UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Peter Mandelson – 2008 Statement on the Future of the Royal Mail

    Below is the text of the statement made by Peter Mandelson in the House of Lords on December 16th 2008.

    My Lords, I wish to make a statement about the Royal Mail.

    This Government is firmly committed to a universal postal service: that is, the ability of the 28 million homes and businesses across the country to receive mail six days a week, with the promise that one price goes anywhere.

    The universal service helps to bind us together as a country. And, as well as its social importance, it is the means by which many companies build and operate their businesses, but it doesn’t come free.

    Last December, John Hutton invited Richard Hooper to lead a full, independent review of the postal services market. Its purpose was to look ahead to the future and to recommend the steps needed to sustain the universal service, in a world where technology, consumer behaviour and the communications market are all rapidly changing. The review did not cover the Post Office network.

    I have now received Richard Hooper’s final report. It is a serious, wide-ranging study, and makes sober reading. We are publishing it this afternoon. I am very grateful to Richard Hooper, and to Dame Deirdre Hutton and Ian Smith, for their work on it.

    Hooper’s conclusions

    Let me set out Hooper’s analysis of the challenges facing the Royal Mail.

    First, there has been a revolution in communications technology over the past decade as consumers turn to emails, the internet and text messages. In this country 60 billion text messages were sent last year. And we now send five million fewer letters per day than two years ago.

    Hooper is absolutely clear that the main challenge to the Royal Mail is from the impact of changes in technology and consumer choices. His estimate is that, last year, the shift of mail to these new technologies cost the company £500 million in lost profits. That is five times the impact of business lost to other postal companies in our liberalised market. The message is therefore clear. Making these other companies go away is not the answer to the Royal Mail succeeding.

    Royal Mail’s success matters because it is the only company capable of delivering mail to every address in the UK, six days a week. And as Hooper makes clear that will be the case for the foreseeable future.

    So a healthy Royal Mail is vital to sustaining the universal service.

    The second challenge is efficiency. Hooper reports that Royal Mail is less automated and less efficient than its Western European counterparts. In modern European postal companies, 85% of mail is put in walk-order by machine for delivery to the individual home or business. By contrast, in Britain, in local delivery offices it is still done entirely by hand. The Royal Mail urgently needs to catch up and modernise.

    The third challenge is the Pension Fund. Hooper warns that Royal Mail has a large, growing and volatile pension fund deficit. This is near impossible for the business to manage and is a huge demand on its revenues. Each year on top of its regular £500 million contribution to the pension fund, the company is having to find an extra “top up” of £280 million to plug the deficit. These payments look set to rise substantially when the fund is re-valued next year.

    Fourth, Hooper says labour relations in the company need to improve. Levels of trust and co-operation are low. Industrial action takes place too often. A fresh start in industrial relations is badly needed.

    Fifth, regulation. Hooper also reports a lack of trust in the relationship between the company and the regulator. There are disagreements about basic information and these tensions divert energy from the chief challenge of modernising the business.

    So overall, Hooper’s conclusions are crystal clear. The status quo is untenable. The universal service is under threat. The choice we face is either downgrading the universal service as we manage decline or acting now to turn things round and secure the Royal Mail’s future.

    Hooper’s Recommendations

    At the heart of the Hooper report are three linked recommendations.

    Pension deficit

    First, the pension fund deficit. Hooper recognises that this represents a significant challenge for the company.

    The Report recommends that as part of a package of changes, the government should take over responsibility for reducing substantially the pension deficit. I would stress that Hooper says this would only be justified as part of a coherent package to secure the Royal Mail’s long term viability.

    Partnership

    Secondly and closely related, to improve the Royal Mail’s performance it should forge a strategic minority partnership with a postal operator with a proven record in transforming its business, working closely with the workforce. This, Hooper believes, would give Royal Mail the confidence, the experience and the capital to make the changes needed to improve performance and face the future. In other words, save the Royal Mail by investing in its future.

    Regulation

    Finally, regulation. Hooper proposes Ofcom should take over responsibility from Postcomm for regulating the postal market. Its primary responsibility would be to maintain the universal service in the wider context of the other changes taking place in communication markets.

    Government response

    My Department will want to study the report in detail. I intend to respond with a full statement of our policy in the early part of next year.

    With backing from the Government, the Royal Mail has been improving performance in recent years. But progress has been too slow and Hooper is clear that, in the face of the challenges confronting the company, transformation must be faster and more far reaching.

    I can say now that the Government agrees with Hooper’s analysis and the recommendations. As he does, we reject cutting back the universal service. Indeed, we share his ambition for a strong universal service and strong Royal Mail. And we intend to take forward the recommendations as a coherent package of measures.

    We will fulfil our manifesto commitment to “a publicly owned Royal Mail fully restored to good health, providing customers with an excellent service and its employees with rewarding employment”. Bringing in a partner through a minority stake in the Royal Mail’s postal business will help us deliver that goal. It will bring the Royal Mail fresh investment, new opportunities to grow in Europe and internationally, and to offer new services. It will provide a fresh new impetus to modernising the Royal Mail and securing the universal service.

    We and the Royal Mail have already received one expression of interest from the Dutch postal company, TNT, to build such a partnership. I very much welcome this approach from an experienced postal company, just as I will welcome other expressions of interest from credible partners should they come forward. My Department will pursue this in the coming weeks.

    Post Office

    Finally, I should comment on the Post Office, which was not part of the review’s terms of reference.

    The network of local Post Offices combines a unique set of commercial, public and social roles. In recognition of this a partnership would not include the Post Office network.

    But a healthier Royal Mail letters business will be good for the Post Office. Today’s announcement will help underpin our existing commitment to the Post Office network. We are providing £1.7 billion to 2011 to support a network of around 11,500 branches. We will continue to support the non-commercial network beyond that time. Noble Lords will recall the recent announcement that the Post Office Card Account will stay with the Post Office. We will now build on that decision to ensure a stable and sustainable network for the future.

    We are determined to have a Post Office network offering a broad range of services throughout the country, supporting both social and financial inclusion. I am delighted that the House of Commons Business and Enterprise Select Committee has agreed to undertake an inquiry into what further services the Post Office could offer.

    Conclusion

    My Lords, I believe that Royal Mail and the postal market can thrive in the future – provided that decisive action is taken now. Without far-reaching change, the opportunities brought by technology will become overwhelming threats. This need not be the case. I believe that there are benefits for everybody in the package of measures that we intend to take forward.

    • It will protect the universal service for consumers.
    • It will give Royal Mail new opportunities to modernise and develop.
    • It offers the Royal Mail’s staff a future in a modern, efficient postal operator with more secure pension arrangements.
    • It offers the whole country a Royal Mail we can be proud of.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Peter Mandelson – 2008 Foresight Public Debate Speech

    Below is the text of the speech given on November 6th 2008 by Peter Mandelson.

    Barack Obama’s victory is one of the most exciting moments of my political and public life. It is a once in a generation opportunity for progressive ideals and my kind of social democratic and internationalist politics.

    When he comes to office, Mr Obama will face the challenges of war and climate change, as well as economic turmoil. He has been forthright on his policies in the first two and we look forward to working closely with him on the last.

    In Britain I’m well known to be a strong pro European. But I’ve always been a strong pro American as well. I believe America at its best shares my – and European – values of democracy, personal freedom and opportunity for all. These values do not always equate to the right policies. But America has an extraordinary capacity to renew itself, to address its weaknesses, come to terms with its past and make change happen.

    Most comment has focussed on the historic significance of the election of a black President for a society once so scarred by racial discrimination and prejudice – and the extraordinary signal this sends to people across the world about what America stands for. In recent years, there has been an evolution in American policy on a number of the important issues facing the world, so Mr Obama has a strong platform for launching a new drive for progressive world leadership. In my lifetime, I have not known a time when this leadership is more needed.

    Because of this, there is also a great opportunity for Europe. We don’t compete. We need a partner, to work together to solve the global economic crisis, tackle climate change and meet the other pressing global challenges of poverty and development. The US and EU cannot, by themselves, make these happen. But we are indispensable to them being achieved. Only by the EU and US collaborating is there any chance of creating a stable and secure multilateral order.

    However I want to underline three caveats:

    First, in the global age Europe – and that includes Britain – cannot claim an exclusive relationship with an Obama Washington. The world has turned. To solve the global economic crisis, we have to bring in the new powerhouses of the world as equal partners. To tackle climate change we have to strike a deal with China and India. To sustain free trade and the beneficial forces of globalisation, we have to develop a new, progressive economics that embraces both the developed and emerging nations of the world.

    Second, to be a credible partner, Europe has to step up to the table. We have shown leadership on climate change: we now have to deliver on our national commitments. In peace keeping and peace enforcement, we have to make the bigger contribution as European nations that I believe Barack Obama will expect. On trade and economics, we have to sustain an open Single Market at home and openness abroad. Half measures or half hearted ambivalence will not do. Because of the seriousness of the challenges we face, the demands on us are great.

    Third, we need to work with Barack Obama to defeat those forces inside America that will try to hold him back. These include isolationists and protectionists and on Capitol Hill these forces are strongly featured in the Democratic Party itself – stronger still after some of Tuesday’s victories.

    The only way forward for the United States and for the world is if America thinks globally. Yet more trade barriers, for example, are not the answer. Instead, the new Administration will have to defeat isolationists by developing a new progressive social model for the United States. This needs to emulate the best of Europe’s Social Model, helping working people more effectively through difficult economic adjustments, providing universal cost-effective healthcare and enabling youngsters to go to college whatever their family’s economic circumstance. These are policies that offer a mix of social opportunity and protection not to be confused with protectionism, the kind of progressive policies that Gordon Brown and I stand for, and we should explain and urge our Democrat friends and allies to adopt them.

    This is the modern way – and the only way – to embrace the changes the world is undergoing, to sustain a progressive globalisation with social justice. Indeed politically, you cannot have the one without the other. For thirty years, globalisation was funded by western capital and structured to meet western demand. This is already changing. Last year, one in every six dollars of Foreign Direct Investment came from outside the developed world. China now ranks third in world goods trade with 12% of global exports and is fourth in world services trade with 5% of global exports. According to projections by Goldman Sachs, it is set to become the world’s largest economy, followed by the US and India, by 2050.

