UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Justine Greening – 2016 Closing Speech at Syria Conference

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, in London on 4 February 2016.

    Thank you Baroness Anelay. I now have this amazing privilege of being the person that gets to wrap up this incredible conference that we’ve had today.

    I want to start by saying a huge thank you to absolutely everybody who’s contributed today, and to everyone who’s been working so hard, over so many weeks and months, to put this Conference together.

    On behalf of the UK Government, I’d also like to massively thank our co hosts Germany, Norway, Kuwait and the UN.

    But most of all, I want to say thank you to everybody here, individuals, countries, NGOs and businesses, who came here today and pledged to stand by Syria in the weeks, months and years ahead.

    I think nobody came here this morning doubting the scale of the challenge we’re facing. We’ve heard so many speakers today talk about that.

    This is not only the world’s biggest and most urgent humanitarian crisis but its far-reaching consequences are touching all of us. The unprecedented people flow. A whole generation of children at risk of being lost to conflict.

    And in these last five years the people of Syria have endured so many horrors – the barrel bombs, starvation and torture inflicted by the Assad regime, the unspeakable atrocities committed by Daesh and others involved in the fighting.

    Now, peace alone will give the Syrian people their future back but in the meantime the question that we faced today was could the world come together and make a real and lasting difference to the lives of the millions of people affected by this crisis?

    Could this be a turning point and a day of hope for those people affected by the Syrian conflict?

    And in the end it all comes down to choices.

    And I believe that today we’ve made the right choices.

    Because countries, donors and businesses have all stepped up, you’ve all come forward, and we have raised new funds for this crisis to the amount of over $10billion dollars.

    As the Secretary General said, together we have committed the largest ever amount in response to a humanitarian crisis, in a single day.

    That is a phenomenal, record-breaking total but it also fully reflects the enormity of the crisis that we’re all facing and the scale of the suffering.

    It also represents a promise, a promise not just to the Syrian people but to those countries that we’ve heard from today who are supporting them, countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt who have shouldered so much of the responsibility.

    But we’ve gone beyond simply funding. Because today was more than that, it was more than about getting funding for UN agencies and NGOs to provide day to day life-saving support, as vital as that is.

    We also made a choice on behalf of Syria’s children and children in host communities as well. Today the world has been unequivocal: that there should be no lost generation of children affected by the Syrian conflict.

    And we have pledged to deliver education to children inside Syria and outside Syria. We’ve pledged to make sure that there’s access to education for all refugee and host community children by the end of the 2016-17 school year. Now this is a monumental pledge and a crucial one – not just for those children and their hopes for their future. But it’s an investment in Syria’s future as much as anything that we’ve done today.

    And today we’ve also made a second critical choice on supporting jobs for refugees and economic growth in the countries hosting them.

    And these historic agreements with Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have the potential not only to open up economic opportunities for refugees – but to create jobs as well for local people, and to leave a legacy of economic growth in the countries that have so generously opened their borders to the vast majority of Syrian refugees.

    Finally, and critically, we have all condemned – again – the ongoing atrocities committed by all parties to the conflict. We do not accept them – the barrel-bombing, the sexual violence, the targeting of schools and hospitals. And today with one voice we have rightly called on all parties to the conflict, and those with influence over them, to ensure that International Humanitarian Law is upheld.

    Today’s been an unprecedented response to an unprecedented crisis. We’ve offered an alternative vision of hope to the people of Syria and all those affected by this crisis.

    And we should take real pride in what we’ve been able to achieve today.

    Now, though, we need to deliver.

    Today we’ve set the ambition. For the sake of Syria and for all of us, we’ve now got to make that ambition a reality. And we’ve got to keep our promise to the Syrian people.

    If we can, I believe that in the years ahead we can truly look back with pride and with hope on what we’ve managed to accomplish today.

    And I think that in the years to come, we will truly be able to say that we’ve been part of a historic and incredible day.

  • Harry Harpham – 2015 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    harryharpham

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Harry Harpham in the House of Commons on 17 June 2015.

    May I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and say what a pleasure it is to follow him?

    As the new Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, I stand here with a good deal of trepidation, knowing the tireless and dedicated service that my predecessor, David Blunkett, devoted to his constituents. From both the Front and Back Benches, David fought unceasingly to improve the lives of ordinary people. David is Sheffield through and through. He was born in the constituency he would go on to represent, became a councillor at the age of 22, and led the city through the turbulent years of the 1980s. He was elected to the Commons in 1987, moved swiftly into the shadow Cabinet, and finally became a Cabinet Minister in 1997. He fought ferociously for his point of view in Cabinet, and although he may not always have got his way, as a lifelong Sheffield Wednesday supporter he was well accustomed to taking the rough with the smooth.

    David carried the views of his constituents into Cabinet, and despite his heavy workload as Secretary of State for Education and Employment in Labour’s first term, and as Home Secretary dealing with the aftermath of the Oldham riots and the 9/11 terrorist atrocities in New York, he made a point of continuing to attend his constituency advice surgeries in person. He was relentless in his desire to drive up educational standards and improve the educational opportunities of all. Throughout his career, David was dedicated to the idea that for democracy to be worth the name, it should be a truly collaborative endeavour, and that politicians should reach out to the disaffected and the disfranchised. I pay tribute to the work of a man who has made an indelible mark on British politics.

    Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough covers the north-east of the city and is dominated by the low-rise housing that was originally built for those working in the steel industry centred in the nearby Don valley. These days, employment patterns are more diverse, and many of my constituents work in the retail sector and in health and social care. There is an iron age hill fort at the eastern end of the constituency on Wincobank hill. This was built by the Brigantes tribe to keep out the Roman legions, so clearly our ancestors were against further integration with Europe. Perhaps if they had had the Prime Minister renegotiate the terms, they might have thought differently.

    Despite the fort, we are a diverse constituency, but we are a community that faces some stiff challenges. My constituency is ranked 19th highest in the country for the proportion of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance—6.4%, a rate well over double the national average—and the number of children living in poverty is double that found across the UK as a whole. Much of the so-called economic recovery in our area has come in the form of low-paid, zero-hours contract work, leaving families unable to budget from one week to the next. Despite the Chancellor’s crowing, far too many of my constituents are still struggling to make ends meet. There are 6,000 households in my constituency living in fuel poverty, 14% of the total in the whole of the Yorkshire and the Humber region. That is one of the issues I will take up vigorously over the coming weeks and months.

    Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to full employment and the creation of more apprenticeships, this by itself is not enough. We need not just more jobs, but better jobs. Our poor productivity is holding back our economy and holding down living standards. I am deeply concerned that the Government have no clear plan for boosting output. What we need is the investment in infrastructure and a properly thought out skills agenda that will not only lead to more stable, meaningful jobs but address the pressing problem of productivity that Britain is facing. Unless Ministers act on this, not only will UK businesses fall behind their international competitors, but working people will not see the improvement in their standard of living that Government rhetoric leads them to expect.

    In Sheffield, budget cuts have left the public services that so many of my constituents depend on struggling to cope. In spite of the innovative and dedicated efforts of the council, local NHS services and ordinary men and women in my constituency, people are turning to support that more and more simply is not there.

    I am originally from Nottinghamshire. At 15, I left school on a Friday and started down the pit on the Monday morning. I had no qualifications to speak of. It was moving to Sheffield that gave me a second chance at education. It is the city where knowledge that everyone’s chances can be improved has been found in the past, and where I will do my best to make sure that it can be found in our future.

    I got into politics because I know the good that can be done by public servants working in the interest of the communities they serve. From the Opposition green Benches, I will do what I can to protect those services from ideological attacks that would reduce them to a shadow and leave those they serve paying the price.

  • Nicholas Macpherson – 2016 Speech on Keynes’s General Theory at 80

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, at HM Treasury in London on 4 February 2016.

    Keynes was the greatest British thinker of the 20th century. He had an extraordinary mind. He was a brilliant polemicist. And I am proud that he served in Her Majesty’s Treasury, whose view I shall seek to represent here tonight.

    But 80 years on from the General Theory he remains elusive. Partly because he was a creature of his time – the chronic under demand of the inter war years. And partly because his ideas were continually evolving. Keynes was and is a paradox. A liberal who proposed protection. A capitalist who regarded most business people with contempt. A conscientious objector who worked round the clock in support of the war effort.

    The General Theory is a masterpiece. It put macroeconomic analysis and policy firmly on the map. It provides huge insights into expectations, uncertainty and the operation of markets. His description of the stock market in chapter 12 should be compulsory reading for economists and investors alike.

    It also provided much though not all of the basis for what came to be known as “Keynesianism”: a view that government could not just manage demand but seek to smooth the operation of the trade cycle through fiscal policy.

    Whether Keynes himself would have supported such an approach, had he lived, we will never know: the General Theory was focused on addressing persistent depression. Chapter 22 (Notes on the Trade cycle) is almost an after-thought. It was Hicks, Meade and others who sought to operationalise “Keynesianism”.

    Now is not the time to set out a defence of the much maligned Treasury view of the 1920s and 1930s. I would merely make two points.

    First, the Treasury view evolved over time: as George Peden has shown, it was much more nuanced than some of its critics have claimed. And secondly its focus on monetary policy as a way of regulating the economy, set out in Ralph Hawtrey’s seminal Economica article of 1925 , is still relevant today.

    The Treasury policy of loose monetary policy and tight fiscal policy after the UK came off the gold standard in 1931 proved highly effective.

    Similarly, in recent years, the speed of the authorities’ interventions on monetary and credit policy have been instrumental in the UK’s recovery.

    And so the question I would like to address tonight is whether, beyond the initial loosening and tightening of fiscal policy by the then Chancellor in 2008-09, the Treasury should have made more use of Keynesian policies in recent years.

    I will set out 9 reasons why the Treasury remains cautious if not sceptical about an activist fiscal policy. For completeness, I should make clear that many of the arguments apply equally to using monetary policy as a tool for fine tuning: the Treasury has always been as sceptical about crude monetarism as naïve Keynesianism. First, the labour market is much more efficient than it was in the inter war period. Policy since the 1980s has focused on reforming industrial relations, improving work incentives and pursuing more activist welfare to work policies. Just as unemployment peaked at a lower level in the 1990s recession, so did it again in the 2009 recession, with unprecedented real wage adjustment facilitating the maintenance of employment. Keynes’ case for public works in the 1930s rested on his view that nominal (and hence real) wages could not adjust not least because of the strength of the trades union movement.

