Tag: Speeches

  • Robert Goodwill – 2016 Speech on Maritime Growth

    robertgoodwill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Goodwill, the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, at the London Boat Show on 13 January 2016.

    I am delighted to have been given the opportunity to address the Royal Yachting Association at the Boat Show today.

    The Royal Yachting Association is renowned the world over for its regard for maritime safety and its determination to maintain seafaring standards, while this year’s boat show has the distinction of being the third occasion in 4 months that the eyes of the maritime world have been on London.

    Last September saw the second ever London International Shipping Week.

    It was a landmark event for the shipping industry, for the UK, and for every one of the dozens of maritime nations that participated.

    London International Shipping Week was also the week that Lord Mountevans’s seminal Maritime growth study was published.

    It was the first comprehensive review of UK’s maritime sector in 20 years.

    And I know the association and many others here made important contributions to the maritime growth study, so this is a great opportunity to give you an update.

    One thing the maritime growth study made very clear was the importance of the marine and maritime sectors to the UK.

    They directly contribute at least £11 billion a year to the economy, while supporting over 113,000 jobs and six and a half thousand businesses.

    Nonetheless, the study concluded that there is still much we can achieve.

    World sea trade is expected to double by the year 2030, and maritime centres in Europe and the Far East are undergoing rapid growth as they seek to emulate our historic success.

    So the government and the maritime industry must work together to strengthen the UK’s position in an ever-more-competitive global market.

    With that in mind, on 16 December 2015 I published the government’s formal response to the maritime growth study.

    We agreed to accept its findings, and I am pleased to report today some of the changes that are now underway.

    First, we formed, and in November held the first meeting of, a new Ministerial Working Group for Maritime Growth.

    The membership comprises ministers from across government.

    Several industry invitees also attended the meeting, including representatives from Maritime UK and the Marine Industries Leadership Council.

    We discussed how to get more investment in our maritime industries, how to increase our exports, and how to seize the opportunities presented by apprenticeships.

    Next, the government is to review the numbers of British seafarers and the skills our country needs to secure maritime growth.

    If necessary, we will look at the levels of support for maritime training funding to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

    And we are also responding to Lord Mountevans’s recommendations concerning the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and, in particular, its UK Ship Register.

    It’s great that, in tonnage terms, the register has had a year of modest growth.

    But we want that trend to continue.

    So we have appointed Simon Barham to be the MCA’s new director of the UK Ship Register.

    Simon will be primarily focused on attracting owners of quality ships to sign up to the UK Flag and working to secure the long-term commercial success of the UK Ship Register. He brings 40 years of maritime experience to the task from a varied career in the industry.

    Meanwhile, the MCA is reforming its survey and inspection function to make it more flexible, efficient and customer-focused.

    In the longer-term, we will look to build on these changes and continue to make the MCA, and the services it provides, more responsive and commercially focused.

    We are exploring what more can be done to ensure that the ship register has the flexibility and capability to compete with the best in the world – making full use of the findings of the maritime growth study and UK Ship Register Advisory Panel.

    And we agree with Lord Mountevans that the MCA would benefit from the additional leadership and guidance that could be provided by a non-executive chair, so we are going to recruit someone who can bring the necessary commercial experience to continue these reforms and support the work of MCA.

    Altogether there’s a lot happening in response to the maritime growth study.

    But the recreational side of the maritime industry is just as important to the UK economy as the more directly commercial side.

    The UK has cutting-edge expertise in the design and manufacture of sailing yachts, superyachts, and high-end powerboats.

    Anyone requiring further evidence of this need only take a look around this year’s show.

    The government is clear that growth in these industries is part-and-parcel of the growth we want to see in the whole maritime sector.

    That is why we are so grateful to the association for contributing to the maritime growth study, and for how it has continued to contribute now we are implementing the recommendations.

    So in conclusion, I would like to say thank you to the Royal Yachting Association for your support for what we are trying to achieve for the sector.

    Thank you for another year of working to support seafarers, sportsmen and women and recreational sailing throughout the UK and beyond.

    And thank you for hosting today’s reception.

    I trust that 2016 will be another year of success for the association and all its members — whether in sport or in commerce.

    Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech on Life Chances

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 11 January 2016.

    Introduction

    This government is all about security.

    It’s that security that underpins our long-term economic plan: in a world of risks, we want to ensure the British economy, and British families, are secure.

    It’s security that drives our defence policy and strategy to combat extremism: in dangerous times, we know our first duty is to keep our country safe.

    And it’s our national and economic security that is front and centre of my mind as I renegotiate a better deal for Britain in Europe.

    Security is also what drives the social reform that I want this government to undertake in my second term.

    Individuals and families who are in poverty crave security – for them, it’s the most important value of all.

    But those who are struggling often have no security and no real chance of security.

    The economy can’t be secure if we spend billions of pounds on picking up the pieces of social failure and our society can’t be strong and cohesive as long as there are millions of people who feel locked out of it.

    So economic reform and social reform are not two separate agendas they are intimately connected to one another.

    And that social reform begins – as I set out 3 months ago in Manchester – with an all-out-assault on poverty.

    Today, I want to explain how we can transform the life chances of the poorest in our country and offer every child who has had a difficult start the promise of a brighter future.

    We should begin by recognising our real achievements in fighting poverty.

    We’ve seen huge progress over the past 50 years, with rising living standards and big improvements in terms of people’s incomes, health, employment, education and in child mortality rates.

    And of course we’ve made progress in the last 5 years, too.

    Since 2010 alone, the number of children growing up in workless households is at a record low; down by 480,000.

    And because of our strong economy, we can do more.

    But we know that, despite the good news in our economy, there are still people left behind.

    In particular, too many are held back because of generational unemployment, addiction or poor mental health.

    Of course, it isn’t so much the dreadful material poverty that was so widespread in decades gone by – though of course some still exists.

    Today, it is more often the paucity of opportunity of those left behind that is the greatest problem.

    And some in our country don’t just get left behind; they start behind.

    Today in Britain, around a million children are growing up without the love of a dad.

    In Britain, a child born in a poor area will die an average of 9 years earlier than their peers.

    In Britain, there are more young black men in our prisons than there are studying at a Russell Group university.

    These problems – they have been years in the making, and will take time to tackle.

    But I am convinced it doesn’t have to be like this, and we can make a real difference.

    In the spring, we will publish our Life Chances Strategy setting out a comprehensive plan to fight disadvantage and extend opportunity.

    Today, I want to set out the principles that will guide us.

    In doing so, I want to make a big argument.

    We will only ever make a real dent in this problem if we break free from all of the old, outdated thinking about poverty.

    And I want to explain how, by applying a more sophisticated and deeper understanding of what disadvantage means in Britain today we can transform life chances.

    20th century thinking

    The old thinking on fighting poverty – what I would call 20th century thinking – still dominates political debate in Britain.

    There are two schools of thought that have traditionally defined our approach.

    The first is the leftist, statist view – built around increased welfare provision and more government intervention.

    I am not against state intervention.

    I’m the Prime Minister who started the Troubled Families programme – perhaps the most intensive form of state intervention there is.

    And I support the welfare state.

    I believe the creation of those vital safety nets was one of the outstanding achievements of post-war Britain.

    But we know too that this approach has real limitations, and these have become badly exposed in recent times.

    This fixation on welfare – the state writing a cheque to push people’s incomes just above the poverty line – this treated the symptoms, not the causes of poverty; and, over time, it trapped some people in dependency.

    Frankly, it was built around a patronising view that people in poverty needed simply to be pitied and managed, instead of actually helped to break free.

    The second approach is the more free market one – the idea that a rising tide will lift all boats.

    I believe the free market has been, by far, the best tool ever invented for generating prosperity and improving living standards.

    And actually applying its principles of more choice and competition to our public services has, I believe, helped the most disadvantaged.

    But some people get left behind, even as the market transforms our economy and the rest of society with it.

    They haven’t been equipped to make the most of the opportunities presented to them – and a chasm exists between them, and those who have been able to take advantage.

    Now I believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility – I think that’s absolutely correct.

    But we have to recognise that this alone is not enough – so if we want to transform life chances – we’ve got to go much deeper.

    A more social approach

    So it’s clear to me the returns from pursuing these two old approaches to poverty aren’t just diminishing, in some cases they’re disappearing in the modern world.

    And we need to understand precisely why.

    Both approaches had one thing in common. They focused on the economics, and ignored the social.

    They missed that human dimension to poverty: the social causes, the reasons people can get stuck, and become isolated.

    Let me put it another way.

    Talk to a single mum on a poverty-stricken estate: someone who suffers from chronic depression, someone who perhaps drinks all day to numb the pain of the sexual abuse she suffered as a child.

    Tell her that because her benefits have risen by a couple of pounds a week, she and her children have been magically lifted out of poverty.

    Or on the other hand, if you told her about the great opportunities created by our market economy, I expect she’ll ask you what planet you’re actually on.

    Of course the economy is absolutely vital.

    That’s why seeing through our long-term plan isn’t optional.

    We will never defeat poverty unless we manage the economy responsibly because in the end it’s always the poorest who suffer most when governments lose control of the public finances.

    And of course, we will never defeat poverty unless we back businesses to create jobs.

    Work is – and always will be – the best route out of poverty and with welfare reform, Universal Credit, tax cuts and the introduction of the National Living Wage, we are making sure that it always pays to work.

    And we’ll continue to tackle the scourge of worklessness in Britain including by reforming the way we support people who fall ill, so that they can stay in work and aren’t just consigned to a life stuck on benefits.

    And because the evidence shows that families where only one parent is in work are more at risk of poverty we are going to back all those who want to work.

    That’s why our offer for working parents – of 30 hours a week of free childcare for 3 and 4 year olds – is so important.

    But to really defeat poverty, we need to move beyond the economics.

    We need a more social approach.

    One where we develop a richer picture of how social problems combine, of how they reinforce each other, how they can manifest themselves throughout someone’s life and how the opportunity gap gets generated as a result.

    Above all, we need to think big, be imaginative not just leaving behind the old thinking, but opening ourselves up to the new thinking.

    For instance, the pioneering research that shows us why some children from poor families can climb right to the top while others seem condemned almost from birth to a life of struggle and stress.

    And there are four vital, social insights that I believe must anchor our plan for extending life chances.

    First, when neuroscience shows us the pivotal importance of the first few years of life in determining the adults we become, we must think much more radically about improving family life and the early years.

    Second, when we know the importance not just acquiring knowledge, but also developing character and resilience there can be no let-up in our mission to create an education system that is genuinely fit for the 21st century.

    Third, it’s now so clear that social connections and experiences are vitally important in helping people get on.

    So when we know about the power of the informal mentors, the mixing of communities, the broadened horizons, the art and culture that adolescents are exposed to, it’s time to build a more level playing field with opportunity for everyone, regardless of their background.

    And fourth, when we know that so many of those in poverty have specific, treatable problems such as alcoholism, drug addiction, poor mental health we’ve got to offer the right support, including to those in crisis.

    This is what I would call a life cycle approach – one that takes people from their earliest years, through schooling, adolescence and adult life.

    And I believe if we take the right action in each of these 4 areas combined, with all we are doing to bring our economy back to health, we can make a significant impact on poverty and on disadvantage in our country.

    At the same time, it’s right that we move away from looking simply at income-based poverty measures and develop more sophisticated social indicators to measure success.

    So let me set out in more depth some of the steps we will take in each of these four areas. Apologies for the length of what I’m going to say but I wanted to bring together in one place all the things that we are doing.

    Families and the early years

    First, family and those crucial early years.

    Families are the best anti-poverty measure ever invented.

    They are a welfare, education and counselling system all wrapped up into one.

    Children in families that break apart are more than twice as likely to experience poverty as those whose families stay together.

    That’s why strengthening families is at the heart of our agenda.

    We’ve significantly increased the help we offer on childcare, introduced shared parental leave so families can be there for one another at the most stressful time – the birth of a child.

