UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Ed Davey – 2015 Speech on the Prospects for Paris

    eddavey

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Davey, the then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on 27 January 2015.

    I’d like to start by expressing my gratitude to Connie for the work she did at the European Commission.

    She was fundamental to putting the 2030 Energy Framework in place.

    Connie knows just what a challenge it was to bring 28 member states to unanimous agreement on the Framework.

    How much more difficult, then, will it be to bring 195 countries to agreement in Paris.

    So I want to talk today about two things.

    What are the prospects for achieving that deal?

    And second – what can we do between now and then to make it happen.

    And by ‘we’ I mean, all of you too.

    Because success will require a great coalition of the willing from across all parts of global society.

    And that includes you in the business community. You the Corporate Leaders Group.

    Who, through initiatives like the Green Growth Platform to show what can be done, have already done so much to demonstrate that climate change action is not just economically useful, it is an economic requirement.

    So let me turn to the prospects for a deal in Paris.

    The prospects for a deal in Paris

    You know at one point in Lima, when I was frustrated and the clock was ticking, I was looking around my European counterparts and I realised that I was the longest serving Energy Secretary among them.

    Indeed, at over three years, I am the longest serving UK Secretary of State for Energy in over a quarter of a century. Which shows how quick the turnovers have been in the past.

    And that got me thinking about how much individuals and personalities matter in these kinds of diplomatic negotiations.

    Are they just about the faceless forces of history and the lucky confluence national interests?

    Or are just they as much about the coming together of the right people, in the right place, at the right time.

    Well, we can certainly claim necessity.

    The science on climate change is clear. We’ve got to do a deal.

    And the more we see the impacts of the warming world around us, the more we understand the future risks.

    We are already some way off where we need to be by 2020, of the most cost effective pathway for keeping climate change to below the 2 degree rise the scientists judge is needed to avoid the most catastrophic effects.

    And if we do not reach agreement in Paris the vector of action needed becomes increasingly steep with each passing year;

    And the economic cost increasingly expensive.

    So are these forces of enlightened self-interest strong enough in themselves to make a deal inevitable?

    With regret my answer is no.

    Whether we are thinking today about the 70th year since Auschwitz was liberated or the commemoration of the start of the Great War last year which claimed the lives of at least 16 million souls;

    We should reflect that the historical record shows many examples of national leaders pursuing narrow interests, playing to domestic galleries, and ignoring wider imperatives and horrific costs.

    The stakes are very high.

    And that is why I do believe personality matters. It will matter who is sitting round the table in Paris in December.

    Who will be willing to take risks? To embrace enlightened self-interest? To move beyond the narrow confines of their domestic politics? To take that leap?

    Preparation and personalities

    People ask me. Will Paris be another Copenhagen at which we agree to disagree?

    And my firm answer is no.

    For two reasons: Preparation and Personality

    First, preparation.

    At Copenhagen the writing was on the wall when pledges only came forward in the last few days before the Conference, with no time for any sensible debate or compromise to happen.

    It seems to me that since then, momentum has really shifted.

    Over the last few years we have seen national climate change legislation proliferating, carbon pricing mechanisms spreading and new policies and regulations being introduced.

    Almost 500 climate laws have been passed in 66 of the world’s largest emitting countries.

    Carbon markets have now been put in place in over 36 countries. Not always working as well as they might.

    But the world has changed since Copenhagen.

    Many of the mechanisms and concepts that implementing a global climate deal will need already exist.

    But for me what is most encouraging is what is happening with the so called ‘big four’ – the EU, China, the US and India – who together are responsible for half of global emissions.

    And this is where personality has mattered.

    In India, the election of Prime Minister Modi has changed the mood, raising the prospect that he can duplicate the effective low carbon policies he implemented in Gujarat across the whole of India – and bring a constructive India to the negotiating table in the lead up to Paris.

    In China, President Xi Jinping has been pursuing since he took over his vision of an ecological civilization that embeds climate action in its national planning process.

    China is already the world’s largest non-fossil fuel energy producer.

    It is one of the world’s leaders on sub-national carbon markets.

    And they are preparing to launch a national scheme from 2016 which will be bigger than the EU’s ETS.

    In the United States, President Obama is increasingly seeing climate change action as part of his legacy.

    And although there remain political obstacles to overcome, but the commitment of the White House to achieve agreement in Paris has never been so strong, of course supported by Secretary Kerry.

    Historically the EU has been one of the world’s leading advocates of climate change action.

    And with the new 2030 agreement, that remains the case.

    The Green Growth Group I set up to build consensus around a low-carbon, pro-growth policy position, now boasts 13 member states representing 75% of Europe’s population, 85% of Europe’s GDP and 60% of the votes in the Council of Ministers.

    And we are extremely lucky to be able to draw on the support, expertise and insights of the Prince of Wales’ Corporate Leaders’ Group.

    Indeed, the CLG is the backbone underpinning the Green Growth Platform, bringing together nearly 50 business from multiple sectors and from across the EU.

    Let me take this opportunity to thank all of you and Sandrine and her team, for all the hard work they have put in over the last 2 years into making the Green Growth Platform viable.

    So what does all this mean for Paris in December?

    It means we are more prepared than ever before.

    And the right people are in the right place at the right time, we hope.

    There were some signs of this Lima.

    Discussions were difficult, and it looked like a deal was being cooked up in Beijing and Washington, but I genuinely believe things are looking good and not one country wanted to leave Lima without an outcome that took us the next step towards the deal.

    So, I judge the prospects of a comprehensive climate change deal to be the best since we first began this journey many decades ago.

    But now is definitely not the time to rest

    The negotiations are going to get tougher, and tensions are inevitable.

    So let me turn to what needs to be done between now and December to increase the chances of success.

    Making Paris a success

    The timetable is tight.

    By April, we expect many countries to have shared their proposed targets for the new deal – Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs in the jargon.

    We’ll see what people come forward with.

    By May we will have a draft text of the Paris Treaty.

    In September leaders will gather in New York at the UN for high-level discussions on the post-2015 development agenda, and that will look into climate-proofed development.

    And then in December, the Paris Conference.

    But this will be like the proverbial duck on the water – serenely moving forward but paddling furiously underneath.

    We will have to use every international opportunity to maintain ambition and keep up the momentum.

    Whether it be the Major Economies Forum meetings in April and July.

    The G7 meetings in June.

    Or any other international gathering that allows us to raise the issue and exert pressure.

    But let me focus in on those INDCs expected by April.

    At Lima we agreed that INDCs would be mitigation focussed and represent a progression in ambition for what is currently on offer.

    Let me deal with the EU first.

    We need to get the EU’s INDC in place by the deadline.

    And we should set the INDC gold standard acting as a template and benchmark against which we can judge others.

    Second, it has always been the position of the UK that the EU needs to be ready to commit to increasing its GHG offer beyond 40% in the context of a global deal.

    The two words ‘at least’ in the October deal were important, challenging though it might be.

    So we need to set out the credible options on how we could deliver this, in order to help drive further ambition and momentum through to Paris.

    But we have been the first to put some of our cards on the table. And it will be impossible to raise the EU’s level of ambition without seeing ambition from others.

    Finally, we shouldn’t wait for a global deal before getting on with implementing the 2030 package in Europe.

    That means, in particular, repairing the EU Emissions Trading System through a strengthened Market Stability Reserve.

    It also means pushing the Commission to bring forward robust ETS and Effort Sharing legislation to implement the EU’s 40% GHG target for 2030, without delay.

    But looking wider at the INDC process, the Lima decision did not set out any formal way of assessing the fairness and ambition of individual INDCs.

    And it is highly likely that the aggregate of INDCs will not reflect what is needed globally.

    And that is where you and others come in.

    The UK can of course do its own analysis, but as a Party in the process we will need to be careful about accusations of pursuing our own interests or playing politics when it comes to pointing fingers.

    So we are expecting and indeed encouraging civil society to carry out assessments on INDCs – to make judgements about who is and who is not pulling their weight.

    I hope we can build on the green growth message.

    But we need your help internationally in other ways too.

    We need to work together to unlock breakthrough low carbon technologies particularly for heavy industry;

    We need to work together on the financial instruments and integrated energy markets that can smooth the transition to a low-carbon economy;

    And we need your help to take the message on green growth that you have helped deliver so effectively within Europe during the 2030 campaign, to a new international audience – explaining what the 2030 agreement means and what can be gained from a low-carbon economy.

    We are looking at an intensive year of climate diplomacy and we look to you, the progressive business community, to help us in this effort.

    Including the planned establishment of a new Pacific Alliance Green Growth Platform, which will bring together governments, business and experts in that region to collectively explore and pursue a new climate growth model.

    One of the most encouraging things in Lima was the Pacific Alliance being built.

    This is a great opportunity to export some of what we have developed together in Europe.

    Conclusion

    So in conclusion ladies and gentlemen.

    Will the deal in Paris be perfect? No.