    Secondly, over my working life, there has been a persistent tendency to mistake structural weakness for cyclical weakness. Keynes was writing at a time of chronically low demand but it’s not at all clear that recent experience fits this description. Apart from a brief hiatus in 2011 caused by the Eurozone crisis, unemployment has been falling persistently since early 2010: in the last three years, it has fallen by over a third, while the rate of employment has reached a record high. Throughout this period, until input prices began to plummet in 2014, core CPI inflation remained above its pre-crisis average, and did not fall below 2 per cent on a sustained basis until September 2014. Neither of these indicators are obvious signs of chronic lack of demand, and I doubt Keynes would have seen them as such, while the evidence is building that the growth of productive potential in the UK (and the US) has slowed significantly since the financial crisis. But throughout this period the “Keynesian” prescription has been the same: more stimulus and a higher deficit.

    That naturally leads on to my third argument: the issue of asymmetry. For most of the post war period, Governments found it much easier to lower interest rates than to increase them, and to relax fiscal policy than to tighten it. No wonder there was a tendency for inflation always to be a little higher than desirable and for deficits to predominate at the expense of surpluses. Now, Gordon Brown dealt with the former through making the Bank of England operationally independent in 1997. In a democracy, it is difficult to see how fiscal policy could be contracted to an independent body. However, successive governments have sought to address this tendency through elaborate fiscal rules, and more recently through George Osborne’s creation of an independent Office for Budgetary Responsibility.

    Fourthly, “Keynesian” demand management is likely to be much more effective in a relatively closed economy, like the United States, than an open economy like the UK. Here, demand expansion has historically fed through into imports and the current account: as Mark Carney recently pointed out, you cannot always rely on “the kindness of strangers” to help solve balance of payment problems. That led Keynes to argue for protection in the 1930s, just as Wynne Godley and the new Cambridge School argued for import controls in the 1970s. The Treasury has consistently set a very high bar when considering protection. Its commitment to Free Trade dates back to Gladstone. And you only have to look at the famous Kindleberger spider web diagram to see the damage protection did to the world economy in the 1930s.

    Fifthly, the mythical “shovel ready” infrastructure project is precisely that: a myth. This is nothing new. The Treasury made the same point in the 1930s. But it is more of a problem today given the inexorable growth in planning law and wider regulation. Keynes’s suggestion in Chapter 10 of the General Theory that “the Treasury fill old bottles with bank-notes, bury them…in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise…to dig up” would be the victim of many a health and safety regulation and environmental impact assessment today. In short, the lead times for getting public investment up and running are long and variable.

    That leads some latter day Keynesians to advocate short term tax changes. Here, there tend to be administrative lags: for example, a change in the national insurance rate takes six months. That takes you inexorably to changes in VAT, which Alistair Darling reduced on a temporary basis in November 2008: that did bring forward expenditure albeit at some cost. An alternative is to increase current spending. But the problem there is that you can only do that by increasing entitlements, or employment or wages. Such changes are notoriously difficult to reverse.

    Sixthly, there are the economic costs to businesses and individuals of continually changing tax rates and spending programmes. Businesses and consumers want a stable tax system. It enables them to plan with certainty. Tax policy is best set in a medium term framework, as for example the current Chancellor has been seeking to do with the corporate tax regime. The move to multi-year spending reviews from 1998 onwards also reflected the view of successive Chancellors that public service managers can spend money more efficiently if there is budget certainty over the medium term.

    Seventhly, Ricardian equivalence is also relevant to fiscal policy’s effectiveness. A “permanent” stimulus will lead consumers to conclude that it will have to be financed, neutralising its impact. A theoretical case can be made that any Ricardian offset will be smaller if consumers know that a stimulus is temporary. Nevertheless, they are still likely to “look through” the change to some degree, reducing any inter-temporal effect. Whether for Ricardian reasons or because of wider leakages to imports, the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated the fiscal multiplier at less than one. And interestingly, Nick Crafts has estimated that fiscal interventions in the early 1930s would not have paid for themselves .

    The role of the multiplier takes me to a eighth argument: the sheer magnitude of the fiscal interventions that would be necessary to stabilise the economy. This can best be illustrated either by looking at the extent to which the private sector savings ratio varies year by year; or by the extent to which output diverges from trend. The latter is much easier to estimate ex post than ex ante. But on the face of it, output has diverged from trend by up to 4 per cent of GDP since 1990. Using OBR estimates of the multiplier, stabilising the output gap would have required at times interventions of £100 to £250 billion compared to a neutral stance. And even if a limit was placed on discretionary counter cyclical interventions of, say, 1 per cent of GDP in any one year, there would still be regular changes in policy of up to £18 billion a year. Whether or not that would unsettle the market, it would certainly trigger the damaging effect on economic efficiency I mentioned above.

    Finally, I would argue that there are positive benefits (as well as costs) to the trade cycle provided it can be kept within reasonable bounds. As Nigel Lawson has said, “the superiority of market capitalism lies in particular in two areas: the freedom and encouragement it gives to innovation and risk taking…,and the discipline that drives up efficiency and drives down costs. The former is stimulated most during the cyclical upswing, and the latter is compelled most during the downswing. It is at least arguable that if economies moved in a straight line rather than a cyclical pattern, there might, in the long run be less of both these benefits. ” In short, Schumpeter may still have as much relevance today as Keynes.

    The Treasury may be sceptical about activist demand management. But that does not mean it abdicates responsibility for economic performance. As the nation’s economics ministry, it attaches a high weight to microeconomic policies that promote growth, productivity and employment.

    Since the 1970s, successive Chancellors have sought to create a macroeconomic framework which seeks to create price stability. For the most part the Treasury has relied on monetary policy to achieve that objective: since 1997, an operationally independent Bank of England has been tasked with hitting a symmetric inflation target. Fiscal policy has generally played a subsidiary role, with Chancellors setting it to achieve a medium term objective – a surplus under Nigel Lawson and George Osborne; a current surplus under Gordon Brown – underpinned with a target for the national debt.

    That does not mean that there is no role for fiscal policy. In the recent downturn, the automatic stabilisers played an important role in supporting demand. As George Osborne has said “by not chasing the debt target we…allowed the automatic stabilisers to operate and that is a sensible economic decision… That supports the economy in that sense, during a cyclical downturn. ”

    And as a pragmatic institution, the Treasury would never rule out recommending a fiscal response if the conditions were right.

    But it is no surprise to me that the response to the recent crisis has focused on monetary policy and the credit channel rather than on fiscal policy. In 2008 we saw the advent of the special liquidity scheme, the credit guarantee scheme and “quantitative easing”. Latterly, we have seen the funding for lending scheme, supplemented by other interventions such as “help to buy” – all of which have been designed to reduce the gap between official interest rates and the rates companies and households pay.

    If you have a banking crisis followed by a credit crunch, you need to treat the disease rather than the symptom. Similarly, it’s in the nature of a banking crisis that government deficits are likely to rise, often sharply. That is not a time to take risks with the deficit – there are always inflection points when just a little extra borrowing can do untold damage to how you are perceived in the market. Yields start to rise. Debt servicing costs begin to spiral. And that risk increases if you go into a down turn with an already high debt level.

    Some neo-Keynesians may write off the modern Treasury view as expounded by “practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, [but] are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. [Or] Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, [and] are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.” But I’d like to think that Maynard Keynes – who understood markets as well as anybody – would have approved of what the Treasury has done since 2008.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech at Supporting Syria Conference

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London on 4 February 2016.

    A warm welcome to London – and on behalf of my co-hosts Chancellor Merkel, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Prime Minister Solberg, and His Highness the Emir of Kuwait – thank you for your support today.

    We could not have a stronger gathering to address one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time. World leaders from 30 different countries, delegations from 60. Non-governmental organisations and civil society – the majority from within Syria. UN agencies, international financial institutions, multilateral development banks, and more – all here with us today.

    And if ever there was a moment to take a new approach to the humanitarian crisis in Syria – surely it is now. We are facing a critical shortfall in life-saving aid that is fatally holding back the humanitarian effort.

    And after years of conflict we are witnessing a desperate movement of humanity, as hundreds of thousands of Syrians fear they have no alternative than to put their lives in the hands of evil people-smugglers in the search for a future.

    Meanwhile Syria’s neighbours are struggling under the strain of hosting huge numbers of refugees, and trying to maintain services, and create jobs for their own people.

    Of course, the long-term solution to the crisis in Syria can only be reached with a political transition to a new government that meets the needs of all its people. And we must continue to work towards that, however difficult it may be.

    But while we pursue a solution to this horrific conflict, we can also take vital steps now which will make a real difference to people’s lives, both today and long into the future.

    We can provide the help that Syrians need now – with pledges of aid – food and medical supplies – that will quite literally save lives.

    We can provide refugees with the opportunities and skills they need to make a life for themselves and their families in host communities – giving them a viable alternative to remain in the region, and equipping them for the day they can eventually return home to rebuild their country.

    And, critically, we can support those host countries and communities which are showing such enormous generosity in providing refuge to Syrians with no choice but to flee destruction.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Speech on Police and Crime Commissioners

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Policy Exchange in London on 4 February 2016.

    It is a pleasure to be here today and to stand on a Policy Exchange platform – a think tank that has long argued for localism and democratic accountability in public services. It is fitting that I should be able to give this speech here.

    It is now more than 12 years since Policy Exchange first proposed popular elections to improve police governance, and three and a half years since more than five million members of the public went to the polls to elect their local police and crime commissioners.

    In fewer than 100 days time voters up and down the country will go to the polls again and pass judgement on the pioneering generation of police and crime commissioners for the first time.

    With that vote they will be exercising the right to have their say on how policing is run in their area. The right to influence their local policing priorities. To ensure that crime in their neighbourhood is taken seriously and does not go unpunished. To scrutinise spending decisions with their taxes and the management of their force’s multimillion pound budget. To make their voice heard about police misconduct. And to ensure that a chief constable who is not delivering for local communities can be removed and someone who can do better appointed in their stead.