    We’ve backed marriage in the tax system and 160,000 couples have taken up the preventative relationship support that we have funded over the last 5 years.

    And I can announce today that we will double our investment in this Parliament, with an extra £35 million to offer even more relationship support.

    We’ll also to do more to help people save – and help build families’ financial resilience.

    Those with no savings at all have no buffer – no shock absorber – for when unexpected events hit.

    Saving is a habit that should start early – so we are going to expand the Church of England’s LifeSavers project which helps primary schoolchildren to manage money and learn how to save and we will look at what more we can be done on this vital area.

    So I can announce today that we intend to bring forward a ‘help to save’ scheme to encourage those on low incomes to build up a rainy day fund, and full details of this scheme will be announced at the Budget.

    All of this will help to prevent the relationship strain that can be caused by financial difficulties.

    But when it comes to life chances, it isn’t just the relationship between parents that matters.

    What is just as important is the relationship between parent and child.

    Thanks to the advent of functional MRI scanners, neuroscientists and biologists say they have learnt more about how the brain works in the last ten years than in the rest of human history put together.

    And one critical finding is that the vast majority of the synapses the billions of connections that carry information through our brains develop in the first two years.

    Destinies can be altered for good or ill in this window of opportunity.

    On the one hand, we know the severe developmental damage that can be done in these so-called foundation years when babies are emotionally neglected, abused or if they witness domestic violence.

    As Dr Jack Shonkoff’s research at Harvard University has shown, children who suffer what he calls ‘toxic stress’ in those early years are potentially set up for a life of struggle, risky behaviour, poor social outcomes, all driven by abnormally high levels of the stress hormone, cortisol.

    On the other hand, we also know – it’s common sense – how a safe, stimulating, loving family environment can make such a positive difference.

    One study found that by the age of three, some toddlers might have heard 30 million more words in their home environment than others. That is a staggering statistic.

    The more words children heard, the higher their IQ, and the better they did in school down the track.

    So mums and dads literally build babies’ brains.

    We serve, they respond.

    The baby-talk, the silly faces, the chatter even when we know they can’t answer back.

    The closeness of contact – strengthening that lifelong emotional bond between mother and baby.

    This all matters so much for child development: the biological power of love, trust and security.

    And yes, while bad habits can be passed on to children, we know too that the secret ingredients for a good life character, delayed gratification, grit, resilience, they can be taught by parents, not just caught from them.

    So I believe if we are going to extend life chances in our country, it’s time to begin talking properly about parenting and babies and reinforcing what a huge choice having a child is in the first place, as well as what a big responsibility parents face in getting these early years right.

    Of course, that must begin by helping those most in need.

    That’s why I’ve made it such a priority to speed up the adoption process and improve child protection and social services.

    I think these will be landmark reforms of the next 5 years.

    But there’s a lot more we can do.

    Our Troubled Families programme has worked with 120,000 of the hardest to reach families in the country, helping turn their lives round, by getting parents a job or the child into school and ending truancy, dealing with the problems that they face.

    Over the next 5 years, we will work with 400,000 more families.

    As we do that, I want us to be much bolder.

    It’s tragic that some children turn up to school unable to feed themselves or use the toilet.

    Of course this is a clear failure of parenting, but by allowing poor parenting to do such damage for so long, it is also state failure of social services, of the health service, of childcare – of the lot.

    So I can announce today as we scale up the Troubled Families programme, we’ll ensure that parenting skills and child development become central to how it is both targeted and how it is delivered.

    In the end though, getting parenting and the early years right isn’t just about the hardest-to-reach families, frankly it’s about everyone.

    We all have to work at it.

    And if you don’t have a strong support network – if you don’t know other mums or dads having your first child can be enormously isolating.

    As we know, they don’t come with a manual and that’s obvious, but is it right that all of us get so little guidance? We’ve made progress.

    We’ve dramatically expanded the number of health visitors, and that is crucial.

    But it deals with one particular part of parenting – the first few weeks and months.

    What about later on, when it comes to good play, communication, behaviour, discipline?

    We all need more help with this – because the most important job we’ll ever have.

    So I believe we now need to think about how to make it normal – even aspirational to attend parenting classes.

    We should encourage the growth of high-quality courses that help with all aspects of becoming a great mum or a great dad.

    And we need to take steps to encourage all new parents to build a strong network, just as brilliant organisations like Family Action or NCT already do for some parents.

    So I can announce today that our Life Chances Strategy will include a plan for significantly expanding parenting provision.

    It will examine the possibility of introducing a voucher scheme for parenting classes and recommend the best way to incentivise parents to take them up.

    Education

    Now if families fail, it is even more critical that schools do not – and that of course is the second part of our strategy.

    When a child has had a difficult start, what could they need more than a place of sanctuary, warmth, challenge, escape, liberation and discovery?

    Now if they’re lucky, they can find it in an outstanding school with dedicated, inspiring teachers.

    So what we need to take ‘luck’ right out of the equation.

    That’s what our reforms have been all about – bringing the best schools to some of our most deprived neighbourhoods, as well as bringing real rigour – like phonics – back into the classroom. I remember the battle we had to get phonics taken up, it reached something of an apogean success for me when picking my 5 year old up from school and I was actually told by the teacher, do more phonics practice at half term, and I thought, yes, this reform really is fully embedded in our country.

    But there are, today 1.3 million more children in good or outstanding schools today, compared with 2010.

    Over the coming weeks, I will set out in more detail our second term education reform agenda.

    But let me explain some of the thinking that will underpin it and how, in particular, we want to help the most disadvantaged children.

    We now understand far more than we used to about how we take in information and learn, what it takes to be a great reader and even be creative.

    Much of the answer is knowledge; we understand new information in the context of what we already hold.

    As Kahneman, Daniel Willingham and others have described, the more information is stored in our long term memory the better our processing power – our working memory – can be employed.

    It is by knowing the past that we can invent the future.

    That’s why it is so absurd to call a knowledge–based curriculum ‘traditional’.

    It is utterly cutting edge – because it takes real notice of the great advances in our understanding of the last few decades.

    Dismissing knowledge is frankly dismissing the life chances of our children and that is exactly what people like the General Secretary of the NUT are doing when they say, as she did last weekend, that children don’t need to learn their times tables because they can use their phone instead. That is utterly the wrong thinking.

    All the things knowledge helps infuse – innovation, creativity, problem solving – are the qualities our employers want.

    That is why the Ebacc – which puts the core subjects of English, maths, science, history and geography at the centre of what students learn is such a massive move for social justice.

    It will give every the vast majority of children – not just the wealthy – the education that gives them the opportunity for great jobs.

    We also understand something else.

    Character – persistence – is core to success.

    As Carol Dweck has shown in her work at Stanford, no matter how clever you are if you do not believe in continued hard work and concentration, and if you do not believe that you can return from failure you will not fulfil your potential.

    It is what the Tiger Mother’s battle hymn is all about: work, try hard, believe you can succeed, get up and try again.

    It is if you like, the precise opposite of an ‘all must have prizes’ culture that permeated our schools under the last government.

    Put simply: children thrive on high expectations: it is how they grow in school and beyond.

    Now for too long this has been the preserve of the most elite schools.

    I want to spread this to everyone.

    So as we reform education further, we’ll develop new character modules so that all heads are exposed to what the very best schools do.

    We’ll learn from new schools like the Floreat primary schools in Southall and Brent that will teach character virtues like curiosity, honesty, perseverance and service.

    We’ll commission great trainers, teachers and youth workers to share and create materials, and make sure they are available to every school in the country.

    We’ll also do more on sport – one of the extra-curricular activities most associated with high academic achievement.

    Our new sports strategy extends Sport England’s remit to cover 5 year olds and upwards, meaning more children taking part in sport – and experiencing the highs and let’s be frank, often lows of competition – inside school and out.

    And when it comes to formative experiences that build character, there can be few more powerful examples than National Citizen Service.

    NCS is becoming a rite of passage for teenagers all over Britain, helping them mix with people from different backgrounds and learn to work together – pushing themselves further than they ever thought possible.

    NCS is about showing young people the power of public service, and not just self-service.

    And I can make a major announcement on this today: we are going to provide over a billion pounds for NCS over the next 4 years meaning that by 2021, NCS will cover 60% of all 16 year olds.

    It will become the largest programme of its kind in Europe.

    And to get there, we’ll now expect schools to give every pupil the opportunity to take part, and tie NCS into the national curriculum.

    This is a significant investment in future generations – and because it will help build a stronger, more integrated and more cohesive society, it is one I believe will make us all very proud.

    Opportunity

    The third part of our life chances strategy must be to make opportunity more equal.

    Not just continuing to reduce youth unemployment, getting more people to university and reducing the scourge of discrimination.

    Of course we should do all of that.

    That’s why for instance, just a few weeks ago, I persuaded leading businesses, universities and organisations from across the public sector to adopt ‘name-blind’ applications, because I want every young person in Britain to know that they will be judged according to merit, not and inaccurate lazy stereotypes.

    But I’m talking about something more subtle, and no less influential, for life chances.

    There’s a book called Our Kids, by Bob Putnam, which is dominating the American political debate on poverty.

    It seeks to explain why the college-educated, professional classes continue to move ahead while those at the bottom can remain stuck.

    It describes a whole series of advantages that those at the top have but can be lacking in others.

    The informal networks of support, the mentors, the social connections, all helping to give young people the soft skills and extra advantages they need to navigate the fast-moving seas of the modern world.

    And when you add all these advantages up, it’s no surprise that there’s an opportunity gap between the rich and poor.

    The work that active, demanding parents do is fantastic – passing on life-enriching experiences to their children, and rightly being unapologetic about helping them get ahead.

    It’s only natural that parents use our experience, social networks and connections to give their kids the best start in life.

    So my starting point is not to ask “how can we stop some parents giving their children a brilliant start?” What motivates me is helping the most disadvantaged kids to catch up.

    Let me give you a few examples.

    Work experience for schoolchildren can be a transformative opportunity.

    It gives children the chance to experience work and talk to adults who aren’t just authority figures like parents and teachers.

    At its best, it could really help teenagers establish a network and encourage them to think completely differently about their future.

    It often does that for those lucky enough to arrange a great placement.

    But for so many, it either doesn’t happen at or all, or it is just a wasted week – often spent locally, just watching the clock, never getting kids out of their comfort zone or raising their sights in the slightest.

    We can change that – and later in the spring, we will set out a plan for using work experience more creatively, especially for the most disadvantaged young people.

    There is also the opportunity of culture.

    Britain is blessed with some of the most awe-inspiring cultural treasures on the planet.

    Our museums, theatres and galleries, our exhibitions, artists and musicians, they are truly the jewel in our country’s crown.

    And culture should never be a privilege; it is a birth right that belongs to us all.

    But the truth is there are too many young people in Britain who are culturally disenfranchised.

    And if you believe in publicly-funded arts and culture – as I passionately do, then you must also believe in equality of access, attracting all, and welcoming all.

    Rich and poor, culture vultures and first-timers, in London and outside London.

    That doesn’t mean just opening up a few times to children from a deprived area, it means taking all creativity and ingenuity of those who work in the arts, and applying it to this vital challenge.

    And we can learn from those organisations that already do an excellent job in reaching out to marginalised groups.

    So our Life Chances Strategy will address this cultural disenfranchisement directly, and with a new cultural citizens programme, ensure there is real engagement by arts organisations with those who might believe that culture is not for them – meaning that many more children can have the doors opened to their wonderful cultural inheritance.

    Mentoring should also a big, big part of our plans.

    Many people can look back at their younger selves and can point to someone, or remember, perhaps a parent or teacher, a sports coach, or their first boss, and say “that’s the person who really found my passion. They’re the ones who made the difference for me.”

    But if you haven’t ever had someone in your life who really believes in you, who sees your potential and helps bring it to the fore, the sands of time can drain away, and your talents can remain hidden.

