Tag: Speeches

  • Chris Huhne – 2012 Speech to the Royal Society

    chrishuhne

    Below is the speech made by the then Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, to the Royal Society on 1st January 2012.

    Thank you. I’m delighted to be here today.

    It’s a great honour to address the world’s foremost scientific institution.

    John Dalton, Ernest Rutherford, James Chadwick.

    Without these distinguished Fellows of the Royal Society, the secrets of nuclear energy would have remained hidden for longer.

    So today’s subject is fitting. And I want to thank everyone involved with producing the Society’s report on fuel cycle stewardship.

    One of the clearest lessons from the history of nuclear energy is that government, industry and science work best when they work together.

    A scientific adviser must speak truth to democratic power without fear. In my view, it makes sense if democratic power then listens.

    It is in that spirit that I want to take an open and honest look at the history of nuclear power in Britain.

    If we are to retain public support for nuclear as a key part of our future energy mix, as I believe we should, then we have to show that we have learned the lessons from our past mistakes.

    And some of those mistakes were not small. Nuclear policy is a runner to be the most expensive failure of post-war British policy-making, and I am aware that this is a crowded and highly-contested field.

    We currently have around 6,900 cubic metres of high-level nuclear waste. That’s about enough to fill three Olympic swimming pools. We have enough intermediate-level waste to fill a supertanker, and a lot more low-level waste.

    We manage the world’s largest plutonium stocks – more than a hundred tonnes – and they will need guarding for as long as it takes us to convert it and build long-term deep storage. And if we don’t, we will have to guard it for tens of thousands of years.

    Half of my department’s budget goes in cleaning up this mess, and it will rise to two thirds next year. That is £2 billion a year, year in and year out, that we are continuing to pay for electricity that was consumed in the fifties, sixties and seventies on a false prospectus.

    Yet the total nuclear liabilities that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority now deal with are estimated to be £49 billion, and I cannot be confident that the figure will not rise again as we discover yet more problems.

    Just look at the history of rose-tinted spectacles: the provisions for nuclear decommissioning costs in total were £2 million in 1970. £472 million in 1980. £9.5 billion in 1990. £22.5 billion in 2000. And now £53.7 billion.

    It seems to me essential reassurance to tax-payers and energy consumers that I and my successors can honestly say “This will never happen again”.

    Despite this history, I believe that nuclear electricity can and should play a part in our energy future provided that new nuclear is built without public subsidy. And it is precisely because of that post-dated bill from past nuclear mistakes that I reiterate with exceptional feeling “without public subsidy”.

    The reason is the same as so many other environmentally-minded people now give. Nuclear energy has risks, but we face the greater risk of accelerating climate change if we do not embark on another generation of nuclear power. Time is running out. Nuclear can be a vital and affordable means of providing low carbon electricity.

    In tough times, I am acutely aware of the stresses and strains on household budgets, and I want British electricity consumers to have the best possible deal.

    Of the three large scale low carbon technologies, the costs estimated by Arup are as follows. Offshore wind is assessed at £130 per megawatt hour, gas with carbon capture at £95 per megawatt hour, and nuclear at £66 per megawatt hour. These figures take account of waste and decommissioning costs, so nuclear should still be the cheapest low carbon source of electricity.

    And costs matter when a quarter of our power plants will close by the end of the decade.

    By 2023, all but one of our current fleet of reactors are scheduled to close, taking with them nearly 18 per cent of our electricity supply. We have to find 20 gigawatts of generating capacity and £110 billion of investment in the electricity market. That replacement cycle is double the normal level of energy investment.

    Gas is an option, even for the long term, with carbon capture and storage. But fossil fuel price volatility has increased, and world gas prices have risen by a 29 per cent in a year. It is surely not in our national interest to rely even more heavily than necessary on fossil fuels from volatile parts of the world.

    Renewables are a family of technologies which will last forever, with less environmental impact. They should be a growing part of our supply, as they are in other countries. But thanks to decades of under-investment by previous governments, the technologies are still relatively young. Uncertainties on some really promising technologies like wave and tidal stream are still considerable, and costs remain high.

    Nuclear too has uncertainties, as the cancellation of new programmes in Japan and Italy and the phase out of existing reactors in Germany all show.

    Our examination of the lessons of Fukushima from Dr Mike Weightman is reassuring about our regulatory regime and about safety, but the economics of new nuclear are still untested. The industry still has to prove that it can build these enormous investments on time and to budget.

    For all these reasons, our approach is to bring forward a broad portfolio of low carbon technologies: renewables, carbon capture and nuclear. It is the only sensible way to handle risk, as we all know when we run our own pension funds.