    Now it’s easy to take these rights for granted now. The ability to influence local policing priorities and hold someone to account for delivering them feels indisputable. But we shouldn’t forget that up until recently the idea of proper local accountability in policing was not just neglected in England and Wales – but outright rejected by the other mainstream political parties.

    Labour and the Liberal Democrats have only come around to PCCs since the general election last May. But the fact they no longer want to go back to the dark days of indirectly elected policing boards is welcome. It is good for democracy and I think shows the power of the police and crime commissioner model.

    Because whatever you might think of individual police and crime commissioners, whatever you might think of the decisions they have taken, or the priorities they have set – there is no denying that direct democratic accountability through the ballot box has brought real scrutiny, leadership and engagement to local policing in a way that never existed before.

    The dark days of police authorities

    When I first became Home Secretary, the system of police governance was broken. Back then, police forces were supposedly held to account by police authorities – invisible committees of appointed councillors. Theoretically they acted on behalf of the public and had a duty to engage local people and businesses in setting priorities and local taxes – but in practice they did nothing of the sort.

    Just one in 15 people knew that police authorities even existed. Public meetings were barely attended, if at all, and decisions taken were communicated only in obscure minutes in forgotten corners of their websites. In 2010, an inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that only four of the 22 police authorities inspected were judged to have performed well in two of their primary functions – setting strategic direction and ensuring value for money for taxpayers.

    So – as I have said before – how police authorities were supposed to convey the concerns of the local public, how they were supposed to provide a link between police leaders and the people, how they were supposed to have legitimacy in making important decisions and holding their forces to account – when they had no contact with the public, when they did their business effectively in secret, and when they were installed rather than elected – is beyond me.

    That is what went before. Opaque, bureaucratic and undemocratic. And it needed to change. That’s why we brought in PCCs – and their purpose was clear.

    They’d be elected, visible, well-known in their communities and accountable to the electorate. They’d provide an impetus to reform, innovate and deliver policing more efficiently. They’d be powerful figures, with responsibility for writing the police plan, setting the police budget and precept, and hiring and firing chief constables. And they would focus relentlessly on the job of cutting crime and keeping communities safe. In short, they would bring – for the first time ever – real local scrutiny of how chief constables and their forces perform and real energy to the important task of policing – keeping families, neighbourhoods and businesses safe and secure.

    Proving the critics wrong

    But when I first set about introducing police and crime commissioners, I was met with a barrage of criticism. I was told that PCCs would politicise the police and operational independence would be undermined. The Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and former chiefs of the Metropolitan Police all said that politically motivated commissioners would interfere with investigations.

    I was warned by some critics that the job was too much for one person to handle and, by others, of the risks of putting too much power and influence into the hands of a single individual.

    I was cautioned that giving PCCs the power to hire and fire chief constables would lead to professional relationships between the two that were either too fractious on the one hand, or too close and corrupt on the other.

    And, the other mainstream parties reacted with cynicism. The Labour Party opposed police and crime commissioners in principle, but nominated candidates to stand in practice. And despite being part of the Coalition Government that introduced PCCs, the Liberal Democrats delayed the vote until November, when less people would cast their ballots.

    So in 2012, you could be forgiven for thinking that we were creating a monster. And I’d be lying if I said there weren’t times over the last three and a half years when I thought we might have done just that…

    As I told Policy Exchange two years ago, there has been good and bad over the last three and a half years. We all remember the incidents that have given PCCs a bad name.

    In South Yorkshire, Shaun Wright’s initial refusal to resign following damning revelations of child sexual abuse in Rotherham and the failure of the police, local authorities and other agencies to confront that abuse.

    The appointment of a youth commissioner in Kent with no background checks, only for her to have to stand down after it was revealed she had posted offensive tweets as a teenager.

    And in Surrey, the decision of Kevin Hurley to attack the leadership of his former chief constable and now Director-General of the National Crime Agency, Lynne Owens, despite proposing pay rises for her over successive years.

    These episodes have been disappointing and there’s no doubt that some of them have brought the office of the PCC into disrepute.

    But unlike police authorities, police and crime commissioners are accountable to the people and in May each and every PCC will be judged individually at the ballot box.

    And every single one of the doomsayers’ predictions in 2012 have been proven wrong.

    There has not been a single established case of a PCC influencing a police investigation or undermining the operational integrity of their police force. Having sworn the Oath of Office to protect operational independence when they took up office, PCCs have respected the historic division between policing and politics in this country.

    Far from being too great a workload for a single individual, PCCs have used their personal mandate to drive positive change not just in policing and crime, but criminal justice, mental health, and the wider emergency services. In doing so, they have faced up to the limits of their own direct influence and used partnership not overbearing to drive collaboration and joint working.

    And while there is no doubt that PCCs and Chiefs have clashed on occasion, both privately and publicly, the relationship between chief constable and elected official has by and large been one of healthy tension and respect for one another’s positions.

    As Sir Peter Fahy told the Home Affairs Select Committee in November 2013, and I quote: “I would have to say that on the whole having one person who holds you to account and you can work with very closely and is able to provide a lot more local flexibility has worked very well.”

    And – as I have said – there is now political consensus that police and crime commissioners are valuable and that they are here to stay.

    The benefits of police and crime commissioners

    So the case for PCCs was a hard fought reform and it has been hard won by the pioneering first generation of PCCs.

    In the last three and half years, PCCs have engaged with the public in ways that police authorities never did or could. Collectively police and crime commissioners are getting upwards of 7,000 pieces of correspondence every month, and their websites are being visited by over 85,000 people, every month. And through web-casts and public accountability meetings, like those pioneered by Katy Bourne in Sussex, you are involving the public in the practice of holding the chief constable to account.

    PCCs have commissioned reviews when there are specific areas of concern to local people. For example in Devon and Cornwall, PCC Tony Hogg commissioned a review of call handling following complaints about the service from the public. And in Greater Manchester, PCC Tony Lloyd’s decision to commission the Coffey Report into child abuse demonstrated firm action on this difficult and sensitive issue.

    PCCs have worked together to protect vulnerable people and make sure they get the help and support they need and deserve. In Northumbria, Vera Baird is tackling violence against women and girls through a range of initiatives, including encouraging door staff to adopt a duty of care towards all those in the night time economy and partnering outreach workers with police officers on domestic violence callouts.

    They have delivered value for money for taxpayers by finding efficiencies and ensuring sense in how police budgets are spent. Some, like Chris Salmon in Dyfed Powys, have managed to keep taxes down by freezing the police precept element of council tax year on year.

    And locally and nationally, PCCs are providing leadership that was simply non-existent four years ago. As the Home Affairs Select Committee recognised in their 2014 report, and I quote: “PCCs have provided greater clarity of leadership for policing within their areas, and are increasingly recognised by the public as accountable for the strategic direction of their police force.”

    The range of initiatives is broad. The ideas are fresh and innovative. And the benefits to the police and the public tremendous. In sum, PCCs are doing things that police authorities could never have imagined, and could never have hoped to achieve.

    Overall, PCCs have presided over a reduction in crime of more than a quarter since their introduction – according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales – at the same time as police funding has reduced by a fifth. And they have done so while maintaining public confidence in the police.

    And these accomplishments matter. They matter to local people and they matter for the integrity of the policing system as a whole.

    But, most importantly, if members of the public haven’t been impressed, or they think their PCC hasn’t achieved what they said they would, in just a few weeks’ time they can say in the strongest terms possible – by voting for someone else at the ballot box.

    The next stage of reform

    So PCCs have brought leadership, scrutiny and engagement. They have helped cut crime. And they are working closely with local partners to protect the vulnerable and keep communities safe and secure.

    But two weeks ago the latest set of crime statistics revealed that there are still 6.6 million crimes in this country. That is down from 9.3 million in 2010 but still far too high and the growth of fraud and cyber related crime will require a new response.

    And there are still huge opportunities to improve capability between police forces, collaborate with other emergency services, and drive better joint working with the criminal justice system.

    These are the challenges that the next generation of PCCs, elected in May, will need to tackle. And this Government is committed to helping them do so.

    As I announced in Hampshire three weeks ago, we will introduce legislation to allow chief constables to use specialist volunteers – financial analysts and ICT experts – in the fight against complex fraud and cyber crime. In Hampshire, £1.5 million of funding from the PCC is already helping to make such a model a reality, bringing together academics, cyber specialists and police forces to improve its skills in preventing and solving cyber crimes.

    As the Government will be announcing in the Police Grant Settlement today, on top of the overall protection for police force budgets over the Parliament, we are also investing hundreds of millions to transform police capabilities to face modern crime demand. That includes £34 million next year to support firearms training and resources to ensure we can respond to a Paris-style attack, and further funding dedicated to digital investigation and digital justice.

    Because as many forces have shown, we should be thinking strategically about where capabilities are delivered. Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, for example, have joined together to share specialist policing units such as armed policing, roads and dogs units, and the support services that underpin them, with estimated savings in the region of £15 million, and have announced plans to save at least £4 million a year through merging control rooms across the three forces, as well as a further £11 million planned by 2019 through collaboration of criminal justice, custody, ICT functions and continuing to improve their existing collaborations.

    And in the Policing and Crime Bill, we will introduce measures to enable PCCs, where a local case is made, to take on responsibilities for fire and rescue services locally. Further, we will enable them to take an additional step to create a single employer for the two services and bring together back office functions.

    And I am pleased that the Home Office has taken on responsibility for fire and rescue, and I am delighted that my colleague Mike Penning MP the Policing Minister has agreed to add fire to his portfolio.

    Collaboration between the police and fire service is tried and tested, pioneered by PCCs and offering huge opportunities for savings and more effective emergency services. In Northamptonshire, for example, Adam Simmonds has developed a joint operations team between the police and fire service, responsible for the Multi-Agency Incident Assessment Team, and bringing together three experienced members of staff and their own specific operational knowledge from the relevant emergency service. In Staffordshire, Matthew Ellis has created a tri-service neighbourhood centre at the site of the existing fire station, with specific space for each service plus a shared service area.