    So I can announce that we are going to launch a new national campaign led by Christine Hodgson, Chair of Capgemini UK and of the Careers and Enterprise Company and it will work with business, charities and the public sector to build a new generation of high-quality mentors.

    We’ll direct £70m towards careers in this Parliament, principally to the Careers and Enterprise Company, who will lead this major new effort to recruit mentors for young teenagers, with a focus on the 25,000 about to start their GCSEs who we know are underachieving or at risk of dropping out.

    I’ve seen this happen, in some London state schools, one I went to a couple of years ago where every single child coming up to GCSE had a mentor and I think we can be far more ambitious about what is possible in this area.

    So by finding inspirational role models and encouraging them to give up some time, I believe we really can help young people make big plans for their future.

    There is also an important issue of community that we must address – and that’s some of our housing estates.

    Some of these places, especially those built after the war, actually entrench poverty, because of the way they isolate and entrap so many families and communities.

    Within these estates, behind front doors, families build warm and welcoming homes just like everyone else.

    But step outside and you’re often confronted by concrete slabs as if dropped from on high, brutal high-rise towers and linked walkways that become a gift to criminals and drug dealers.

    These places actually design in crime, rather than out.

    Decades of neglect have spawned ghettos, gangs and anti-social behaviour.

    And poverty has become concentrated, because let’s face it – few who could afford to move would want to stay.

    Of course, these estates also lead to social segregation, meaning people from different backgrounds just don’t mix together as much as they used to.

    And that isn’t good for anyone.

    I think it’s time to be far more ambitious about solving this problem.

    So I can announce today: we’re going to tear them down.

    We are going to work with 100 housing estates across the country, aiming to transform them.

    We’ll work in partnership with residents, housing associations, local authorities, social enterprises and private developers, and sweep away the barriers that prevent regeneration.

    For some estates, it will mean simply knocking them down and starting again.

    Developers will rebuild often at a higher density, increasing housing supply throughout the country.

    And to help us get there, we’ll appoint an advisory panel whose first job will be to establish a set of binding guarantees for tenants and homeowners, so that they know they are properly protected.

    With massive estate regeneration, tenants protected, land unlocked for new housing all over Britain, I believe we can truly consign the term ‘sink estate’ to history.

    Treatment and support

    The final part of our plan must be to get the right treatment and support to those who are in crisis.

    Some people with mental health problems today are almost guaranteed to live a life in poverty.

    And the number of people who suffer from poor mental health is larger than you might think.

    One in five new mothers develop a mental health problem around the time of the birth of their child.

    Up to one in four of us will have a problem – perhaps a form of depression or anxiety – this year alone.

    There is the terrible fact that suicide has become the leading cause of death for men under 50.

    And the challenge is that, all too often, people are just left to get to crisis point either because the health service simply can’t cope, or because they’re worried about admitting to having a problem in the first place.

    We have got to get this right.

    Mental illness isn’t contagious.

    There’s nothing to be frightened of.

    As a country, we need to be far more mature about this.

    Less hushed tones, less whispering; more frank and open discussion.

    We need to take away that shame, that embarrassment, let people know that they’re not in this alone, that when the clouds descend, they don’t have to suffer silently.

    I want us to be able to say to anyone who is struggling, “talk to someone, ask your doctor for help and we will always be there to support you.”

    But that support has to be there.

    And that poses a big challenge for government in terms of services and treatment.

    We have to be equal to it.

    That’s why last March, we announced an unprecedented £1.25 billion investment in mental health treatment for children and young people.

    This is already improving talking therapy services for children across the country.

    And we will use that money to intervene much earlier with those suffering from poor mental health, so we can stop problems escalating.

    I can announce today a £290 million investment by 2020, which will mean that at least 30,000 more women each year will have access to evidence-based, specialist mental health care during or after pregnancy.

    Crisis doesn’t hit at convenient times, but people with mental health problems are 3 times more likely to turn up at A&E than those without.

    So today I can commit a further £250m to deliver 24/7 psychiatric liaison services in A&E departments, ensuring that people with mental ill health receive assessment and treatment whatever the reason for their attendance at A&E.

    We’ll also invest £400m to enable teams across the country to deliver 24/7 treatment in communities and homes, as a safe and effective alternative to hospitals.

    We’ll deliver a guarantee that more than half of patients with psychosis – the most serious cases – will be treated within 2 weeks.

    And for teenagers suffering from eating disorders like anorexia, we are introducing the first ever waiting time standard, so that more people can get help within a month of being referred, or within a week for urgent cases.

    With these announcements, by breaking the mental health taboo, by working with businesses and charities, and by taking forward the recommendations of the independent mental health taskforce that will report soon, I believe we can lead a revolution in mental health treatment in Britain.

    There’s another big issue we need to address: addiction.

    Alcoholism and drug addiction can happen to anyone.

    People with wonderful families, great careers, a million good reasons to stop.

    In Westminster, we were reminded of this all too painfully last summer.

    Charles Kennedy was not just a brilliant MP with so much more to contribute to our politics, he was also a kind, lovely man, brimming with wit, warmth and humanity. He was starting a new life in a place that he loved. He had everything to live for. But at just 55, he was gone.

    Are we getting it right here? Are we looking after each other as we should?

    I really don’t think we are.

    Let’s be honest: when we hear the words ‘drug addict’ or ‘alcoholic’, there is still such a stigma that comes attached.

    Still a view that addiction is simply a question of will, a sense that it’s simply about self-control, a feeling that it’s somehow shameful if we admit to having a problem.

    We see it as weakness.

    It isn’t.

    Seeking help is strength.

    Now let me be clear: I believe profoundly in personal responsibility.

    Personal responsibility means facing up to problems and seeking treatment – doing everything you can to get back on the right track.

    We must always emphasise that.

    And we should never make excuses for addicts’ behaviour, especially when they commit crime to support a habit, or hurt those around them.

    But when we know more as we do now, about how addiction works, how it changes your brain structure and brain chemistry, how some people are genetically more susceptible, how stress and depression can make you more likely to develop a problem, we can understand why this is so difficult.

    We have got to start treating people with the compassion that we would want to receive if it was one of our own family who had fallen into difficulty.

    That’s why we’ve already changed our approach so that recovery – not maintenance – is now the key goal of drug treatment.

    And I can announce today that we will create a new social investment outcomes fund of up to £30 million, to encourage the development of new treatment options for alcoholism and drug addiction, delivered by expert charities and social enterprises.

    I think this could unlock around £120 million of funding from local commissioners, and up to £60 million of new social investment, to expand the kind of treatment we know can work, including those vital residential rehab places.

    Conclusion

    So this is how I believe we can rescue a generation from poverty and extend life chances right across our country.

    Backing stable families and good parenting, because we know the importance of those early years in setting children up for a good life. It’s about improving education, so those who’ve had the toughest starts have every chance of breaking the cycle of poverty.

    It’s about building a country where opportunity is more equal, with stronger communities and young people who have the experiences and the networks to get out there and take on the world.

    And providing high quality treatment, as we eliminate once and for all the damaging stigma that surrounds addiction and mental health.

    All of this – delivering our Life Chances Strategy – it starts with that fundamental belief that people in poverty are not liabilities to be managed, each person is an asset to be realised, human potential is to be nurtured.

    Since I got to my feet here this morning, 40 babies have been born in our country.

    New-borns being bundled up and handed to proud parents in maternity wards all across Britain.

    There’s so much hope in those rooms, so many quiet wishes being made by mums and dads – rich and poor alike – for their child’s life.

    Sometimes we can make politics sound very complicated, but for me it all comes back to a simple ambition.

    To give every child the chance to dream big dreams, and the tools – the character, the knowledge and the confidence, that will let their potential shine brightly.

    So for people in Britain who are struggling today, our mission as a government is to look each parent and child in the eye, and say, “Your dreams are our dreams. We’ll support you with everything we’ve got.”

    And with the steps I’ve outlined today, with our Life Chances Strategy, I am confident that we can deliver.

  • Chris Grayling – 2015 Speech at Global Law Summit

    chrisgrayling

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, to the Global Law Summit held in London on 23 February 2015.

    Your excellencies, distinguished guests, my lords, ladies, gentleman, can I start by extending a very warm welcome to all of you at the start of the Global Law Summit.

    Today, in this room, we have representatives from 110 countries around the world; over 100 ministers, attorneys general, chief justices and other leading international legal figures are here. In total, over 2000 delegates are taking part. I don’t think there has ever been a legal summit quite on this scale before, and I am pleased that the UK is hosting what is a very important and truly international event.

    More formally, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, I would like to welcome you to London and thank you for taking the time to attend this event. And a particular thank you to those who have left far warmer climates to come to London in February.

    I would also like to give a welcome and thank you to my fellow speakers: Sir David Wootton, the co-chair of this Summit, Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice.

    And in particular our visiting speakers: Attorney General Holder, the Prime Minister of Kazakhstan, Angel Gurria from the OECD. That you have made time in your no doubt busy schedules, and travelled many thousands of miles to be here is a testament not only to how important Magna Carta is around the world, but also to your own commitment to its values of justice and the rule of law.

    Before going on, I should also welcome leading legal figures for whom the UK is home, from the judiciary, bar, leading city firms and also regional firms representing interests not just from London but across the country.

    And whilst I don’t want to spoil the surprise, we will shortly be hearing from a very talented British actress, an Oscar nominee, but not here with tales of Hollywood, instead talking about the work that she does with a fantastic organisation that helps children in some of the most difficult and dangerous circumstances around the world. I am delighted that the Global Law Summit is supporting War Child, I am equally delighted that Carey Mulligan is with us today, and I would like to thank her for her commitment to such an important cause.

    This event is the beginning of a whole year of celebrations to mark 800 years of what is quite a remarkable document – the Magna Carta.

    That document, signed on the fields by the Thames at Runnymede in 1215, as part of a truce between King John and his feuding barons, has become a foundation stone not just for our legal system, but for many other countries too. Nation after nation now derive their legal traditions from that piece of parchment.

    Within that document you will find cornerstones of our legal system.

    No official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. The principle of a fair trial that survives to this day.

    We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs or other officials only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well – a principle that still underlies our system for appointing our judges today.

    To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. A pledge to keep a corruption-free system that remains vital to this day.

    However, ladies and gentlemen, not everything stands the test of time. Some of the provisions are definitely a bit time expired.

    Like the promise by the King that he will stop taking firewood from his subjects without their permission. Or that he will remove fish weirs from the River Thames.

    But those core principles agreed 800 years ago are still the heart of the legal values and traditions of this country. Indeed, one of most remarkable legal minds of last century, Lord Denning, described Magna Carta as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.

    I am proud that Magna Carta has been one of the UK’s greatest exports: it has inspired and formed the basis of so many legal systems and it is cited and invoked whenever and wherever basic freedoms come under threat.

    I am also proud that the great legal tradition continues. The United Kingdom is respected throughout the world for the strength of its legal system, for the skills and knowledge of its judiciary and courts, for its consistency and stability as a legal jurisdiction.

    And I am clear, as the Lord Chief Justice has said – a thriving legal system and respect for the rule of law go hand in hand with economic prosperity. In fact, they are the necessary foundations on which a strong and resilient economy is built.

    In the UK, the legal sector contributes over £20 billion to our GDP, employing over 300,000 people. And UK law firms play an important role in the success of international businesses worldwide.

    In London, we have a centre of legal excellence that is rival to any other great city in the world. I would like it to stay that way.

    I believe that this is best achieved by continuing to innovate, developing our legal system to keep pace with the world around us; continuing to grapple with difficult issues, learning from others and their experiences; but always remaining firmly rooted in the principles of Magna Carta that have served us so well to date.

    That is why I am pleased to endorse this summit as a forum for leaders and legal experts from around the world to share ideas, knowledge, make contacts and develop their legal systems, businesses and economies.

    The next 3 days will provide an opportunity for debate and discussion about the future shape of the law. You will hear a whole range of different perspectives from within the UK and elsewhere. You will hear from those who want change, and from those who want no change.