    This shift, the biggest restructuring of the global economy since the industrial revolution, is increasing competition – and, therefore, generating huge economic and social pressures – at home and abroad. It’s intensifying demand for the world’s nature resources, a potentially huge competition which new trade rules need to govern.

    As old economic certainties are eroded, countries and individuals are being challenged to find new ways to succeed. These new ways are not a race to the bottom as so many fear – on wages, regulations or anything else. They are about how most effectively to foster growth, not by reliance on financial engineering, but by genuine innovation and increases in productivity and through continued engagement with a global economy set to double in size during the next twenty five years. A global economy that since the early 1990s has helped over 400 million people from the developing world escape extreme poverty, and which through rising aspiration and a greater demand for high-value goods and services is a major source of prosperity in both the American and European economies.

    That’s why it is self-interest for the US and EU to champion open markets and a multilateral system of trade and why this means supporting the Doha Round of trade negotiations. And I hope that when they meet next weekend, the G20 leaders will provide a strong signal of their commitment to intensifying negotiations and reaching agreement on the framework for a deal this year.

    The early appointment of a US Trade Representative by the new administration, and engagement in the Doha negotiations would send a powerful message that, despite the changing world order – indeed because of it – countries can work together for their own, national and shared global interests. That’s what should bind Europe and the US, and what Britain should champion.

    We want America to seize the opportunity of the Obama victory to reclaim its leadership role in the world. But Mr Obama will never succeed if Congress forces the new President into isolationism and protectionism, which forces America to turn in on itself.

  • Peter Mandelson – 1998 Speech to TUC Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Mandelson to the 1998 TUC Conference.

    Thank you very much for that welcome. May I say that this is a very poignant moment for me indeed. I was one of the TUC’s brightest eyed young staffers when, 20 years ago to the month, I attended Congress. I will always be grateful to the TUC for the introduction it gave me to the world of trade unions, to practical politics, and to the values of systematic filing. Those were the days when I thought of John Monks as my boss. You can all take comfort from that. Old habits die very hard.

    Then too another GMB General Secretary, the leader of my own union, was President of Congress, David Basnett, a man who had a similar reputation for choosing his words very carefully.

    Then too there was a Labour Government and the Prime Minister came to address us, and you will be relieved to know that I am not going to take a trip down memory lane by trying to sing you a music hall ditty as he did, but those were times when you had to keep your spirits up.

    In the mid 1970s an economic whirlwind of unprecedented ferocity had hit the world economy. The labour Movement faced that whirlwind with great fortitude and great solidarity. Inflationary collapse was averted. Unemployment began to fall. But, as the fatal winter that followed that Congress was to prove, Labour’s achievement was fragile. Tony Blair is determined that in the 1990s we will not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s. No one in this hall ‑‑ not you, not me ‑‑ will complain at that.

    This Labour Government has good relations with the trade unions, but there is a key difference with 20 years ago. Those relations are now not too close for comfort. Today we have dialogue, good dialogue, but not under any duress. We should be able to agree and disagree without either being in hock to one another, or at risk of falling out — a mature practical relationship based on shared values and a shared agenda.

    For example, we both believe that a workplace, based on mutual respect and minimum standards of protection, safety and consultation, is one which works better and more productively. That is why we have signed the Social Chapter, why we are introducing the national minimum wage, and why we are implementing the Working Time Directive without delay. It took a Labour Government to make these momentous changes, a New Labour Government.

    The Fairness at Work legislation will be the central building block of this legislative package. This legislation will not turn the clock back to the days of strikes without ballots, flying pickets and mass actions. None of us want that; nobody is calling for that. What it will do is demonstrate that it is possible to have flexibility in the workplace, and to treat people well. Be under no illusion, these are controversial changes for which we still have to argue and win the case, particularly in light of the growing pressures on British business, but argue for it I will — for legislation that is seen by all to be fair and to be balanced if it is to win enduring support, as I am confident it will do.

    To support this, to do this, I can think of no better ally than Ian McCartney to help me take this Bill through Parliament. You all know Ian McCartney very well. When I arrived at the DTi I will admit to being a little worried about Fairness at Work and I called Ian in to talk about it. I said “Ian, you know, it is a tall order this Bill” and he said “Don’t worry, Peter, I will make short shrift of the critics”. This reassured me enormously. This Bill will strengthen partnership at work. In today’s economy partnership is key to competitive strength. Britain is in a non‑stop race to boost that strength, to create comparative advantage, to add value ‑‑ all against the background of our current economic difficulties.

    I understand the concerns that are being expressed about the level of the pound. We are all well aware of how tough life is out there, particularly for manufacturing industry and for exporters. Nonetheless, John Prescott was right on Monday to say that we should not talk ourselves into recession. Employment is not going down. The economy has generated over 400,000 jobs since Labour came into office. The Government’s policy for Britain is clear: a strategy for stability amidst instability in an uncertain world; a commitment to end once and for all the dismal record of stop‑go, and of boom and bust, the roller coaster of economic activity that has so damaged confidence and investment in the British economy over the past two decades.

    This is why we have taken the politics out of interest rates by vesting authority in Eddie George and his colleagues at the Bank of England. That is why Gordon Brown has taken the necessary tough action to clear the Tories overdraft and to put the public finances back on track. Gordon’s is not an enviable job. He puts the interests of the country before those of any pressure group. He has the honesty to say “no” when others are tempted to let it be known that they might have said “yes”. I fervently believe that we will reap the benefits of the tough but wise decisions he and the Government have taken.

    Nobody is saying it will be easy; it won’t. Asia, Japan, Russia, Latin America, jitters on Wall Street, collapse of the real economy in Indonesia — we face constant reminders that we live in a global economy. What effects one country affects us all. There is no magic fix of Government intervention or extra money that can solve these problems.

    That is why economic cooperation between countries has never been more important than now and why we must strengthen Britain’s position in Europe, now our natural home market. On Europe the people who threaten to cut Britain off from this home market are the leaders of today’s Tory Party with their head in the sand policy on the single currency.

    Congress, in yesterday’s debate you proved yourselves far more sensible than them. On this issue, Government, business and unions are at one and we are working in partnership in Europe. Now, at the DTi I know that John Monks believes that my new role is actually the first real job I have had since leaving Congress House. I would not go that far but the job is certainly a real challenge. Some have scoffed that under the Tories the DTi was the Department of Timidity and Inaction. Under my leadership I can tell you, no more. My mission at the DTi is to use all the tools at our disposal to strengthen industry, enhance business performance and to create an environment in which enterprise flourishes.

    Britain can do better — much, much better. As a nation we have a world class science base. We have talent and creativity galore. What we lack are the entrepreneurs to turn these natural strengths into products and services that customers want. We must overcome these weaknesses. For unless we do, Britain will never succeed in exploiting the potential of the knowledge based economy of the future. In that knowledge based economy scientific discovery and technical progress will reach more directly and much more swiftly into every aspect of our lives. The key to competitive success will lie in the exploitation of knowledge for commercially profitable ends, as much in manufacturing as in services. In the knowledge-based economy, the increasing reality of liberalised markets and open trade will destroy the tradition sources of competitive advantage. Once that stemmed solely from the skills and techniques of production. Now it depends much more on the creativity that surrounds it; the know how that dreams up new ideas; the innovation that brings forward new products and the marketing that builds new brands.

    In this new world, Britain has a simple choice. To move with the times or be swept away by them. My clear view is that we must make change our friend, not our enemy. That is how in simple terms I define the mission of my department. It is a task in which I want your full support; because together we can put the future on Britain’s side.

    But I know many of you in this hall will have an even bigger question at the back of your minds. “Where do you think, Peter, the trades unions fit into your bright, knowledge-based vision of the future? I can be very clear where I stand. I believe in trades unions, not just for reasons of sentiment – though when your first job opportunity was working for the unions, that sentiment is real enough – not just either because I will always remember how the trades unions helped Neil Kinnock save the Labour Party in the 1980s, just as in my grandfather’s time the trades unions saw the Party through the upheavals of the 1930s.

    No, it is much more than sentiment. For millions of people, trades unions are both relevant and necessary in today’s world. The relationship between employer and employee is by its nature a fundamentally unequal one, one that the unscrupulous employer can exploit.

    We all know that individuals at work still need the protection of trades unions against the arbitrary abuse of management power. We all know that a good relationship between trades union representatives and an employer can help to promote flexibility and productivity at work. Yes, I believe in trades unions. It is precisely because of that belief that you will always get from me honest, straight talking and candour. No grandstanding, no playing to the gallery, no more spin, honest.

    Let me set out my vision of the role in society which I sincerely believe the unions can and should play.

    Friends, a new economic future is beckoning for us in this country. For industry, it means adaptability, willingness to change, flexibility of working and a constant drive to modernise. If the trade unions want to be part of that future, then it means the same thing for you. In the 1980s the debate raged about whether the trades union were too strong or too weak. For some, that is still the dividing line. That is not a choice I accept, or one that the Government accept. For us the choice is between modern trades unions and those which are frozen in time, between effective trades unions and ineffective ones. I want to see modern unions working with successful companies in shaping Britain’s future.

    I recognise that the trades unions have already made huge efforts over the years to change and modernise. Modernisation through the New Unionism project and the Organising Academy which is bringing a modern, business-like approach to the unglamorous but vital role of recruiting new members. I recognise that in many companies industrial relations have been transformed from the old-style battlefield of “them and us” to the new-style of co-operation in achieving shared success – shared success.

    Good managers and good trades unionists have been responsible for that transformation. They need each other. But that modernisation and transformation must go further still. Indeed, if my analysis is right, it is never ending. I realise that this is not an entirely welcome message in a hall where in the past two decades so much painful change has had to be swallowed by so many. I know that to some of you I am seen as a non-stop moderniser, hell bent on change at any cost. I make no apology. I passionately believe that modernisation is essential in the trades unions’ own interest.