    Will we need to ensure that the Treaty includes a mechanism to ratchet up ambition overtime? Yes.

    But I am ever more confident that we will emerge from Paris with a comprehensive agreement that all Parties will sign.

    And this achievement on its own is not to be underestimated or undervalued.

    But we have to drive ambition forward.

    We want an agreement that does the job.

    Like many who have been looking forward to this moment for decades, I am clear, we must still keep our sights on the prize – meeting that 2 degree target.

    The good news I think is that that ambition is shared across the main parties in the UK.

    I don’t think you will see backsliding in May, there is consensus.

    But whoever does this role next will need help from you our business community, our scientists and engineers, our academics and faith leaders, and our committed, vocal community of environmental NGOs.

    But between now and Paris we will need all the efforts of all of you to push us over the line.

  • Ann Widdecombe – 1987 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Ann Widdecombe in the House of Commons on 28 October 1987.

    I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my first speech in the House in this important debate. In doing so, I pay tribute to my distinguished predecessor, Sir John Wells, who served the constituency with dedication and distinction for 28 years. His period of service will be remembered by his former constituents with respect and affection, as I am sure it will also be remembered by Members of the House. He earned respect for his exemplary chairmanship of many important parliamentary Committees and affection for the colourful way in which he sometimes drew attention to the needs of his constituents. On one occasion, he arrived for the day’s business on a horse. On another, he enlivened proceedings in the Chamber by eating an apple—a Kentish apple, of course—during the debate. I hope to follow his example in dedicating myself to the service of my constituents, but I shall not be eating any apples in the Chamber, as history attests rather strongly to the unfortunate results of ladies eating apples where they should not.

    My constituency has suffered badly from the recent wind storms. As a horticulturist, Sir John Wells would have understood all too well the misery and devastation suffered by many farmers, expecially the fruit farmers whose industry takes up such a large part of the constituency that I have the honour to serve. I hope that the Government will see fit to provide some compensation, in however cautious and measured a way, to those who have lost their livelihood not just in the immediate term but for years to come, because it will be some time before replanted trees can be expected to produce crops which will generate income.

    Leaving the country areas for the town of Maidstone, I am proud to have in that town concrete and tangible evidence of the Government’s firm commitment to the National Health Service in the shape of a large new modern hospital. I regret to tell the House, however, that, due to inequitable distribution of funds by the South East Thames regional health authority, that hospital is not being used as fully or as beneficially as it should be. On an appropriate future occasion, I hope to draw attention to the difficulties experienced by my constituents as a result of that inequitable distribution of funds.

    I address myself to the debate and to the Opposition amendments in the sure knowledge that I address myself to a subject of the utmost importance and interest to my constituents. I begin by congratulating the Government on the Defence Estimates and particularly on the sound basis on which they have drawn up plans for the nation’s security. I believe that the people of Britain will draw great comfort and reassurance from the fact that they are governed by a party which is wholly committed to an effective nuclear deterrent.

    I spent many hours yesterday and some today listening to Opposition Members decrying the Trident programme. I thought that they had been sufficiently effectively answered yesterday, but today we have heard the same tired arguments, based on the same flawed logic. Both in their amendments and in the many distinguished speeches that we have heard, the Opposition have claimed that the Trident programme is undesirable because it eats into conventional defence expenditure. There is a severe absence of logic in that statement. It is true that if we did not spend the money on Trident we could use it to purchase conventional weapons or, indeed, anything we liked — sacks of potatoes, biros, pounds of butter, or whatever. If we are to spend Trident money on something other than Trident, we must ask ourselves whether the optional thing that we are purchasing is capable of doing the job of Trident. If it is not capable of doing that job and fulfilling the aims of Trident, it does not matter that we could buy it with Trident money. It is totally irrelevant.

    The sole objective of Trident is to deter a potentially hostile force from launching a nuclear attack on this country, or to deter a hostile force with overwhelmingly superior conventional forces from attempting to use that superiority to launch a conventional attack. Therefore, if we are to give up Trident to buy conventional weapons, we must demand that those weapons are an equally effective deterrent.

    The statement on the Defence Estimates suggests that, if we devote all the Trident money to conventional weapons, we might be able to buy and maintain 300 tanks for an armoured division. I am sure that it is very laudable and worthy to buy 300 tanks for an armoured division but, when the Warsaw pact countries have a superiority of 30,000 tanks, it will not be a very effective deterrent. We can do the same arithmetical exercise for artillery, where we are outnumbered by 3:1, and in anti-tank guided weapons by 1.6:1. We can continue that exercise, but we shall not end up with a replacement that serves the same aim as Trident. We shall simply replace something designed to do one job with something designed to do a totally different job.

    Opposition Members were not terribly kind to the Government last night when summing up. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) said that he would not award a CSE pass to the Government for the reasoning behind their Defence Estimates but, after listening yesterday and for several hours today to the Opposition, I do not believe that they have reached a standard of elementary logic which would get them through the 11-plus. Perhaps that is why they have such an antipathy towards that examination. My nephews and nieces at the age of eight or nine, let alone 11, could have told Opposition Members that, if they are given the bus fare to get home and they spend it on a taxi ride, they will not get the same value because the bus will take them only a few yards.

    If we spend the Trident money on 300 tanks or whatever—frigates are much beloved of the Opposition —we shall find that we have gone not even a few yards or feet but only a few inches towards an effective deterrent, whereas Trident would do the entire job, so the logic is flawed. If we all took to the hills—as the Opposition came perilously close to suggesting not long ago—and invested our Trident money in bows and arrows, those bows and arrows might outnumber those of the Warsaw pact countries and would be about as useful as some of the arguments put forward by the Opposition.

    Opposition Members are trying to have it all ways when they argue that, if we are to have an independent deterrent, it must be truly independent. I am not quite sure what Opposition Members stand for. The distinguished and right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that we do not have a truly independent deterrent because the Americans will do the servicing. We said very clearly—I am sorry that the Opposition did not understand the point—that we shall always have control over some of the missiles. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously believe that, when he sends a suit to the cleaners, he has no clothes at all and must come into the Chamber in a state of sartorial dilapidation because he has no suit?

    Finally, in desperation, Opposition Members decided to try to claim that the conventional imbalance was a figment of the Government’s imagination, that it did not exist, and in support of that they triumphantly produced a document brought out by the International Institute for Strategic Studies and quoted it with the reverence normally reserved for Holy Writ. They said, “Look, this says something entirely different.” I have read that document and I find that within its figures there is ample evidence, which is clearly set out and not at all disguised, that the Warsaw pact enjoys an overwhelming numerical superiority of conventional weapons. I commend page 226 to the Opposition for further study. They may not have got that far.

    The amendment submitted in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is serious, because it exhorts the Government to take a headlong flight to abandon and abolish all battlefield nuclear weapons simultaneously with reductions on the conventional side. That is simply and solely the wrong timing. There must be no further reductions beyond the INF treaty agreements. There must be no further reductions in nuclear weapons until such time as the conventional imbalance — whether one believes the Government’s document or the IISS document—is eliminated.

    In that context, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for reassurance later. It is said that the statement on the Defence Estimates was drawn up at a time when the finer ramifications of the INF proposals, particularly the inclusion of shorter-range intermediate missiles, had riot been fully understood. Such are the massive implications for our conventional spending, not only for Britain, which already spends the third highest percentage of gross domestic product in NATO on defence, but for all our NATO partners, that we should be assured that not only will there be no simultaneous negotiations for the reduction of battlefield nuclear weapons, but that there will be a good long cool gap before any agreement that we may reach on conventional weapons while we assess the implications.

    So desperate were the anti-Trident Opposition that they said that there was supposed to be an escalation of the arms race. One sees such words in the amendments. That is interesting. An arms race implies that each side is trying to keep up with the other, but as I read it, the number of warheads on Trident is a lower proportion of Warsaw pact warheads than Polaris was when we first had it. So that is not an escalation.

    The Opposition used the worn-out argument that because the warheads were independently targeted, we had increased our numbers. However, if one is talking about an arms race, one must also look at what the other side is doing. Surely it is only prudent, when designing a system, to say that if one ever reached the highly undesirable state when one needed to increase one’s warheads, one should have the system to make that possible. The cost of the Chevaline operation that was forced upon the Labour Government can be interpreted as the cost of not having sufficient forward defence planning at the time of procurement.

    I regret that in this, my first speech in the House, I have had to devote so much time to the wild and woolly arguments of the Opposition. I am also rather surprised that they are still putting forward in the House the Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning that lost them the June election. I say to them: Come back from Wonderland. Do not go through the looking glass with Alice. Instead, stay in front of the looking glass and take a good long look. Do the Opposition’s policies reflect public opinion? No. But more importantly, do their policies have any bearing on the real world? Surely the answer must still be no. Thus the Opposition should stand at that looking glass and look in. But my belief is that the general public, as exhibited in poll after poll, have reason to be thankful and grateful to the Government who have drawn up their plans on a sound and effective deterrent rather than being able to offer no strategy and no alternative.