    And we will give PCCs a greater role in the handling of complaints against the police – to bring accountability and independence to that process too.

    But in the future, I would like to see the PCC role expanded even further still. Together with the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, I have been exploring what role PCCs could play in the wider criminal justice system. This is something that I have long believed in and which a number of PCCs have shown interest in. As they say, there is a reason that we included the words “and crime” in PCC’s titles.

    So after the May elections, the Government will set out further proposals for police and crime commissioners. Because as a number of PCCs have argued, youth justice, probation and court services can have a significant impact on crime in their areas and there are real efficiencies to be had from better integration and information sharing. We have yet to decide the full extent of these proposals and the form they will take, but I am clear that there is significant opportunity here for PCCs to lead the same type of reform they have delivered in emergency services in the wider criminal justice system.

    And there are other opportunities too. As Adam Simmonds has argued, I believe the next set of PCCs should bring together the two great reforms of the last Parliament – police reform and school reform – to work with and possibly set up alternative provision free schools to support troubled children and prevent them from falling into a life of crime.

    And alongside the expansion of PCC responsibilities, the development of powerful directly elected mayors provides a fantastic opportunity, where there is local agreement and boundaries make sense, to bring together policing with local transport, infrastructure, housing and social care services under a single directly elected mayor. I know many PCCs have engaged with local proposals, and I would encourage them to continue to do so – because I am clear that PCCs’ consent is a prerequisite for the inclusion of policing in any mayoral deal.

    But today, as we look forward to the elections in May, and back upon the progress that has been made, I believe we can be pleased with what has been achieved, and the role police and crime commissioners are playing in making policing more accountable and more effective.

    They do so as one important element of the reformed policing landscape I have put in place since becoming Home Secretary more than five and a half years ago.

    Alongside democratic accountability through PCCs, I gave operational responsibility for policing back to the professionals – to chief constables. I restored professional discretion for police officers by scrapping all national targets, freeing them up from unnecessary bureaucracy and by giving the police a single mission – to cut crime. And I made sure information on police performance and efficiency is now more independent and robust, enabling PCCs to better hold forces to account, and in turn for the public to hold PCCs to account.

    This Government is working to improve police standards, training and skills, so I have established the College of Policing as a proper professional body. We are opening up policing and bringing fresh perspectives and expertise through schemes such as Police Now and Direct Entry. And we have established the Police Innovation Fund so that PCCs and forces can bid for funding to improve policing and deliver greater efficiency.

    We established the National Crime Agency so that can get to grips with serious and organised crime. And we have published the Strategic Policing Requirement which PCCs must have regard for, establishing a clear principle of local to national coordination, and through a reformed National Police Chiefs’ Council enabled forces to work together effectively on national priorities.

    So police and crime commissioners are an invaluable part of the programme of police reform we have introduced since 2010. They have shifted power away from Government to the public, and replaced the bureaucratic accountability of police authorities with democratic accountability.

    And in doing so they strengthen the principle that sits at the heart of the British model of policing – policing by consent.

    A principle summed up by Sir Robert Peel when he founded the Metropolitan Police, and declared that the police must maintain a relationship with the public “that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police.”

    Conclusion

    We must not kid ourselves that PCCs are yet universally understood. Nor that their potential has been completely fulfilled. More than 5 million people voted last time, but that turnout was disappointing and needs to improve in May. And as I have said today, there are improvements that can and will be made to policing in England and Wales.

    But over the last three and half years, Police and Crime Commissioners have proved that they matter. They have hired and fired chief constables. They have set local priorities and they have overseen budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds. They have helped to ensure that crime continues to be cut and that people in this country continue to be kept safe.

    And they are here to stay.

    So I want to end by paying tribute to the first generation of police and crime commissioners – and to thank them for their hard work over the past three and a half years. They have been the pioneers in this new policing landscape. They can be proud of what they have achieved, and I look forward to seeing what the next generation of PCCs will do.

    Police reform is working. Today policing is more accountable, more transparent and more efficient than it was before 2010. And today, the historic principle of policing by consent is stronger than ever before.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech on the Importance of Partnerships in Education

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education,held at  Leicestershire Academies Group Spring Conference held at Stamford Court, Leicester University on 4 February 2016.

    Thank you, Maxine [Adams, Chair – Leicestershire Academies Group].

    It’s a real pleasure to be here today at the Leicestershire Academies Spring Conference and let me wish you a happy anniversary on a year of collaboration!

    It’s great to be here as a member of the government – as Secretary of State for Education. And as MP for Loughborough too.

    But actually I’m also just a local resident – a local mum, the wife of a school governor, and I feel privileged to be addressing you this morning.

    This government has been very clear about its priorities for education in this Parliament, building on the work of the coalition government in the last. Putting it simply, we want to see excellence in education everywhere.

    Our reforms have sought to unleash the potential in our schools and give them the freedom to operate in the best interests of their students and their communities.

    The academies programme has been at the forefront of that work and under this government we expect to see it grow and expand until all schools become academies. And that isn’t because of some ideological slavishness to the idea of the academies programme.

    As you all know – academies really work. We now have 5,500 academies with 65% of all secondary schools as academies and 18% of primaries.

    We know that unfortunately too close to home there are authorities and unions who oppose conversion to academy status – the city council tried hard to block the conversion of Rushey Mead, meaning pupils stayed in an under-performing school for over 2 years.

    They were prepared to put children’s education to the background by calling strike action at Uplands School and orchestrating the mass resignation of staff.

    I think it is wholly wrong to play politics with children’s education.

    It shows the importance of our Education and Adoption Bill, which will allow us to intervene swiftly where schools are failing, to bring in new sponsors and I’ll be saying more about the bill in a few moments.

    If we are to be a truly world-class education system then we need to make sure that academies performing well are able to share their knowledge and collaborate with each other.

    I’m talking about schools like Humberstone Juniors. An academy converter in 2013 that has seen standards rise year on year with pupil attainment moving from 77% of pupils achieving level 4+ at key stage 2 in English and maths in 2012 to 95% achieving it last year.

    That’s a massive increase and something to be celebrated but what’s even more impressive is that Humberstone Juniors is taking its approach to driving up standards and now helping other schools to do the same.

    If academies are driving excellence in our schools then partnerships are the way to make sure it spreads.

    I want to see all our young people – no matter where they are or what their background – accessing high-quality education which helps set them up for their futures.

    I think the best way to improve the education system is through school-to-school support and it has become increasingly clear that the best way to do that, the most sustainable, the most accountable, the most efficient way to do that is through multi-academy trusts.

    MATs have so many benefits. These range from sharing best teaching practice to the economies of scale. Then of course there are staffing arrangements which can be more flexible, allowing MATs to develop and retain the best teachers who have well defined careers paths which lead them to school leadership roles much sooner.

    These benefits are already being seen here in Leicestershire.

    I mentioned Humberstone Junior School a few moments ago and I am pleased to say that the Humberstone Multi-Academy Trust was approved as a sponsor last year and Humberstone Infant School is planned to join the trust this year.

    New MATs are forming all the time.

    Another example in Leicestershire is Wigston Academies Trust, formed less than a year ago when Abington Academy merged with Bushloe High School and took on sponsorship of Guthlaxton College. It had been judged as ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted in 2014 with 2014 attainment results below expected standards. Wigston Academies Trust was able to implement an improvement plan which included staffing, leadership and the curriculum. Now called Wigston College, it is already showing impressive signs of improvement and what an exciting time it must be for the school.

    That is the power MATs can have and we are offering various incentives to join them including the primary academy chain grants and the sponsor capacity fund which gave out over £11 million to 155 sponsors in the last year.

    What is required is the vision for a grouping of schools collaborating in the pursuit of high performance and the leadership to make that vision a reality.

    Leadership is so important in our schools and in our schools system. It is something DfE is very focused on. It is the impetus that keeps our schools on the path to success. We know that brilliant leadership teams can turn schools around at pace.

    That’s why we are investing in the Future Leaders MAT CEO Course; in governors for schools; and Inspiring the future – an active programme to recruit more governors.

    School governors are so important because of the skill, expertise and wisdom they bring to running schools.

    We believe that the best run schools are those with highly skilled governors who can hold schools to account; play an active role in the path the school takes; and support heads and system leaders to create and sustain excellent educational outcomes.

    We want those governors to have access to specific training too, so we have invested, through the National College of Teaching and Leadership, in governor training to help them understand key areas – like data.

    If interpreted correctly it can have a huge impact on the success of a school or MAT.

    We have local examples of fantastic leadership like the chief executive and head of Kibworth Church of England Primary, Paul Stone – a national leader of education.

    Kibworth is a national support school and the lead school in the Affinity Teaching School Alliance. The alliance of 69 schools directly employs 6 national leaders of education, 8 local leaders of education and 40 specialist leaders of education.

    Kibworth is part of the Discovery Schools Academy Trust – a strategic partner with the Flying High Trust and Candleby Lane Teaching School Alliance in Nottinghamshire.

    Together they have formed, Inspiring Leaders, a not-for-profit partnership company which holds a licence to deliver National College of Leadership programmes, including the national professional qualifications for middle and senior leadership and for headship.

    There’s no denying the wealth of talent that is being so widely shared and how amazing to think it is in our county.

    Our Education and Adoption Bill, currently making its final passage through Parliament, seeks to create new powers to tackle failing and coasting schools – be they maintained schools or academies.

    And that’s because our young people shouldn’t have to accept an education which doesn’t give them access to the kind of future they really want.

    Should we stand by and allow any school to fail young people? Absolutely not.

    The Education and Adoption Bill puts a duty on me, and my successor secretary of states, to make an academy order for all inadequate maintained schools, ensuring that swift action will always be taken where a maintained school has failed.

    Crucially, the Education and Adoption Bill removes the requirement for consultation on whether a school should become an academy – to prevent the unnecessary, prolonged debates that have often prevented a school from being transformed quickly.

    We have sought, however, to place a duty on sponsors to communicate with parents about their plans to improve the school, ensuring that – in all cases – parents are given the opportunity to understand just how a sponsor plans to transform their child’s school.

    The Education and Adoption Bill, if passed by Parliament, will create a clearer path for all failing schools to be brought under new leadership and ensure that coasting schools are challenged to improve.