    However attractive one share may look today, it is rash to put all your money into just one stock. Governments should not bet the farm.

    The past

    So with my eyes open, and with a nervous look at the past, I say that we need nuclear to be a part of our energy mix in the future.

    But it is essential to learn from that past. As George J. Stigler said, history is a good teacher but there are inattentive pupils.

    So today, I want to look at Britain’s nuclear past to draw out those lessons.

    In many ways, Britain is the birthplace of nuclear energy. Like many first-time parents, we tried everything and we did so with enthusiasm.

    The world’s first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall in Cumbria, closed in 2003. It was opened by Her Majesty the Queen nearly half a century earlier.

    Life was very different in 1956, when Calder Hall was switched on.

    Rationing had only just ended. There were no motorways. Sputnik was but a sketch on a drawing board. Lasers and cash machines were still years away.

    The industry was in its formative years. Our attitudes to risk were different. The environment was not yet a subject of public concern.

    When Calder Hall opened, a Health Minister rejected calls for a government campaign against smoking. Seat belts were optional extras on a few imported cars.

    And our attitudes to spending were different, too. Britain was still effectively on a wartime footing: and when it came to strategic national decisions, the relationship between government, parliament and the people was still conducted on wartime terms. Secrecy. We know best. Don’t tell those who don’t need to know.

    Following the great smog in London, and the Suez crisis, an independent nuclear programme was held to be important for the nation’s security and prosperity.

    This was the setting in which Britain’s nuclear policy was designed. It was a different time. And decisions taken in the 1950s directly affected the liabilities that we are paying for today.

    Of course, we have been granted the gift of hindsight, and the benefit of reflection.

    As we give the green light to the next generation of nuclear power stations, we must use those precious insights. So let me turn to the lessons we have learned.

    First lesson, simple and clear objectives matter. In the early days, we could not decide between guns and butter.

    Nuclear technology was given the task of delivering two national priorities – energy for the masses, and plutonium for the military – without proper economic or democratic scrutiny. The reactor used at Calder Hall was chosen firstly for plutonium production; electricity generation was a side effect.

    Born out of military requirements but serving civilian needs, the new industry was torn in two directions. Confused objectives led to confused design decisions – and a high legacy cost.

    In the United States, by contrast, there was a competition for the most efficient and safe reactor design to produce electricity. A simple objective with a cost-effective result. The pressurised water reactor.

    The second lesson is avoid conflicts of interest.

    For the first two decades of nuclear energy, the UK Atomic Energy Authority was responsible for both promoting and researching nuclear energy.

    The Government’s official adviser on nuclear policy was an organisation solely devoted to nuclear energy. Gardeners like gardening, researchers want more research, and the UKAEA wanted more nuclear energy using their own designs.

    That meant advice to Ministers was not always impartial. Designs were chosen and delivered without proper oversight. There was no sceptical, commercial eye for either operating or decommissioning costs.

    The third lesson is keep it simple. Such is the extraordinary inventiveness of the British scientific community – to which I pay fulsome tribute here – that all eleven Magnox power stations were built to different specifications. Even their fuel elements were different sizes.

    From an energy policy point of view, we needed several good workaday Marks and Spencer suits. Instead, every reactor was bespoke from Savile Row.

    The second fleet of advanced gas-cooled reactors were built to a design that almost no-one else used. They did not deliver on budget or on time.

    The fourth lesson is that we forgot about our children. About their future.

    The regulatory systems were simply not geared toward long-term protection. In the early days, we didn’t plan for decommissioning or managing radioactive waste. Short-term political or financial decisions were taken, with long-term consequences.

    In other countries, a levy on nuclear power went into special funds to deal with decommissioning. Both France and the United States handled the problems much better than us.

    In the UK, the money was more free-range than ring-fenced. It was tipped into new projects, in the belief that it would be clawed back from asset sales. Too often, we played double or nothing with public cash.

    Which brings me to the fifth issue: we took our eye off the money. The nuclear industry was like a expense account dinner: everybody ordering the most expensive items on the menu, because someone else was paying the bill.

    In the early days of nuclear power, cost-effectiveness was not an issue. Decommissioning estimates were often approximate and greatly understated. We bought in to technological promise without exercising due diligence. When the arguments for technology changed, as they did for reprocessing, we did not subject them to proper scrutiny.

    Only in the late 1980s did reform bring about the end of a centrally directed energy policy. When nuclear power was held up to the cold hard light of the market, it proved to be uneconomic.