    I saw some staggering statistics the other day. Only 6% of young employees are members of trade unions; only 18% of employees under the age of 30. The density of trades union membership is lowest in the fastest growing sectors of the economy. Of course I accept that there are rogue employers who actively discourage trade union membership, but for too many people trade unions appear only marginally relevant.

    Many companies have built honest and credible partnerships with their employees with no involvement by trade unions at all. And if employers and employees are content with that, it is not the job of government to order them otherwise. Of course, it is not. As trade unions you can make the difference yourselves. To meet fully the challenge of modernisation, I suggest that you need to focus on three key areas.

    You need to focus on delivering quality services to your members; helping achieve employers’ success and being seen as responsible to the general public.

    First, delivery on behalf of your members. You are absolutely right to have put the emphasis back on what your members really care about – protection against arbitrary management behaviour or discrimination; fair levels of pay; safe working conditions; a pension to look forward to and the other essentials of decent conditions of employment. If together the trade unions and the Labour Party learnt one lesson from the 1970s and the 1980s it was the imperative to respond to the needs of individual members, not a vocal minority.

    Trades unions cannot rely, and should not, on governments to deliver them a bigger membership. Unions have to win their position by demonstrating their value to members and potential members, but the Government do have some role in helping unions to represent their members in the most effective and most constructive way.

    For example, in the Fairness at Work White Paper we said we intended to set up a Partnership fund to promote best practice in employee relations and their involvement.

    You will be pleased to hear that I can today confirm that we are going to establish such a fund. Money will be made available for a series of projects to give employers and employee representatives a much better understanding of the challenges each face and what can be achieved by working together as companies like Tesco, Boots, Unisys, Blue Circle and European Gas Turbine are doing.

    Working in partnership with employers brings me on to my second point: the need to focus on employer success. No union benefits from harming the companies its members work for. In the private sector that means actively working for and welcoming profits. In the public sector it means delivering ever better services of higher quality.

    By the way, contrary to what you have read in the newspapers, no decisions have been taken to privatise the Post Office.

    Congress, success in the public or private sector means awareness of labour costs. No one now deceives themselves that we can compete on costs regardless of quality. So no one should deceive themselves that we can compete on quality regardless of cost. It means sharing in the company’s success but also showing moderation in wage demands and flexibility in pay levels in times of economic difficulty. I say this every bit as much to company boards and to their directors as I do to trades unionists. By all means enjoy the rewards of success in the good times, but make sure those rewards are merited and make sure you are willing to share pain in the bad times, too.

    The third test is being seen to be responsible to the public. I believe that unions have an important role which extends beyond the workplace. Trades unions are a force for good in our society in setting workplace minimum standards; in ensuring adequate health and safety; in promoting training and skills and in pressing for proper provision of pensions and other benefits.

    Any responsible Government should always listen to what the trades unions have to say in these areas for they are unique in their ability to bring to the consideration of public policy the voice of direct workplace experience. The Government want to work with you in all these areas. We did on the National Minimum Wage. We have done so through the Skills Taskforce. We are doing so on the Competitiveness White Paper, and we shall do so in the development of the stake holder pension. I want to work with the trades unions.

    But the extent to which the unions have a voice that carries influence and respect will always depend on the credibility and persuasiveness that unions themselves can command. That means co-operating in the modernisation of public services. It means working with us in forging other reforms, in the welfare system, in the schools and higher education, in de-centralising government. Above all, it means not attempting to veto change but embracing it and helping to manage it in the interests of all.

    Tony Blair’s Government will never be a soft touch. We will do our duty whatever. We will never again contract out the governance of Britain to anyone, not to the TUC or its member unions, any more than we would to big corporate interests either.

    As far as my Department is concerned, there is not a front door for some and a back door for others. There is one door for all – and it is always open.

    Congress, the choice is yours – opposition or legitimate influence. I know my preference: it is for trade unions that draw increased strength from being modern, democratic, representative and influential, that day in and day out prove their relevance to their members, that match realism with responsibility in their dealings with employers and government. I believe that in working together in this way, we will not only generate respect for each other but that the unions will succeed in reinvigorating the public esteem they merit.

    Take it from me. I know a little bit about public relations and improving images. So much so that one of these days I might even be able to do something about my own. But I am told that it will probably take me more than 48 hours in a week to do so.

    Imagine depends on substance. Public relations will not succeed unless there is something real behind it. Trades unions do have the basis of such genuine appeal; a believe in social justice, an understanding of the real world, an ability to get to grips with practical workplace issues, a commitment to democratic methods and a willingness to co-operate.

    That is not just a platform, it is a springboard for the trades unions. In leaping ahead to the new unionism demanded by economic change and by your own members, I can assure you that you will have my backing and that of the department I head.

    I have battled for years for an electable Labour party. I am now battling for a successful country, strong in services and manufacturing, generous at home and abroad, with acclaimed public services and a dynamic private sector.

    Congress, join me, please, in the battle for success.

    Thank you very much.

  • Peter Mandelson – 1992 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Peter Mandelson in the House of Commons on 14th May 1992.

    It is my pleasure to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on an excellent maiden speech. He demonstrated tremendous experience and knowledge, qualities that will enable him to make many more valued contributions to the House in the future. I only hope that I am able to acquit myself as ably as he has done.

    In representing Hartlepool, I have the honour of succeeding Ted Leadbitter, who was as popular in the House as he was admired in his constituency. Ted Leadbitter was first elected in 1964. Supported by his wife Irene and his indomitable agent, Mrs. Elsie Reed, he lost no time in demonstrating his diligence and, equally, his independence.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was Postmaster-General at the time, describes in his ministerial diaries for 10 February 1965—when the Labour Government had a majority of only three—how a new hon. Member, Ted Leadbitter from West Hartlepool, had written to complain about a telegraph pole being put up in front of a constituent’s home. Refusing to be fobbed off with some bureaucratic response, the MP of three months’ standing rang up my right hon. Friend’s office with the message: Mr. Leadbitter regards the Postmaster-General’s reply as so rude and evasive that he does not propose to come to the House or to accept the Labour whip until the answer is withdrawn and the pole is removed. The pole was duly removed. I am sure that hon. Members can agree that in such important matters—to parody Edmund Burke—I, too, should be a representative of my constituents, not a delegate of my party. I can reassure the Whips, however, that I am not aware—at present at any rate—of any misplaced telephone poles in Hartlepool.

    Ted Leadbitter’s predecessor, the first Labour Member to be elected for the constituency, in 1945, was David Jones. A man who knew poverty and unemployment at first hand, Mr. Jones dedicated himself to freeing his constituents from the appalling social conditions of the time, “the evil days”, as he called them, of ill-health, poor housing and insecurity in old age. David Jones’ memory is particularly special to me because he was a friend of my grandfather when he was a Member of this House, and he spoke for David Jones at several elections.

    When they took their seats, my predecessors took pride in representing the two Hartlepools. While I represent only one in name, I am conscious of the fierce community loyalties in both Hartlepool and West Hartlepool. Even before the two Hartlepools were each denied their own borough status, music hall references celebrated the local demand for home rule. In the review of local government to which the Conservative party is committed, the minimum that would be acceptable to current residents is the restoration of full unitary authority status to Hartlepool. I shall continue the work of my predecessor in supporting that change.

    Hartlepool’s great strength is that it rightly sees itself as a community, with shared needs, strongly felt local loyalties and a sense of common purpose and civic pride. That pride is especially strong now. Our football team, Hartlepool United, is at its highest ever league position in the history of the club; the West Hartlepool Rugby Football Club has gained promotion this season to national division one; and first-class cricket has arrived in the town, with the selection of the town’s club as a venue for Durham county cricket.

    However, there are serious challenges to be faced by my town. Fifty years ago, Hartlepool, like other towns, even with its social problems, was at least more industrially secure because of the success of its shipyards, engineering, steel-making and manufacturing. The task of the coming decade, as we approach the 21st century, is to transform a now industrially poorer and less confident Hartlepool into the thriving industrial community of the future that it can become. That is why the people of Hartlepool are now embarking on an era of change. They do so in the knowledge that it is not possible for any community or town—or, indeed, political party—to try to recreate the future in the image of the past.

    For the first time, in the general election, the Labour party in Hartlepool received more than 50 per cent. of the popular vote. It was a vote to embrace change but it is still change for the same purpose now as it was 50 years ago: to use the power of the community, acting together, to improve the individual circumstances of all. Central to that process is a modern economic policy; new ways of revitalising industry; innovative solutions to the problems created by social change; and sustaining economic growth in ways that are friendly to the environment.

    My aim is to see new opportunities created for my constituents so that the confidence and optimism experienced in former times can be enjoyed once again by old and young alike. New opportunities do not mean opt-out schools and opt-out hospitals. When the services of thousands of patients opt out and the local hospital ceases to feel like the local community hospital, when thousands opt out of schools and the local schools cease to be like local community schools, the foundation on which the community is based is being removed.

    What is true for our public services is also true, although in a different way, for industry. We cannot rebuild the industrial strength of our nation when manufacturing investment fell by 13 per cent. last year and is still falling now. When apprenticeships are axed and young school leavers fail to find training places, when firms are denied the chance to adapt to new skills and technology, we are eliminating the means by which depleted communities can become strong again.

    The local training and enterprise council has seen a 20 per cent. Government cut in its training budget this year. At a time of rising unemployment, is that any way to restore industrial strength to our country? The result of that short-termism is both to deprive our young people of the opportunity that they need to get on in life and to deprive the nation of talent and ability of its people, which is critical to its future success.

    When the Conservative party changed its leader and softened its rhetoric, the promise was of a classless society, a nation at ease with itself and opportunity for all. But what hope is there for the young person without a job due to the recession, without training due to cuts in funding, and without benefit due to the actions of a Social Security Minister who is now Prime Minister?

    What opportunity is there for the thousands in my constituency and the millions in this country, struggling in poverty and living on the margins of our society? What ease is there in the mind of anyone, in or out of work, if our industrial base, and, therefore, our economic future, lies untended and in neglect?