    It is simply unacceptable that any young person should be held back from fulfilling their potential because their school was unable to provide them with the tools they needed to succeed.

    We fully expect the Education and Adoption Bill to become law this year and we are excited about how it will feed into our priorities for the education system. We envisage a school-led system where schools voluntarily convert to become academies, form or join MATs, learn from teaching schools through teaching alliances and – where possible – join collaborative groups like yours.

    We are all working towards the same goal and I believe government’s role is to support you in building that collaboration and capacity – because we know how difficult this is.

    But where performance is unacceptably low we will use new powers to intervene to change leadership in schools.

    We owe it to our young people – whose futures depend on it.

    It really has been a pleasure to be here today. Conferences like this are in the spirit of collaboration we see as the future of our education system.

    The Leicestershire Academies Group and others like it are crucial to realising that by sharing ideas and bringing together best practice on what really works for young people. This government believes that it is through partnerships like yours that our education system can become truly school-led and truly world-class.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2000 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bernard Jenkin to the 2000 Conservative Party Conference on 3 October 2000.

    The demonstrations last month proved that Labour is out of touch.

    The frustration has been building up for years.

    You think that your car is to get you to work, or to visit the family, or to do the shopping.

    But it’s not.

    Under Labour, the most important job your car does is to siphon money out of your bank account and over to the Chancellor.

    Labour’s taxes are such an injustice.

    Petrol tax is a regressive tax.

    It hits the poor the hardest.

    For example, a disabled pensioner in my constituency needs her car to get to the shops and to see her friends.

    She used to spend £10 per week on petrol.

    Now it costs £20.

    This is just one rural pensioner who is worse off under Labour – one of millions.

    And as the pressure has mounted, Labour has simply become more devious.

    In the last Budget, Gordon Brown said he was putting petrol tax and pensions up by the rate of inflation.

    What he didn’t tell you was that he was using two different rates of inflation.

    So he put pensions up by just 1.1% – but hiked fuel tax by three times that.

    He said, he could only give pensioners an extra 75p a week, but he took away all of that and more with his fuel taxes.

    Labour gives with one hand and takes away with another.

    And another, and another.

    People have been driven to distraction by this stealth taxing government.

    Driven to do things they never imagined they would do.

    The government calls the protests ‘blockades’.

    But there were no blockades.

    The people who protested against the government last month were not the trotskyites, communists, militants and anarchists that Jack Straw marched with in his youth.

    They were decent, hardworking people.

    People with responsibilities, businesses, customers, overdrafts, employees and families to support.

    They were supported by a spontaneous groundswell of public feeling.

    What an indictment of British democracy under Labour!

    Three years of Labour has pushed the British people to breaking point.

    Labour had no right to raise taxes.

    They have no mandate.

    Mr Blair promised no new taxes.

    Democracy should be about government by consent.

    But Labour is about taxation without representation.

    That’s why the protests were so popular.

    These protests rumbled Labour’s tax scam.

    These protests showed that the British people will not stand for it.

    These protests exposed Mr Blair, in the face of a real crisis, as weak and vacillating.

    Labour cannot face the truth.

    Oh, he could apologise for the Dome.

    He could apologise for the Ecclestone affair.

    But he can’t apologise for this.

    Because his stealth tax deceit goes to the heart of his whole political strategy.

    And I say now to everyone who is angry about fuel tax.

    William Hague and the Conservative Party are the champions of your cause.

    We will cut fuel tax.

    So, put your faith in the ballot box and not the barricades!

    Don’t get angry. Get even!

    Labour failures: the missed opportunity

    So what has John Prescott actually done in the last three years?

    He put a bus lane on the M4 so that the New Labour elite could whizz past the queues.

    He took an environmentally friendly car for a spin, and then crashed it.

    At last year’s Labour conference here in Bournemouth, he was driven 200 yards from the Highcliff to here, so that he could tell us to use our cars less.

    And so it goes on.

    But while Prescott gaffes, everyone else must suffer.

    As rural post offices and banks close, more and more people who cannot afford cars are being left stranded.

    Everyday misery. That’s Labour’s record.

    Last month in London, 2000 Central Line passengers were stuck, stifling in dark tunnels for more than two hours.

    Everyday misery. That’s Labour’s record.

    Pity the millions stuck in traffic jams every day!

    Pity the towns and villages, choked with traffic, still waiting for a bypass.

    Pity the haulage firms going bust.

    Everyday misery. That’s Labour’s record.

    The 10 year plan

    And after three years of misery, John Prescott now has the nerve to stand up and say ‘I’ve got a ten year transport plan’.

    Suddenly he is promising billions but do you believe him?

    And hardly anything would happen until after the next TWO general elections.

    Talk about post-dated cheques!

    What does he take us for?

    The words, ‘ten year transport plan’ should enter the same lexicon as ‘the dog ate my homework’, and ‘the Dome will be a great success’.

    This is a ten year plan from a one term government that can’t see further than tomorrow’s headlines.

    A broken policy that follows broken promises proposed by a broken-backed Secretary of State.

    Last year he was asked whether the job might be a bit too big for one person.

    Plucky John replied: ‘No, because I’m Superman’.

    Superman!

    Superman didn’t need two Jags and a helicopter to get from A to B.

    Mind you, he’s the only comic strip minister who breaks his promises, faster than a speeding bullet.

    In 1997, he promised there would be far fewer journeys by car.

    Well, John, if you don’t know already, short of a fuel crisis, you’ve failed.

    Socialists always think they can change human nature.

    Well there’s only one way they have succeeded.

    Today, every nine seconds, the average healthy man now thinks about petrol tax.

    How much it costs. Where will it end?

    Under Labour, we’ll soon all have to take our driving tests on foot.

    The sad reality is that by the end of this Parliament, John Prescott will have precisely nothing to show for his four years in office.

    And over the next ten years, Labour plans to raise at least £423 billion in taxes from the motorist.

    That’s over £18,000 per household.

    You could buy one of John Prescott’s Jags for that, but you couldn’t afford to run it!

    The Conservatives made the car a privilege for the many and not just the few.

    The car and public transport are not enemies or opposites.

    We need them both.

    We need more of them both.

    There’s no point in investing billions more in the railways if you miss your train because you’re stuck in a traffic jam.

    Few of us have train stations or bus stops outside our front door.

    So let’s get rid of Labour’s anti-car ideology.

    Conservative Transport Policy

    The next Conservative government will dump all the dogma.

    We will ditch the jargon.

    We believe in Britain.

    So, we will simply get on with the job.

    On day one of the next Conservative government, we will abolish Labour’s Integrated Transport Commission.

    That will save millions by reducing bureaucracy and waste.

    We believe in a prosperous Britain.

    So we want Britain’s lifeblood arteries – our roads – to flow.

    We will immediately bring forward the vital road improvements to get unsuitable traffic off unsuitable roads.

    We believe in a cleaner and greener Britain.

    So we want to remove through traffic from towns and villages.

    You use less fuel if you don’t have to sit in traffic jams.

    We will also reduce congestion by charging companies who dig up the road.

    We believe road users deserve better.

    So over all of this we shall set up a new Roads Inspectorate.

    This will set standards for local councils and the Highways Agency to meet.

    It will demand action on poor roads, dangerous roads or where roads cause environmental problems.

    Conservatives also believe in Britain’s railways.

    Labour inherited the start of our railway renaissance – liberated from state control.

    But we are still waiting for stage two.

    We propose measures to cut standing on cramped trains;

    And to cut queuing for your ticket.

    And to increase trains on Sundays.

    And we believe in freight on rail.

    The rail freight renaissance was started by privatisation.

    Believing in Britain means putting the passenger and the freight customer first.

    Not just on rail, but across all our transport networks.

    And, of course, our commitment to cut 14 pence off a gallon of petrol is just a first step.

    Because we are ambitious for Britain we will not treat motorists as some sort of revenue tap.

    We believe in honesty in taxation.

    So we want petrol stations to display just how much of what you are paying is tax.

    We also believe in British business, and we need the haulage industry.

    So we will introduce the BRIT disc.

    So that foreign trucks will have to pay for using Britain’s roads.

    We will use that money to cut the punitive tax on British trucks so they can compete with Europe.

    But I give you one supreme pledge.

    Our first day in government – and every day – will be about safety.

    This week is the anniversary of the terrible Paddington rail crash.

    The shock of that tragedy hangs heavy in the memory.

    I pledge eternal vigilance on safety.

    We have proposed to the Paddington Inquiry a new rail safety regime.

    For the first time, there should be specific rail safety legislation – like there is in aviation.

    There should be a new National Rail Regulator, with responsibility for performance and safety;

    And a new independent rail accident investigation branch of the DETR.

    There is no reason why privatised railways should not be every bit as safe as our privatised airlines and airports.

    And would that our roads were as safe as the railways.

    We will establish a Road Casualty Investigation body, to look into the causes of road accidents.

    If you lose someone you love in a road accident, you want to know why it happened and what will be done to stop it happening again.

    More than 3,000 people die each year on our roads.

    That must change.

    There is far more to road safety than just speed humps and cameras.

    The government needs a proper, factual and statistical basis for road safety policy.

    That will enable us to set the right road safety priorities, to reduce death and injury as effectively as possible.

    It can be done without demonising the car, because we believe in the good sense and humanity of the vast majority of the British people.

    That’s believing in Britain.

    Peroration

    Mr Chairman, conference.

    Millions of people every day make millions of transport choices.

    People want choice.

    Conservative governments increase choice.

    That’s why people are beginning to feel they want a new Conservative government.

    That’s why a new Conservative government, under William Hague, will get the best for Britain, because we believe in the full potential of what British people can achieve.

    Last, week we saw the Labour party on the run.

    Mr Blair was blustering like a magician whose tricks have failed to deceive.

    We are making Labour sweat!

    And look at Mr Prescott’s contorted face!

    Conservatives believe in Britain, because we are ambitious for our country.

    We believe in a Britain, whose transport networks should be the envy of the world.

    A Britain where the opportunity to travel is for the many and not the few.

    A Britain where the passenger and the road user come first.

    A Britain where everyone shares in the benefits of prosperity.