    Hidden subsidies and uncertainty over liabilities do not make for an attractive investment environment. Attempted privatisation of existing nuclear plants failed, partly because the true costs of cleaning up were becoming slowly apparent.

    And when waste started piling up, we effectively crossed our fingers and hoped that it would all go away. We did not act decisively, while our spent fuel and waste stocks grew.

    The future

    Never again. Never again. This government is determined not to pay for the present by mortgaging the future. We are determined to do the right thing for the long term.

    On governance, regulation and financing, we must show that we have learned the lessons of the past. We will make provision for future costs now, and pay down our decommissioning debt.

    We will tackle our nuclear legacy. The work on ponds and silos at Sellafield is proceeding as fast as the space and engineering allows: despite our financial situation, there is no financial constraint on dealing with urgent tasks.

    Thanks to the foresight of Patricia Hewitt, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is managing radioactive waste at 19 sites across the UK. And my Department has just finished consulting on the long-term management of our plutonium stockpiles, and will publish the results shortly.

    Looking to the future, we will prevent a new legacy from building up.

    Operators of new nuclear power stations must have secure financing arrangements in place to meet the full costs of decommissioning, and their full share of waste management and disposal costs.

    They must submit their plans for approval by the Secretary of State, who will receive advice on the financing from an independent Assurance Board. No more Robert Maxwell style plundering of the public piggybank.

    Nor will we fall into the trap of secretly choosing reactor designs. Open competition for the best is our watchword, letting industry and investors assure value for money.

    Competition will make the utilities drive a hard bargain with suppliers. No more cost-plus monopolists who just pass on any increase regardless of the effect on consumers.

    Regulators are currently carrying out a Generic Design Assessment of new nuclear reactor designs.

    A generic assessment means the safety, security and environmental aspects of new reactor designs can be assessed once before applications are made for a whole series of sites. Unlike the old days, when every planning inquiry started from scratch as if another reactor had never been built.

    The National Policy Statements on energy also establish that energy infrastructure is needed, so that too does not have to detain a planning application. The Nuclear policy statement identified eight sites which are suitable for new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025.

    We will also ensure regulation of the industry is transparent, accountable, proportional and consistent. The industry has acquired a terrible reputation for secrecy, fed by unfortunate incidents like the falsification of MOX data. No more unnecessary secrecy. No more cloak and dagger nonsense. The competent need have no fear of openness, and in my experience the new nuclear industry know that this is the only way to win public trust.

    That is why we created the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which is intended to become a new independent statutory body.

    It brings together civil nuclear and radioactive transport safety and security regulation in one place. It will house internationally recognised expertise, and will respond quickly and flexibly to current and future regulatory challenges.

    And finally, we will continue to encourage investment, research and development – and to help build the skills base needed to support nuclear technology here in Britain. On current plans, total investment in new nuclear will reach some £50 billion.

    Each of the reactors planned for the next fleet will deliver investment equivalent to that for the 2012 Olympics. Each plant could create 5,000 construction jobs at peak, and employ a thousand people in operation.

    And by the way, there is even some consolation in our unhappy nuclear history. We are developing some world-beating businesses – with expertise in cleaning up old messes.

    Conclusion

    Nuclear power can play an important future role in our energy security provided there is no public subsidy. We have done everything we can to make sure it is safe, regulated, secure and affordable. Now our partners in the private sector must rise to the challenge and deliver it.

    Yes, that means investing. And it means committing to a culture of openness and public trust. Because although we must keep the lights on and the skies clear, there is a higher responsibility here, too.

    The decisions made in the early days rubbed against the grain of democracy. They left long-term impacts and heaped costs on future generations.

    The decisions we make about energy today will also leave a legacy. Our challenge is to make ensure it is a positive one. No more post-dated bills.

    Let me end like this. Sir Winston Churchill, who was half American, once said that the Americans can always be counted upon to do the right thing, when they have exhausted all the other possibilities.

    I approach a new generation of nuclear energy in the same spirit. On nuclear policy, we have exhausted the possibilities. We have made pretty much every mistake human ingenuity could devise. And boy, are we British inventive.

    We will now do the right thing.

  • Chris Huhne – 2011 Speech to the Liberal Democrat Conference

    chrishuhne

    Below is the speech made by the then Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, at the 2011 Liberal Democrat Party Conference on 20th September 2011.

    One abiding set of values that all Liberal Democrats share is a respect for our environment, natural systems and sustainability.

    With this conference’s backing, we will hold course to be the greenest government ever.

    No more, no less.

    But are we still on course?

    Well, I can hardly pick up a Tory paper these days without a whinge about energy and climate change policies.

