make sure that customers can get all their pensions questions answered in one place, and will not face frustrating hand-offs if they have questions about a range of issues.

    These are exciting changes which will deliver more financial help to more people, advice tailored to their specific needs, and guidance for those who just need some support in making their own decisions.

    And all with no compromise on quality or consumer protection; in short, a market that works for the customer.

    To get these reforms bedded in, we will need to work together – alongside consumer groups, industry and employers.

    So I’m pleased that a Financial Advice Working Group, drawing members from the FAMR Expert Advisory Panel and the FCA Consumer and Practitioner Panels, chaired by Nick Prettejohn, will take an active role in implementing some of these recommendations.

    The next step will be to make these recommendations a success – and I look forward to working with you all to do exactly that.

  • Ed Balls – 2005 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    balls

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Commons by Ed Balls in the House of Commons on 25 May 2005.

    It is a great honour to make my maiden speech in this House on this, the final day of debate on the Queen’s Speech, to follow the thoughtful speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for West Dunbartonshire (Mr. McFall) and to follow a series of excellent maiden speeches, not least that of the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), which together show that we can look forward to a number of thoughtful and constructive contributions in the debates of this House in the years to come.

    This is the first maiden speech by a Member of Parliament for Normanton for 22 years. Bill O’Brien, my predecessor, was a hugely respected MP, whose commitment to improving the lives of hard-working families in our area is beyond question. Almost everyone I have met in our constituency has a personal story to tell of how Bill has helped them, a friend or a family member. I know, too, that he is widely respected in the House for his parliamentary experience, for his detailed knowledge of mining and local government matters and for his wisdom. I have been told by many hon. Members how they have turned to Bill for advice and support during their parliamentary careers.

    I also want to mention Bill’s family and in particular his wife, Jean, who has also served for 22 years, as an MP’s spouse. It is my considered view, speaking from some personal experience, that the role of the MP’s spouse is not always fully appreciated at a political level. I want today to set the record straight: Jean O’Brien has consistently been by Bill’s side, a tower of quiet strength and dignity. I am sure that all hon. Members will want to wish them a long and happy retirement from the Commons and to thank Bill for his commitment to public service.

    I have had the privilege of speaking to many hundreds of voters in the past year about issues that directly affect their daily lives—pensions, skilled jobs, plans for a new hospital at Pinderfields, out-of-school child care and the need for more police and community support officers on the beat. All those issues I will be actively pursuing in the coming months. As we have talked, time and again I have heard and felt first hand the powerful traditions that run deep through Normanton.

    My constituency forms an arc around the north of the city of Wakefield, running from Sharlston and the town of Normanton in the east, through Altofts, Stanley, Outwood and Wrenthorpe to the north, and then round to Ossett and Horbury in the west, all linked together by the M62 and M1 motorways, which intersect in the constituency. It is a constituency united by a strong industrial tradition in manufacturing, railways and coal mining, and by a long-standing civic, trade union and co-operative tradition. In our district, the Co-operative party is our conscience, and I look forward to participating actively as a member of the Co-operative group of Labour MPs.

    Most important, Normanton boasts a historic Labour tradition, with the longest continuous Labour representation of any seat in England—a continuous representation, that is, since 1885, when the Liberals stood aside for 12 working-class Lib-Lab candidates. We are proud of Normanton’s Labour tradition, matched only by the Rhondda valley in south Wales, and if I may be so bold, long may it continue.

    We are now in a time of great change, as the revolution of globalisation transforms communities such as ours, but these challenges of technological change, foreign visitors and new investors are, for us, nothing new. Few constituencies can boast visitors as distinguished as Queen Victoria, Prime Ministers Gladstone and Disraeli and US President Ulysses Grant, all of whom visited our area in the mid-19th century, Normanton being, for passengers travelling north to south in the pre-buffet era, the restaurant stop of choice.

    One visitor above all left his mark: the Emperor of Brazil, Dom Pedro II, who stopped for lunch in August 1871, heard about the local colliery at Hopetown, arranged a visit and caused such a stir that the pit shaft was renamed Dom Pedro and became known as the Don. The emperor also visited the Normanton iron works, was shown a special rail and immediately ordered a batch to be sent back and used in the expansion of the Brazilian railway.