    A Britain strong, independent and free.

    A Britain, whose government believes in Britain.

    And the Conservatives, under William Hague, are ready to be that government.

  • Liam Fox – 2000 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    liamfox

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the then Shadow Health Secretary, to the 2000 Conservative Party Conference on 3 October 2000.

    At our conference this week voters don’t need us to remind them that health has actually got worse under Labour.

    They don’t need us to remind them that their tax has gone up with nothing to show for it.

    They don’t need me to remind them about the increased number of people waiting to get treated, the jobs for Labour cronies, the repeated announcements, the PR stunts, sound-bites, photo opportunities, re-launches, postcode rationing, trolley waits, cancelled operations and the elderly ‘not for resuscitation’.

    And all at the hands of a Prime Minister and Secretary of State who represent the most smug, arrogant, complacent, out of touch, ‘blame someone else’ and downright incompetent administration the NHS has ever known.

    No, they don’t need to be reminded – so I won’t.

    But disillusionment with Labour is not enough. What people rightly want to know is what we would do differently. We are the Government in waiting. It is our duty to outline our approach.

    Let’s begin by dispensing with Labour’s great lies in leaflets like these. We will match Labour’s spending plans for health pound for pound. We believe in a comprehensive National Health Service funded from taxation free at the point of use.

    When Alan Milburn was still peddling CND propaganda in his socialist bookshop, I was one of those overworked junior doctors in the NHS.

    I spent all my working life before politics as a doctor in the NHS so when Tony Blair says that we intend to cut doctors and nurses, he is not only lying but he knows he is lying.

    Unlike Labour’s NHS, ours will be one with proper priorities, where the sickest patients are treated first.

    Where the value of our care is measured by more than just the numbers treated.

    Where doctors decide which patients are treated, and not bureaucrats and where politicians stop interfering.

    Where new partnerships are formed inside the NHS and between the public and private sectors.

    It doesn’t matter to us where a patient is treated but when a patient is treated and the quality of that treatment.

    Patients have a right to expect us to arrange the best treatment we can . If we can use the private sector to speed up the treatment of NHS patients then we should do so.

    We should not be treated by the State like some Dickensian paupers having our gruel dispensed and expected to say thank you because it’s all there is. We are citizens and taxpayers in the world’s fourth biggest economy at the beginning of the 21st century. We have a right to expect something better.

    But rights also imply responsibilities. Patients who make emergency night calls for trivial complaints, who use ambulances as a taxi service, or who fail to turn up for their hospital appointments are denying others potentially life saving services. And it can not continue.

    REMOVING POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

    Sometimes when I look at the NHS, I think that only a fool would believe that you can run a service that employs almost a million people from behind a Minister’s desk in London.

    It is crazy to believe that one person can tackle the different and detailed health needs of Penzance, Preston and Peckham with a single ‘one size fits all’ solution dreamed up in Whitehall.

    And it is unacceptable that a party political Secretary of State can decide who sits on every health authority and pack it with his own supporters. We will bring this disreputable and shameful practice to an end.

    Actually, by letting the experts run the NHS I intend to be the least over worked Health Secretary in history.

    SETTING THE RIGHT PRIORITIES

    Next, we must change the targets we use. For too long, under Conservative as well as Labour Governments, we have been obsessed with targets based on input or throughput. In other words, you are doing a better job if you spend more money irrespective of how you spend it or if you treat more patients, irrespective of whether or not they are the right patients. That is not a sensible approach.

    We need to have targets which are based on the outcomes for patients.

    That means we need to raise our cure rates and survival rates to match those in neighbouring countries. It is not acceptable that if we develop lung cancer or breast cancer or colonic cancer or heart disease that our chances of survival are sometimes only half of the Dutch or Germans or Americans.

    But meaningful targets need investment and not just slogans. That is why, although we will match Labour’s spending plans for health we will spend that money very differently. Our plans mean that investment will be directed towards priority areas beginning with cardiac and cancer services as a first step in delivering our Patients Guarantee. And we will abolish Labour’s iniquitous waiting list initiative which so distorts clinical priorities.

    Am I the only one who believes it is unethical and immoral to deny lifesaving treatments in order to speed up more minor ones?

    Am I the only one who finds it repulsive that patients have their cancer or cardiac surgery cancelled while surgeons are forced to carry out more hernia surgery so that ministers can claim better figures?

    Am I the only one who believes that the sickest patients should be treated first?

    It is time we had a system based on sound values, not sound bites.

    Yet there are those who urge us to reject this approach. They say “Don’t do it. You may speed up cancer care and improve cardiac care but there are more people with ingrowing toenails, varicose veins and sebaceous cysts and they all have votes.”

    Has our society really become that shallow?

    Do we really believe that people really think of no one but themselves ?

    I don’t believe so. Too many of us here today will have had family, friends or neighbours who have died prematurely as a result of the failure to prioritise our health care.

    I believe that in the British people there is a sense of fairness and decency which is offended by this Government’s approach. We Conservatives must be their voice.

    Politics is not about following focus groups but informing and leading public opinion.

    It is time we got back to doing what is right not just what is popular in the short term.

    THE BEST USE OF OUR STAFF AND RESOURCES

    Of course, the NHS cannot only be about life threatening conditions and, in time, we want to see all waiting times reduced. That is why, as a first step, we support the idea of “stand alone” surgical units for procedures such as cataract surgery or hip replacements. These units, dedicated to a single type of treatment, could work more efficiently (perhaps even round the clock) enabling us to end the scandal of operations being cancelled at the last minute.

    Under Labour the NHS is increasingly being run British Leyland in the 1970s where you don’t want to be sick after five o’clock or at weekends and heaven help you if it is a public holiday.

    Indeed there is a general need to use our staff more efficiently. As a GP, I spent a lot of time doing things for which I was over-trained. We don’t need someone with nine years training to take blood pressures or blood samples. Doctors and nurses need to be used at the ceiling of their abilities.

    For example in my own area of general practice I want to see GPs develop specialist skills to complement their generalist role. When a parent takes their child to the doctor with a problem it would be nice to see someone who had experience in paediatrics or if a woman goes with post menopausal bleeding she should be able to see someone who has trained in gynaecology.

    Many of our GPs already work as clinical assistants in hospital out- patients clinics. It makes sense to develop a new level of care in general practice, with semi specialist GPs so that patients can be seen more quickly and locally and hospital outpatient clinics are used for those who genuinely require a Consultant level service.

    In the same way, I believe nursing has come of age. In breaking down the territorial barriers we will offer nurses a real opportunity to make full use of their skills.

    These developments will have impacts on training.

    We need to recruit nurses from a wide spectrum and training must be flexible enough to accommodate a whole range of skills from simple patient care to further academic development.

    We must never forget that holding the hand of someone who is afraid can be just as important as operating complex equipment.

    And it is time that we all got back to recognising something we seem to have forgotten – that nursing and medicine are not just jobs but a vocation, and should be valued as such.

    EXPANDING THE PRIVATE SECTOR

    Despite the lies being perpetrated by the Labour leadership, we have repeatedly made it clear that we will match Labour’s planned health spending. It will be welcome and it will allow a vital expansion of our health care. But it will not be enough in itself.

    If we want to see total spending on health care brought up to European levels we will need to see the private sector increased as well as the NHS. That means making private health care more attractive.

    To be blunt, the private sector also needs a shake-up. Too many products for individual private health care are too expensive, inflexible, with too many exemptions and covering you for everything except anything you have ever had.

    This is especially difficult for the elderly made worse by the Government’s removal of their tax relief on private health. This is a government that seems to have entirely abandoned the elderly.

    Labour have also hit company schemes too adding yet another burden to the NHS.

    We must not back away from the challenge to make private health care more attractive in addition to the extra NHS spending.

    A bigger cake benefits everyone if a real partnership is introduced. In order to encourage company schemes we will abolish disincentives in the taxation system where and when we can afford to do so.

    This will ensure that additional provision is available to as wide a range of our fellow citizens as possible.

    Choice in healthcare should not just be for the well-off.

    By improving choice within the NHS and making access to the private sector cheaper and easier we can bring our spending on health up to the levels of other western countries and close the real health gap.

    Labour will oppose us, just as they opposed Conservative trade union reforms which gave individuals more power and just as they opposed Margaret Thatcher’s council house sales which gave so many a share in prosperity.

    Our instincts were right then and they are right now. Labour support the state. We support people. A better NHS and an expanded private sector working in a real partnership can benefit all our people.

    MATRON’S VALUES

    But health is not just about structures and money. It is also about values. I want to see a return to what I would call ‘Matron’s Values’.

    It seems ludicrous to me that ward sisters are not in control of cleaning wards and feeding patients.

    When the ward sister says jump the response should be “How high?”, and not “I need to call my supervisor.”

    We need to give those who have the responsibility for patient care the authority as well.

    One of my elderly neighbours has just come out of hospital. She was very unwell and unable to eat as well as being extremely deaf. For dinner she was given some rock-hard battered fish. There was a time when someone would have said make this lady some scrambled eggs which she can eat. But no, half an hour later the offending fish was simply whisked away untouched.

    I’m sure you all know similar examples. It is not about major policy initiatives. It is about seeing patients as people not illnesses with a nametag. Sometimes in health it’s the little things that matter most.

    And another thing. I cannot bear this habit of calling people, especially elderly people by their first name when they don’t want it.

    My grandmother was never called Sarah in her life, not even by my grandfather. (I won’t say what he called her). She was always known as Mrs. Young. When she became confused she didn’t know who this Sarah was. And it’s not good enough.

    We must understand that we are dealing with individuals who have their own identities, sensitivities and pride which should be respected. The Cabinet may call one another Tony and Jack and Mo. Our patients have earned greater respect. Dignity is their irreducible core.

    TELLING THE TRUTH

    We have a great challenge ahead in the debate on health – to tell the truth.

    There is no endless flow of money. We cannot do everything we would like as quickly as we would like. Medical science is expanding faster than our ability to fund it. In the real world choices must be made, priorities must be set. There has always been rationing and there always will be.

    We must have the courage to say what we know to be true.