    But what’s clear to me looking back at the history of our legal system in the UK is that no change is seldom an option. Change can be driven by conflict, by economic reality, by social change and enlightenment – and when it comes it is often profoundly unwelcome. But whatever the needs for change, those principles from 1215 remain as central and important today as they have ever been.

    I would therefore encourage you to all embrace and make best use of this unique opportunity to debate the future shape of the law, and I hope also enjoy some of the great sights and venues of this great city.

    I’d now like to hand over the floor to a man who has been one of the most distinguished holders of his office. A man who is respected internationally for the work he has done. And someone who has been a good friend to the United Kingdom throughout his years of office.

    Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder.

  • Michael Gove – 2015 Speech on One Nation Justice

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Justice and the Lord Chancellor, to the Legatum Institute in London on 23 June 2015.

    I would like to begin by thanking The Legatum Institute for giving me a platform today.

    The Legatum Institute, and its formidable leadership troika of Sian Hansen, Cristina Odone and Anne Applebaum have been inspirational in their commitment to 2 principles close to my heart – principles essential to the argument I want to make today.

    They have been brave and consistent champions of the rule of law. The Legatum Institute has done fantastic work showing how establishing the institutions which safeguard the rule of law is the best way to rescue disadvantaged and developing societies from misgovernment and poverty. Sian, Cristina and Anne have also been visionary in helping to establish The Good Right – with my friend Tim Montgomerie. The Good Right is designed to show how conservative politics can be progressive and emancipatory.

    Making the case for the rule of law as an institution which safeguards progressive values is my mission. And I am here to talk about how we make the justice system work for everyone in this country.

    Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out his vision for a one nation Britain. He explained how this government will extend opportunity across the country. Today, I want to begin to outline – and I stress begin – what a one nation justice policy should look like.

    When the country handed us the responsibility of governing just over a month ago, we wanted to make sure every citizen of the United Kingdom felt they were equal partners in one nation.

    It is on that basis that the Prime Minister asked me to lead a programme of reform at the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) – to make our justice system work better for victims; to deliver faster and fairer justice for all citizens; to make sure our system of family justice safeguards children, especially those at risk of abuse and neglect, more effectively than ever; to make sure the laws we pass provide protection for the weakest; to make our prisons places of rehabilitation which give those who have made the wrong choices opportunities for redemption; to help offenders when they leave custody to make the right choices and contribute to society; to rescue young offenders, and those who may be on the path to offending, from a life of crime; and to reform our human rights legislation better to protect the fundamental freedoms we all cherish.

    But before saying a little more about what I think may need to change, it is critically important that I stress what needs to be protected, preserved and enhanced.

    And I should – in particular – express my thanks to my 2 immediate predecessors in this role for the work they have already done to reform our justice system.

    Ken Clarke and Chris Grayling introduced changes to family and criminal justice, prisons and probation which have seen the time children wait to be taken into care reduced, crime fall, prisons become better managed and rehabilitation modernised. I am in their debt.

    And I am conscious – as they always were – that there is something distinctive about the role of Lord Chancellor, different from other Cabinet posts.

    The most important thing I need to defend in this job – at all costs – is not a specific political position – but the rule of law.

    The rule of law
    The rule of law is the most precious asset of any civilised society. It is the rule of law which protects the weak from the assault of the strong; which safeguards the private property on which all prosperity depends; which makes sure that when those who hold power abuse it, they can be checked; which protects family life and personal relations from coercion and aggression; which underpins the free speech on which all progress – scientific and cultural – depends; and which guarantees the essential liberty that allows us all as individuals to flourish.

    In these islands we are fortunate that the rule of law is embedded in our way of life. An Englishman’s word is his bond, his home is his castle and Jack’s as good as his master. The principles that contracts should be honoured, property rights respected and all are equal before the law are customary – the deep fabric of our culture.

    And woven into that fabric have been the events in our history when the principles of the rule of law have been asserted by the heroes and heroines who are the makers of our nation.

    The sealing of Magna Carta, the calling of the first Parliament by Simon de Montfort, the establishment of habeas corpus, the challenge to the operation of the Star Chamber in early Stuart times, the fight by Parliament against the Crown under Charles the First, the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights, the judgement of Lord Mansfield that affirmed the air of England too pure for any slave to breathe, Catholic Emancipation, the removal of discrimination against Jewish citizens, universal suffrage, the principle of judicial review of the executive – all of these are acts which have contributed to making us who we are – a people bound by rules and guided by precedent who settle issues by debate in Parliament and argument in courts, and who afford equal protection to all and cherish liberty as a birthright. These historic acts are what constitute our nation – they are our constitution. And it is my duty, as Lord Chancellor, to safeguard the principles that underlie that constitution.

    The rule of law is so precious, and so powerful, in our eyes because of our history. But it is also a precious, and powerful, asset for a modern nation seeking to maximise its citizens’ welfare in a fast-changing world.

    We are fortunate in England and Wales that the world, again and again, chooses our courts to resolve its disputes. We are fortunate that the reputation of our independent judiciary, the quality of our barristers and solicitors, the centuries-old respect for due process that characterises our legal system and the total absence of corruption in our courts and tribunals, have all made England and Wales the best place in the world when it comes to resolving matters by law.

    As a result of that global leadership we as a nation earn over £20 billion a year from the provision of legal services.

    So both as a matter of enlightened economic self-interest, and as a matter of deep democratic principle, it is vital that the institutions which sustain and uphold the rule of law are defended and strengthened.

    That means vigilance to make sure the judiciary maintain their independence and their insulation from politics. It requires understanding of the importance of a healthy independent bar, to make sure high quality advocacy. It means awareness of the special virtues of an adversarial criminal justice system, with arguments tested in open court and guilt having to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before an individual’s liberty is curtailed.

    It also means appreciation of the scrupulous patience, intellectual diligence and culture of excellence which characterises the work of those solicitors and barristers who support commercial endeavour and innovation.

    Our position of world leadership in the provision of legal services will only become more important as innovation gathers pace, new patents are developed, new companies are created, new deals are struck, new mergers and acquisitions take place, new enterprises grow and new opportunities arise. Making sure that we retain that position of global pre-eminence is one of my responsibilities.

    But even as we can – collectively – take pride in the fact that our traditions of liberty are generating future prosperity we must also acknowledge that there is a need to do much more. Despite our deserved global reputation for legal services, not every element of our justice system is world-beating.

    While those with money can secure the finest legal provision in the world, the reality in our courts for many of our citizens is that the justice system is failing them. Badly.

    A dangerous inequality at the heart of our system
    There are 2 nations in our justice system at present. On the one hand, the wealthy, international class who can, for example, choose to settle cases in London with the gold standard of British justice. And then everyone else, who has to put up with a creaking, outdated system to see justice done in their own lives. The people who are let down most badly by our justice system are those who must take part in it through no fault or desire of their own: victims and witnesses of crime, and children who have been neglected.

    While it is right that we should respect the traditions that underpin our legal system, that help guarantee respect for individual freedom and equality before the law, it is also undeniable that our courts are trapped in antiquated ways of working that leave individuals at the mercy of grotesque inefficiencies and reinforce indefensible inequalities. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is exactly what its name implies – a service, available for public use. And like any other public service, it must be subject to reform, so that we can deliver value-for-money for taxpayers and fair treatment for all citizens.

    That is not happening at the moment. I have seen barristers struggle to explain why a young woman who had the courage to press a rape charge should have had to wait nearly 2 years before her case was heard. Reporting these offences in the first place must be a traumatic experience – made worse still by having to relive it in court 2 years later. I have watched as judges question advocates about the most basic procedural preliminaries in what should be straightforward cases and find that no-one in court can provide satisfactory answers. I have heard too many accounts of cases derailed by the late arrival of prisoners, broken video links or missing paperwork. I have seen both prosecution and defence barristers in a case that touched on an individual’s most precious rights acknowledge that each had only received the massive bundles in front of them hours before and – through no fault of their own – were very far from being able to make the best case possible.

    And thinking of those huge bundles, those snowdrifts of paper held in place by delicate pink ribbons, indeed thinking of the mounds of paper forming palisades around the hard-pressed staff who try to bring some sense and order to the administration of justice, it is impossible not to wonder what century our courts are in. Were Mr Tulkinghorn to step from the pages of Bleak House or Mr Jaggers to be transported from the chapters of Great Expectations into a Crown Court today, they would find little had changed since Dickens satirised the tortuously slow progress of justice in Victorian times.

    It is hardly defensible any more – indeed I cannot think of anyone who would want to defend the protracted series of full-dress court appearances required before really quite straightforward criminal cases are tried.

    In our criminal courts barristers, judges, clerks and ushers all must be present – indeed must be physically convened together – for a preliminary hearing – perhaps often delayed – and then a plea and case management hearing – perhaps also further delayed – before the case itself has any chance to be heard. Along the way it is not uncommon that papers or other evidence that should have been served by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will be late, or missing. Interviews may not have been transcribed. Arrangements to call witnesses may be uncertain.

    And then when the trial itself is due to begin it is entirely possible that pleas may change at the last minute, witnesses may not turn up, the whole protracted, expensive, bewildering enterprise may end with no justice being done and nothing but confusion seen to be done.

    The number of trials that collapse before going ahead – or collapse as they proceed – is huge. Across both magistrates and Crown Courts, almost 1 in 5 trials – 17% – are “ineffective” – meaning the required court hearing does not happen on the day, often due to administrative issues, and needs to be rearranged. Last year, there were more than 33,000 ineffective trials in our criminal courts.

    Almost 2 in 5 trials – 37% – are “cracked” – meaning the case concludes unexpectedly without a planned court hearing. Of course, it is often preferable to resolve cases before they reach court – but when guilty pleas are only entered on the day, you have to ask whether the matter could have been resolved sooner, and taken up less time, money and resource.

    That leaves less than half of cases – 46% – which are “effective”. We must do better.

    The people who experience this inefficiency every day are the staff who work in our courts and tribunals and valiantly keep the system working, despite its flaws. Across England and Wales, dedicated court staff cope with those snow drifts of paper, archaic IT systems and cumbersome processes. We would have no justice without them and they feel the frustrations of the current system most keenly and understand the case for reform most powerfully.

    The waste and inefficiency inherent in such a system are obvious. But perhaps even more unforgivable is the human cost. It is the poorest in our society who are disproportionately the victims of crime, and who find themselves at the mercy of this creaking and dysfunctional system.

    Women who have the bravery to report domestic violence, assault and rape. Our neighbours who live in those parts of our cities scarred by drug abuse, gangs and people trafficking. These are the people who suffer twice – at the hands of criminals and as a result of our current criminal justice system.

    A slow system is bad not just for the lawyers, court staff and judiciary who handle these cases, or for victims of crime who have suffered terrible abuse, it is also disruptive – and in some cases life-destroying – for those who are subsequently found not guilty, but only after they have lost months if not years of their lives in legal limbo.

    We urgently need to reform our criminal courts. We need to make sure prosecutions are brought more efficiently, unnecessary procedures are stripped out, information is exchanged by e-mail or conference call rather than in a series of hearings and evidence is served in a timely and effective way. Then we can make sure that more time can be spent on ensuring the court hears high quality advocacy rather than excuses for failure.

    The case for reform is overwhelming. Which should not surprise us, because it is made most powerfully and clearly by the judiciary themselves.

    The Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues who provide leadership to our justice system are all convinced of, and convincing on, the case for reform. They have commissioned work which makes the case for quite radical change. Should anyone doubt the need for dramatic steps, Sir Brian Leveson’s report on the need for change in our criminal justice system makes the case compellingly. He argues with great authority and makes a series of wise recommendations. They need to be implemented with all speed.

    It is my intention to do everything I can to support the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Brian and his colleagues in their work. Not for the first time in our history, it is our judges who see most clearly what needs to be done to help the vulnerable, the overlooked and the victimised in our society.