  • William Hague – 2001 Speech in Perth

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, in Perth, Scotland on 4 June 2001.

    In just four years the Scottish Conservatives have been has been refreshed, revived and reinvigorated.

    It has been transformed by the inspired leadership of people like Malcolm Rifkind, by Raymond Robertson and by David McLetchie.

    And it has been turned around because of the hours of dedication and commitment put in by people like you.

    You have ensured that our party is now firmly back on the political map of Scotland.

    You have re-established our Party as a Party of Scotland, speaking with a genuine Scottish voice, with distinctively Scottish policies.

    Scottish Conservatives understand what devolution means. It doesn’t just mean taking your orders from London. It means standing up and fighting for what’s right for Scotland. And at the same time it means making sure that Scotland’s voice within the Union remains strong.

    In three days time we can take our revival in Scotland a stage further.

    We can do it by helping to give Tony Blair his marching orders from Downing Street.

    We can do it by putting Scottish Conservatives back in Westminster.

    And we can do it by helping to elect a Conservative Government that will govern for all the people of the United Kingdom.

    Scottish Conservatives have never been as hungry for victory as we are in this General Election.

    And don’t let anyone tell you that this election doesn’t matter. Don’t let anyone tell you that all parties are the same.

    In three days’ time, we will decide whether we want to live in an independent Britain.

    In three days’ time, we will decide whether we want to carry on determining our own destiny at future general elections.

    In three days’ time, we will decide whether to hand on intact to future generations the freedoms that we inherited from our parents.

    And don’t let anyone tell you this election doesn’t matter in Scotland. Don’t let them tell you that because Scotland now has a Parliament of its own, that elections to Westminster are irrelevant.

    This election matters as much to Scotland as it does to every other part of the United Kingdom.

    Of course the Scottish Parliament controls many areas that are of crucial importance to the people of Scotland.

    But taxes, pensions, the amount of money the Scottish Parliament has to spend on things like hospitals, schools and the police, defence, relations with Europe, whether we keep the pound; all of these things are not decided in Edinburgh, but in Westminster.

    The decisions taken in Westminster will continue to affect every single person who lives in Scotland.

    So I say to the people of Scotland. Don’t allow taxes to be raised even higher; don’t allow Scotland’s voice within the Union to be weakened even further; don’t allow more of the independence of the United Kingdom to be given away; and don’t allow the pound to be abolished.

    Don’t allow any of these things to happen just because you were told that this Election didn’t matter.

    Say whatever else you like about this election. But don’t say it doesn’t matter. Don’t say that all parties are the same.

    This election is about values. Our values as a party, and our values as a country. The values that make up the British character: tolerance and freedom and indignation at injustice; civic pride, patriotism and respect for the law.

    These are not, as some politicians seem to think, just words to be dropped into speeches during election campaigns. They ought to be reflected in public policy. And how this is done is what defines us as a nation. That is what is at stake on Thursday.

    I say this to the government. It’s no good talking about personal responsibility when more and more of our people are being driven into means-tested dependency.

    It’s no good talking about the importance of family when the last recognition of marriage has been removed from th e tax system.

    It’s no good talking about law and order when we have a criminal justice system that is more frightening for victims than for criminals.

    And it’s no good talking about patriotism when you are handing away in peace-time the independence which previous generations defended in war.

    I want to talk tonight about our Conservative values. I want to talk about how our principles will guide our practice. And I want to talk about what it is we are asking you to vote for.

    Let’s start with the question of honesty. I don’t just mean the integrity of individual politicians. I mean something much bigger. I’m talking about whether parties as a whole keep faith with the country. Whether spin is more important to them than substance. Whether they are elected in order to govern, or whether they govern in order to be elected.

    Four years ago, Tony Blair won office with a big majority and even bigger promises. All of you here will know people who voted Labour: people who wanted to give them a fair crack of the whip. Yet after four years in which Labour have dominated public life in Scotland many of those people are feeling let down and conned.

    They voted for a party that had ‘no plans to increase taxes at all’. But they’ve been taxed for marrying, taxed for driving, taxed for wanting to own their own home, taxed for putting a little aside each month, taxed for growing old.

    They voted for a party that promised to be tough on crime, but they’ve seen violent crime in Scotland rise and nearly 800 criminals turned on to the street while police are taken off the street.

    They voted for a party that said it would ‘save the NHS’ and that promised to make ‘education, education, education’ its top three priorities. But morale in our public services is at rock bottom.

    They voted for a party that tried to portray itself as the ‘political wing of the British people’. But they’ve seen how they arrogantly dismiss the views of anyone who disagrees with them like Britain’s farmers or the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland who wanted to keep Section 2A or 28 as it’s usually known.

    They believed Tony Blair when he said he loved the pound. But now they know he intends to scrap the pound at the first opportunity.

    They were promised a Government that would be ‘purer than pure’. But they’ve had Lord Simon and his shares, Lord Irvine and his wallpaper, Formula One and tobacco advertising, Robin Cook and Sierra Leone, Geoffrey Robinson and his offshore trust, Stephen Byers and his non-existent writ, Peter Mandelson and his undeclared loan, and, of course, Keith Vaz and everything you’ve ever heard about him.

    They’ve seen Labour break its word again and again, whether it’s with a huge majority in London or in Coalition with the Liberals in Edinburgh. And now they can only watch in astonishment as Labour comes back and says: give us another chance. This time we’ll keep our promises. This time we really mean it.

    More than that, Tony Blair has already decided to claim victory. He talks arrogantly about having a mandate for change. I see no mandate. I see no change.

    Instead I see a Government which has squandered a massive Commons majority, plenty of public goodwill and the best economy ever bequeathed by a predecessor. “The epitaph on this past four years of New Labour will be: Never has a Party had so much and achieved so little.

    So you don’t need a crystal ball to see what Labour would do with a landslide, you can read the book. It is a litany of false promises, higher taxes, more spin and the triumph of style over substance.

    Labour doesn’t deserve another chance. Scotland and Britain deserve another Government.

    I am not going to stand here tonight and offer you the Earth. I’m not going to wave fancy pledge cards around. I am only going to promise what I know I can deliver.

    So to everyone who has had enough of spin; to everyone who is sick of politicians who ta lk big and then don’t deliver, I say: come with us. If you value honesty in politics, vote for what you value.

    And I say the same to people who believe in personal freedom. If freedom means anything at all, it means being able to live with dignity, without having to depend on the state. It means being able to provide for a secure retirement. And it means being allowed to spend your own money, rather than having it confiscated from you and spent on your behalf by Gordon Brown.

    There is nothing inevitable about rising tax. Tax levels are up to you. You can vote Labour, Liberal or SNP for higher taxes, or you can vote Conservative for lower taxes.

    Everyone accepts that decent public services need to be properly funded. People don’t object to paying for roads or schools or hospitals. But they do object when the money going into the NHS is spent, not on improving patient care, but on preparing hospital accounting systems for the euro. They object when hundreds of millions of pounds of their taxes are squandered on keeping the Millennium Dome open, or on the ever spiralling costs of the new Parliament building at Holyrood. They object when Labour is spending over £100 million a year on Government advertising.

    I say that if the Government has got enough of your money left over to spend £100 million a year on telling you what a good job it’s doing, then it’s taxing you too much.

    That’s why the next Conservative Government will give you a refund.

    We will cut taxes for small businesses and married couples and savers and pensioners and people with children.

    We will abolish taxes on savings and dividends. People who try to put a little aside each month are doing the right thing. They’ve already been taxed for earning the money; they shouldn’t be taxed again for wanting to save it.

    We will cut tax for pensioners. The men and women of my parents’ generation, who have spent a lifetime supporting and helping others, have the right to dignity, comfort and independence in retirement. So we will raise pensioners’ tax allowances, lifting a million pensioners out of tax altogether and cutting the tax paid by millions more. Pensioners have already paid tax throughout their working lives; they shouldn’t have to go on paying in retirement.

    And we will tackle the problem of the state confiscating the life savings and homes of those who have put money aside for their long term care. We will look to protect the assets of people who have tried to make reasonable provision for themselves. It cannot be right that those who have spent their lives building up something to pass on to their children and grandchildren risk losing nearly everything they have, while those who haven’t saved a penny are paid for by the state.

    With the Conservatives it will pay to do the right thing.

    And we will cut taxes for drivers. Just because John Prescott treats his two Jags as a luxury, that doesn’t mean the rest of us can afford to. For many people, especially here in Scotland, there is simply no alternative to driving. For disabled people, for elderly people, for parents needing to ferry their children to school and back, for women who don’t like to walk home from the station after dark, for people who live in rural Scotland, the car is not a luxury but a necessity.