    In truth, there cannot be hope, or opportunity or ease unless we all accept our responsibility to help create them and, in doing so, realise that this benefits us all. Yet when we examine the Government’s economic policy we find that urgency and responsibility absent. In large part, that is because the Government cannot break free from their past. The days of reliance on some invisible hand of the market are as discredited as those of centralised planning and the command economy. We need a new partnership between the public sector, the business community and the Government, based not on dogma but on co-operation to secure objectives in the interests of the economy as a whole. The principle of co-operation is more relevant than ever, even if we must look to different ways and new methods to fulfill that principle.

    Let me stress that the townspeople whom I represent are looking for neither handouts nor subsidies from Government. They have never deluded themselves that the man in Whitehall knows best. In the absence of a Government willing to back the scale of investment in new skills and technology which we need in Hartlepool, the town has not sat back. Over the past decade, the local authority has worked tirelessly to bring in new employment, in both the service and industrial sectors. Indeed, even with the drastically reduced help available from central Government, the partnership between public and private sector has achieved much.

    The new marina, being built with the backing of Teesside development corporation and the borough council, is a symbol of the town’s efforts at recovery, even if it has not brought the employment that many hoped for. It has, however, helped to draw to the town the new Imperial War Museum located in the north, and I hope that that exciting project will receive the Government’s full support. The marina will also enable the town to play host to the Round Britain yacht race this summer.

    Hartlepool has made a powerful bid for the Department of the Environment’s city challenge programme, and if it is successful, as I earnestly hope it will be, it will further help to transform the appearance and economic potential of Hartlepool’s central locations.

    All those initiatives show how willing we and similar communities are to work with any opportunities opened up to us. But imagine how much more successful the industrious people of Hartlepool would be with a Government committed to re-skilling the work force and actively supporting our local industrial effort. That co-operation is needed now.

    Hartlepool and the whole of the north face immense competitive challenges: the savage nature of the current recession; the creation this year of the single European market; and the completion, in a few years, of the channel tunnel. If we fail to invest now, we cannot meet those future challenges.

    In rhetoric, the Government accept that case. But they should also realise that to will the ends without willing the means is, as Tawney said, akin to inviting unwelcome guests to dinner in the certain knowledge that circumstances will prevent them from being able to attend. What Hartlepool and the north-east desperately need is not another cynical invitation to share in the nation’s fortune, only to find that no place is set for it at the table. In the 1990s we need a decade of regeneration—in industry, our public services and our social cohesion. We can achieve that, but only if we recognise the size of the task to be done and the utter necessity of working together as a nation to achieve it.

    Those values of partnership, co-operation and social justice represent all that is best in the Labour party, as true today as ever. It will be my privilege to advance those values on behalf of my constituents and my party throughout my time in this House.

  • Denis MacShane – 2004 Speech on Cyprus

    Below is the text of the speech made by Denis MacShane, the then Foreign Office Minister, at Green Lane in London on 22nd January 2004.

    Not for the first time, Cyprus stands at a crossroads. For someone who has not had to live through the pain of ethnic conflict, dispossession and division, it may seem all too easy to tell those who have, which way to turn. I presume to do so now because Britain wants Cyprus to succeed – not in a paternalistic or condescending way, but because we have always thought it would be in our interests to have a strong, self-confident Cyprus inside the EU.

    It is a pleasure to be here this evening and pay tribute to the work of Harris Sophiclides and thank him for his consistent work with British parliamentarians and the measured but determined the way he has defended the causes so dear to him and everyone in this room.

    I want Cyprus to succeed because I first went to the island in the 1970s and no-one visits Cyprus without leaving a bit of their heart behind. As a political activist I know how important Cyprus has been to all who want a future of peace, prosperity and progressive politics in the world. My friends Joan Ryan MP, Andy Love MP, Stephen Twigg MP, Andrew Dismore MP and Barbara Roche MP have been tireless in defending the needs and rights of the Cypriot community in London. Both communities – as the commonality of interests in Green Lane at times seems more in the true spirit of Cyprus than the differences on both sides of the Green Line that runs through Nicosia.

    High on the Trodos Mountains, there can be no more wonderful place in the world to those of us who love mountains and the high air that allow the vision of eagles in place of the blindness of moles.

    We want the leaders of Cyprus to have the vision of eagles – seeing a 21st century Cyprus in which the present stops being the prisoner of the past and together a new future, a European future is built.

    THE OPPORTUNITY OF ACCESSION

    What is at stake now is not, of course, the accession of Cyprus itself. That long-standing goal of British foreign policy will be achieved this May. And a very good thing too. No, what is at stake is whether the Cyprus which accedes is going to be strong, self-confident, reunited, healed – the kind of partner we and our fellow Member States really want.

    These weeks before accession offer Cyprus an opportunity like none other – which, if squandered, will not quickly repeat itself. I passionately believe that, in Cyprus as elsewhere, the path to reconciliation and peace lies through looking forward to what the future offers, not dwelling on past injustices. In Turkey last week, I was asked why there appeared to be opposition in Austria to Turkey’s desire to begin talks on EU accession. I muttered something about ‘1571 and Jan Sobiewski’ – when the Sultan’s troops were stopped at the gates of Vienna by the bravery of the Polish soldiers. ‘But, minister, that was four centuries ago,’ I was told. ‘Yes, but all I hear from you on Cyprus is what happened four decades ago,’. I said just as often I hear from friends that the whole point of politics is to avenge what happened in Cyprus in 1974. Four centuries, four decades, thirty years. If we live in the past, we cannot come to terms with the present. But it is the future I want us tonight to think about.

    And the future, in Europe, offers a united, prosperous Cyprus playing its destined, influential role within a stable eastern Mediterranean region.

    THE GOAL OF RAPPROCHMENT

    There is another goal we should keep in mind. For too long the region has suffered because of suspicion between Greece and Turkey – and between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Rapprochement between Athens and Ankara has made great strides. Cyprus – and all Cypriots – now have the chance to pursue their own rapprochement. And in time – as I also passionately believe – a stable, secular, democratic Turkey will join the European Union – with all the benefits that will bring to the Union, to the region and to the whole Islamic world.

    But if we are to realise either of these objectives we need to put the Cyprus problem behind us. The partial opening of the Green Line in April last year sowed seeds of hope. The confidence building measures of the Cypriot government were an important step forward. The magnanimity and plain common sense showed by ordinary Cypriots was a lesson to us all. And it demolished the xenophobic arguments some have used to criticise the Annan plan. I am utterly convinced that the common ground identified by the UN Secretary General is the only way forward for Cyprus, towards that future in which Greek and Turkish Cypriots can get on with business, and unlock their island’s true potential as a prosperous, normal EU member state. Europe has worked at 15 – and will work at 25. How much better, at 25 than at 24 and a half! I know Cyprus desperately wants to shed its image as always the ‘special case’, the weakest link in Europe’s chain.

    THE ANNAN PLAN

    Kofi Annan has produced detailed proposals, carefully balanced to address the fundamental concerns of both communities. His proposals may seem complex – but so are the issues they reconcile. It can be done. Today’s Europe has other examples of states uniting differing peoples, and of elaborate systems of institutional checks and balances. Although it already reflects many hours of negotiation, and decades of expertise on the part of the United Nations, the Annan Plan is not a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. The final balance is a matter for the parties themselves, and for the people of Cyprus in two referendums.

    From Cypriot friends in London I have heard criticisms – often loud and condemnatory – of the Annan Plan. Last week, I heard in Turkey equally angry opposition from some quarters to Annan. One might be tempted to say that if both sides think Annan is wrong, it must be right. All I can say is that I do no think there is a better alternative. Demand that Annan be changed to suit each and every demand put by people who remember how they were treated in the 1960s or how they were dispossessed in the 1970s and we will live in the past not build a future.

    Europe stands ready to help. The European Union has undertaken to accommodate the terms of a Cyprus settlement – by which we mean that the unique aspects of the new Cyprus envisaged by the UN Secretary General, including guarantees for both communities, will not fall foul of some rigid EU template. Indeed, members of the European Commission were closely involved in drafting the EU elements of the Annan plan, and both they and the Member States took the unanimous view that the Annan plan provided for a workable and viable settlement for an EU-member reunited Cyprus. Europe’s willingness to back a Cypriot answer to the Cyprus question is an important contribution to the search for peace. And I have to say that Europe will have little patience with attempts to argue that the Annan Plan is insufficiently European, when the plan has the backing of all the member states! For its part, the European Commission has frequently repeated its commitment to hold a pledging conference, to galvanise the economic support which a politically successful settlement would be bound to attract from the donor community and International Financial Institutions. Everybody loves a winner. If Cyprus can get the politics right, public and private sector investors will regard it as a one-way bet. In such propitious circumstances, the Annan Plan’s emphasis on financial compensation for those who have suffered in the past can be fully appreciated. It is a viable, forward-thinking philosophy, which has been pioneered successfully by peacemakers in other parts of the world.

    There are signs from Ankara that Turkey too realises that the clock is ticking loudly now, and how much is at stake – for Cyprus and for Turkey itself. Prime Minister Erdogan will take his ideas to the UN Secretary General this weekend and then to Washington next week. I have urged Turkey to be imaginative and generous. If Ataturk could switch the Ottoman Arab alphabet to European letters in one month, it should not be impossible for the Turkish government, army and parliament to move forward to a Cyprus settlement between now and 1 May. Make no mistake. A divided Cyprus with barbed wire manned by soldiers of a non-EU member state will not send out a good signal for Turkey’s bid to see EU accession talks start this December. Equally, a Turkey that showed it had removed all obstacles to a united Cyprus entering the EU on May 1st would be given an immeasurable boost in its European aspirations. I have spelt out this message in public and in private to all levels of Turkey.

    THE PRIZE OF SUCCESS

    Tonight I want to send the same message to our friends and partners in the Cypriot government. The British Government is urging all sides to meet the UN Secretary General’s requirements for a resumption of negotiations. The prize is there for the taking. History will not look kindly on those too timid or too bitter to reach out and grab it.