    Reforming civil justice
    But it is not just in the criminal courts that the case for reform is clear, and the judiciary are leading the way. Outside of our criminal courts, millions of individuals every year use our courts to deal with injustice in their everyday lives. Whether challenging unscrupulous landlords; reaching custody arrangements after divorce; agreeing liability of a failed contract; or settling a dispute over intellectual property rights worth everything to the parties involved – our courts matter. Without our civil and family courts, or our tribunal services, our contracts are unenforceable, and individuals left with no recourse when deprived of their rights. But it astonishes businesses and individuals alike that they cannot easily file their case online. And it astounds them that they cannot be asked questions online and in plain English, rather than on paper and in opaque and circumlocutory jargon.

    The current system adds to stress at times of need, and restricts access to high quality resolution of disputes by simply being too complex, too bureaucratic and too slow. Across our court and tribunal system we need to challenge whether formal hearings are needed at all in many cases, speed up decision making, give all parties the ability to submit and consider information online, and consider simple issues far more proportionately.

    Thanks to pioneering work the judiciary have commissioned from reformers like Professor Richard Susskind, there is now a huge opportunity to take many of these disputes online. Questions which have previously required expensive court time and have often as a result been marked by acrimony, bitterness and depleted family resources can now be resolved more quickly, efficiently and harmoniously.

    Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, envisages that the complex, sometimes fraught and certainly disorientating process of applying for probate, or dealing with family separation or divorce could be far more quickly and sensitively handled. By using plain English rather than legalese, replacing paper forms with simple questions online, and automating much of the administrative process, many issues could be resolved far more quickly, often without the involvement of administrators or the judiciary.

    That would free the time of Sir James and his colleagues for the most vital work of the Family Court – deciding whether it is in the best interests of children, who have suffered neglect or abuse, to remain with their birth families or to be placed in the care of foster or adoptive parents.

    The reform programme which the judiciary want to implement is being planned now. We have already committed to invest in the technology which will underpin it. This reform programme could liberate tens of thousands of individuals from injustice and free hundreds of thousands of hours of professional time. Online solutions and telephone and video hearings can make justice easier to access and reduce the need for long – and often multiple – journeys to court. And we can reduce our dependence on an ageing and ailing court estate which costs around one third of the entire Courts and Tribunals budget.

    Inevitably, that means looking again at the court estate. It is still the case that many of our courts stand idle for days and weeks on end. Last year over a third of courts and tribunals sat for less than 50% of their available hours (10am – 4pm). At a time when every government department has to find savings it makes more sense to deliver a more efficient court estate than, for example, make further big changes to the legal aid system.

    Social justice at the heart of our justice system
    Legal aid is a vital element in any fair justice system. There is a responsibility on government to make sure that those in the greatest hardship – at times of real need – are provided with the resources to secure access to justice.

    So, I know how controversial the changes we have had to make to legal aid have been. But I also believe that those changes need to be judged fairly. The coalition government sought to make sure legal aid remained available for critically important cases – where people’s life or liberty is at stake, where they face the loss of their home, in cases of domestic violence, or where their children may be taken into care.

    And when I came to office I made sure that the changes my predecessor had put in place to guarantee access to legal advice across the country were implemented. I also made sure that the criminal bar were protected from further cuts so that the high quality advocacy they provide could be supported.

    Change was required to save money – no minister in this government can avoid thinking hard about how to deal with the massive deficit. But I am also committed to making sure that we protect access to justice for everyone accused of a crime, and safeguard and improve the quality of the legal advice and advocacy in our criminal courts.

    I am particularly keen to make sure that the highest quality advocates are instructed in all cases, and have set in train immediate work to address the problems described in Sir Bill Jeffrey’s report on criminal advocacy last year.

    And I want to make sure that once these changes to criminal legal aid are in place, we will monitor their effects to make sure that justice and fairness are served.

    That is why we will review the impact of these changes both on the quality of advocacy and access to justice and why I am determined to do everything I can to protect and enhance both.

    A one nation justice policy requires no less.

    But a one nation approach to justice cannot be blind to the fact that while resources are rationed at one end of our justice system rewards are growing at the other end.

    The global leadership in legal services I referred to, and took vicarious pride in, at the beginning of my speech has made a large number of organisations, and individuals, in this country very successful.

    There is no doubt that in the market for legal expertise, we are reaping the benefits of Britain’s huge competitive advantage. But the law is more than a marketplace, it is a community; the legal profession is more than a commercial enterprise, it is a vocation for those who believe in justice being done.

    The belief in the rule of law, and the commitment to its traditions, which enables this country to succeed so handsomely in providing legal services is rooted in a fundamental commitment to equality for all before the law. So those who have benefited financially from our legal culture need to invest in its roots.

    That is why I believe that more could – and should – be done by the most successful in the legal profession to help protect access to justice for all.

    I know that many of the most prestigious chambers at the Bar and many of the top solicitors’ firms already contribute to pro bono work and invest in improving access to the profession. Many of our leading law firms have committed to give 25 hours pro bono on average per fee earner each year.

    That is welcome, but much more needs to be done.

    Last year, according to a survey by the Law Society, 16% of solicitors in commerce and industry provided an hour or more pro bono work. When it comes to investing in access to justice then it is clear to me that it is fairer to ask our most successful legal professionals to contribute a little more rather than taking more in tax from someone on the minimum wage.

    I want to work with leaders in the profession to examine what the fairest way forward might be. But I cannot accept that the status quo is defensible.

    A refusal to accept that the status quo is acceptable – in our courts, in our prisons, indeed when it comes to our liberties – is the essential characteristic of a one nation justice policy.

    In future speeches I hope to outline what we need to do to make sure our prisons work much better, to explain what needs to change in our youth justice system, to explore how we can prevent individuals falling into crime and how we can rescue them from a life of crime. I also want to make clear how we can better protect our rights, not least to freedom of speech and to freedom of association.

    What will guide me is what guides our government – a belief in the principles of One Nation – respect for the traditions which make our country liberal, tolerant and resilient – a belief that every citizen has a role to play, views that deserve respect and an essential dignity none should compromise – a belief that opportunity should be more equal, background should be no barrier to success and extremes of wealth and poverty scar us all – and a commitment above all to helping those who have been held back by prejudice, accident or circumstance to achieve the fulfilment and happiness of rewarding work, security at home and flourishing relationships.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Gove – 2015 Speech to the Magistrates Association

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, to the Magistrates Association on 3 December 2015.

    Sometimes it’s the most innocent questions which are the most difficult.

    Just last month I was speaking to a politically engaged but friendly audience and I was asked one straightforward – indeed generous – question which had me – temporarily – incapable of answering.

    For fear of the consequences.

    You were explicit as Education Secretary that you wanted to learn from other high-performing jurisdictions such as Finland and Poland, Singapore and Shanghai, which countries are models for you as Justice Secretary?

    I paused – for what must have seemed an uncomfortably long time – before confessing my terrible secret,

    Well actually, the country I think I can learn most from about justice is England.

    In making my confession I fear I may have been guilty of a double sin.

    Any Scot acknowledging the pre-eminence of England in any field is clearly opening himself to criticism.

    And any politician who wants to make the case for reform must necessarily run a risk if he draws inspiration from England – a country caricatured as hog-tied by traditions, circumscribed by precedents and held back by its old-fashioned institutions.

    But far from believing progress towards a more just society is impeded by too much respect for our traditions, I think it’s enhanced by more respect for our traditions.

    Traditions such as freedom from arbitrary detention and freedom of speech, the presumption of innocence and an adversarial justice system, respect for parliamentary sovereignty and trust in a healthy, independent, locally-rooted and powerful magistracy.

    Which is why it is such a pleasure to be here today.

    Because I want to communicate a very simple message – thank you.

    I am deeply grateful for the service you all give.

    The country owes you all an enormous amount. You choose to use your precious spare time to serve the public. Your dedication, commitment to upholding the rule of law and commitment to justice, make our country a better, safer, fairer place. And the sheer diversity of backgrounds from which you come is a great strength.

    I am a great admirer of our country’s legal professionals.

    Whether solicitors or barristers, judges sitting in courts or tribunals, civil servants in HMCTS HQ or legal advisers in the field, we all benefit from the professionalism of those who have made a career of the law.

    But the rule of law depends on more than just good lawyers, justice rests on more than just a tradition of professional excellence. The involvement of lay people in the administration of justice is critical. The principle that guilt or innocence should be decided in Crown Court trials by a jury of our peers is an essential safeguard of liberty. And the principle that justice should be dispensed from the magistrates bench by representatives of the local community, not employees of the central state, is an equally important guarantor of our traditional freedoms.

    That is why I want to make sure that magistrates play the strongest possible role in the delivery of justice. And I want to work with you and the senior judiciary to look at how we can make the most of the opportunities for reform that lie ahead.

    Last week, you will have seen the Spending Review announcement that my department has received a £700m investment towards reforming and modernising our courts and tribunals system.

    This is the biggest investment in our courts service for a generation. It also comes despite the continuing need for fiscal consolidation. It gives us the opportunity to ensure the magistracy enjoy not just new facilities but new powers. And I want you to be fully engaged in shaping those facilities and those powers.

    Now of course some of you might say – we’ve heard this sort of flannel before – where’s the evidence this guy actually listens.

    Well, all I can say is that, in the six months I’ve been in office so far, when the magistracy has made its views on particular policies crystal clear I have been listening hard.

    Take the Criminal Courts Charge.

    The intention behind the policy was honourable – to make sure that those who impose costs on the criminal justice system make a contribution to those costs wherever possible.

    If you’ve deliberately broken the law, if the taxpayer has to shell out to ensure justice is done, then there can clearly be a case for the court imposing a financial order.

    But whenever I have had the opportunity to talk to magistrates over the last six months the Criminal Courts Charge has been raised and in almost every case it has been criticised.

    I won’t rehearse or repeat all the criticisms now. You know the arguments well. They were very effectively summarised in a typically thoughtful report by the Justice Select Committee.

    So I have today laid in Parliament an amending statutory instrument which will mean that – from the 24th of December – the criminal courts charge will no longer be imposed.

    It is, however, important to stress that I have not taken this decision in isolation from consideration of the whole range of penalties, fines and charges imposed in our courts.

    So, today I can also announce that the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing the entire structure, and purpose, of court-ordered financial impositions for offenders, with a view to considering options for simplification and improvement.

    The current array of sanctions and penalties is complex and confusing.

    I would therefore like to bring greater simplicity and clarity and I would also like to achieve three other goals.

    Firstly, I would like to give the judiciary – including of course the magistracy – greater discretion in setting financial orders.

    Second I would like to explore how we can make financial penalties a more effective tool in helping to deliver improved non-custodial sentences.

    And my third hope is that we can properly – and fairly – ensure that money raised through financial penalties plays an appropriate – and sustainable – role in supporting taxpayers to meet the costs of running the courts.

    This review of course sits alongside the broader programme of reform we are bringing to the courts.

    The central aim of our reforms is to make justice swifter and more certain.

    In nearly every area of life, we’ve come to expect that transactions which used to take weeks can be accomplished in seconds. Cheques and paper documents have been replaced by contactless payment cards and smartphone apps. Protracted meetings and endless correspondence have been supplanted by email and sms exchanges.

    People, businesses and organisations have transformed the way they work and the expectations people have of public services have also altered. If we’re going to serve the public properly, and maintain the precious advantages our legal traditions give us, then we need to modernise the way our courts work.

    HMCTS has already begun to change how our courts work, not least through the increased use of video links, but we must go further, faster.

    We need to make far better use of technology and buildings to provide easier access to a more responsive system – with swifter processes and more proportionate services.

    We also need to explore how technology can help us provide justice in a wider range of buildings that we currently use. Temporary and community courts can help us bring justice closer to people and I would welcome your thoughts about how we can be much more flexible in where we dispense justice.

    We have a duty to offer more convenient, less intimidating ways for citizens to interact with the justice system whilst maintaining the authority of the court for serious cases.