    John Prescott may regard petrol duty as an ethical tax. But I don’t see anything ethical about a tax on disabled people, on elderly people, on young families, on women and on the countryside. That’s why the next Conservative Government, in its first budget, will cut petrol tax by 6 pence a litre, 27 pence a gallon.

    So to everyone who believes that taxes are too high; to families trying to stretch their budget just that little further; to pensioners who want independence in retirement; to people who need to drive; to everyone who thinks they can spend their own money more wisely than Gordon Brown, I say: come with us. If you value self-reliance, vote for what you value.

    And I say the same to all those who believe in law and order.

    Did you see the response that Jack Straw got when he tried to address the Police Federation of England and Wales just over two weeks ago? He was jeered and slow handclapped.

    Over the past four years, police officers in Scotland have seen nearly 800 serious criminals let out of prison early. Under the English scheme, that Labour and the Liberals want to introduce here, 35,000 criminals – some of them convicted for assaults on the police – have been set free before completing even half their sentences. Many of those criminals have gone on to commit monstrous crimes while out on early release: burglaries, muggings, even rapes.

    In Scotland under Labour, many officers, fed up with being pushed around and blamed, are taking early retirement.

    We cannot fight the war against crime if police officers have one hand handcuffed to their desks.

    I fully appreciate the fact that criminal justice is a devolved issue in Scotland. But I know I speak for the whole of our Party when I say that the next Conservative Government will lead a war on crime and allow the young men and women who join the police to get on with protecting the public.

    That means offering the police political backing instead of political correctness so that they can become the strongest, most professional and best-respected force in the world.

    It means scrapping Labour’s early release scheme, and taking back the get-out-of-jail-early cards.

    It means, as an immediate step, reversing Labour’s cuts in police numbers.

    It means winning back the trust of the public in the forces of law and order, not trying to silence their anger.

    So to everyone who feels that the balance has again swung too far towards the offender; to everyone who wants to see a police patrol on their street again; to everyone who feels that their city centre is closed to them on a Saturday night, I say: come with us. If you value law and order, vote for what you value.

    And I say the same to people who are worried about the abuse of our asylum system.

    Throughout the United Kingdom there are many people who had the courage and the spirit to leave their homes and begin again in a new country. People who have brought that courage and that enterprise to Britain, contributed to our national life, and enriched our sense of what it means to be British.

    Many of these people have told me that they are especially worried about the break-down of our asylum system. They have played by the rules. They have often had to wait patiently to be joined by a spouse or a fiancée. And they can see that something is going wrong when tens of thousands of people are now evading our immigration rules altogether.

    The British people are not ungenerous; but they do not see why we should have an asylum system that is unfair. Unfair particularly to genuine refugees who are elbowed aside in the mismanagement and chaos we see at present.

    So we will introduce secure reception centres where asylum applications are dealt with quickly. Those with genuine claims will be given help and support to stay in our country, but the current trade in human beings will not be allowed to pay.

    And so to everyone who wants to see the rules obeyed; to everyone who wants to distinguish between genuine refugees and illegal migrants, I say: come with us. If you want Britain to be a safe haven, not a soft touch, vote for what you value.

    And I say the same to everyone who believes in the British countryside.

    Labour Ministers in London and the Lib-Lab Coalition in Edinburgh seem to have no grasp of how serious things have become in rural Britain. The foot and mouth crisis, which has been particularly devastating in areas like Dumfries, has come in the middle of the worst agricultural depression in generations. Families who have managed their land for generations are being forced to se ll up.

    The epidemic has driven many people living in rural Britain over the edge. Coming after so much hardship, even strong men and women have given in to despair. I do not choose my words lightly when I say that under Labour the British countryside faces at best a bleak and uncertain future and at worst a slow and painful death.

    The next Conservative Government will move immediately to implement our Strategy for Recovery, containing steps to stamp out Foot and Mouth once and for all, to help struggling rural businesses and firm action to prevent this terrible disease entering Britain again.

    We are going to give British farmers a fair chance to compete by applying to imported food more of the food hygiene and animal welfare standards we expect of our farmers here at home.

    Our farmers are among the most dedicated and innovative in the world. On a level playing field, they’d acquit themselves against all comers. But they cannot compete properly as long as they are confined by the current Common Agricultural Policy. Just as our fishing industry, especially in Scotland, cannot compete properly under the disgraceful Common Fisheries Policy.

    The next Conservative Government will re-negotiate the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy so that many decisions currently taken at EU level would be taken by at national level.

    To everyone who wants to see the rural economy thriving and prosperous. To everyone who wants a fair deal for our farmers and our fishermen I say: come with us. If you value the liberty and livelihood of the countryside, vote for what you value.

    That is my message for everyone who is registered to vote on Thursday. Vote for the things you believe in. Make your voice heard.

    If you value a responsible society, vote for what you value.

    If you value the family, vote for what you value.

    If you believe that individuals and communities can achieve more than politicians, vote for what you value.

    If you value rural Britain vote for what you value.

    It is your choice; and it is your responsibility.

    Above all, I carry that message to everyone who believes in Britain. To everyone who believes that we have achieved things that are worth preserving. To everyone who believes in strengthening the United Kingdom.

    Our opponents often give out the impression that they are embarrassed about the United Kingdom, ashamed of its past and indifferent about its future.

    The SNP wants to separate Scotland from the rest of the Union. The Liberals see the relationship between England and Scotland as a kind of conditional alliance within a federal Europe. And Labour, with their determination to put party before country, have created constitutional imbalances that risk breaking the Union apart.

    When Scotland voted clearly and decisively in the referendum for devolution we accepted that democratic verdict as the settled will of the Scottish people. It is now the settled will of Scottish Conservatives that the Parliament must be made to work.

    Scottish Conservatives are a party of devolution. But we are also a Unionist Party. The Conservative and Unionist Party. And we always will be a Unionist Party.

    So, while supporting devolution, we will also ensure that Scotland’s voice in the Union remains strong. That is why I have pledged to retain the position of Secretary of State for Scotland, with an enhanced United Kingdom role.

    We are proud of the United Kingdom, its values and of what our four great nations have achieved together. We opened the world to free trade. We brought law and freedom to new continents. Twice we fought for the cause of all nations against tyranny. We are confident about what the United Kingdom can go on achieving in the future.

    At this Election only the Conservative and Unionist Party offers a government that will unashamedly and full heartedly make the case for the United Kingdom.

    Only we are w ill make the case for a United Kingdom in which our distinctive identities can flourish but which at the same time enables us to come together under one flag as British.

    Only we will make the case for a United Kingdom that together is able to pack a punch in the world that far outweighs that of its constituent parts.

    And only we will make the case for a United Kingdom that values and includes Northern Ireland.

    So to everyone who believes in the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to everyone who wants to strengthen the United Kingdom, I say: come with us. Vote for what you value. And I say the same to everyone who believes that Britain should be in Europe, not run by Europe.

    Last week, Tony Blair called for an honest debate about European integration. This week, he got one.

    Last Monday, Lionel Jospin, the prime Minister of France, spoke with exemplary honesty. He wants an operational EU police force; a common criminal justice system; uniform asylum and immigration policies; a European foreign policy conducted by an EU diplomatic corps; and full economic union, including a mechanism for fiscal transfers.

    On Tuesday, the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, was no less candid. He called for the EU to be allowed to levy its own taxes.

    Well I’m going to be equally honest tonight. The next Conservative Government will reject that agenda lock, stock and barrel.

    We will not accept a European Army or a European police force or a European criminal justice system. We will renegotiate the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, so that many of the decisions now taken at EU level can instead be taken by the nations. And we will pass a Reserved Powers Act, to ensure that our Parliament cannot be over-ruled by activist European judges.

    Be in no doubt as to the importance of the choice we will face in three days’ time.

    This election is not just about who will form the next Government. It’s also about whether we continue to have a Government that is sovereign in this country. It’s about whether we carry on deciding our own affairs at future general elections.

    Tony Blair has made his intentions clear. If he is re-elected, he will speed up the process of European integration. He plans to scrap the pound within two years.

    In order to meet his timetable, Mr Blair would have to launch the transition process right away. Businesses would have to prepare for the changeover, throwing out their tills, changing their software, retraining their staff, adopting new accounting methods. The public and private sectors would need to find £36 billion for the conversion.

    £36 billion. The equivalent of £55 million in this and every other constituency. The equivalent of £1,500 for every household in the United Kingdom. The equivalent of building a whole new Millennium Dome every month for the next three years.

    And it’s not just a question of the money that would be wasted on scrapping the Pound. It is also the fact that our interest rates would be set at a level that was almost always wrong for Britain. This would put economic stability and British jobs at risk. It would threaten our schools and hospitals every bit as much as it would threaten homeowners, businesses and pensioners.

    Think about it; a recession in other European countries squeezing government income and forcing a cutback in investment in our public services.

    We could not spend the money to improve our schools and hospitals if our economy was not earning the money in the first place. So we now have a Prime Minister who says he wants to put our public services first, when in fact his obsession with scrapping the Pound would put them last behind the whims of bankers in Frankfurt.