    And yes that means if doctors from overseas are not properly qualified and do not have adequate communication skills, then we will say so, irrespective of the knee jerk reaction of the PC brigade and their media allies.

    You know promising things you cannot deliver in politics is cynical and creates resentment.

    But promising things you know you cannot deliver to the sick and vulnerable is wicked and cruel. That is the charge at Labour’s door.

    We must show that we are not just a party of pounds, shillings and pence. We must show what sort of Britain we want to live in and how we will achieve it.

    Our way will be different.

    Where health care is run for the patients not the politicians.

    Where decisions are made by doctors and nurses not bureaucrats.

    Where heart bypasses are not given the same priority as in-growing toenails.

    Where vocation is once again valued.

    Where we treat patients with dignity as individuals, where we tell the truth and do what we believe is right in tune with our beliefs, our experience and our values.

    It is time to restore faith in health.

    Let Labour play follow the focus group.

    Let us say what must be said and do what must be done.

    Let our party prepare again to lead our Nation.

  • Theresa May – 2000 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    theresamayold

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May to the 2000 Conservative Party Conference on 3 October 2000.

    Thank you Chairman and I am delighted Ladies and Gentlemen to respond to this excellent debate on Education so very ably introduced by Marion Rix and John Harthman.

    The quality of contributions we have heard this morning shows the importance this Party attaches to the education of all this country`s children.

    Children have only one chance in their school education. If they are to develop their full potential, we must ensure they and their teachers have the freedom to be creative, the inspiration to achieve and the aspiration to be the best. That is our task and I am privileged to be part of it.

    Joining me I have an excellent team. In the House of Commons, Tim Boswell, James Clappison, John Hayes and Geoffrey Clifton Brown; in the European Parliament Philip Bushill-Matthews and in the House of Lords, Emily Blatch, Doreen Miller and Joan Seccombe – “girl power” and haven`t they down a magnificent job in winning votes against the Government to defend grammar schools and keep Section 28.

    And joining us on the platform is Cllr Peter Chalke Leader of Wiltshire and our spokesman on education at the LGA -and thank you Peter to you and your colleagues who help to keep our feet on practical ground.

    Ladies and Gentlemen: We are ambitious for Britain.

    We should be proud of the enormous wealth of talent that exists in this country.

    Our young people have so much to offer and education is the key.

    Sadly these talents are being squandered by a Labour Government that believes the bureaucrat knows best, that thinks inspiration lies on page 34 of a 100 page government circular, that aspires only to political correctness and that is ashamed of Britain our history and our culture.

    What a wasted opportunity. The reality of education under Labour is that class sizes are rising, disruptive children are kept in class, teachers are leaving in droves, too much money is spent on red tape, and standards are stagnating,

    Government policy has completely lost touch with the real world. One minister even wants to stop young children playing musical chairs!

    Earlier this year the Government paid £4million to consultants to produce a 234 page report which reveals that to be effective a teacher must – wait for it – plan lessons well.

    Over the past year the Department for Education and Employment has sent out one publication every hour a teacher is at work.

    It`s not surprising that since Labour came to power nearly 100,000 teachers have left the profession. Earlier this year a head teacher in the North East was so disillusioned that he left to become a lorry driver. A primary teacher leaving her job to become a chauffeur saying “I was faced with masses of paperwork every day which was very time consuming and not what I became a teacher to do”.

    And what of Labour`s broken promises?

    David Blunkett promised that grammar schools were safe in Labour`s hands. Tell that to the parents and teachers of Ripon Grammar School and Ripon College who had to spend months working to save their schools in the face of Labour`s rigged grammar school ballots.

    David Blunkett once told a Labour Party Conference “Watch my lips no selection by examination or interview”. Now he says that was a joke.

    Children`s education is no joke Mr Blunkett. Ladies and Gentlemen watch my lips – the next Conservative Government will abolish the grammar school ballots.

    David Blunkett promised grant maintained schools they had nothing to fear from Labour. Tell that to the headteachers worrying about yet more budget cuts- cuts that have averaged £150,000 per school.

    David Blunkett promised head teachers they would get their budget direct. Two weeks ago he turned his back on them. Nothing will change and Labour town hall bosses will still be able to hold money back from our schools and children.

    Why? – Because this Labour government is arrogant – they think they know what`s best

    They`re out of touch – they just don`t know what is happening in the classrooms

    And they don`t trust parents and teachers.

    We do trust parents. That`s why we will increase parental choice and give parents the power to change schools where standards are failing. And we will give parents better information about the standards in their local schools by bringing in value-added tables, which better measure the quality of education at the school.

    And we trust teachers. That`s why we will give them the freedom to get on with the job our dedicated teachers want to do – teaching children and raising standards – without constant form-filling and interfering red tape.

    We have a new approach to raising standards in our schools. By making every school a Free School we will improve the quality of education and ensure that every child is receiving the education that is right for them.

    Free Schools will enable Heads, teachers and governors to decide what is best for the children in each school. The bureaucrats in Whitehall don`t know what`s best; and in today`s fast-changing world the traditional model of local authority control of schools does not allow each school enough freedom to be creative to maximise children`s potential.

    Free Schools will get their budget direct. It will be based on a national funding formula, which will take account of certain differing needs, but will start to reduce the current disparities in funding across council boundaries.

    Too much money is held back from schools. Too much is wasted on bureaucracy. On this year`s figures our Free Schools policy would have meant on average an extra £540 for every child.

    Free Schools will be able to keep their sixth forms – free from Labour`s threat of lower funding or closure.

    Free Schools will be free to set admissions policy – and I`m confident that yes, there will be more grammar schools in future.

    Free Schools mean a different role for central government. No more bureaucrats in Whitehall dedicated to drafting yet more circulars with which to bombard teachers and governors.

    Free Schools also mean a different role for local councils – not running schools, but providing certain children`s services such as education welfare and statementing for special educational needs. Our thanks are due to all those who given so much over the years as councillors on LEAs. The future will be different. Our goal is to give children the best education possible and we must not be afraid to do what is necessary to achieve it.

    Free Schools means a new role for governors who will be freed from much of today`s bureaucratic burdens, and who will have clearer responsibilities and powers.

    Ofsted will be given the power to conduct spot inspections – seeing a school as it really is not after weeks of preparation.

    One of Labour`s first acts was to abolish the Assisted Places Scheme depriving children from less well-off families of educational opportunities. Ladies and Gentlemen I can tell you today – the next Conservative Government will introduce a new Assisted Places Scheme.

    The quality of education a child receives depends on the quality of their teachers. Our many hard working and committed teachers are fed up with a government that doesn`t trust them.

    We want to set teachers free to get on with the job of teaching.

    Teachers and parents also worry about discipline in the classroom. The disruptive few must not be allowed to damage the education of the many. The next Conservative Government will give Head teachers the power to expel disruptive pupils putting parents minds at rest that their child`s education will not be damaged by the disruptive few.

    And there will be no appeal to the local authority – so the school can`t be forced to keep disruptive pupils in class by some politically correct Labour council.

    The expelled pupils will not be forgotten as too many have been in the past. They will be given a full time education in Progress Centres away from the school site, but they will no longer be denying education to others.

    But we need to do more to support teachers. Teachers are more vulnerable than any other group of professionals to false allegations of abuse from children. An NASUWT survey last year showed that over 80% of allegations made against teachers were false. Yet, the system seems to believe that an allegation is in itself proof of guilt. And teachers can find their names blazoned across the newspapers, their careers shattered – and all on the basis of a false accusation.

    I heard last night of a teacher of 27 years who was falsely accused of abuse by a pupil. He lost his job, his role as a foster parent, and his role in the local scouts. His life ruined by a malicious accusation.

    The next Conservative Government will give teachers anonymity in the media until the point where the police decide to press charges. The press will not be allowed to print their names or photos while the accusation is being investigated. Teachers lives should not be ruined by mischievous or malicious accusations.

    We will do more to support those entering the profession. I have heard too many stories of teachers not being trained to teach children to read. Teacher training is too theoretical. Why on earth should someone training to be a teacher have to study “the politics of difference”?

    The next Conservative Government will reform teacher training. Under the Conservatives trainee teachers will spend 80% of their time in schools and only 20% in college. More than three-quarters of a teacher`s training will be spent learning the skills and craft of teaching. Schools which are centres of excellence will be able to become training schools with funding and support to back that up. In future trainee teachers will learn how to teach in practice not just in theory.

    Free Schools will raise standards in our schools. They will be free to be the good schools parents want with an enthusiasm for learning, a strong ethos and values.

    But we need to support our FE Colleges and universities too. They need their freedom. FE Colleges will be given back freedoms Labour have taken away by changing their governing bodies and threatening them with Whitehall diktats on what courses they can offer.

    And our universities need to be set free from government controls that mean they find it ever more difficult to compete on the world stage. Our young people deserve the best. With funding per student falling, Labour certain to introduce top-up fees, and universities finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain staff, standards in our universities are under threat as never before.

    We owe it to our young people to stem the tide. That is why we will progressively endow universities. We will invest the proceeds from the sale of government assets like the radio spectrum in our universities setting them free of excessive bureaucratic control and interference and ensuring their academic freedom. Endowed universities would be free to recover their global pre-eminence and build a world role.

    And they need to retain freedom over admissions. How arrogant of Gordon Brown to think he knows better than Oxford University who should be admitted to read medicine. And how irresponsible. In one speech he has done more to discourage state school pupils from aspiring to go to our leading universities than anyone else. The real problem is low expectations in state schools held back over years by Labour`s dogmatic insistence on levelling down standards.

    We also want to help people into jobs. The Government`s New Deal is no deal for the 40,000 who`ve gone back onto benefit, the 60,000 who have failed to get a sustained unsubsidised job, or the 92,000 who left for an unknown destination. In fact far from finding jobs for 250,000 young people as Labour promised, the New Deal has only found jobs for 13,000.

    We know that the best thing for someone who wants a job is to get into a job. That`s why we will replace the costly and ineffective New Deal with ‘Britain Works’. ‘Britain Works’ will give people the practical every day skills to get them into a job and help to keep them there.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, for too long education in this country has been bedevilled by interference from the educational establishment. If we do nothing to stop this, our education system will grind to a standstill with falling standards betraying our children and damaging our county`s future.