    To us, globalisation is nothing new, and well over a century later the same strengths that made my constituency an industrial leader—our strategic location, our manufacturing expertise and our skilled work force—are now the key to our future prosperity. It is the task of the Wakefield Way steering group, on which I serve, to ensure that we exploit those advantages to the full. We want to see the Wakefield district established as a key logistics cluster, and a centre of industrial and manufacturing expertise.

    We also have to be honest about the weaknesses that we must address. We still have too many people trapped on incapacity benefit, who want to work but need extra help and support to return to work. Compared with other parts of Yorkshire, we have skills shortages  alongside low levels of qualifications in the adult work force. It is both an affront to social justice and a real economic threat that so many 16-year-olds in my constituency still leave school without a proper qualification. I therefore welcome the measures set out today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Queen’s Speech debate on science, skills, employment, housing and regional policy, which will really help us in that task.

    We are able to debate today how our wider economic policy can build on stability—rather than, as used to happen, how we can avoid stop-go—because the Labour Government have put in place a new British model of monetary and fiscal policy for our country and taken the tough decisions to establish and entrench economic stability. Twenty years ago, the Wakefield district was labelled a “high unemployment area”, with one young person in every four unemployed for more than six months as a result of the devastating loss of manufacturing jobs and the closures of the pits. It was not a price worth paying. Today, because of our economic stability, our district has an unemployment rate, not above, but below the national average. The new deal has cut youth unemployment from a peak of 3,300 young people out of work in 1984 to just 130 today—20 in my constituency. It is because of the proactive and forward-looking approach that Labour has taken to economic policy—Bank of England independence, the symmetric inflation target and the two fiscal rules—that, for the first time in a generation, my constituents are benefiting from what is close to a full employment economy.

    That stability—that prudence—has been for a purpose. We have shown that a Government committed to progressive goals—increasing investment in our public services, introducing a national minimum wage, lifting 1 million children out of poverty—can also deliver the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 40 years and record levels of employment. Some said that a Labour Government could not run a stable economy and pursue progressive goals. The present Government have proved them wrong.

    At this point, I must confess that, yes, as a young economist working in opposition back in 1994, I wrote that truly immemorable phrase, “post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory”—but there was a penultimate draft from which that infamous phrase had been excised, and it was not I but a rather more distinguished Member of this House who wrote in the margin, “Put back the theory.” From 1997, I was proud to serve the Labour Chancellor and the Labour Government for seven years as economic adviser and then chief economic adviser to the Treasury. I was privileged to chair the International Monetary and Financial Committee Deputies during a period in which Britain, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, have led international efforts to reform the international financial architecture and meet the millennium development goals.

    I know that those opportunities—all the opportunities that my family and I have had—were made possible only by the achievements of the Labour party in government. My grandfather, a lorry driver, died from cancer soon after the war, when my father, the youngest of three boys, was only 10. My father—from a widowed family in a working-class community in Norwich—was able to stay on at school at 16 and get a scholarship to university. All the opportunities that he and we have been able to enjoy were made possible only because of the welfare state that the Labour Government created in 1945, reflecting our core belief that opportunity should be available for all, not just for the privileged few.

    I am now able to be in public service once more, as a Member of this House and as Labour’s ninth MP for Normanton. My Labour predecessors—Benjamin Pickard, William Parrott, Fred Hall, Tom Smith, George Sylvester, Thomas Brooks, Albert Roberts and Bill O’Brien—were all coal miners, every one of them. They were Labour because the adversity they suffered taught them not selfishness, but solidarity. However insurmountable the obstacles seemed to be, they never settled for second best for themselves or anyone else in their struggle for full employment and social justice. I hope that, in the coming years, I shall be able to demonstrate the humility, hard work and commitment to public service for which previous Normanton MPs are known, remembered and honoured, and thus enable my constituency’s historical traditions to live on renewed in this century. We owe it to our predecessors, as we owe it to our families and to future generations, to complete their work and, on the platform of stability that we have built, secure an economically strong and socially just society of which we can be proud.

    I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today.

  • Stephen Crabb – 2005 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Stephen Crabb
    Stephen Crabb

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Stephen Crabb in the House of Commons on 25 May 2005.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech on the final day of debate on the Queen’s Speech. It was a pleasure to listen to the maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), and by the hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), for Worsley (Ms Keeley), for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I wish them all the best in their parliamentary careers. I would like to add my own tribute to those that have already been made to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for his excellent work, both in Northern Ireland and in the Principality.