    And the process would have to begin right away. It’s not a question of waiting until the referendum – even if you believe that the referendum would be free and fair. A Labour Government elect ed on June 7 would begin to scrap the pound on June 8.

    Tony Blair wants us to believe that Labour can now be trusted on the economy. But why should anyone else trust him when he so obviously does not trust himself? This must be the first time that a party has sought office by promising to give up the right to govern. If re-elected, Labour would contract out the management of our economy: our interest rates would be set in Frankfurt and our taxes in Brussels.

    Here in Scotland I find it extraordinary that Labour, Liberals and the SNP who spent years campaigning for powers to be transferred to a Scottish Parliament now want to scrap the pound and hand ever more powers over to Brussels.

    So I am not choosing my words lightly when I say that this could be the last general election of its kind. The last time that the people of the United Kingdom are able to elect a Parliament which is supreme in this country.

    This is an issue that ought to transcend party politics. I know that there are many decent, patriotic people, who are not natural Conservatives, but who are just as concerned as we are about preserving our self-government. People who may be lifelong Labour or Liberal voters, but who want to keep the pound.

    I am appealing to those people this evening. Lend us your vote. Lend us your vote this time, so that your vote will still mean something next time, and the time after, and the time after that. Vote Conservative this one time, so that we can carry on having meaningful general elections in an independent Britain.

    This is a question, ultimately, of self-confidence. Do we have faith in our capacity to thrive as an independent country? Or do we feel that we must go along with every new Brussels initiative for fear of being left out?

    Labour and their Liberal allies seem to have no confidence in Britain. They evidently believe that we are too small to survive on our own.

    Too small? We’re the fourth largest economy in the world. We’re the fourth greatest military power on Earth. We’re one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and one of the Group of Eight industrialised nations. We have unparalleled links with the United States, the Commonwealth and the rest of the English-speaking world. How much bigger do we have to be before we can run our own affairs in our own interest?

    I believe in Britain. I don’t believe that we have to be part of a single currency to prosper. That’s why I will keep the pound.

    Three days to save the pound. Three days to secure our independence. Three days to decide whether our children and grandchildren will inherit the same freedoms that we inherited in our turn.

    And so to everyone who believes in keeping the pound, to everyone who wants to preserve our democracy I say: come with us. If you value Britain’s independence, vote for what you value.

    The Conservative Party is ready to govern for all the people. For people in the countryside, who have almost given up on ministers ever understanding them. For people in our inner cities, struggling to bring up families on crime-ridden estates with failing schools

    We will govern for taxpayers wanting to see some return on their taxes. For public servants not be snowed under with paperwork. For people who believe that the countries of the United Kingdom have achieved more together than they would separately, and who refuse to feel ashamed about our history.

    And so I say to the people of Britain: vote for what you value on Thursday.

    If you believe in a country where your taxes are wisely and carefully spent.

    If you believe in a country where pensioners who have built up an income for retirement are rewarded, not penalised.

    If you believe in a country whose criminal justice system is frightening to the criminal, not to the victim.

    If you believe in working hard, saving hard and trying to be independent of the state.

    If you believe in the unity of the Uni ted Kingdom.

    And if you believe in an independent Britain.

    Come with me, and I will give you back your country.

  • Ann Widdecombe – 2001 Speech on Setting Public Services Free

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ann Widdecombe, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 6 June 2001.

    My political roots lie in the Sixties, at a time when rules and values were often seen as not only being irrelevant but positively dangerous. If you were young at that time, you were led to believe that the world owed you a living, and all you had to do was to shout loud enough or demonstrate long enough and it would be handed to you on a plate. It won’t come as much of a surprise if I tell you that I saw things rather differently.

    I went into politics from a sense of vocation. I suspect I might have had a far more comfortable life if I had gone into the City or into PR or anyone of a hundred different professions, but the Sixties were after all about passionate convictions and I suppose I must have picked up something.

    Doesn’t mean I have a closed mind. Many of you will know that I’ve thought long and hard about my religious views, and some time ago that caused me to change my Church. But I haven’t changed my Party, not because I’ve stopped thinking about my political values but because I’ve tested them, and challenged them, and found Conservative values as relevant today as they have ever been.

    And that’s about making sure that Government serves, and doesn’t end up so grand and so overbearing that it stifles the very service it aims to give. Which, of course, is what’s happening today. Don’t take my word for it….

    · Ask any doctor or any nurse, and they will tell you – they spend more and more time sitting in front of computers and filling in Government forms rather than sitting with patients.

    · Ask any teacher. If you’re lucky they’ll come out from behind a mountain of Ministerial directives just long enough to tell you how every day they have to wade through a swamp of red tape before they get anywhere near a classroom.

    · And our police, too are filling in forms. Or job applications.

    I entered politics from a sense of vocation, just as others – our doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen and the rest – also followed their sense of vocation. But that’s where the similarity ends, because in politics you expect to find obstacles thrown in your way at every turn. It goes with the territory.

    But that wasn’t the deal for those who’ve devoted themselves to caring for our sick, our elderly, our young, or keeping our law and order. They’re not politicians, and they shouldn’t find their careers turned into an obstacle course by politicians. Or otherwise they will turn away, as tens of thousands have turned away in recent years.

    I don’t blame them. A country in which clinical decisions are made not on the basis of medical priority but on the basis of some politician’s pledge card is a sick country. A country in which schools get Ministerial directives before they get new books is a neglected country. A country in which our police are fighting red tape rather than criminals is a country that has been cheated by its government.

    The Sixties were all about passion. Some invested their passion in –shall we say – quite exotic areas, while I invested my passion in politics. Because I wanted to change things.

    And things need changing, nowhere more so than in our public services.

    That is our commitment. To set our public services free, to do their jobs as they know best. It’s a commitment that will be there long after those tawdry little pledge cards that others hawk around have become no more than a pile of litter.

  • Michael Ancram – 2001 Speech at South Bank

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Ancram, the then Conservative Party Chairman, on 6 June 2001.

    So three very distinctive reasons why we are all here today on this platform. Not because of ideology, but because of ideals – individually expressed but actually shared.

    Michael’s passionate belief in the responsibilities of the individual. Ann’s deep sense of vocation and duty. Francis’s dedication to the bonds of mutual obligation. All fundamental to the complex tapestry which is the Conservative Party. We have always been a party of diversity and breadth – and we still are.

    Each of us has come a different path but we are all pursuing a common destination. I am a Conservative for all the reasons my colleagues have given, but there are some other reasons too.

    I believe in that old concept of public service, of working for one’s community or one’s country not for what one can get out of it but for what one can contribute to it. It is a very Conservative concept, the concept of caring not because you’re told to but because it is an instinctively Conservative thing to do. The concept of undertaking public office not because it gives something to you but because you can repay something to the community which nurtured you. And into all this is naturally tied the whole concept of integrity in public life.

    But these concepts are under threat today. Under threat from a new culture which seems to believe that public office is simply the reward for services rendered not to your country but to the party of government in whose hands lies the patronage.

    Under threat from a political philosophy which believes that the state always knows best, and that we should be caring because we are told by the state to be caring – and how.

    And under threat from the new political culture in which spin is more important than truth and where as long as you are not caught out – anything goes.

    I genuinely believe that this new culture is a cancer which will eat away at the foundations of our democracy. I believe we must fight it and that is why I am a Conservative here today.

    And I am a Conservative too because I love my country. I believe passionately in the United Kingdom. I am totally with Francis in his determination to defend it from the dangers of further integration into Europe.

    But I am also determined to fight the threat that seeks to unravel it from within – the creeping growth of nationalism and of regional and cultural division which New Labour have set in train.

    For me the United Kingdom is a most remarkable phenomenon, an extraordinary amalgam of different cultures and different traditions and indeed different nations. And these have come together through history with a common purpose and a common flag to create a sovereign nation which is far stronger than the sum of its various parts. This United Kingdom stands as an example to the world and to ourselves of how different, often very different, traditions and beliefs can – while retaining their distinctiveness – be voluntarily brought together into One Nation with all that that implies. It is that which we as Conservatives must fight to preserve.

    We have always been and will remain the Party of and for the United Kingdom. Our unionism is real. And when that United Kingdom is under threat as it is today, then as a party we will fight with all the strength available to us to defend our country and all that it stands for. I will never be told that it is politically incorrect to love my country and to be proud of it. And that too is why I am a Conservative.

    But there is one other reason which brings us all here together today. It is someone who throughout these last four years has never lost his sense of purpose and his clarity of vision. It is someone who in the face of political adversity and partisan hostility has never lost his determination or his sense of mission. He is a leader we are all prou d to serve.

    Our leader – William Hague.

  • Francis Maude – 2001 Speech on Fighting for Britain’s Interests

    Francis Maude
    Francis Maude

    Below is the text of the speech made by Francis Maude, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 6 June 2001.