    I know there has been much recent discussion, and indeed much previous work, looking at magistrates’ sentencing powers. I am interested in these proposals and would welcome your views.

    And I would also welcome your views on how we can enhance the power of courts to help rehabilitate offenders.

    I recently visited the US to look at the innovative ways in which the judiciary were taking an active role in overseeing the rehabilitation of the offenders they had sentenced.

    I was impressed by the potential of these “problem solving” courts to contribute to crime reduction and personal redemption.

    I know all of you care a great deal about the rehabilitation of the people who appear in front of you in court and want to play a bigger part in that process.

    The Lord Chief Justice and I have discussed how we can learn from the experience of problem solving courts in other jurisdictions and we are both keen to look at what more we can do in this area.

    But even as I am eager to press ahead with reform, I am, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, aware that change has to be introduced in a way that respects our best traditions.

    It’s a great honour – and a heavy responsibility – to be Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor in the country with the best justice system in the world. I can make that claim because of the very special quality of the people who administer justice in this country every day. That is why I – and indeed all the citizens of this country – are in your debt.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech on Estate Regeneration

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the article written by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the Sunday Times on 10 January 2016.

    I believe we are in the middle of a turnaround decade for Britain. And it all comes back to one word: security. I want this to be the decade where we deliver the economic security that working people and British businesses need to flourish; and where our national security is preserved as we strengthen our defences and defeat the scourge of Islamist extremism for good.

    There’s another crucial dimension to our plans: social reform – bringing security to families who currently have none at all. As I said 3 months ago in Manchester, a central part of my second term agenda is to wage an all-out assault on poverty and disadvantage. And tomorrow, I will set out our plan to extend life chances across Britain, and really get to grips with the deep social problems – the blocked opportunity, poor parenting, addiction and mental health problems – that mean so many are unable to fulfil their potential.

    There’s one issue that brings together many of these social problems – and for me, epitomises both the scale of the challenge we face and the nature of state failure over decades. It’s our housing estates. Some of them, especially those built just after the war, are actually entrenching poverty in Britain – isolating and entrapping many of our families and communities. I remember campaigning in London as far back as the 1980s in bleak, high-rise buildings, where some voters lived behind padlocked and chained-up doors. In 2016, for too many places, not enough has changed.

    Of course, within these so-called sink estates, behind front doors, families build warm and welcoming homes. But step outside in the worst estates, and you’re confronted by concrete slabs dropped from on high, brutal high-rise towers and dark alleyways that are a gift to criminals and drug dealers. The police often talk about the importance of designing out crime, but these estates actually designed it in. Decades of neglect have led to gangs, ghettos and anti-social behaviour. And poverty has become entrenched, because those who could afford to move have understandably done so.

    One of the most concerning aspects of these estates is just how cut-off, self-governing and divorced from the mainstream these communities can become. In some places, there is severe social segregation, and it damages us all when communities simply don’t come into contact with one another. And that allows social problems to fester and grow unseen. The riots of 2011 didn’t emerge from within terraced streets or low-rise apartment buildings. As spatial analysis of the riots has shown, the rioters came overwhelmingly from these post-war estates. Almost 3 quarters of those convicted lived within them. That’s not a coincidence.

    As we tackle this problem, we should learn the lessons from the failed attempts to regenerate estates in the past. A raft of pointless planning rules, local politics and tenants’ concerns about whether regeneration would be done fairly all prevented progress. And if we’re honest, there often just wasn’t the political will and momentum in government to cut through all of this to get things done.

    So what’s our plan? Today I am announcing that we will work with 100 housing estates in Britain, aiming to transform them. A new Advisory Panel will help galvanise our efforts and their first job will be to build a list of post-war estates across the country that are ripe for re-development, and work with up to 100,000 residents to put together regeneration plans. For some, this will simply mean knocking them down and starting again. For others, it might mean changes to layout, upgrading facilities and improving local road and transport links.

    The panel will also establish a set of binding guarantees for tenants and homeowners so that they are protected.

    To finance this, we’ll establish a new £140 million fund that will pump-prime the planning process, temporary rehousing and early construction costs. And we’ll publish an Estates Regeneration Strategy that will sweep away the planning blockages and take new steps to reduce political and reputational risk for projects’ key decision-makers and investors.

    There’s a second critical by-product of our plan. Tomorrow a report from Savills will show that this kind of programme could help to catalyse the building of hundreds of thousands of new homes in London alone. This is because existing estates were built at a lower density than many modern developments – poorly laid-out, with wasted open space that was neither park nor garden. So regeneration will work best in areas where land values are high, because new private homes, built attractively and at a higher density, will fund the regeneration of the rest of the estate.

    For decades, sink estates – and frankly, sometimes the people who lived in them – had been seen as something simply to be managed. It’s time to be more ambitious on every level. The mission here is nothing short of social turnaround, and with massive estate regeneration, tenants protected and land unlocked for new housing all over Britain, I believe that together we can tear down anything that stands in our way.

  • John Major – 1990 Autumn Statement

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of the Autumn Statement speech made by John Major, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the House of Commons on 8 November 1990. 

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major) With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

    The Cabinet agreed the Government’s expenditure plans this morning. I am, therefore, now able to inform the House of the public expenditure outturn for this year; the plans for the next three years; our proposals for national insurance contributions in 1991–92; and the forecast of economic prospects for 1991 required by the Industry Act 1975.

    As usual, the main public expenditure figures, together with the full text of the economic forecast, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I sit down. The printed “Autumn Statement” will be published next Tuesday.

    In this survey we have had to take some tough decisions in the interests of the economy and the new plans represent a very tight settlement. But it is a settlement which is fully consistent with the Government’s commitments and channels extra resources to the areas where the need is greatest. For this, and other reasons, I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for the skill and persistence with which he has brought the survey to a successful conclusion.

    Since 1984–85, while the economy has grown by nearly 20 per cent., total public spending has risen scarcely at all in real terms. As a result, the ratio of public expenditure to national income has fallen by more than seven percentage points, the largest sustained fall for 40 years. Moreover, in the past three years large budget surpluses have enabled us to repay debt totalling £26 billion.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) Not any more.

    Mr. Major We shall add to that this year.

    The main objective of economic policy at present must be to bring inflation down, but, as we do so, the short-term prospect is bound to be one of weak activity. [Interruption.] In the past, during similar periods the ratio of public spending to national income has risen strongly. On this occasion it will not.

    Planned public expenditure in the current fiscal year is now expected to be £180.6 billion, rather less than 1 per cent. above the planning total set a year ago. A large part of this extra spending is due to an increase in the financing requirements of the nationalised industries, to a surge of common agricultural policy spending on agricultural market support and to expenditure on the Gulf crisis.

    Notwithstanding this cash overrun, public expenditure remains under tight control. Inflation has been higher than forecast, but it has not been allowed to feed through fully into expenditure. As a result, the ratio of spending to national income in the current year is likely to be slightly lower than projected at the time of the Budget – virtually unchanged from the 1989–90 level.

    The decisions on public expenditure for the next three years have been taken against a more difficult world and domestic economic background than for some time. Activity at home and abroad has begun to weaken and some countries such as Canada and the United States are expected to grow very slowly indeed over the coming year. The outlook has also been complicated by events in the Gulf, with the rise in oil prices and the uncertainty that they have produced. Against that background, our new plans are designed to protect the most vulnerable groups in society against the effects of higher inflation [Interruption.] I repeat, to protect the most vulnerable groups in society and to maintain longer-term policies to improve the working of the economy.

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) rose–

    Mr. Major I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman when we come to questions a little later.

    But, beyond that, this is not the year for making substantial additions to plans in other areas. The priority must be to honour existing commitments, within a total for public spending that is affordable and fiscally prudent. For 1991–92, the new planning total has been set at £200 billion, a little under £8 billion more than the previously published figure. The planning totals in the following two years are £215 billion and £226 billion respectively.

    In recognition of the economic uncertainties and the risks arising from the Gulf crisis, these totals include higher reserves than last year’s plans: £3½ billion in the first year; £7 billion in the second year; and £10½ billion in the third. I believe that these increases are prudent. Our plans also incorporate an estimate of privatisation proceeds at £5½ billion a year that is in line with the average outturn in recent years.

    After taking account of inflation, the level of spending next year will be rather less than implied by last year’s plans: that is, the cash additions to the planning total do not fully compensate for the higher level of prices now expected for 1991–92. This restraint is necessary, but it means that many of my colleagues have had to drop or postpone proposals that they would otherwise have regarded as desirable.

    Nevertheless, within this total there are substantial extra resources in three main areas: health, social security and central Government support for local authority services. These additions to plans total some £7½ billion in 1991–92. It has also been possible to make improvements to other key areas including education, public transport, and the environment.

    We have also been able to make savings elsewhere, including defence. I can assure the House categorically that financial constraints will not hinder in any way the United Kingdom’s military contribution to resolving the Gulf crisis. However, the “Options for Change” announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 25 July will produce increasing savings in the defence budget. Over the next three years the new plans provide for a real reduction in defence spending of about 6 per cent., and further reductions should be achieved in later years as my right hon. Friend’s proposals are fully implemented. For the first time in the period since World War 2, we are now able safely to plan on a defence budget that is significantly less than one tenth of all Government expenditure and falling.

    In certain other areas, we have been able to accommodate increases in expenditure by finding offsetting savings. For example, on the trade and industry and employment programmes we have made selective increases while keeping broadly to existing plans overall, and within the Home Office programme, lower prison population forecasts have enabled us to reduce the prison building programme, while considerable resources have been made available for the refurbishment of existing prisons, including Strangeways.

    In July, the Government announced extra support for local authority current spending which will add around £2½ billion to previous plans. Current spending by local authorities has substantially outstripped central Government spending over recent years. This year local authorities in England budgeted for increases of over 5 per cent. in real terms before capping. This has led to community charges which in many authorities are far higher than expected or justified.

    The additional support that we are providing for next year should enable local authorities to finance local services without sharp increases in their charges. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already announced that, if required, the Government will make vigorous use of their powers to cap high-spending authorities. I re-emphasise that.

    Nearly £3 billion has been added to the social security plans for next year. This mainly reflects the upratings already announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security which maintain in full the real value of benefits paid to 10 million pensioners and 11 million people on income-related benefits. The additions also reflect the substantial extra cost of community charge benefit which will help about one in four charge payers. My right hon. Friend was also able to announce selective increases for poorer pensioners, people in residential and nursing homes and families. These improvements will be financed within the social security programme by savings from restructuring the statutory sick pay scheme, as announced by my right hon. Friend on 24 October.

    As in previous years, the Government have also made very substantial extra provision for health. Between this year and next, spending on the national health service in the United Kingdom will rise by £3 billion, so that the real resources over and above inflation that are available for spending on health will increase by a further 5 per cent. The total real increase in health service spending since 1979 will now be nearly 50 per cent. This has enabled the NHS to employ some 8,000 more hospital doctors and dentists, and over 50,000 more nurses and, of course, to provide for more sophisticated health care than ever before. As a result, more than 1½ million more in-patient and day cases are now treated every year. In the largest sustained programme of hospital building ever seen, nearly 500 major capital schemes have been completed since 1979. The plans that I am announcing ensure that the next three years will see further improvements in services.

    Extra finance is also being provided for public transport. London Transport and British Rail have large long-term investment programmes which will enable them to extend and to upgrade the London underground and to prepare for the opening of the channel tunnel. Between them, they will spend some £¾ billion on safety alone in the next three years. The new plans also consolidate the substantial extra provision for roads that was announced last year and include measures to relieve congestion in London. Investment in public transport in the next three years will be double the level of the past three years.

    Central Government spending on education will be increased by more than £500 million next year, largely to finance the record number of students in higher education. One in five of the 18 to 19 age group will be in higher education, compared with one in eight only a decade ago. The number of higher education qualifications gained, as a proportion of the relevant age group, is higher in the United Kingdom than in Germany, France, Italy and almost every other European country.