    I count it a huge honour to be elected as the new Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. I am only the second Member to represent the constituency, which was created before the 1997 election, when it was won by Jackie Lawrence, and again in 2001, for the Labour party. Jackie retired at the end of the last Parliament. She and I were opponents in the election held four years ago, and we both fought robust campaigns. The more that I saw of her during that election, however, the more that I was struck by the sincerity and humanity with which she carried out her duties as a Member of Parliament. She entered Parliament for exactly the right reasons—to improve the lives of Pembrokeshire people—and served her constituents well during her eight years as an MP. Her parting remark to me on election night in 2001 was, “Best of luck with your parliamentary career, Stephen, just not here in Pembrokeshire.” I am afraid that I have disappointed her, but it was typical of her integrity and grace that not only did she send her congratulations after my win on 5 May but, last weekend, she welcomed my family and me to her home, where she passed on some excellent advice on being a Member of Parliament and treated us all to excellent home-made scones. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in wishing her all the very best in retirement.

    Preseli Pembrokeshire, with much justification, can be described as one of the most beautiful parliamentary constituencies, containing as it does much of the Pembrokeshire coastal park with its 185 miles of footpath running alongside scenes of spectacular beauty. The coastline is important to Pembrokeshire. We are surrounded by the sea on three sides, and that has been the source of our comparative economic advantage throughout our history. Even today, after whaling, fishing, oil refining and defence-related industries have all flourished and then declined, the sea is still important to our local economy.

    We have two ports: Fishguard, with its ferry service to Rosslare in Ireland; and the port of Milford Haven, which is the UK’s fifth largest port, with major oil interests, a remnant of the fishing industry, and an Irish ferry from Pembroke dock. As I speak, construction is under way on two major liquefied natural gas terminals near Milford Haven. When completed, those could provide 30 per cent. of the UK’s natural gas needs, which will be shipped into the nearby port of Milford Haven. Not surprisingly in an area of such outstanding natural beauty, the liquefied natural gas development is not without controversy, and some specific issues need to be addressed. The LNG investment, however, will bring a vital injection of economic activity to west Wales, which could provide a substantial long-term pay-off for many years to come.

    As well as our coastal heritage, Pembrokeshire is also home to Britain’s smallest city, St. David’s, with its picturesque streets and beautiful ancient cathedral. St. David’s was a site of huge importance in early Christendom. It lay on the intercontinental route that took Irish pilgrims through Britain on the way to Rome and sometimes Jerusalem. Still today, the A40 trunk road, which leads from Fishguard through Pembrokeshire towards the M4 corridor is recognised by the EU strategic trans-European network, which links western Ireland with mainland continental Europe.

    Travelling along the single-lane A40 through Pembrokeshire can be a slow and frustrating journey, however. Upgrading the A40 to a dual carriageway is certainly overdue. Local business needs it, local people want it, and while I am a Member of this House I want to do whatever I can to make the case for it, and, I hope, to persuade the rather Cardiff-centric Welsh Assembly of the need for investment in critical infrastructure in other parts of Wales.

    In the heart of Pembrokeshire is the old town of Haverfordwest—the county town of Pembrokeshire—which I am blessed to be able to say is my home town. I grew up there, in a street of council housing, which backed on to my old secondary school. Many of the houses in that street have now been bought and had small porches, kitchen extensions and other improvements added to them. I want to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), who said that no one should lose sight of what the Conservative right-to-buy scheme did for hard-working, working-class families in constituencies such as mine. Of course we need to provide an adequate rented sector for individuals and families who might, through different circumstances in their life, have to fall back on social housing, but the aspiration of the vast majority of people in this country is towards home ownership, which should be recognised as a key goal of housing policy.

    There have been Crabbs in Pembrokeshire for many generations, and not just on our wonderful beaches. My grandfather was a baker in Haverfordwest at a time when, like other small market towns, it was full of independent traders, grocers, shopkeepers and tradesmen. In those days, there was no such thing as a small business sector; there were only small businesses. Times change, and today Haverfordwest has a Tesco, a Morrisons, a Kwiksave and an Aldi, and I am told that we will soon have a Lidl store as well. I am not a betting man, but I am willing to wager that not many of our long-suffering local farmers who still constitute a significant part of the local economy will see much of their produce on the shelves of that supermarket when it comes to Haverfordwest.