    For Turkey, there is an important resonance with its own EU candidature. Turkey’s approach to the Cyprus issue is a golden opportunity to refute the allegation that it sees Cyprus as a bargaining chip; and, instead, to be judged on the basis of the AKP government’s impressive domestic reforms. Much remains to be done on the implementation front. But the campaigners for human rights and the lawyers defending freedom of expression I met in Turkey told me that despite their criticisms they were united in wanting to see the EU give the green light to the beginning of the long process of Turkish accession to the EU. A Cyprus settlement would be good for Turkey on its own merits, of course. But it would also transform the European politics surrounding its accession bid. At last, Turkey would be seen, as it deserves to be seen, as a source of solutions instead of problems.

    For the Republic of Cyprus it is equally clear. No one can or should stand in the way of her accession to the EU on 1 May. But would it not be a Pyrrhic victory, for Cyprus to join divided and incomplete? Cypriots are all too familiar with a feeling of insecurity. Membership of the EU will undoubtedly help address those fears. For a start, membership of the EU will underpin, in new and significant ways, the unshakeable friendship between Britain and Cyprus. But the prospects of a divided Cyprus, even within the EU, are far less certain, and almost certainly worse, than the prospects of a re-united Cyprus. Moreover, stability in the wider middle East is too important a prize for Europe to allow it – indefinitely – to be held hostage by those who are themselves prisoners of the past.

    The Eastern Mediterranean and its littoral are home to many of the world’s problems. For Turkey and Greece, for the two communities of Cyprus to find their way to peace would send out a powerful message that Europe works – that Europe can create peace in place of conflict. Today, one million British people visit Izmir and the resorts of its Aegean coastline and thousands settle there. The tourist and business and cultural connections with Cyprus do not need spelling out. Cyprus is part of our history, the Cypriots of London and our other cities have contributed so much to Britain’s prosperity, culture and, sense of community. I urge all to seize the chance of peace and show that the United Nations and the European Union can work together to bring to an end an conflict that has caused so much hurt, distress and dispossession. I hope the message from Green Lane in London is that we do not need a green line in Cyrpus anymore. Whether your alphabet ends with Zed or Omega it begins with A for Annan, A for Ankara and A for Athens working in partnership, A for aspirations and ambitions from all of us to shape a united Cyprus in tomorrow’s Europe.

    I want and the British government wants a new Cyprus, united, free and European, to become a reality. Time is running out. I urge all of my friends here tonight to help build that new Cyprus, for a new Europe, in a new century.

    Thank you.

  • Denis MacShane – 2003 Speech on the European Constitution

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Office Minister, Denis MacShane, on the subject of the European constitution. The speech was made in Strasbourg on 29th January 2003.

    Mr President, it is a great honour to have been invited to take part in this debate in this Assembly, the oldest European Parliamentary Assembly.

    I would like to thank the distinguished Rapporteur, Mr Pangalos for a stimulating and timely report on the Council of Europe’s contribution to an EU constitution. Timely, because the Future of Europe Convention which is looking at reform of the EU is in full swing. And while EU states are naturally preoccupied with the internal reforms which are vital to allow for an expanded EU, its appropriate to remind them that Europe extends far beyond the EU. Even a 25-member EU with 450 million citizens does not cover the whole continent. The 44-member Council of Europe, with an 800 million population, has a much better claim to do so.

    Mr Pangalos’ excellent report puts forward a number of suggestions on the Council’s contribution to the EU constitution-making process. The report recommends incorporation of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights into the constitutional treaty. We can see the argument that a Constitutional treaty should refer to the values we all share. But at the same time we are alive to serious legal and practical problems including the potential for confusion in the European legal space which could arise if the Charter were incorporated into the treaty structure in the form in which it was declared at Nice.

    The Report suggests tackling this problem by the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. This will create harmony between the two legal orders; it would also make the EU institutions directly accountable for violations, rather than through the member states. But the United Kingdom does have concerns about the impact accession may have both on EC/EU competence and regarding the position of the individual member states in relation to Protocols, reservations, and the ability to derogate. The Convention on the Future of Europe’s Charter Working Group Final Report acknowledges these concerns. But it is fair to point out that it offers no answers.

    Furthermore, not all ECHR Protocols have been ratified by the member states,; indeed some have entered, reservations and derogations. EC/EU accession to the ECHR, without taking into account the individual legal positions of the member states, could entail a lot of confusion. The need, as the United Kingdom sees it, would be to ensure accession took place without prejudice to the individual legal positions of the member states in respect of the ECHR.

    These are indeed important and difficult questions. The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the Future of Europe debate to work out how they are best answered.

    How the EU frames its human rights is one of dozens of questions under discussion at the Future of Europe Convention. But the EU must not be so absorbed with its plans for internal reform that it neglects the impact the Convention outcome will have on the millions of Europeans who are not part of the EU. This is where the role of the Council of Europe is essential and must be protected from collateral damage as the future EU is being shaped. The European Court of Human Rights’ place in the European human rights architecture must not be undermined.

    The debate on the Future of Europe, coupled with EU and NATO enlargement, is throwing a spotlight on the European human rights and security architecture. This is an ideal opportunity for the Council of Europe to assess its own role in the future of Europe. The Council could be well-placed, perhaps, to provide the framework for the privileged relationship between the EU and its neighbours mentioned in the draft EU constitution.

    But the Council’s future is not simply defined by the EU. Seen from the United Kingdom perspective, the Council should continue to play a unifying role as the one, truly pan-European forum where EU and non-EU states engage on the human rights, political and social issues. The Council should continue to lead the way in setting and developing human rights standards. Its careful watch of how member states are living up to those standards, sometimes resented as intrusive, is essential for ensuring that all of its members, new and old, live up to their obligations and the values they espouse. The Council will continue to have a vital role as a common European forum.

  • Denis MacShane – 1994 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Commons by Denis MacShane on 16th May 1994.

    I have addressed many audiences and many chambers, but none quite as intimidating as this, with my true friends behind me and my real opponents facing me. I gather that convention demands that one must be polite, so polite one must be.

    I am very conscious of coming to the House in place of Jimmy Boyce, a man who came from a part of our society about which not enough of us know. He was unemployed for many years, a victim of the very cruel policies that have cost so much for some of the great talents of our nation over the past 15 years. I come from a different background, but I will fight for the causes that Jimmy supported. I hope that I can in some way measure up to the service that he provided to Rotherham in the short two years in which he was a Member of this House.

    I am also conscious of the fact that I follow in the footsteps of Stan Crowther who is well known to the House and was a great public servant to Rotherham over 50 years of political life. I am also conscious of following in the footsteps of Brian O’Malley, the man who inspired me when I first became involved in politics. He collapsed at the Dispatch Box, another victim of the stress of public life. Like everyone else, I was glad of the tributes paid to John Smith in the press. We speak no ill of the dead; perhaps from time to time, my old friends in the Gallery may speak some good of the living.

    Last week was for me the best of weeks and the worst of weeks. When I came to the House on Tuesday, John Smith greeted me and said that it would be a day that I would remember for the rest of my life. John Smith talked of a dream, but the dream was extinguished when, on Thursday, he left us. He spent a whole day with me in Rotherham, seeing the steel plant and the college, and talking to Asians and to party members. He left a message of hope for a new and better Britain.

    I am proud to have been elected by the people of Rotherham to represent their interests in Parliament. They have not always been so happy in their choice. The first Member for Rotherham—a Member for Yorkshire in those days—was Sir Thomas Wentworth, later the Earl of Strafford. Older Members of the House may remember that he was executed on a Bill of Attainder in 1641. He was promised that his life would be saved by none other than King Charles I, but he was, of course, sacrificed.

    Alas, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) are not with us today. They must know how poor Thomas Wentworth felt as they, too, were given the full support of a Prime Minister—a sure sign that they were about to mount the political scaffold. ‘Put not your trust in princes’, were Thomas Wentworth’s last words. The spirit of Rotherham and, indeed, of Yorkshire ever since has been one of sturdy self-reliance and a rejection of authoritarianism and the centralising forces that Toryism has represented throughout the ages.

    Rotherham was the place where Thomas Paine, that most noble of commoners, who brought democracy to America and the ‘Rights of Man’ to Europe, even as he was forced into exile by the Pitt Government, built his great suspension bridge. I do not know how many hon. Members know that Thomas Paine was a great manufacturer as well as a great democrat. The bridge was a feat of great engineering, as important as in many ways as his enunciation of the rights of man. Paine’s bridge was built by the Walker Brothers of Rotherham, whose cannons sunk Napoleon’s fleet at Trafalgar.

    What would Tom Paine find if he returned to Rotherham today? The great manufacturies, on which Adam Smith based his ‘Wealth of Nations’, have all but disappeared, 25,000 jobs have gone since 1979 and the coal mines, which once promised Britain its own energy source safe from the perils of foreign disturbances, are now capped. The local council, with the money and the will to build homes for the homeless, is prevented from doing so by the most centralised administration since that of Charles I.

    Paine would find poverty in Rotherham, I am sad to say, as bad as anywhere in Europe. Indeed, he was dismissed from Government service for arguing for fair wages for public servants. Poorly paid public service, he argued, attracts only the ill-qualified and breeds corruption, collusion and neglect. He went on: ‘An augmentation of salary sufficient to enable workers to live honestly and competently would produce more good effect than all the laws of the land can enforce.’ I offer that to our low-wage merchants on the Government side of the House. We already knew that Thomas Paine was a great democrat and a friend of Rotherham manufacturing, but it came as news, even to me, that he believed in a statutory minimum wage 200 years before its time.

    For all those problems, Paine would find, as would anyone who visits Rotherham, a town and a people whose spirits are unbroken despite all that has been thrown at them in the past 15 years. The pedestrianised town centre, which is one of the nicest in Europe, is spoiled only, alas, by the pressure on shopkeepers arising from the declining purchasing power of the citizens of Rotherham.

    One of the world’s most advanced engineering steel plants, UES, is at the cutting edge of modern technology. I must to say my hon. Friends, talk not of steel as an old industry. Steel is one of the most modern and advanced sectors of our economy.

    There are new partnerships between the chamber of commerce, the training and enterprise council, the local council and the trade unions, which support unity and a common cause to promote Rotherham.

    Tom Paine would also find a very great sense—Tom Paine was, if nothing else, an internationalist—of feeling that, if Rotherham is to succeed, Britain must play its full part in Europe, because Britain is part of Europe as surely as Yorkshire is part of Britain.