    I was, almost literally, born into the Conservative Party. My father went into politics in 1950, having spent some of his prime years as a prisoner of war. I and my brother and sisters grew up believing that politics is a high calling; built on deep beliefs and high principles. In my family the idea that you went into politics for yourself was laughable.

    So it was pretty easy for me to be a Conservative. My brother and I went to a direct grant school; a school independent of the state but where most of us were paid for by the state: a real public/private partnership.

    I grew up with the notion that a strong society is one bound together by the bonds of mutual obligation; that the strong have a duty to help the weak. Family tragedy can bring home to you how much we depend on each other.

    Is it bad that we have a hospice movement that is supported by the voluntary work of families and communities, rather than depending on the government?

    I was proud to serve in Conservative Governments that were prepared to be unfashionable; that were ready to take on the received wisdom. We may not have got everything right but we always did what we thought right. We did what we did not for ourselves but for our country.

    And I find it hard to understand why you would come into politics if you don’t believe in your country. I spent part of my childhood in Australia; and when I was on my sabbatical from politics in the mid-nineties I lived the global economy as an international investment banker. I know better than most how interconnected today’s network world has become. Britain can never be isolationist; can never turn her back on the world.

    We must be an internationalist country, yes. But we must above all be a country. How can we remain a proud independent country if we have lost the power to govern ourselves? When we have become nothing more than a province of a United States of Europe?

    In the sixties and seventies people like my father resisted the sad assumption that Britain was condemned to an inevitable decline. They fought the defeatist notion that the socialist ratchet was irreversible. It is for our generation to resist the sense that it is inevitable that we lose our power of self-government. It is for our generation to fight for the return of some powers from Brussels, to reject the idea that the ratchet of EU integration can never be reversed at all.

    It is for our generation to fight for it. And we will.

  • Michael Portillo – 2001 Speech on Trusting the People

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Portillo, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 6 June 2001.

    As a very young man I was attracted to the Labour Party. The idea of high tax and high government spending seemed socially responsible. But over time I saw that Labour’s way didn’t work. The combination of the government’s spending more than the nation could afford, high taxation and devaluation just dragged the country down.

    The greatest single difference between Labour and Conservatives is the same today as it has always been. Labour believes that society changes for the better because of what government does; we believe it is people themselves who bring about social improvement.

    That’s why Labour talk of how much Government will take from the people and spend, and all their recruitment targets, as though the Government always spent our money well, and as though extra people could be recruited to public service like turning on a tap.

    We believe in trusting people, their aspirations and instincts. Labour believes in government and bureaucrats, we believe in people.

    Labour believes it’s compassionate and socially responsible to take money away from the people who earned it and spend it on their behalf. Well it depends. Not when Labour takes it from the poorest people. Not when it comes from hitting their pension funds. And not when the government complacently tolerates waste and inefficiency.

    But worse than that, it’s not morally defensible if we weaken people’s resolve to take responsibility for themselves. We believe that our society is better if people believe that their first duty is to be independent if they can, and to build up their sense of self-worth. People who take responsibility for themselves are better able to take responsibilities for their families too, and more willing to recognise their responsibilities towards their neighbours and their community.

    Those obligations to oneself, family, and community cannot be subcontracted to government. We believe that when a person has paid his taxes that is not the end of his obligations towards others, but the beginning. And indeed the greater your success in life, the greater is your personal obligation to put something back.

    A society that overtaxes and penalises success, leads people to believe that once they’ve paid their taxes, they’ve done their bit. A society that overtaxes the poor leads them to believe they can never escape poverty by their own efforts.

    A society that forces too many into means-tested benefits deepens the poverty trap and embitters those who tried to be prudent and thrifty.

    Whether Britain can compete in the coming decades will depend on whether we free people from excessive tax and regulation. Whether we have a society of which we can be proud, depends on whether we can convince more people of their inalienable responsibilities.

    Under Labour we are headed in the wrong direction: away from the responsibility society towards the dependency society.

    Our approach to public services also rests on trusting people. When we say that we want head teachers to control all the school budget, that’s not just because we think people close to the ground make better decisions than those in distant bureaucracies. It’s also because when you trust someone, when you give them the power of initiative and authority, you bring out the best in them. They flourish and exceed all expectations even their own. I saw what a head teacher in a grant-maintained school could achieve with children from underprivileged homes, who learnt self-esteem and the value of hard work.

    Labour has always believed in centralisation, but New Labour’s control fetish has made it still more intolerant of diversity. Uniformity is the enemy of improvement. We passionately believe freedom and diversity deliver progress.

    Governments must not be resentful of, or hostile to diversity. We can only walk when we allow one foot to move in front of the other. The other foot then catches up and passes by. And it is only by allowing those with good ideas to edge ahead, and helping others to catch them up, that our country can move forward.

    Governments without a deep-rooted commitment to freedom and diversity, are Governments wedded to mediocrity. Public services will never get better under Labour because they believe Government is the only engine of improvement. They are incapable of letting go: incapable of trusting people. Labour is intellectually timid, too bound up in ideology. Conservatives will be the party of progress and reform.

  • William Hague – 2001 Speech on Two Britains

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 6 June 2001.

    Thirty days ago, I began this campaign by saying we would show the nation a better way.

    We have done that. We have set out how we will bring taxes down, how we will hit crime hard, how we will bring discipline, standards and choice to schools in every town and city, how we and we alone will keep the Pound. We have shown how we will deliver lower taxes while safeguarding spending on the vital public services.

    Labour by contrast has ducked and weaved on tax and spending. They promise more money for services but refuse to say where it will come from. They cloak their plans for more stealth taxes on petrol on National Insurance on pensions in weasel words and arrogant evasions.

    We have spelt out what it means to be genuinely tough on crime. Our support for the police will be as unflinching as our hostility to criminals. They will serve the sentence they are given, they will not be released on to our streets to offend again before they have served even half their time. Labour has had nothing to say about crime short of promising new police officers when they can’t even keep hold of the ones they’ve got. We have demonstrated how our schools can become places where children learn, where teachers teach and where heads are given the responsibility and authority to lead.

    Labour can only repeat the mantra of ‘education, education, education’ while we put forward practical plans to deliver discipline, standards and choice to everyone.

    We have shown we can make Britain a safe haven instead of a soft touch, by introducing reception centres that will speed-up the claims of genuine refugees. Labour and their Liberal allies have tried to avoid the subject and have offered no alterative plans of their own.

    We have set out our plans to rescue the countryside, by ensuring that proper help is given to the rural businesses and farmers hit so badly by foot and mouth. All Labour have to offer are further attacks on our rural way of life

    And we have shown how Britain can be in Europe, not run by Europe, how we can play our full part in the EU without surrendering our independence or our currency. Labour meanwhile plot to scrap the Pound without telling us how much it will cost, at what rate we would go in to the Euro or how a referendum in which they would set the question and determine the funding could ever be a fair one.

    Issue by issue we have made and won our case. We have put forward answers that Labour have been unable to question and raised questions that they have been unable to answer.

    I am proud of the campaign we have fought. I am proud of what my colleagues have said and done. I am proud of the campaign you have fought. We alone have set the agenda in this campaign.

    But elections are fought on more than just issues alone. They are also about values, beliefs and commitment – the iron in the soul of a political party that can see it through bad times as well as good.

    We have shown that iron. What a contrast to New Labour. What a contrast to Tony Blair’s endless convolutions that lead him to praise Margaret Thatcher in one breath and try to bury her in the next. Unlike him and them, we know who we are and we know what we stand for.

    We have never campaigned to pull out of Europe.

    We have never campaigned for higher taxes.

    We have never campaigned for greater union powers.

    We have never campaigned to scrap our nuclear deterrent.

    But I will tell you who has, Tony Blair. No belief is too important for him to abandon it when circumstances dictate, No policy is so essential that Labour will hold to it no matter how temporarily unpopular it may be. No value is too central for it not to be jettisoned when the going gets rough.

    That is not my way, nor is it the way of the Conservative Party.

    Our core beliefs in freedom, justice, and tolerance, of respect for the individual, decency, a reluctance to meddle and interfere and above all our fierce belief that a country is happiest and most prosperous when the people and not the politicians rule have stood the test of time.

    That is why in this Election we are clear about what we want.

    We want people to keep more of what they earn, to be self-reliant and independent, to plan for their future.

    We believe our society is stronger when people have the authority and responsibility to shape their own futures and those of others.

    It is why we set such great store by upholding the rule of law and defending those who work hard and play by rules.

    It is why we will fight to keep our country as a self-governing nation with the ability to control its economy.

    These are the same principles I joined the Conservative Party to defend all those years ago, the principles I stood up and spoke for when I was 16, the principles I am proud to put forward as leader of the Conservative Party today.

    They are principles not learned from books or seminars or pollsters, but forged from the people I grew up with, the community we shared and above all the family whose love and support has always been unconditional. They are principles that have never changed and never will.