    A principal reason why Pembrokeshire is such an attractive place for the food discounters is that our per capita GDP is so much lower than the UK national average. GDP in Pembrokeshire is less than 70 per cent. of the EU’s 15-member average, which qualifies us for objective 1 status. We are currently in receipt of structural funds through that programme. I do not want to be too controversial today, but I am more than a little sceptical of the long-term success of EU structural funds in closing the wealth gap between regions. The targets for the EU cohesion and structural funds have consistently not been met.

    Objective 1 did, however, provide an important opportunity for many stakeholders in west Wales to focus like never before on what needs to be done to improve the region’s economy. My fear is that that was a missed opportunity. Many business people in Pembrokeshire tell me that they do not feel that the business community was actively involved in the objective 1 programme, and that the process was dominated by public sector bodies. I believe that small business is the backbone of the Pembrokeshire economy and I want to do whatever I can while I am a Member of the House to provide a voice for the hard-working men and women who comprise that sector.

    I greatly value the commitment in the Queen’s Speech to reducing burdens on business—business regulations. The small business community in my constituency is looking for action, not more words, from this Parliament.

    I am grateful for the courtesy of the House this afternoon, and to the people of Preseli Pembrokeshire for giving me the opportunity to be their representative during this Parliament.

  • Stephen Crabb – 2016 Speech on Transforming Lives Through Welfare and Work

    Stephen Crabb
    Stephen Crabb

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Crabb, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on 12 April 2016.

    Good morning.

    Thank you Claire [Tickell, Chair, EIF] for that introduction.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today at the Early Intervention Foundation to make my first speech as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

    I know EIF is absolutely committed to transforming the life chances of the most disadvantaged in our country. In that spirit, I’d like to thank you for the work you do to bring new thinking and a better understanding of the evidence of when and how it can be the right thing to intervene early to change lives.

    In particular, I know my department asked you to look at how relationships between parents can impact on children’s lives and what interventions might be effective to help improve those lives. That important review, published last month, contains powerful conclusions which demonstrate why we are making family stability a key part of our life chances strategy.

    So I look forward to your continued contributions and getting to know you better in the weeks, months and maybe years ahead.

    I thought I would use this important opportunity today to share some early thoughts with you about the kind of welfare system I believe in; and about the challenges that lie ahead as we continue the vital task of reforming welfare actually as part of a broader mission to build a society in which the life chances of everyone are improved.

    But let me first take a step back.

    One of the things that has struck me since taking over at DWP is the sheer size and scale of the department.

    There is no other Whitehall department which connects with as many people, at so many important moments in their lives; there’s no other department which spends as much taxpayers’ money.

    It accounts for nearly a quarter of all public sector spending in this country. The DWP budget is more than the entire GDP of the nation of Portugal!

    And it is therefore not surprising that it attracts strong and passionate views about how, where and why that money is being spent.

    The DWP is a department of big numbers; big data; big statistics.

    Each year it processes 5 million benefit claims….

    ….pays £170 billion in benefits and pensions to 22 million people…. ….receives 47 million calls from the public seeking advice and support…. ….and all of this happens in more than 700 jobcentres and contact centres in all parts of the United Kingdom.

    But, as I said in that very first statement in the House of Commons just 2 days after I was appointed, “Behind every statistic is a human being.” It’s something I remind myself of and remind my ministerial team of every day.

    Because my overriding vision for the Department for Work and Pensions is that, even amidst all of these big numbers, fundamentally, we should be in the business of people….of individuals….we should be in the business of families.

    From the very top of the organisation to the farthest flung jobcentre, the thousands of staff, advisers, Ministers – and especially me as the Secretary of State – should understand that we are in the people business.

    Welfare that focusses on people also means we must understand the human impact of decisions we take far better. It means that when we talk about the numbers of people receiving benefits or moving on or off of benefits, we also need to understand at a much deeper level the underlying factors for why those individuals find themselves in a set of circumstances that requires support from the state.

    A people business does mean providing financial assistance and support to protect people from poverty who, in their current circumstances, cannot provide for themselves. That I think is the mark of a decent society.

    But a people business also means recognising that for a great many of those individuals and their families, those circumstances can change; and those circumstances absolutely do need to change. So a welfare system that does not provide this support and basis for transformation in people’s lives falls far short of what a modern welfare system can achieve, I believe.

    So these twin objectives should be at the very heart of every reform and at the centre of our welfare system – vital social protection but also the incentives and support to bring meaningful and positive change to people’s lives.