    I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, who, since 1938, has stood for, yes, a Tory vision of internationalism against isolationism and that yellow streak of appeasement and opting out, which has always shamed the Conservative party, as it shames it in so much of its policy today.

    We are part of Europe and the Euro-septics on the Government Benches may want their cash-and-carry Europe, in which each state takes what it wants. They decry centralisation, yet they have gone through the Division Lobby voting for measure after measure after measure to transfer power from local authorities—indeed, from the House—to give it to their friends in privatised companies and quangos. I want to see power shared downward to the regions, to communities, horizontally to the sister units of civil society in Europe, but, above all, I want to see power made accountable.

    If we are to live in an international community in which trade and travel and money and ideas can go through porous frontiers, at least we, as human beings, as subjects of Her Majesty, as citizens of Europe, should have the right to have the human spirit protected through regulation of trans-frontier activity. Yes, Europe is too important to be left to Brussels, but if we are to fight for British interests, we must do so by promoting transparency, democracy and accountability in all European institutions. R.H. Tawney described the hereditary disease of the English nation as ‘the reverence for riches’ and went on: ‘If men are to respect each other for what they are, they must cease to respect each other for what they own.’ I apologise to the hon. Ladies present and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the references to the rights of man and quoting men. I see myself, after post-modernism and post-industrialism, as the first ‘PPC’—post-politically correct—hon. Member.

    England is the most money-obsessed country in Europe. Switch on the BBC and every five seconds there is some Brylcreemed spokesperson for the bond markets telling us how the dollar is doing. The BBC and ITV tell us the price of the stock market at any moment, anywhere in the world, but have ceased to report on the values needed to bring cohesion back to our communities. I do not blame them. They take their lead from those who rule our society and until we get public interest hands on the tiller of the state, instead of the sticky fingers of so many of the Conservative Members and their friends in the till, the media can do no more than take a lead from those who put a price on everything, but know the value of nothing.

    For all our obsession with cash, Britain remains the poor man of Europe. Italy’s gross domestic product per capita in 1960 was exactly one half of Great Britain’s. Now, it has overtaken us. We have been so busy preaching at Europe and trying to teach Europe the secrets of the United Kingdom’s economic record, we have committed, to use James Fenton’s phrase—how pleased I was to see my old friend become professor of poetry at Oxford on Saturday— ‘the fault of thinking small and acting big’. Perhaps we have forgotten that we have some lessons to learn; lessons about partnership, lessons about the successful countries in Europe. Germany, even after unification, has a lower unemployment record than our own. The Benelux countries and the new entrants are successful, too. Those who proclaim themselves Thatcherites, such as in the Prime Minister’s favourite holiday country Spain, have the worst record of job creation and balanced development.

    The core answer from Europe—one of vital importance to Rotherham and one to which I intend to commit myself in the House—is that manufacturing is not dead and, despite all the best efforts of the Government, should not die. The rising sun has been coming here continually to try to save a sinking England, but we now find that Japanese investment is going to Germany, to France and is leaving these shores.

    If I may refer, as a socialist, to my favourite Sunday reading, The Sunday Telegraph tells us how well Germany is doing, that the Japanese research and development centres are installing themselves there and that the Japanese now prefer to be in Germany because of its high skill base, good labour relations and its position as Europe’s engine of growth.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) blamed our balance of trade on Europe. I have to say to him that it is 15 years of anti-manufacturing policies, of the destruction of partnership, of the lack of investment and the money that has flowed overseas that has been at fault. In fact, if we would learn from our European partner competitors, Britain would be in a much better shape.

    It is not only an economic question. I was privileged to have many conversations with John Smith when he was in Rotherham and he talked of the constitutional changes that Labour would like to introduce, such as the end of the absurd spectacle of hereditary Members in another place making and casting laws, the need for national Governments for Scotland and Wales and regional assemblies, and the need for a referendum—not on electoral reform as I see it, but on re-thinking the way in which we govern ourselves. That is part of the constitutional package that I think is necessary for a new Britain.

    As with John Smith’s commitment to full employment and to trade union rights, we are seeing fleshed out a new programme to reconstruct our lives in Britain as great as that which we saw after the war, but, this time, with us secure in the heart of Europe.

    A Europe of what? Is it a ‘Europe des patries’ as General de Gaulle said? That is difficult for us. We have four nations, but what is our fatherland? That is not a word that we can use easily as British people. It is not a united states of Europe or a stepping stone to Tennyson’s ‘Parliament of the World’, either. After many years working in Europe, I find the Germans more German, the French more French and the Italians more Italian. It is only we in Britain who seem to live in a permanent identity crisis about who we are and what it means to be British. That is because the old Toryism is dying. The new Labourism is not yet born. As a consequence, the morbid symptoms of corruption and xenophobia that lie at the heart of the Cabinet are everywhere to be found where the Government are at work.

    Those who are hostile to Europe are to be found in all nations. We have the Euro-sceptics here, there are the French communists and now we have the Italian fascists. I have with me the programme of Philippe de Villiers, the conservative right-winger in France. He wants Europe to be protected against any imports from outside the Community. He wants also a Europe in which national controls stop immigration. Like the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my father came here in the 1930s. He was a refugee from fascist Europe. The Europe that is described by Philippe de Villiers is not one of which I want to be part. Indeed, I am not even sure whether Conservative Members believe in such a Europe.

    Closing the door to foreign immigrants and to exports from around the world is not a Europe in which we need to believe. We in Europe should defend our interests, but, at the same time, we in this country should deepen our friendship with countries such as Germany and—I declare an interest because my wife is French—France. In the words of Victor Hugo, ‘France is the adversary of England as the better is the enemy of the good.’ I am conscious of returning to the country that made me. I have returned from elsewhere in Europe, where I worked for many years. I have learnt much, and some of that learning I might bring to the House. I am not ‘A steady patriot of the world alone, The friend of every country but his own.’ I remain British. I am proud of the schools that made me and of the health service that put me together when I cracked my head open in the 1950s. I am hopeful that such again could be the kind of United Kingdom in which my children can grow up. It is a country in which we always refer to faith, hope and charity. But greater than any of those concepts is justice.

    I will argue for justice for the people of Rotherham. I will strive for economic justice for the unemployed and social justice for the weak and disabled people of Rotherham. I so much agree with those who say that the best tribute that we could pay to John Smith would be to pass the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was recently talked out. There must be ‘plain justice’—justice for the criminals who walk free in an England that opts out of Europe. In so many parts of our communities, unfortunately, it seems to opt out of decency and law and order. If I can deliver any part of that message during my time in the House on behalf of the people of Rotherham, I shall be well pleased.

  • Andrew Smith – 2003 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Work and Pensions Secretary, Andrew Smith, to the 2003 Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth on 2nd October 2003.

    [NB, the numbers on this speech have been distorted and are not available]

    Conference, this Welfare Reform debate defines the party we are, the values we stand for, and the fight we must win.

    Our mission is to win the war on poverty throughout people’s lives.

    The Tories gave the poorest families just � a week to cover the cost of a child.  Through record increases in child benefit and tax credits, Labour has increased that to �.

    Where the Tories left over 4 million children in families on under �0 a week Labour has cut that by one and a half million.

    But it’s right that as Labour’s most ambitious goal we want to see not just fewer children in poverty, but no child in poverty.

    It’s about more than income alone.  It’s about education, housing, and health, with freedom from crime, drugs and abuse.  Sure Start is transforming the life chances of Britain’s poorest children.

    Giving children the best start also means helping hard working parents.  Eight times as many people are getting help with their childcare than under the Tories, with the new tax credits giving up to �0 a week for childcare.

    But we need to make more places available.  It’s ridiculous that so many school buildings stand empty after hours and in the holidays.

    So conference, I can announce today that from April we will offer in 3 areas school-based childcare -available 7 to 7, 50 weeks a year, to ensure good care for children and the chance to work for parents.

    We will also pilot payments to help lone parents move into work – an extra � a week to look for a job and an extra � a week when they get one.

    Conference, we will keep driving forward with welfare to work. It’s one of Labour’s greatest achievements that even in a turbulent world with unemployment rising elsewhere, Britain has not only more people in work than ever before but the lowest unemployment for a generation.

    That is not down to chance but to the choices of a Labour Government committed to economic stability and active steps to help people into jobs.  It’s not something to be taken for granted.

    Britain must never go back to those Tory days where  three million unemployed were their “price worth paying” with the young condemned to idleness  and older workers thrown on the scrapheap.

    So where the Lib Dems and Tories would  axe  the New Deal, Labour will extend it, with extra help for those who need it most, because we are determined to achieve our goal of full employment in every region.

    That means removing barriers which still stand in the way of ethnic minorities.  We must ensure that training recruitment, and promotion depend on ability and not the colour of people’s skin. We will challenge racial disadvantage and racism wherever it occurs so that full employment really does mean employment for all.

    That also means helping the million disabled people who want to work. This month we start new programmes combining focussed help in finding work, better NHS rehabilitation and extra payments of � a week for those who get jobs.

    If everyone is to make the most of their potential, we must change the whole approach to disability from one based on what people can’t do to one based on what they can.

    Disability rights is about more than jobs.  It is about people’s equal worth as individuals so they are not disabled by the preconceptions of others.

    In years to come the treatment of disabled people typical of the last century – and still too often the case today – will be seen as an affront to their humanity.

    This is a great cause of emancipation of our time. Labour wants Britain to lead the world on the rights and opportunities of disabled people.  We will extend anti-discrimination law and publish this year a Draft Bill, to fulfil in this Parliament our manifesto pledge to the full civil rights of disabled people.

    Thanks to health and safety reps and workplace partnership, industrial deaths were down 10% last year. But we must do more. I am announcing today a new Challenge Fund, working with unions and employers, to extend workplace safety advice in small and medium size businesses, and we support the Freedom from Fear campaign, because we believe every worker has the right to workplace safety.

    As people live longer, opportunities for older workers are critical.

    1.2 million more people over the age of 50 are now in work than in 1997 but too many still face barriers.  For young and old alike it is wrong to base opportunities on age rather than aptitude and it’s right that we press ahead to outlaw age discrimination.