    I grew up in the 1970s, a decade torn by industrial strife and inflation. A decade when people seriously questioned whether Britain was even capable of being governed. In Rotherham, politics was never very far away because the evidence of the government was everywhere from the council estates where a lot of my friends at school lived, to the nationalised pits and steelworks that their fathers worked in.

    But whether they were miners, factory workers or small businessmen like my own dad, they were decent hard-working people with standards who wanted their children to have a better life than they themselves had had.

    We all went to the same schools, used the same family doctors and hospitals and wanted the same things, but it wasn’t a Labour Government, the supposed people’s party that made it possible to fulfil those ambitions. It was because of Conservative Government that my friends and neighbours eventually saw a real improvement in their lives.

    Slowly but surely better jobs and more opportunities came the way of our country as the Conservatives ended union tyranny, brought down taxes, and widened home ownership. For the first time in decades there was a real sense that we were no longer the sick man of Europe.

    The people I went to school with are now doing many different things. They own their own homes, they save for their pensions, they enjoy wider choice in their lives. Many now have families of their own. I took my own route to Oxford, business school in Europe and leading the Opposition. But the values we shared then are the same values we share now: pride, directness, generosity of spirit and, if I’m honest, a certain stubborn streak.

    A lot of them voted Labour at last election. They did do in spite of their values not because of them. They did so because they wanted what their own parents had wanted for them: better schools for their children, better hospital care for their families and because they believed Tony Blair when he said he would keep their taxes down and make their streets safer.

    So imagine first their disappointment, when he broke those promises, and then their anger when he blamed them for his own failure to deliver. His attack on the forces of conservatism and his attempt to heap all the ills and evils of the 20th century on the heads of decent people must rank as one of the most ill-judged political comments of all time.

    Tony Blair may have retreated in the face of the Women’s Institute and others, but they still remember, we still remember. And tomorrow the world will find out that the forces of conservatism are on the march.

    I have met them by the thousand during my Election campaign.

    They are farmers laid low by a foot and mouth outbreak which has lasted longer and bitten deeper than it need have done because of the dither and delay of this Government.

    They are the small businessmen and women crippled by Labour’s taxes and new bureaucracy.

    They are the teachers, the police, the doctors and the nurses who have been weighed down by red tape and political interference when they simply wanted to do their job.

    They are the market traders I met in Smithfield this morning who shouted at me ‘Whatever you do William, win’. Or in many cases, ‘Go on William, wipe the smile off his face’.

    They are down-to-earth people who in a quiet way love their country and are privately appalled by Labour’s plans to scrap the Pound and to undermine Britain’s independence.

    Above all they are people who don’t always think of themselves as Conservatives, who don’t always vote Conservative, but who are in the end the backbone of this nation.

    Tomorrow they have a choice. And tomorrow, I know they will be marching with us. They know the stakes are too high to risk another term of Labour Government. They know that, above all, because of Mr Blair’s plan to scrap the Pound and surrender to Brussels, this could be the last General Election in Britain when we can still run our own affairs in this country.

    Because tomorrow is a choice not just about who will run this country for the next five years, but about the country that their children and grandchildren will inherit.

    I am in no doubt about the kind of country people want.

    They want a Britain that is in control of its own destiny and a society where they can be in control of theirs.

    A Britain whose streets are safe for families and the vulnerable; not a Britain safe for convicted criminals.

    A Britain where basic values and discipline are taught in our schools and where doctors and nurses, police and teachers are respected for what the work they do; not a Britain where the rule of law is denigrated and the people running our public services are demoralised.

    A Britain where people keep more of what they earn and are encouraged to be independent the better to help themselves and others; not a Britain where families and retired people are taxed and taxed again until they are left depending on the state for their very existence.

    An independent Britain with its own currency; not a Britain so lacking in self-belief that it gives up the right to run its own affairs or its own economy.

    These are the two Britains on offer, and tomorrow is the last chance to choose between them.

    The more widely I have travelled, the more people I have met during these last 30 days, the more I am certain of the kind of Britain the vast majority of people want.

    So if you have had enough of arrogance and spin and broken promises, if you want a Government that offers you only what it can deliver; I say vote for what you value.

    If you have had enough of higher taxes and creeping dependency, if you want a Government that values self-reliance and believes you can spend your money more wisely than it can, I say vote for what you value.

    If you have had enough of being told that we should be ashamed of our history and cannot govern ourselves, if you want a Government that believes in the future of our country, I say vote for what you value.

    Vote Conservative tomorrow and on Friday we will begin the work of making this nation once again the equal of the people who live in it.

    Vote Conservative tomorrow and Britain will again be a place we can all be proud to call our home.

  • Edward Timpson – 2014 Speech on Adoption Support

    timpson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Timpson at Somerset House in London on 13 May 2014.

    Thanks Sheila (Durr, Chair of the London Adoption Board), it’s good to be here.

    Just a month ago, I was pounding the streets of London in the marathon, sporting a T-shirt with the words “I’d adopt” on it in the hope that if that got just a few people thinking about the possibility of offering a child a loving home, then it will have done the job.

    Because, with 6,000 children – and around 800 in London alone – still waiting to be adopted, we must take every opportunity to bring them and prospective parents together – and to be there for them every step of the way.

    And the good news is we’ve made really important progress this year.

    Progress

    The Children and Families Act is sweeping away many of the identified barriers to adoption and there’s been a much stronger focus on wider recruitment and better support for adopters.

    And thanks to your hard work and dedication – for which I’m naturally hugely grateful – we can see this determined drive from government beginning to pay off.

    Adoptions are at record levels following a 15% increase between 2011 to 2012 and 2012 to 2013. There’s also been a 34% increase in the number of adopter approvals.

    Huge numbers – over 96,000 people in 12 months – contacted the First4Adoption online information service that we fund – and whose phone number was splashed all over my marathon T-shirt. And over 6,800 of these people went on to look at an adoption agency’s website – a vital next step to becoming an adoptive parent.

    We’re already aware of one couple who have gone from contacting First4Adoption to being approved as adopters and having a child placed with them. It shows what can be done if we all pull in the same direction.

    Three new voluntary adoption agencies also opened last month with a commitment to attract over 300 adopters and offer hope to more children – just the latest advance in a massive £217 million push to improve the system and boost recruitment.

    And there have also been welcome developments on adoption breakdowns. Professor Julie Selwyn’s recent report showed that far fewer adoptions fail than previously thought – around 3% as opposed to a 20 or 30% breakdown rate.

    But this very timely and important research also reveals that we need to do much more to support adoptive families who are struggling with the fallout from earlier abuse and neglect – something I’ve seen first-hand, whilst growing up with my own 2 adopted brothers.

    So there’s a lot to do, but also a lot of great work that we can build on.

    Good work in London

    And, the reason I’m here today is because, in many ways, London is leading the way.

    Research shows that Londoners – particularly single women and those aged over 40 – are more likely to adopt than people anywhere else in England. Londoners are also more likely to contact First4Adoption’s phone line than any other group.

    And this is in the face of many of the same challenges as other parts of the country, particularly when it comes to finding matches for BME children.

    As we know, black children spend, on average, a year longer waiting to be adopted than white children. I know that this is as unacceptable to you as it is to me – which is why, through the act, whilst continuing to recognise its clear validity as a factor to be taken properly into account, we’re ending the undue emphasis on finding an ethnic match between adopters and children whose chances of being adopted diminish with every day they have to wait.

    And we can see some really excellent and innovative practice beginning to tackle this and wider recruitment challenges head-on.

    Like Redbridge’s partnership with the children’s charity Coram, which, with its keen focus on reducing delays and on tracking children’s progress right through the process, has sent adoptions through the roof – by an astonishing 175% – and, in the process, attracted a wider pool of adopters.

    Southwark too has excelled with its Find 40 Families campaign to attract BME adopters, driving up the number of adopters by 50% since its launch a year ago. A fantastic achievement.

    Traffic to its website has also soared by 70% through a combination of work to raise awareness and myth-bust in local communities along with imaginative approaches to publicity – for example, by adding personal touches to its website, such as profiles of children waiting to be adopted.

    We’re keen to do all we can to support these kind of inspirational ventures and see many more children gain from the wonderful gift of adoption.

    Adoption reforms

    Which is exactly what our adoption reforms aim to do, with a strong focus throughout on boosting recruitment as well as support for adopters at every stage.

    There’s no question that the 2 things go hand in hand. People are far more likely to consider adoption if they’re confident they can count on good support – not just in the early days, but years down the line if needed, which I know from my own family, can often be the case.

    So, through the act, through the new Adoption Support Fund, the new Adoption Leadership Board, chaired by Sir Martin Narey, as well as through the significant funding we’re injecting into the system, we’re simplifying and improving the process every step of the way. And, crucially, giving prospective parents much more choice and control over the support they get.