    But our efforts to deliver welfare reform should be just one part of a much broader approach for strengthening society, creating opportunity, and breaking down barriers that entrench poverty and disadvantage.

    That’s exactly what we mean when we talk about life chances….a relentless focus – an all-out assault as the Prime Minister calls it – on tackling the root causes of poverty in Britain today….On tackling those things which are undermining social mobility and holding people back from reaching their full potential in life.

    This is an area which is really close to my heart.

    You see, I believe in a society where it should not matter what street you grew up on… how much your mum or dad earn… or where you go to school….

    ….the society I believe in is one where everyone has a decent set of opportunities to lead fruitful lives.

    Over the past few generations, we have seen some incredible and dramatic changes in society. In some ways, society is almost unrecognisable from just a few decades ago.

    Never before has so much information been at the fingertips of so many….

    the digital communications revolution has transformed people’s access to information and reduced the real life costs of information, it has broken down cultural barriers and made the world a smaller place.

    Never before has university been a realistic option for so many. What was the preserve enjoyed by a small privileged elite has been opened to millions.

    Never before have we seen such a decline of social deference.

    And the pace of this change has been astonishing. The impact this has had on people has been palpable.

    And so with these trends in the way people view society, in education, in the reach of digital communications, the revolution in technology….you could be forgiven for thinking that we should be living in a golden age of social mobility.

    But for many, that is simply not the case. Today, far too many people have their life chances determined before they have even had the chance to explore all that life has to offer.

    We cannot deliver true social mobility, we cannot help people live their lives to the fullest, without fighting the very real factors that hold people back from reaching their potential.

    Yes, we’ve seen some really encouraging progress, with record levels of employment, a huge expansion in apprenticeships – over 2 million since 2010 – and lower youth unemployment.

    But we need to do much more. So, during my time at the Department for Work and Pensions, 2 things will go hand in hand – reforming welfare, and a relentless focus on improving life chances.

    That means leading a life chances strategy that uses the entire machinery of government to break down some of these barriers to opportunity.

    So we will be:

    Regenerating estates so children have safe and secure homes where they can thrive.

    We’ll be using work experience much more creatively to give young people the encouragement they need to get into further education, employment or training when they leave school.

    We’re going to be investing in mental health services to tackle some of the debilitating disorders that can have such a devastating impact on young people’s life chances at a crucial stage in their lives.

    And we’ll be supporting those with drug and alcohol addictions to turn their lives around and fully recover.

    And I know that these are not new problems. But I think this is a new approach we are delivering. As Chair of the Social Justice Cabinet Committee, I will be leading a more coherent and collaborative government strategy….an approach that mobilises all parts of government to tackle poverty, and improve social mobility for the poorest in our society.

    At this point, I’d like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Iain Duncan Smith. Someone who I think will go down as one of the great social reformers of our time. Iain has helped to change the way we as a government look at poverty. He turned the lens on the root causes of poverty rather than just the symptoms and led many important reforms. He has been – and I’m sure will continue to be – a champion for improving the life chances of some of the country’s most disadvantaged people.

    All of our life chances work, from the health sector to schools, to decent places to live is vital, but I believe it is a stable home and a family life that gives children the best possible chance.

    It is hard to overstate the importance of family. Because no-one can doubt that from a young age, it is the family that helps to define us….

    ….that tells us who we are and where we’ve come from; it is where we derive our first identity.

    Perhaps most importantly, it is from the family that we are first loved and, in turn, we learn to love…

    …. where we first learn to fight and to make up….

    ….and where we first learn to make choices and see the consequences of those choices.

    I am not talking about some idealised model of a self-contained nuclear family – society is much more complex than that.

    But family is the training ground for life. And a good start provides a great platform for a fruitful life. In contrast, as you well know, family life which is chaotic, violent, broken, damaged, turbulent….

    leads so often to a life characterised by educational failure, crime, poverty, and where that cycle is then repeated in another generation. And the impact on the individual, on society, the economy and the welfare budget is massive.

    Some have estimated the overall costs of relationship breakdown in our society could be as high as £47 billion. And behind that figure, life chances are squandered.

    I know many MPs will see the real human cost of this every week at their surgeries – as I have – with breakdown of relationships often the backdrop to so many of our constituents’ problems.