    Our pensions consultation shows that people want flexible options for retirement.

    We will change the rules so people can draw down a pension and continue working for the same employer.

    Where people choose to take their state pension later, they deserve a better deal.

    So I announce today, we will offer people the choice – for the first time ever – of a lump sum, as much as �,000 where they defer for 5 years. So poorer pensioners can get sums which until now have been the preserve of the better off.

    We are giving people more choices.  But it would be wrong to force longer working on the least well off, often with the hardest working lives and the shortest retirement to look forward to. We reject putting up the State Pension Age.

    Conference, partnership should be the basis for security in occupational pensions.

    We have set up the Pension Commission; it’s work will include the case for greater compulsion.

    While we applaud those employers taking tough decisions to meet their pension commitments, we condemn those who walk away from their responsibilities, short-changing workers who saved all their lives. They can’t claim workers’ loyalty, then dump them in retirement. Labour is in government not just to challenge such injustice but to do something about it.

    So we will change the law …

    – To stop employers walking away from their obligations.

    – To stop companies using take-overs to scrap pensions; and,

    –  To stop firms changing schemes without consultation

    A pension promise made must be a pension promise honoured. When a firm goes bust, it can’t be right that workers see their life savings destroyed. So, conference, our Labour Government will legislate for a Pension Protection Fund…

    We build on the improvements we have already made –

    –  with the state second pension, extending pension rights to 20 million low paid workers, carers and disabled people, most of them women

    –  free TV licences for the over 75s; and

    –  the winter fuel payment,  going up to �0 for the over 80s.

    And where the Tories want to privatise the state pension, Labour has increased it by �a week more than inflation and will continue to build on it as the foundation of security in retirement.

    Labour has already raised the incomes of the 2 million poorest pensioners by more than � a week,  narrowing the gap between them and the society as a whole.

    But the system has until now penalised those who’ve put something by for their retirement, with each pound of income knocked straight off benefits.

    On Monday we change that. The new Pension Credit – the most significant increase in help for a generation – not only guarantees a minimum income but rewards those who have saved and so often missed out in the past.

    It is straightforward, awards are backdated and half of pensioner households – the poorest half – gain, by an average of �0 a year.

    From next week – as the Tories debate privatising state pensions – already more than 1 million pensioners will see their income rise with Pension Credit and that number will go up with every passing day.

    It’s a key dividing line for the next General Election.  The Tories and Lib Dems will have to explain why they plan to take �0 off half the pensioner households in the country.

    So let us get out there, campaigning to ensure pensioners get, and keep, what is rightfully theirs.

    And let’s thank all the staff of  the new Pensions Service, the first ever dedicated service for pensioners, just as we value all the New Deal Personal Advisors, the Disability employment workers and the child support staff. They are the front line troops in the war against poverty – and we’re proud of them.

    – progress on full employment,

    – child and pensioner poverty,

    – occupational pensions, and tackling discrimination

    – it all shows the difference Labour is making – and how much more Labour can do.

    So let’s go from here proud of our achievements, clear in our vision, confident in our purpose to build a Britain of fairness and opportunity, where no-one is left behind.

    The campaign for social justice is at Labour’s heart.  It’s what brought all of us into the Labour Party. It is changing Britain for the better and it will be our inspiration until the job is done.

  • Andrew Smith – 2002 Speech at Lancaster House

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Smith, at Lancaster House on 26th March 2002.

    Just a few years ago, The Government set out its thinking on how Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) could be used to create new businesses – with both the public and the private sector involved.  I am very pleased to see, from the wide range of speakers here today, that these ideas are becoming a reality.

    Through the Wider Markets initiative (WMI), we have entered into a new type of partnership: not changing the responsibility for, or the funding of, public services, but liberating the underlying potential.

    WMI is about enabling public sector workers to realise their full potential and about getting the full value out of public sector assets.

    WMI is not about transferring assets, or the responsibility for assets, from the public sector to the private sector. Rather, it is about generating commercial activities from public sector assets in addition to fulfilling their public sector purpose.

    The best of our Government agencies, research institutes, armed forces facilities and hospitals are, as we know,  a match for any in the world.  Our scientists, our technicians, and our managers, some of the people I see in the audience today, are highly motivated, highly trained, and ready to embrace change and modernisation.

    They recognise that PPPs – and the WMI – are not about transferring responsibility out of the public sector, they are about bringing the public sector’s ideas and expertise to commercial markets so we can realise their full potential.  This is all about getting additional value from the assets and ideas that underpin the delivery of services, services that are with, and will remain within, the public sector.

    The aim is to allow the entrepreneurial talent in the public sector to flourish.  It is about public enterprise. That is why public bodies and the private sector are entering a range of public private partnerships – creating new activities and generating value by bringing together their respective skills and assets.

    In Government, we want more of these PPPs to be formed. That is why we have established Partnerships UK as centre of expertise with a specific remit to help the public sector generate new sources of commercial income.  That is why we have published new guidance on forming joint venture companies: making it easier for the public sector to set up new businesses and new partnerships across the whole range of economic activities, including science and technology.

    This conference is about making it happen.  Across the public sector, in the BBC, in the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture, and at the Radiocommunications Agency, there are already a number of success stories.

    There is a responsibility on all of us to make sure these stories get heard, and to write the next chapter, deploying successful approaches across the public sector.

    Our approach brings together the WMI and Governments policies more generally on PPPs.

    WMI encourages public sector bodies to exploit their assets – physical and intellectual, enabling them to undertake commercial activities that are additional to their core function as public sector organisations.

    The public sector owns over £274 billion of physical assets.  That is £274 billion of latent energy.  Liberating the potential in these assets, and in the knowledge base and intellectual excellence of the public sector, will mean more money for public investment and higher levels of productivity across the entire economy.

    It is vitally important that we improve the commercial uptake of ideas and technology coming from public sector, and in particular for research establishments.  We need to bridge the gap between the supply of ideas and assets that flows naturally from the delivery of public services and the demand in wider markets.

    That means a tailored approach, providing for different forms of partnerships which meet the particular objectives of a project.

    The form of PPPs range from joint ventures to licenses, concessions and other partnership arrangements. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach.  The aim is always to ensure that the taxpayer gets their fair share of the rewards while at the same time protecting public sector interests.

    In some cases the public sector is major partner, in others it plays a minor role. We are developing ideas across the entire range of Government activities and assets: property, equipment and facilities, skills and expertise, databases and IT systems, research and scientific developments.

    So there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach – but there are guiding principles. The aim is to ensure that all partnerships:

    – align public and private sector interests

    – extract best value from assets and investments

    – generate activities which develop, not detract from, delivery of core public services

    – provide the desired level of public sector control.

    Bringing together wider markets and PPPs, we are in fact creating whole new businesses – developing new commercial activities as well as supporting traditional public services.

    Over the course of this conference we will be hearing about a vast array of value-generating PPPs.  Success stories which show our approach does work:

    – how the BBC has brought in investment of around £350 million to market its programmes internationally through its joint venture with Discovery;

    – how the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture (an agency of DEFRA) and the Army Training and Recruitment Agency have managed through WMIs to build up their revenues from virtually nothing to well over £5 million per year from their wider markets activities

    – how best estimates suggest the Radiocommunications Agency has achieved annual savings of around £1 million in its IT systems through a joint venture with CMG.

    This is revenue on top of that raised through taxation, and of course savings that are recycled back into public services.  This extra money will be used to improve the quality of public services with benefits too for the working conditions of public sector staff.

    Accordingly, the wider markets initiative is:

    – encouraging public sector workers to develop and demonstrate their entrepreneurial expertise by building new businesses; and,

    – training staff in the new skills needed to enter commercial markets.

    We are opening up new vistas of opportunity for public sector staff.  We value public sector workers, the effort they make, the ideas they have, the ethos that drives them – WMI is about giving them more opportunities.

    Entering partnerships with the private sector to commercialise public sector ideas and assets can benefit staff at all levels in an organisation.

    Through its commercialisation activities, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture has been able to maintain and enhance its reputation as a world class research institute, attract more staff, and improve morale through enhanced training and opportunities for interchange with private sector partners.

    It is quite simple: WMI means a better deal for public sector staff.

    PPPs generate additional value: increasing revenue for the organisation; enhancing opportunity for the staff.  To release that value, working together, there are a number of things we have to get right. We have to :

    – make sure we have the right incentives in place

    – manage and distribute risk appropriately

    – safeguard the public interest and the reputation of the public sector because trust is in itself a valuable commodity

    – create a more entrepreneurial culture in the public sector: this will not happen overnight, and we have to make sure we have the right staff with the right skills to make it happen.

    We have taken decisive action to move forward on all of these issues.

    In 1998 we introduced a framework for WMI, ensuring that Departments automatically retain the benefit of money generated by sales into wider markets – creating the incentive to innovate. We have given Departments delegated powers of approval over the majority of projects – creating a flexible and responsive system. The framework aims to ensure each Department has a wider markets officer – creating a single point of contact, enabling expertise to develop and spread best practice.

    The right incentives, a flexible system with authority delegated downwards, and a central point of contact in each Department.  It is all about making sure we getting extra value out of the Government’s assets without detracting from the responsibility for or the delivery of the services on which we all rely.

    To make sure we do, we are scrutinising carefully the National Asset Register – identifying where the opportunities are. We are making the move to resource accounting – so the true cost of capital is reflected in the value of fixed assets.  And we are utilizing Departmental investment strategies as a means of reviewing new and existing assets – considering their potential for generating commercial revenues.

    Behind the success of the wider markets initiative stands Partnerships UK – a dedicated organisation working solely for the public sector with the objective of supporting the implementation of PPPs.

    Their team works on science and technology commercialisation, and wider markets, helping us to release the potential of public sector staff and assets.  Acting as a central point of contact, PUK provides a free support service, helping with anything from simple enquiries and troubleshooting to support in taking a PPP from an abstract idea to making it a commercial reality.

    Partnerships UK is also producing guidance and best practice materials for the Treasury – helping us develop a body of expertise on wider markets. The first major document, guidance for public sector bodies forming joint venture companies with the private sector, was published in November last year.