    Following the publication of the White Paper on the environment, the new plans provide significant extra resources for environmental research and in support of environmental bodies such as the National Rivers Authority and the Countryside Commission. There is extra provision also for the Government’s programme of action on rooflessness.

    Throughout the past decade, we have sustained a high level of capital spending in the public sector. In total, it will approach £30 billion in the current year. Leaving aside defence, our new plans include an extra £1½ billion a year for investment by central Government and nationalised industries. There is also extra support for local authorities’ capital spending on schools, housing and local transport.

    Taking capital and current together, real growth in total public spending over the three survey years will be less than 2 per cent. a year – well within the trend growth of the economy. As I have said, this is a tight settlement and it means that the ratio of public spending to national income should remain stable at its present level for the next two years. Thereafter, as activity strengthens and inflation remains in check, the downward trend will be resumed.

    I now turn to national insurance contributions. As usual, the review this autumn has taken account of advice from the Government Actuary on the income and expenditure of the national insurance fund, and of the statement on benefits that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 24 October.

    The lower earnings limit at which contributions begin will go up next April to £52 a week, in line with the single person’s basic pension, while the upper earnings limit will rise to £390 a week. The upper limits for the reduced employers’ rates will also be increased.

    In addition to those changes, there will be reductions in the contribution rates paid by employers. As my right hon. Friend explained in the House on 24 October, the restructuring of statutory sick pay will add modestly to employers’ costs from next April. It is right that the Exchequer should share these costs. Therefore, the main employers’ contribution rate will fall next April from 10.45 per cent. to 10.4 per cent. and each of the lower rates will be cut by 0.4 per cent. This relief through contributions will limit the impact of the statutory sick pay adjustments on employers of lower-paid workers in particular. The necessary legislation will be laid before the House. The contribution rates paid by employees and the class 4 rates paid by the self-employed will remain unchanged.

    I am publishing today the economic forecast required by the Industry Act 1975, the first since we became members of the exchange rate mechanism. I must emphasise at the outset that the Gulf crisis and its effect on world oil markets make the future unusually difficult to predict. The United Kingdom, along with other countries, has already seen some of the adverse impact on consumer price inflation. The oil price rise is likely also to contribute to the general slowdown in the world economy that was already under way before the Gulf crisis.

    For the Industry Act forecast I am following the practice of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and assuming some fall in oil prices from recent levels to around $25 a barrel by the end of 1991. But I must reiterate that the situation in the oil market remains very volatile.

    Despite these uncertainties, however, it is now clear that the tight United Kingdom policy stance of the past two years is bringing about an easing of domestic inflationary pressures. This will make possible both a sharp fall in retail prices index inflation next year and a strengthening of output.

    So far this year, the public sector debt repayment has been running below both last year’s outturn and our expectations at Budget time. Local authority borrowing was particularly high earlier this year as some authorities experienced delays in collecting non-domestic rates and the community charge. Public corporations’ finances have been adversely affected by the slowdown in economic activity and central Government spending has also been higher. Nevertheless, despite this, I still expect a significant debt repayment in the year as a whole of £3 billion. This amounts to ½ per cent. of GDP and represents a strong fiscal stance at this stage of the economic cycle.

    Mr. Skinner What was the right hon. Gentleman’s forecast?

    Mr. Major For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), we have a stronger fiscal position than Germany, France, the United States and every other member of the Group of Seven, with the solitary exception of Japan.

    Thus our public finances remain strong. Given our membership of the exchange rate mechanism and the counter-inflationary strategy that we are pursuing, it is essential that they remain strong. As I made clear to the House last month, the Government remain committed to the medium-term objective of a balanced budget. That is why we have continued our firm restraint of public expenditure in the current year.

    Turning to demand and output, it is clear that growth has now slowed down sharply. GDP is forecast to grow by 1 per cent. this year. This figure is the same as the forecast I made at the time of the Budget, but the path has been slightly different, and I expect output in the second half of the year to be down on the higher than expected and projected level in the first half.

    This period of weak activity should last until early next year, after which I expect growth to resume; GDP is expected to grow by over 2 per cent. in 1991, though year-on-year growth is forecast to be only ½ per cent.

    Unemployment has been rising since the spring and may continue to rise in the months immediately ahead, but job prospects will improve with a resumption of growth, the more so if employers keep tight control of costs, including pay rises.

    Within domestic demand, growth of consumer spending has now slowed markedly from over 7 per cent. two years ago to under 3 per cent. in the first half of this year. The signs are that it will fall further over the year ahead as consumers continue to adjust to lower growth of real incomes, following the high borrowing of recent years.

    Business investment rose by an unprecedented 45 per cent. in the three years to 1989, taking investment to an historically high level as a share of GDP. It may have fallen slightly in 1990 and is expected to fall a little further next year. A modest downturn from such a high level is unsurprising; indeed, it would be extraordinary if it did not occur at this stage in the cycle. It will still leave investment over 50 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979.

    The current account has now begun to improve markedly. With low growth of domestic demand, import volumes have shown virtually no growth over the past year and import prices have been falling in recent months as a result of the firm exchange rate. Export growth, on the other hand, has remained strong over the past year so that the United Kingdom’s share of world trade in manufactures has risen for the second year running. The deficit on visible trade has followed a welcome trend and has virtually halved since the middle of 1989. This progress has been partly offset by poor figures for invisibles in recent quarters, although in the past these have, more often than not, been revised up later – at times, substantially.

    I now expect that the current account deficit in 1990 will remain close to the forecast I made at the time of the Budget – at just over £15 billion. With domestic demand and import growth likely to stay low, I expect a considerably improved performance next year, with the deficit falling to £11 billion despite some slowdown in export growth as world trade decelerates. As a proportion of gross domestic product the deficit is expected to fall from 3¾ per cent. last year to 1¾ per cent. in 1991 – a sharp improvement.

    I am now certain that inflationary pressures have been brought firmly under control. The monetary indicators show this clearly. The growth of MO has fallen every month since April and is now considerably within its target range, while growth of the wider measure, M4, and lending have fallen sharply to 14½ per cent. and 15½ per cent. respectively. With demand and output slowing markedly over the past two years, it is clear that inflation will come down next year. The fall in the headline figure will be very sharp as the effects of the past mortgage rate rises, of the high initial level of the community charge and of recent petrol price increases cease to influence the inflation rate by the end of next year. From a peak at the current level of about 11 per cent., I expect RPI inflation to fall to around 5½ per cent. in the fourth quarter of next year.

    In summary, the plans that I have announced today honour our existing commitments and provide additional resources for key areas – notably for the health service, for pensioners and for investment. They are within an overall total we can afford and they avoid the sharp upturn in the share of expenditure in national output which has occurred at similar stages in previous economic cycles. They are, therefore, consistent with the tight fiscal and monetary policies that will lead to a falling trade deficit and to a sharp reduction in inflation. They are, in my judgment, the right policies for building on the economic achievements of the past decade and I commend them to the House.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2015 Speech at Whittington Hospital

    jeremycorbyn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, at Whittington Hospital on 18 December 2015.

    The NHS is facing its worst crisis since it was founded. The NHS will be over £2 billion in debt by the end of the year.

    The government is failing to meet its own targets: on A&E waiting times, cancelled operations, and cancer treatment times.

    Add in the impact of George Osborne’s social care cuts, which result in longer and needless stays in hospital, and the human consequences are all too clear.

    This week we’ve learned there are some hospitals that are so broke they are having to borrow money to buy medicines for patients and pay wages over Christmas.

    Through all this, NHS staff are doing a fantastic job and I want to thank them for their hard work, dedication and incredible professionalism.

    The Labour Party I lead will hold this government to account for their shocking failure to support and protect the world’s best health care service – our NHS.

  • Denis Healey – 1952 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Denis Healey to the House of Commons on 14 May 1952.

    In rising to address the Committee for the first time, I am very conscious of the need for that indulgence which the Committee is accustomed to afford so generously to maiden speakers. I have noticed that long familiarity with this peculiar ritual of the maiden birth has given the Committee the somewhat clinical attitude of a midwife towards a maiden speech. But I can assure the Committee that for the initiate concerned the act of parthenogenesis is quite as painful an experience as any that he is ever likely to endure in his life. And I count myself very fortunate in enduring this agony at a time when the midwife is in a state of twilight sleep induced by an all-night Sitting the night before.

    Although I have chosen to speak on a subject which is bound to be controversial, I hope that I shall not be considered unduly partisan in anything I say, because I agree very much with the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that opinion on the problem of Germany is divided irrespective of party lines, and I hope I may succeed in steering a course some way between the obvious and the offensive.

    The present policy of the Western world is to prevent a third world war by deterring Soviet aggression. I suggest that this policy will not be possible if the manpower and industrial resources of Germany are lost to the Western side and become available to the Soviet side, because if that happens, the balance of world power would shift to the Soviet side, and a third world war would become inevitable.

    The Western world might lose Germany either through force or through the free choice of the German people themselves. The immediate danger, of course, is that we should lose Germany through force, and it is because of that danger that we of the Western world are committed to build up on the ground in Europe sufficient armed strength to defend Western Germany; that means very heavy burdens on us now, and I fully agree with those hon. Members who have expressed the view that sooner or later the Germans themselves must carry their share of that burden.

    But we can also lose Germany to the Western camp through the free choice of the German people themselves, and we should be very unwise indeed to underestimate that danger when we look at the history of the last 30 years from Rapallo to the German-Soviet Pact of 1939 and watch the activities of the Soviet Union with certain nationalist and right-wing German circles at the present time.

    I do not think that it is sufficiently recognised in this Committee that the destiny of Germany, now that seven years have passed since the defeat of Hitler, is certain to be decided in the last resort by the German people themselves. The victorious Powers are no longer in the position of deciding the destiny of Germany against the wishes of the German people—indeed, Western Germany alone is already, in fact although not in law, the strongest single Power on the continent of Europe—and if and when Germany is united, as in my view is certain and is desirable, Germany will once again be a world Power of the same order as Britain herself.

    The problem we face in the Western world now is not, as once it was, to ensure that Germany will never be powerful again. The time for that has gone, if it ever existed. The problem we now face is how to ensure that a Germany, which is certain to become powerful, works with the Western side by its own free choice and not with the Soviet Union. As I say, it is only the German people themselves who can make that choice.

    No one has realised that better than the Soviet Government because its recent notes, although ostensibly addressed to the Western Powers, were in fact directed to the people of Germany herself. We should be unwise also to underestimate the difficulty of keeping Germany on the Western side. National unity will soon become the over-riding aim of the Western German people, and Germany will go to the side which offers her the best chance of getting national unity on acceptable conditions, and she will leave any side which denies her the chance of unity under conditions which she considers acceptable.

    In the long run, Russia holds all the cards because it is only Russia which can give back to Germany her unity, including not only the Soviet zone but also the provinces lost to Poland. And she would not hesitate to do so if she thought she could get an agreement with Germany.

    Moreover, we have to face the additional difficulty that any agreements we make now with the Western German Government are bound to be provisional. The Germans themselves do not regard the Federal Republic as a permanent affair any more than they regard Bonn as the permanent capital of Germany. Dr. Adenauer has recently stressed this point, greatly to the dismay of the French, that any agreement accepted by Western Germany will have to be negotiated again if and when Germany becomes united, even if unity comes about under the Basic Law, because we cannot bind 70 million people to agreements which were accepted by only a majority of 47 million people.

    On the other hand, the cards which Russia holds are by no means so strong at the present time, because Western Germany is extremely conscious of its weakness and its inability to defend itself. Hatred and distrust of the Soviet Union are the dominating emotions throughout Western Germany, and for that reason the German people would not at this time accept national unity if the price of national unity were the rupture of their lifeline to the West.

    Like the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and other hon. Members, I also visited Germany recently and had an opportunity of discussing this question with members of all German parties. I was surprised to find that there was almost unanimity between the Government and the opposition on the fact that a united Germany at this time could not afford to be neutral, nor could Germany accept unity without the guarantee of security.