    I don’t think it has to be this way. We believe in the vital and foundational role of the family.

    That’s why we have already doubled the funding for relationship support, we have increased the amount of free childcare to support parents and, of course, we are helping families move into work through Universal Credit, which I will come on to in a few moments.

    It’s why we have targeted those families that need the most help. Our Troubled Families programme has turned round 120,000 families that had complex and deep rooted problems and we’re extending this to 400,000 more families.

    And we’ll go even further, increasing support for new parents with an expanded parenting programme, which will build on the great work of EIF in this area.

    If stable family relationships provide the platform, then I believe it is work that provides the economic security and the essential role models which I believe children need to improve their life chances.

    Fundamentally, as human beings, we are hard-wired to derive satisfaction from meaningful, fruitful work. Work should be a place where we feel valued – in every sense, where we continue to learn and grow, where we are introduced to new and expanded social networks, a place which is fundamentally good for our physical and mental well-being.

    And of course I recognise that for a great many people their own experience of the workplace falls well short of that ideal – but this recognition of the value, the worth of work is very much at the heart of my outlook on welfare reform.

    A pound you earn can mean more than a pound provided in welfare.

    I have spoken elsewhere about my own personal background and I don’t intend to go over that again here today, but one point I would make about the home life I grew up with was the amazing role model I had of a mother who understood that central importance of work in all its dimensions – for herself personally and for the sons she was raising on her own. That understanding underpinned her own journey from a position of crisis and dependency to a position of ‘economic independence’ – a process which took years by the way.

    And I really do believe that a welfare system which does not elevate and reinforce that central understanding of how important work and fruitful activity is for us as human beings is actually very damaging for society.

    In 2010, far too many people were being denied those benefits of work. Nearly one in 5 households had nobody in work. Two million children did not see a mum or dad going out to work each day.

    There has been much progress since then to restore the value of work within our welfare system. The number of households where nobody works is down over 700,000. The workless households rate in the social rented sector is at its lowest level for 20 years.

    Half a million more children are benefiting from having the role model of a parent that works – and the outlook this brings.

    The value of this work and the dangers of dependency was something the architect of the welfare state, Sir William Beveridge, recognised and believed in.

    His blueprint for the modern welfare state in 1942 was clear about the relationship between welfare and work. Beveridge said:

    Getting work … may involve a change of habits, doing something that is unfamiliar or leaving one’s friends or making a painful effort of some other kind. The danger of providing benefits which are both adequate in amount and indefinite in duration, is that men as creatures who adapt themselves to circumstances, may settle down to them.

    And he stressed:

    The state in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility

    But the welfare system we ended up with was one where: Incentives to work were being undermined. Opportunities to get on were being passed by.

    The sense of responsibility people had for their own lives was being eroded.

    Financial support for people facing poverty is vital – I always tell my colleagues….never, never underestimate the importance of a family in need getting that support in a timely and effective way – but on its own, cash support is rarely enough.

    As a result, people were often trapped in the unfair position of being better off staying put on benefits rather than taking the first steps back into work.

    The welfare system I believe in – and I want to see – is one that transforms lives rather than traps them.

    One that recognises and responds to the fact that people do have hopes, they do have aspirations, they do want to take opportunities to better themselves and their family.

    One that responds to the way real people behave in the real world.

    It was out of the destruction and devastation of the Second World War that Beveridge’s principles for welfare were forged.

    I want to restore and reinforce some of those founding principles of our welfare state that have maybe over the years have been forgotten or eroded.

    So my vision for jobcentres is that they should be far more than places where people sign on and receive out of work entitlements. I want jobcentres to be places of true transformation. Places where motivated and skilled teams are supporting positive change in people’s lives.

    And it’s already happening.

    One of my early visits in the role was to a Jobcentre Plus in Enfield in North London, where I saw

    ….work coaches helping young people avoid the clutches of gangs and build a more positive life through work….I saw work coaches supporting people with mental health conditions to get treatment and stay connected to the world of work.

    This is vital, life changing support on the front line.

    And as part of my vision for the organisation I want those skilled work coaches to be really valued in the public eye, in a similar way that nurses and firefighters are respected and valued – because in terms of life-changing interventions, or crises being tackled what our teams of work coaches are doing and achieving is remarkable.

    Whatever and wherever it may be in the department, I want everyone in DWP to go to work each day sharing in my twin objectives – protecting people from poverty and supporting people to transform their lives.