    With the ability to share development costs and invest in a PPP, alongside the public sector, Partnerships UK will be a powerful catalyst as we take forward our programme of public sector reforms.

    This is a programme of reforms for the public and for the public sector staff. Getting extra value out of public sector assets is good news for both. WMI means the freedom for staff to innovate, to develop new ideas, and to reach their full potential.

    And it is good news for the public as:

    – WMI leaves responsibility for funding and delivery of public services unchanged

    – commercial activities releases extra resources for priority areas such as health and education

    – the flexible use of assets releases stored potential and boosts productivity across the entire economy.

  • Andrew Smith – 2001 Speech to the Government Procurement Service

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Smith, to the Government Procurement Service conference held in Brighton on the 4th December 2001.

    Introduction

    1. I am very glad to be here today.   As Chief Secretary, it is quite rare for me to be out of London addressing conferences, but I am here today because of the importance of your work.

    2. From the election through to last week’s Pre-Budget Report, from the Prime Minister and Chancellor downwards, we have been stressing the importance of delivery of our service commitments – and that means not just more money but also better use of money.

    3. But to make sure the money we invest is used wisely, we must also invest in the capacity of our public sector systems, workers and management to ensure our public services are efficient, effective and professional.

    Office of Government Commerce

    4. All of you, the Government Procurement Service and the Office of Government Commerce, have an important role to play.

    5. We established the OGC to act as a catalyst to improve the quality of procurement, with an important role in improving the quality of investment by the public sector. It is encouraging the use of modern techniques and a cross-Government approach to procurement. These professional approaches are already proving successful – generating savings that can be invested in our priorities.

    6. Procurement has moved up the Government agenda, with active and growing political interest and support, and increasingly visible involvement of Departments at the highest level. This reflects the priority we give to improving the quality of public services, with a strong emphasis upon both successful delivery for the public, and value for money for the taxpayer.

    Government Procurement Service

    7. In 1997, we realised that, whilst we had good commitment of public sector staff, in some areas the capacity to spend taxpayers? money efficiently was frequently worse than it should be. Procurement was too often the poor relation of the civil service: orders had to be placed, invoices had to be matched, and bills had to be paid, but that was about the extent of anyone’s interest.  We wanted to change all that.

    8. The Treasury and Cabinet Office commissioned the Public Expenditure Committee to report into ?Efficiency in Civil Government Procurement?. Their work, completed in 1998, focussed on a set of targeted measures, enabling government to maximise procurement efficiency. One of the key recommendations was to establish a new, professional, GPS. This was part of a package of measures designed to recruit, retain and motivate professional procurement staff.

    9. That report, together with Peter Gershon’s rigorous analysis of the problems with procurement, provided the basis for action. We moved decisively to accept and implement the recommendations. We established the GPS, under the able guidance of Brian Rigby, in April 1999.

    10. The GPS brought together the 1,500 procurement staff working across Government into one professional body. The aim is to enhance your contribution to the achievement of Government objectives by:

    ensuring the availability of staff with appropriate skills, experience and qualifications to deliver professional, good quality and legally compliant procurement processes;

    providing departments and members with best practice guidance on training, career development, and related issues to help ensure the best match of procurement staff to posts; and

    offering members the information on employment opportunities and support they need for more effective career management.

    11. So we have established procurement as a professional discipline within Government: acknowledging the valuable contribution that you make and raising the profile of your work across Whitehall and beyond.

    12. By improving the career opportunities, training and status of hard working procurement professionals we will ensure that your effort is rewarded and your contribution is recognised. With the support of the GPS you will come to play a more important part in the life of your Departments. You will help us to achieve our three-year target of £1bn in value for money improvements.  And your Departments, in their turn, will play a more effective role in delivering on our public service commitments.

    Reform of procurement

    13. To deliver that improvement in our public services we have to reform the way we think about procurement.  We need to move procurement towards higher value added activities, such as:

    building partnership with the private sector – using procurement to lever in business efficiency, innovation and expertise;

    developing adult approaches to supplier management – working with third party providers to standardise procurement process, increase competition in the market for government business, and drive down the costs for all parties; and

    considering the whole life cycle of projects in the procurement process – working with stake holders to identify desirable outcomes early in the day, and considering the whole life cycle of a scheme when identifying our Best Value objectives.

    14. That is how we will improve the management of complex spending programmes, fulfil our responsibilities to the taxpayer, and deliver on our commitments to the consumer of public services.

    15. These are ambitious goals. To achieve them we will have to work hard and we will have to work together. Working together means ensuring that you, the procurement professionals, have the skills and expertise to drive forward your departments spending programmes.  We need to make sure you have got that.

    16. In the past, the capacity to achieve value for money savings through better Government procurement practice was simply not there. There was no political commitment, there was wasted expertise, and there were no resources to support efficient purchasing procedures.

    17. The first step was to revitalise the skills of the government purchasing community. Great strides have been made towards educating procurement professionals and informing departments about the value you can add.  We are entering into an era of continuous professional development for staff at all levels.  For those of you who have just achieved your qualification this is only the beginning.

    18. We are Investors in People: we will work tirelessly to ensure that you have the opportunities to develop and grow. You will attain the skills necessary to advance your careers and at the same time contribute to the advancement of your Department’s objectives.

    19. I would like to say a big thank you to Chris Howard and his colleagues on the GPS management board for their hard work on the programmes for professional development.

    Achievements so far

    20. Higher standards of training, better opportunities for development, and greater levels of professionalism all add up to a massive boost for the procurement agenda.  We are already beginning to see the results.

    the Government Procurement Card (GPC) – reducing transaction costs wherever it is used;

    the Gateway process – helping us manage complex projects; and

    collaboration between Government Departments – hard working professional working together to deliver on our shared objectives.

    21. The GPC was introduced in 1997 and has already delivered £30m in efficiency savings. It has enabled Government Departments and agencies to streamline their purchasing processes, realising these dramatic savings both in time and costs incurred by standard administrative processes.

    22. Today’s launch of the consortium of VISA banks? fourth annual report into the use of the GPC, audited by KPMG, confirms that the 2001 target of £150m spend on the card has been exceeded by 7.5%.

    23. In just four years, over 155 departments and agencies have implemented their own card programmes, and the number of cards issued has risen by over 50% in the last year. A landmark was reached in April of this year when we saw the millionth transaction. That is a million transactions where money was saved, costs were driven down, and extra resources were freed up for investment in crucial public services.

    24. The Monitor Card? – which is accepted in over 12,500 outlets and accounts for 100 million litres of motor fuel – is already delivering similar savings in Government procurement of motor fuel. The NHS and Ministry of Defence provide branded fuels cards for their own fleets. Many Departments are organising similar initiatives and the number of corporate travel cards is set to increase dramatically.  These cards drive down costs, reduce administrative overheads and allow higher levels of control.

    25. Delivering on priority areas often means working over longer time scales, managing large amounts of money, and achieving objectives through collaboration with a range of different partners. In the past there has simply not been the capacity to manage this type of project. That is why I launched the Gateway review process in February this year.

    26. The Gateway review process is a technique for developing and delivering complex projects based on proven private sector practices, designed to ensure value for money improvements in major Government programmes.  Through the Gateway, experienced senior staff, separate from the schemes, consider their development at crucial stages – helping to guarantee the taxpayer a return on their investment.  So far 70 projects – or £18bn of Government investment – have benefited from the Gateway process.

    27. The pilot projects we ran saved around £150m, and once the scheme is in full operation we anticipate savings of around £500m a year. These savings are not kept by the Treasury, but are available to be spent elsewhere, where they can deliver further benefits to front line services.

    28. This is an achievement of which we can all be proud. We are planning to build on this success and roll out the process to a wider public sector audience.

    29. Gateways are just one of the ways in which we are reforming our procurement processes. The deal you reached with Vodafone for the supply of cell phones to the entire public sector has exceeded all expectations. I know that arrangements are in hand to develop similar deals for the supply of Government vehicles, hotel accommodation, and energy supplies.

    30. These framework agreements realise value for money savings for the taxpayer, reduce the costs of doing business with Government, and release valuable procurement resources – your time and effort – to concentrate on areas that really matter. This is a win-win situation.

    31. Professionalism in procurement and in the delivery of public services also means closer working between Government Departments and agencies. As we develop the capacity of the procurement community to work towards our shared objectives, so we must build the capacity in Departments and agencies to work together, generate economies of scale, spot the synergies, and realise the value for money savings.

    32. The OGC is leading the way in joining up procurement programmes across Government. The happy marriage between the OGC Buying Solutions catalogue and the Procurement and Supply Agency of the NHS is just one example.

    33. In the short term the results will be value for money savings that can be recycled into the NHS, adding to the extra £1bn the Chancellor announced in the Pre-Budget Report. In the longer term we want to see more successful partnerships, delivering greater cost savings, and freeing up even more resources for investment in front line services.

    Conclusion

    34. In conclusion, let us take stock of what we have achieved:

    the GPS – more opportunities for you to develop, greater professional expertise for your departments to draw upon;

    the GPC – improving transactions, freeing resources and achieving value for money savings;

    the Gateway Review – facilitating the delivery of large and complex projects, already producing results and savings; and

    collaboration between Government Departments – pooling expertise and pooling public sector purchasing power.

    35. On skills, already this year we have seen a 20% rise in the number of GPS staff either fully qualified or moving in the right direction. You all have the skills, expertise, and commitment to take the procurement agenda forwards, and soon 83% of you will have the certificate to prove it.  This year, 98 students have gained their Certificates of Competence, bringing the programme total so far to 855.  In addition, I know that another 98 students were studying for the graduate diploma of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply.

    36. So, a lot done, still a lot to do. We need to diffuse procurement expertise even more widely around Whitehall. The Wider Skills agenda will develop the skills to manage IT, programme delivery, and procurement across government departments. We are sowing the seeds of change and modernisation, bringing cohesion to our wider commercial agenda. I am taking a close personal interest in this project and I look forward very much to seeing how it develops.

    37. I thank you for all you are doing and wish you a very successful conference.