    The only thing I would suggest, and on which there is disagreement in Germany, is that we should not now commit ourselves to a united Germany having security in the form of a military alliance with the West. One criticism I would make, if it is permitted to a maiden speaker, of the reply to the Soviet note is the reference to the all-German Government being allowed to make “such defensive arrangements as it wishes.” I think that we would be unwise to insist on that, if the phrase means a military alliance. If, on the other hand, it means security against the possibility of a Soviet coup or invasion, we must insist on it, and the Germans would be united in supporting us in insisting on it.

    My conclusion is that, at the present time, German unity will only be acceptable to the German people on conditions that we ourselves would be the first to insist on. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary has already said, the Western reply to the Soviet note in insisting on these conditions has been welcomed unanimously in Western Germany.

    I am extremely glad that I should be able to make my maiden speech on a day when all the doubts created by Western policy in the last few weeks have been dispersed by the reply to the second Soviet note. There has been a great danger that the Western Powers’ reluctance to enter on a new series of Palais Rose discussions with the Russians will be interpreted in Germany as a reluctance to see Germany united again. I would say that at this moment, above all, we can afford to take the offensive on the question of German unity. We shall gain much and lose nothing by doing so.

    There has been a good deal of discussion in the Committee this afternoon about the dangers in the delay of the carrying out of E.D.C., and there is no doubt that many people are concerned lest the delays inevitably imposed by talks with the Russians on German unity will lose us what is considered to be the last chance of getting an early German defence contribution to E.D.C. Here I come on to ground which may be considered very controversial, but I assure the House I have no intention whatever of being polemic or partisan, and I hope that my contribution will be received as a sincere effort to think the problem out.

    The first point is that if it is really true, as the Foreign Secretary seemed to suggest in his speech, that public opinion is moving so rapidly against E.D.C. that unless we can get the agreement in the bag within the next 12 months we shall lose the chance for ever—if it is a question of now or never—then the agreement will be worthless even if we get it. I apologise if I have misinterpreted the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on that matter.

    The second point is that both the demand for an early German defence contribution and the agreement to treat E.D.C. as the right framework for a German defence contribution—I hope it is not impertinent to remind the Committee of this—were accepted against the will of the British Government of the day and only under very heavy pressure from our Allies.

    The decision taken by N.A.T.O. in 1950 to seek an immediate German defence contribution at a time when almost none of the European peoples wanted it, including the Germans themselves—the only exceptions were the Dutch and the Danes—would never have been taken then had it not been for very strong and insistent—and legitimate—American pressure. The agreement last September to treat the European Defence Community as the right framework for a German contribution would never have been accepted by N.A.T.O. had not our French ally said that they would not accept a German defence contribution in any other framework.

    I hope it is not impertinent to remind the Committee of that fact, because my view is that the present commitment of the Western world to E.D.C. and to an immediate German defence contribution arises out of the panic induced by Korea. It represents a false start in solving the German problem, and we should be prepared to welcome the pause imposed by events in order to get back on the right road.

    On the question of a German contribution, I believe that General Eisenhower was quite right in his immediate and instinctive response to the suggestion when he took up his command, when he said, “I do not want any unwilling soldiers under my command.” It is the case that, for whatever reasons—and for very many varied reasons—at present the majority of the German people, and the overwhelming majority of the Germans of military age, do not want a German defence contribution. Incidentally, the Western Powers have got into appalling difficulties by treating the Contractual Agreement, as the Foreign Secretary said, as a sort of bribe in order to buy unwilling German soldiers. We should have got the agreement through without the slightest difficulty if it had not been tied to the European Defence Community.

    On the other hand—I disagree with some of my hon. Friends on this point—although public opinion in Germany is at present opposed to a defence contribution, public opinion will change very rapidly and very dramatically, possibly within the next 12 months, and once the Germans want to re-arm we shall not be able to stop them even if we want to. In other words, German re-armament in the short run is impossible; in the long run it is inevitable. It is entirely a matter of timing. “Ripeness is all” in the case of the German defence contribution.

    What I suggest we should do is use the time still available to us, before the Germans want to make a defence contribution, in order to consider very seriously and quietly, and not in a panic, what framework will be best suited to contain a German defence contribution. No one can fail to recognise that, although a German defence contribution would bring great gains to the West, it would also carry very great dangers. We must choose a framework which will be strong enough and large enough to attract the Germans and to hold them for good. It is no good trying to force Germany now into a mould which she will crack when she becomes stronger.

    Last September the Western Powers agreed to use E.D.C. as the framework for a German defence contribution only because France would accept no other. However, I suggest that it is becoming quite clear that the French themselves, who were the only people who wanted it in the first place, have now lost faith in E.D.C. as a means of controlling German re-armament.

    E.D.C. can control a German defence contribution only if the non-German components are stronger than the German components. It is already evident that Western Germany alone would be stronger in E.D.C., in fact if not in form, than France, because of France’s great commitments outside Europe in Indo-China, and, indeed, stronger than all the other members of E.D.C. put together. The result is that the French are beginning to realise that E.D.C., which they first saw as an instrument to control Germany, will turn out to be an instrument by which Germany can militarily dominate Western Europe.

    In any case E.D.C. cannot offer a longterm solution to the German problem because, as Dr. Adenauer has said, when Germany is united she will have to renegotiate all the agreements which she has made, whether E.D.C. or otherwise, and it would be very dangerous if we got into a position where the importance of a German defence contribution through E.D.C., once it was set up, became such that we were compelled to oppose German unity for fear of losing that contribution under those conditions.

    There is a French proverb—I shall not try to give it in French—which says, “There is nothing which lasts like the provisional.” That proverb will not be very popular in Germany, and there is a very great danger in creating at this stage vested interests in a provisional solution which cannot possibly last into the future

    The French see only one way out of their dilemma, and that is to get Britain into E.D.C. to balance the power of Germany. But Britain cannot join E.D.C., first, because of its federal structure and secondly, because it has become a cardinal principle of British policy since the war not to accept additional commitments in Europe which might be treated by America as an excuse for reducing American commitments. That principle can be differently expressed as “We should try to avoid accepting new commitments in Europe which we cannot get the Americans to share.”

    The French are quite right in thinking that, if Germany is to be controlled in the future, Britain and America must have a hand in the controlling, but a guarantee from Britain and America to E.D.C. of such a nature as to prevent a German secession would be both impossible to frame and impossible to fulfil. There is only one way by which the French can get what they want, and that is by having Germany re-armed within the only framework in whose integrity Britain and America have a direct and vital interest, and that framework is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

    I see the Foreign Secretary pursing his lips. He is right. That prospect at the moment dismays the French. But surely it is not beyond the resources of the Foreign Secretary’s diplomacy to show the French that, if they really want Britain and America involved in the longterm control of re-armed Germany, they must put Germany into the organisation in maintaining whose integrity Britain and the United States have an absolutely vital and permanent interest.

    I do not suggest that we should now invite the Germans to enter the Atlantic Pact. This is entirely a matter of timing. It will be some time before the Germans themselves want to be re-armed under any circumstances. What I suggest is that we should use that time to strengthen N.A.T.O. so that it is capable of receiving this formidable new recruit. On the other hand, we must have more N.A.T.O. troops in Europe and, in particular, more French troops; and, on the other hand, we must tighten and more closely integrate the structure of N.A.T.O. I personally would not exclude tightening the military structure of N.A.T.O. in S.H.A.P.E. on the technical lines already found practical in E.D.C. That is the only way out of the problem.

    To sum up, the problem of keeping a united Germany in the Western camp and out of the Soviet camp is the most crucial and urgent problem facing the whole of the West for many years ahead. In my opinion, in the panic following Korea, the Western Powers made a false start; but a pause is now imposed by events. It is our duty to make it creative. I am one of those who believe that the ever closer unity of the Atlantic peoples is one of the most fruitful developments of the postwar era. And I am convinced that it offers to us the one real chance of solving the perennial problem of Germany.

  • Margaret Thatcher – 1983 Statement on Falkland Islands Report

    margaretthatcher

    Below is the text of the statement made by Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 18 January 1983.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the report of the Falkland Islands review committee.

    The House will remember that I announced the setting up of the review committee in July 1982, after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and with leading Privy Councillors in other parties. At that time I expressed the hope that the committee would be be able to complete its work within six months.

    The committee has justified that hope. I received its report on 31 December 1982, and I am presenting it to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon. Copies are now available in the Vote Office.

    I should like to express the Government’s gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Franks, and to his colleagues for the amount of time and effort which they have devoted to producing such a thorough and comprehensive report in so short a time.

    The report makes it clear that the committee was provided with all the papers relevant to its terms of reference, including a comprehensive collection of reports from the intelligence agencies. The committee’s report contains a number of references to intelligence matters which would not in other circumstances be divulged. These references are essential for a full understanding of the matters into which the committee was asked to enquire, and the Government have agreed that the public interest requires that on this occasion the normal rule against public reference to the intelligence organisation or to material derived from intelligence reports should be waived.

    The Government have, however, agreed with Lord Franks amendments to certain of the references to intelligence reports with a view to minimising potential damage to British intelligence interests. Lord Franks has authorised me to tell the House that he agrees that, first, all the references to intelligence reports included in the committee’s report as submitted have been retained in the report as presented to Parliament, most of them without amendment; secondly, none of the amendments that have been made alters the sense, substance or emphasis of the reference to the intelligence report concerned, or removes anything of significance to the committee’s account of the matters referred to it or to its findings and conclusions; thirdly, apart from those agreed amendments, no other deletions or amendments have been made to the committee’s report as submitted.

    The report is unanimous and is signed by all the members of the committee without qualification. It falls into four chapters. The first gives an account of the dispute from 1965—when the issue was first brought formally to international attention by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations—to May 1979.

    The second chapter covers the period from May 1979 to 19 March 1982. The third deals with the fortnight from 19 March to 2 April 1982, which included the South Georgia incident and which led up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. The fourth and final chapter deals with the way in which the Government discharged their responsibilities in the period leading up to the invasion. There are six annexes, the first of which deals with 10 specific assertions that have been made by some who have commented on the matters in question.

    In the fourth chapter of the report—that is, the one that deals with the way Government discharged their responsibilities—the committee notes a number of points where, in its judgment, different decisions might have been taken, fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might have been advantageous, and the machinery of government could have been better used. That chapter defines and addresses itself to two crucial questions: first, could the Government have foreseen the invasion of 2 April 1982; secondly, could the Government have prevented the invasion?

    The committee emphasises that its report should be read as a whole. At this stage, therefore, I shall do no more than quote the committee’s conclusions on those two crucial questions. On the first question, whether the Government could have foreseen the invasion of 2 April, the committee’s conclusion is: In the light of this evidence, we are satisfied that the Government did not have warning of the decision to invade. The evidence of the timing of the decision taken by the Junta shows that the Government not only did not, but could not, have had earlier warning. The invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April could not have been foreseen. I have quoted the whole of paragraph 266.

    On the second question, whether the Government could have prevented the invasion, the committee’s conclusion, contained in the final paragraph of the report, is: Against this background we have pointed out in this Chapter where different decisions might have been taken, where fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might, in our opinion, have been advantageous, and where the machinery of Government could have been better used. But, if the British Government had acted differently in the ways we have indicated, it is impossible to judge what the impact on the Argentine Government or the implications for the course of events might have been. There is no reasonable basis for any suggestion—which would be purely hypothetical—that the invasion would have been prevented if the Government had acted in the ways indicated in our report. Taking account of these considerations, and of all the evidence we have received, we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government.

    May I finish the conclusion of the Franks Committee? It was its conclusion and has nothing to do with the Government. It said: we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government for the Argentine Junta’s decision to commit its act of unprovoked aggression in the invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982. I have quoted in full the final paragraph of the Franks report.

    Time will, of course, be found for an early debate, and that will be discussed through the usual channels. The Government will welcome an early opportunity of discussing the matters contained in the report more thoroughly than is possible this afternoon.