    And that is what our reforms are about. In particular, Universal Credit.

    Universal Credit is a very real human reform. It’s putting people at the very heart of the welfare system for the first time….It has, I believe, the potential to be the most important public sector change project for decades.

    It works with people, recognising that people’s lives and circumstances are different. Universal Credit doesn’t treat a person as a number. It’s about a human being in the jobcentre staying with you as you move into work and progress…. ….coaching you….mentoring you….supporting you.

    It also provides the right incentives for people to move into work. William Beveridge, I believe would have supported that.

    So I am absolutely committed to leading a continued, successful roll out of Universal Credit. That is a priority for me, as is continuing to embed it as the spine that runs through the welfare system.

    And to those who are sceptical of Universal Credit, I just say this: ‘look at the evidence so far’. When you compare those who are already receiving Universal Credit to a similar cohort receiving previous Jobseeker’s Allowance, you will see people on Universal Credit:

    are spending roughly 50% more time looking for work
    they are 8 percentage points more likely to be in work
    and when they are in work, they’re more likely to be earning a higher wage
    In the words of the chief executive of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘it is a genuinely radical reform….that will clear up some of the most egregious complexities and disincentives that our benefit system has imposed for far too long’.

    This month, we will reach an important milestone. Universal Credit will be available in every single jobcentre in the country for single people making a new claim. The next stage will be the ambitious full rollout, so that every person, in every circumstance, who steps into a jobcentre to make a new claim will be on Universal Credit. That will be my focus in the months ahead.

    Universal Credit and our other reforms to support people into work are working.

    There are now more than 2 million more people in work than in 2010; with the number of workless households at a record low.

    But I know there is more to do to ensure the opportunities of work are available to everyone. The diversity of those in work should reflect the diversity of society.

    And that, finally, brings me to an area of reform that is another one of my priorities:

    And that is supporting disabled people and people with health conditions into work.

    We are making progress. Nearly 300,000 more disabled people have moved into work over the last 2 years.

    But despite this, there remains a very significant gap in the employment rate between disabled and non-disabled people. Whilst the employment rate for people who are not disabled is 80%, for disabled people it’s less than 50%.

    In the context of a very strong labour market and the millions of people that have moved into work over the last few years, I think that gap is simply unacceptable.

    I want to be clear. The employment gap isn’t because of a lack of aspiration on the part of sick and disabled people. We know the majority want to work or stay in work.

    Some attitudes held by society have stopped disabled people from moving into work for many decades. So I want to challenge health and care professionals, employers and wider society to break down those barriers.

    That’s why on my first day as Secretary of State, I announced to Parliament that I wanted to start a new conversation with disabled people, with their representatives, healthcare professionals and employers.

    We need to recognise the role that work plays in supporting good health. And importantly, that a health condition or disability needn’t be a barrier to work.

    To do that, the workplace, the welfare system, the health service will all need to work much better together….to help people stay healthy in the first place. If someone gets sick, they need the right support so they can stay close to the world of work and re-join it as quickly as possible.

    It’s already clear to me that there are lots of interesting ideas emerging. I look forward, with my ministerial team, to listening to all of the ideas and views and discussing them with disability groups, employers and the health, care and welfare sectors.

    Together we have an opportunity to do so much better for disabled people – to improve their health and their opportunities.

    And this opportunity to have a decent job and the economic security that comes with a regular wage – as well as all the other positive aspects of being in work I have set out today – I think this should be universal.

    As such, I want to make sure this opportunity is available in all communities, in all parts of the country, on every street and in every household, across all sections of society no matter what your background, especially for the poorest.

    That’s what our life chances strategy is about.

    Children growing up in families where there are healthy and strong relationships are the foundation from which they can be supported to step up and grasp those life opportunities.

    I am somebody that does believe the state also has an important role to help transform lives. And I am determined that a restless, innovating spirit of reform should continue to shape my department as we place people at the very centre of everything we do.

    Because there is still much more to do to create a welfare system that I think is true to its founding principles.

    A welfare system that does protect the most vulnerable.
    A welfare system that transforms lives rather than traps them.
    A system that treats people as human beings with hopes and aspirations and provides the right support and incentives for those to be realised.

    If my department isn’t transforming lives, helping people into work every day, it’s not doing its job.

    That’s the welfare system that I believe in. That’s the welfare system people deserve. Thank you.