    So what does this mean in practice? For adopters, it means they’ll get much clearer information about their entitlements, the same pay and leave rights as birth parents and will no longer face the ‘cliff edge’ of support provided while the child was in care suddenly being withdrawn.

    We’re also giving them a more active role in finding a match by opening up the Adoption Register. We’ll start testing access to the register in the summer to see how this might help adoptive families come together much more quickly. And how it might highlight, at an earlier stage, what support is needed.

    Adoption Support Fund

    And this support is about to ramp up as families access much-needed therapeutic services through the Adoption Support Fund.

    Last year, I announced that we’ll be contributing £19.3 million to help kick off this new fund. I launched this during a visit to the highly impressive Family Futures in Islington, an adoption support service where I met several adoptive families and heard from them how successful therapeutic interventions had been the difference between them sinking and swimming.

    In fact I’ve recently received a letter from one of the parents I met on my visit updating me on the terrific progress her son is making after years of, as she put it, “firefighting.”

    It’s one of the main reasons why we’re currently working with 10 local areas, including Lewisham, to trial a smaller version of the fund and using the insights gained to shape the national fund, which will be fully up and running in 2015.

    We’ll also be testing personal budgets, with the input of social workers to really put adoptive families in the driving seat – families, for whom, these vital therapeutic services have often remained out of reach, despite their potential to change lives.

    Adoption Leadership Board (ALB)

    Better support is also a big focus for the new Adoption Leadership Board, which Mark (Owers, CEO, CVAA), of course, manages.

    It’s early days for the ALB, but I’m confident that the board will thrive under Sir Martin Narey’s leadership and will galvanise real improvements by bringing together local and central government, the voluntary sector and academics as never before.

    Its success will rest, in large part, on effective regional boards. London, with its regional set-up, is especially well-placed to take this forward. Indeed, the London model has been discussed at Adoption Leadership Board meetings and is likely to form the blueprint for boards in other regions.

    Andrew Webb at the ADCS is currently setting these boards up. Each will have a designated lead ADCS member for the region, representatives from the voluntary sector and a ‘sponsor’ from the national board.

    Universal services playing their part

    It’s also, of course, vital that universal services like education and health play their part. Adoptive families rely on them as much as specialist services.

    An Adoption UK survey from last year, for instance, found that two-thirds of adoptive parents felt that their children faced specific challenges at school due to past trauma and neglect.

    And it’s with this in mind that we’re providing extra support for adopted children through our education reforms.

    From 2014, children adopted from care will be eligible for the pupil premium plus and for free early education under the programme aimed at the most disadvantaged 2-year-olds.

    This comes on top of our move to extend priority school access to children adopted from care.

    And I can announce today that, from now on, this will apply to all children adopted from care, not just those adopted under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

    We’ve issued new guidance about this and have asked admissions authorities to apply it with immediate effect. We will amend the School Admissions Code at the earliest opportunity.

    There’s also significant work underway to improve the understanding of adopted children’s needs among health professionals. Their support is critical for adopted children, given their known high level of mental health needs.

    So it’s great to see pioneering approaches like the work being done at The Maudsley, where specialist services are provided for young people who are fostered or adopted. These are highly rated by parents who report improved relationships with their children, a reduction in difficult behaviours and improved wellbeing – things we want to see many more parents achieving through improved support.

    But there’s clearly more to do.

    Which is why we’ve commissioned the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to produce clinical guidelines on attachment.

    And why we’re encouraging national and local health service commissioners to consider adopted children’s needs when developing integrated services for vulnerable groups.

    Adopted children are now recognised as a key group by the NHS Commissioning Board and in statutory guidance on Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies – which are important steps forward.

    Improving the access that adopted children – indeed all children – have to CAMHS is high on the agenda across government at the moment and we’re working closely with the Department of Health to see what more we can do.

    I have to say that this is a particular priority for me, as is ensuring that social workers are well-equipped to meet the needs of looked after and adopted children.

    Which is why we commissioned Research in Practice (RiP) to produce new training materials for social workers who work in these areas. These are currently being rolled out and are now available on the RiP’s website – so would encourage you to take a look.

    Conclusion

    So we’re on the right track. And, together, are overturning expectations of what can be achieved when the ambition and commitment is there.

    But we need to keep up the pace and continue to push the boundaries to drive up performance even further.

    Adoption scorecards that show how long it takes for each local authority to place children for adoption are vital to this endeavour.

    As is access to real time performance data by region – and I’m hugely grateful to the north London consortium of local authorities for helping the Adoption Leadership Board develop its new data collection arrangements to provide continued focus and insight into what works and how we can do better.

    Because it’s only by continuing to inspire, support and challenge each other that we can really raise our game – on both adopter recruitment and also improved support for adoptive families.

    I know just how critical this support is from seeing how my elder adopted brother Oliver continues to struggle with issues stemming from the mental and physical abuse he suffered before he came to live with us, over 30 years ago, as a 6-year-old foster child.

    In those days, therapy was neither well-known, never mind easy to access. And while Oliver has gained a great deal from his adoption – as we all have in our family – I’m sure that these issues wouldn’t be affecting him as much if he’d had the therapeutic support he needed.

    Which is why I’m so determined to ensure that other adopted children and their parents get the help they need, when they need it.

    They deserve our utmost support, so let’s continue to work together to make sure that’s exactly what they get.

    Thank you.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2014 Speech at All Energy Conference

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael, the then Scottish Secretary, in Aberdeen, Scotland, on 21 May 2014.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today at the start of the All Energy Conference.

    This is a fantastic opportunity to get together at the UK’s largest renewable energy gathering – to share experiences, see new technologies and celebrate the success of this ever-growing industry.

    Because as we all know Scotland is fast becoming a world energy hub – not just in oil and gas, but in renewables too.

    Scottish renewables are now providing enough electricity to meet roughly 40% of Scotland’s consumption. A third of all renewable generation in the UK is now in Scotland.

    The latest figures show that between the third quarter of 2012 and the third quarter of 2013, renewable electricity generation is up 20% on the previous 12 months.

    Together we are now around half way to our ambition of meeting 30% of the UK’s electricity needs from renewables by 2020.

    And our prediction is that with the framework we are putting in place, we’ll do even better than 30%.

    Investment

    Between January 2010 and February 2014, we saw private sector investment in large scale UK renewable electricity projects exceed £34 billion. This investment supports over 37,000 jobs.

    Over £14 billion of this is in Scotland, supporting around 12,000 jobs, here at home.

    And our reform of the Electricity Market will ensure the UK remains a leading destination for investment in the electricity sector and could support as many as 25,000 jobs in the power sector in the UK.

    This record is in stark contrast with the rest of Europe, where renewables investment halved between 2012 and 2013.

    The UK Government is committed to supporting and investing in our renewables technology to make sure that we retain our position as Europe’s renewable investment hotspot.

    Projects such as the Dorenell Wind Farm in Moray which is estimated will generate at least £93 million in direct benefits for the Scottish economy.

    And The Speyside Biomass Combined Heat and Power Plant at the Macallan Distillery, which would represent an inward investment of £60 million to the local area.

    I am delighted to confirm today that the Eskdalemuir Working Group has progressed very well. Through constructive discussions, the MoD’s concerns on wind farm development have been met and opposition to the project will be removed, opening up extra capacity for renewables deployment.

    Renewable potential

    And for the first time we have created a tailored strike price for Scottish Islands which will help to unlock their renewable potential as cost effectively as possible, and increase the likelihood of a number of Scottish offshore wind projects coming forward.

    As MP for Orkney and the Shetlands I can tell you that enthusiasm for exploiting renewables potential on the islands is very high.

    The UK Government is currently in talks with Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles ‘our islands out future’ campaign in recognition of their incredible potential and to overcome obstacles to development.

    This whole positive picture, right across Scotland is down to your hard work – and collaboration.

    The Energy Act 2013 – supported by all parties in the UK Parliament: Labour and SNP as well as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has put in place the legal, financial and political framework that is designed to last.

    Not just for the next few years, but it reaches out ten, twenty, thirty years into the future. Certainty, stability, predictability.

    Going green

    By creating the world’s first low carbon electricity market, we are going green at the lowest cost.

    Demonstrating that carbon reduction and economic growth can go hand in hand.

    Let me be crystal clear, the government’s commitment to renewables as part of our diverse energy mix is undiminished.

    But to succeed we need to keep showing that this vision of a competitive low carbon market isn’t an ideological, or even just an environmental one. We can keep energy bills as low as possible as we decarbonise.

    We need to provide certainty, stability and fair returns for investors, generators and suppliers

    So the positive case for Scotland’s energy future in the UK is the protection of the integrated market. Sharing support, sharing benefits and sharing costs.

    Scottish renewables, just like renewables in other parts of the UK, are an integral part of our vision for a low carbon future.

    Investment, consent, construction and generation.

    Scotland – a world-leading renewables hub. The United Kingdom – the best place to do business.