    Free Schools and Universities will enable us to develop the wealth of talents in this country to aspire to be the best.

    There are those who say it won`t work, there are some who say it shouldn`t be done and there are those who say it can`t be done.

    We know from Grant maintained schools that it will work.

    For the sake of our young people to enable them to develop their talents to the full, it must be done.

    With the will and determination and fired by an ambition for this country of quality education for all it can be done.

    And Ladies and Gentlemen it will be done by the next Conservative Government.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 1992 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    ids2000

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Iain Duncan Smith in the House of Commons on 20 May 1992.

    I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your election. As this is my maiden speech, I ask the House to bear with me if I make a series of mistakes.
    Earlier, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) reminded the House of the great honour that our electorate bestow upon us in permitting us to represent their views and interests in a sovereign Parliament. I may point out that Chingford is officially part of Greater London, not Essex. Having heard the recent results in Basildon, I am sad that it is not part of Essex.

    The majority of the people who live in Chingford have striven for a long time to buy their own properties, take care of their own lives, and make the most that they can—to hand on to future generations—from hard work and the sweat of their own brows. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will immediately recognise those as key principles that have supported conservatism, and which my party promoted during the whole of the 1980s. Chingford represents those interests, and we represent Chingford’s interests.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) mentioned that there is a factory producing Mr. Kipling cakes in his constituency. I cannot boast of such a place, but we do have the London Rubber Company in the middle of my constituency. That company is heavily linked to today’s debate. The House may recall the little problem that existed with the Italian regulations, on the size or width of certain items that London Rubber produces—so it has a keen interest in what goes on here.

    Few constituencies are so associated with a particular individual as Chingford. I refer of course to my predecessor, Norman Tebbit. Some may remember only the “Spitting Image” vision of a leather jacket, studs, and chains—but I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will keep in mind the image of a man of incisive wit, telling rebukes, and most of all, reforming zeal.

    If it were only for his political achievements, Norman would be remembered as one of the most important figures in British political history—but he is remembered for much more than that. The House owes him a great debt. On that terrible night in Brighton, the lives of Norman, Margaret, and their family were devastatingly and treacherously changed for the worst—yet at no time has Norman or Margaret complained, and they consistently serve as a great inspiration to me and many others.

    It is not overstating the case to say that Norman brought great honour to the House. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in wishing him great happiness in the future, in all that he does.

    So often in the past when Europe has been debated, there has been a knee-jerk level to the debates. It is said that there are those who are pro-Europe—the Europhiles—and those who are anti-Europe—the Euro-sceptics. If the issue is always polarised in that way, it will be impossible to have a rational debate. The question is rather, whether we want to interrogate certain aspects and regulations or not, the public have a right to know the detail, and it is important that we examine the detail of the treaty and put it before them. I will attempt to do that this evening.

    Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor on their great negotiating skills, which have produced the treaty that is now before us. Their achievements in securing our exclusion from the social chapter protocol, and in reserving Parliament’s right to decide whether to enter currency union, are greatly appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

    As I read the treaty, however, I must confess to a growing disquiet. My chief worry is that, despite the Government’s considerable successes, we remain locked into what I see as a continuing progression towards a European super-state. I consider that neither necessary nor desirable.

    Maastricht—following, as it does, from the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome—embodies that movement; perhaps it is proceeding at a slower rate in this context, but it is a movement none the less. Let me explain—echoing what was said earlier by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—that my reasons for believing that are based fundamentally on the ethos that exists in the institutions that the Community now contains. I refer chiefly to the European Commission and the European Court.

    In my view, successive Governments have failed fully to understand the way in which the Commission seeks constantly to advance its competence. In so doing, it will be supported by the European Court. The Commission is not just a bureaucratic body, as so many people seem to think; it has substantial law-making powers—very excutive powers. Beyond those powers, it exists as much to propose legislation to the Council of Ministers. Through its performance of both those roles, constant pressure will continue to extend the process of European integration.

    All too often, press and politicians talk about Delors as though he were an expletive. His role is quite clear to him; I believe that it is our understanding of that role that is unclear. Obviously, the European institutions hold the key to the concern that I feel over Maastricht—the Single European Act and, originally, the treaty of Rome.

    The European Court of Justice has the role of interpreting and applying Community law. Through the interpretation that it gives the treaties within the Community, it can and does fundamentally affect the balance between nation states and the Community. The Court, through its judgments, cannot be considered neutral by any means: it is part of those key institutions that consider it their duty constantly to push forward the concept of the Community, ultimately at the expense of the nation state.

    An example of that is provided by a judgment in a case brought by the Netherlands against the high authority. The power of the Court was defined by the Court as the ultima ratio enabling the Community interest enshrined in the Treaty to prevail over inertia and resistance of member states. Many other judgments also illustrate the point.

    The history of the European Court clearly shows, time and again, that it will be far from impartial, invariably finding in favour of what it perceives as the interest of the Community. Furthermore, the difference between the tradition of common law that exists in this country and the tradition of Continental law—based, as it is, so fundamentally on the code Napoleon—means, essentially, that the European Court will regularly fall back on the preambles to treaties, and will use them to interpret points, as it sees them, within the spirit of the agreement—the members. Every treaty that we have ever signed has given the Court greater scope to interpret.

    The preamble to the treaty of Rome raises general provisions urging member states to attain ever closer union with general objectives. To most common law lawyers, that might appear fairly general on the surface. However, it is a major signpost in continental law. The preamble to the Single European Act is full of references to the states implementing a union. Article I clearly refers to progress towards European unity—a major signpost for the European Court.

    Here we seem constantly to have disregarded the general wording of the preambles to the treaties. Under common law, they are not part of any agreement, but in the code Napoleon and continental law, they form a major part of any agreement. The treaty on European union sets out no less clearly in its preamble that defence, foreign policy, economic and social policies and the free movement of people are all set to converge in ways which on the surface may appear rather general but which will be critical to the functioning of the treaty. Therefore, across a full range of matters the Maastricht treaty extends further the areas to which Community law applies.

    Given the natural desire to the Community institutions constantly to push forward with closer ties and greater compliance, it is natural that they will seek to find areas that are open to extensive secondary legislation affecting our national life that have not yet been affected.

    That can be clearly seen in the proposals for a 48-hour working week. We never perceived under the Single European Act that that would necessarily be the case, but the Community—in the shape of the Commission, ultimately supported by the European court—pushes for that extra bit to be brought to the Commission, under majority voting. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is doing all she can to sort this out, and I wish her the very best of luck. However, I remain a touch pessimistic about the outcome.

    Both sides of the House have made much of subsidiarity, probably because most people do not have a clue what the heck it means. I suspect that some hon. Members on both sides of the House also fall into that category. It is the devolving of power to a lower level, as perceived by the treaty—that of nation states. As a means of trying to retain control over our national identity, it should be given some approval, but if we look back we see that it is a two-edged sword. It very much cuts both ways.

    Originally it was a papal concept. That concept was about power that could flow downwards to the constituent parts of the papal dominion. The key factor was that that power had to be given, as judged by the central authority. In line with that, if we come forward to Maastricht again, we see that it could imply that anything that cannot be justified at national level should, therefore, be taken to the European level. That is the other edge of the cutting sword: that the Community could easily turn round and say, “Justify the fact that you have the right to retain control over that area; otherwise, we shall take it under our powers and competence.” It therefore follows that the European Court would ultimately find in favour of the Community. That is part of its ethos.

    Therefore, I propose some measure of reform which I believe we must undertake if we are to make sure that the sort of Europe that we want to see is the one that goes through and that we can control. First, I propose that we should repeal sections 1 and 2 of the European Community Act 1972 and replace them with clear statements about this Parliament’s supremacy over all European Community activities that affect the relationship between this House and the courts—and, in fact, all other constitutional matters.

    Secondly, we should set about reforming the Commission, starting with the European Court. We should position a constitutional court over the Community, I stress, to take an impartial position on questions which affect the competence of nation states.

    Thirdly, the Commission should be slimmed down, losing many of its existing portfolios. We should get rid of the position of the President and make the Commission more of a non-executive body. Those moderate suggestions are offered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with some deference to your position.

    Most of all, we must therefore seek to refocus the Community as one of a group of nation states determined to seek co-operation on a defined but limited number of areas. That would greatly assist the inclusion of other states, which is proposed and with which I thoroughly agree, while keeping the flow of trade as free as possible through co-operation not coercion.

    From successive treaties, we have seen a growing erosion of the powers of the House to legislate, not to be overruled by the European Court. Much has been made about the exclusion of the word “federalism”. Having read the treaty time and again, I have to say that, even if we exclude it, the obvious signs are there for all to see—that is, that that is the inevitable march. After all, a bite from a rottweiler hurts just as much even if we insist on calling it a pekinese.

    We are asked to support the Government. There is no doubt in my mind of the Government’s intentions, and those I support. However, the problem is that far too much trust is expected of us in this House to be vested in the institutions in the Community. I do not believe that, if we notice how the general tendency is to move towards greater integration, that trust will be well placed.

    It has been ably pointed out several times that we have seen the Government and previous Governments fight rearguard actions to prevent the growing power of the Commission from encroaching. Those rearguard actions have been fought in the knowledge that we have signed up to something which has given the Commission powers to get in and take control of certain aspects of our lives.

    The treaty is therefore somewhat out of date. It reflects, sadly, concerns from the past which are no longer relevant. I hope that, if we consider the problems and changes that are going on in the Community, hon. Members will agree with me. The treaty keeps the door open to a federalist, centralist and uncompetitive Europe which is clearly moving us in the wrong direction from the rest of the world.

    I am not by any means anti-European. After all, Europe is a geographical expression. Therefore, being in the centre of Europe or supporting Europe is neither here nor there. The key is a European Community of nations trading and co-operating through sovereign Parliaments. There is no other time but now. I have talked to many hon. Members who have said, “Don’t worry, this matter will ultimately collapse; things will change and we will not have the problems.”

    If now is not the time to put the line in the sand and say, “Thus far and no further,” when are we to say that? This matter has caused me great concern and problems early in the Parliament, but I hope in the next 24 hours to show where my true attitudes lie.