    It’s been nip and tuck between Vince and me in recent months to win an unpopularity poll – that’s on Conservativehome among Tory activists.

    So as we assert Lib Dem values within government, we must be doing something right – or is it Left?

    Personally, I have no doubt that climate change is one of the greatest challenges we face.

    But if you are facing a pay squeeze or even worse a lost job, if your pay packet no longer buys what you need, people understandably put other priorities higher up the scale.

    As always during hard times, every other issue pales into insignificance besides the big issues of earning your living.

    Keeping your job.

    Making ends meet.

    But cutting carbon is not a luxury to be ditched when the going gets tough.

    It is essential to the survival of mankind as a species.

    The science is ever more clear.

    Cutting carbon is also a vital part of our recovery from the deepest recession since 1929.

    Then we had David Lloyd George’s Yellow Book: now we have Green Growth.

    In the thirties, we did not create new jobs by bringing back the textiles, coal and iron jobs that were lost.

    We created new jobs in new industries.

    And the same is happening today.

    Every month, more than 300,000 people leave the unemployment register to find new jobs.

    Thousands of those jobs are now in the low carbon economy. It is our route to recovery. Green business is good business.

    There are now a million jobs in low carbon goods and services in Britain, and they are growing rapidly.

    New jobs in cars, where Nissan will produce the all-electric Leaf at Sunderland with a £5,000 premium for each car from our government.

    New jobs in energy saving, where our Green Deal, launched next October, is set to create 250,000 jobs across the nation, up from 27,000 now.

    With the Green Deal, we are stopping the scandal where we use more energy to heat our homes than in Sweden, despite their icy winters.

    Saving money that can be spent at home on British jobs, not foreign gas.

    And I am proud to announce that our party is putting our principles into practice.

    Every single Liberal Democrat council has now signed up to pioneer the Green Deal.

    New jobs too in renewable energy, where we are determined to be the fastest improving pupil in class – having started from being 25th out of the 27 EU member states.

    Onshore wind farms that are now the cheapest form of renewable electricity.

    Offshore wind farms that are setting the standard for the world.

    New jobs in heating, where our Renewable Heat Incentive is a world-beating first.

    Saving power by drawing heat from the air and the ground.

    And from our woodland, where we use only a tenth of the sustainable timber we could produce.

    New jobs in nuclear too, without a penny of public subsidy.

    And providing that we stick to the strictest safety standards in the world, and learn the lessons of Fukushima.

    And new jobs in coal and gas plants, as we provide them with a long-term future through capturing and storing their carbon.

    All told, energy investment will be £200 billion in the next ten years, double the normal amount as we replace Britain’s ageing power stations.

    Our Electricity Market Reforms will mean three quarters of our electricity comes from low carbon sources by 2030.

    Funded in part by the world’s first Green Investment Bank.

    When people ask where is the demand coming from to power the economic recovery, tell them its clean energy.

    It’s energy saving.

    It’s low carbon transport.

    It’s the new green industrial revolution.

    Now, some people argue that we should not be pushing low carbon business, because no-one else is.

    Nonsense.

    Look at China, with six of the biggest renewable companies in the world.

    Installing wind turbines across the South China Sea.

    Building 28 nuclear power stations in the time it will take us to build one.

    Building 10,000 miles of high speed rail in the time we will take to go from London to Birmingham.

    Covering 40 per cent of the Chinese population with low carbon economy zones.

    If that’s doing nothing, then climate sceptics have a weird idea of zero.

    The real risk is not doing too much.

    It is doing too little.

    And getting left behind.

    Other people argue that we cannot afford to boost the low carbon economy.

    It would be cheaper, they say, to rely only on oil and gas.

    To say it is to laugh at it.

    World gas – and hence electricity – prices have leapt by a third thanks to Libya and far eastern growth.

    Global factors.

    So we should surely try to limit our dependence on oil and gas, not increase it.

    Particularly as our own North Sea resources are running down.

    In the storm-tossed seas we have to sail, low carbon energy gives us security.

    Assurance.

    Safety.

    British energy consumers will on average be better off in 2020 thanks to our low carbon policies. Yes, I said better off.

    Getting off the oil and gas price hook and onto clean, green energy makes sense.

    And with energy saving, we can offset the effects of higher prices and end up with lower bills.

    In one generation, we will go from fossil fuel smokestack to low carbon cash back.

    But there is hardship now, and we are determined to help.

    Higher energy bills hurt.

    None of us should have to save on warmth in a cold winter.

    Some of the most vulnerable and elderly will shiver – and worse- if we do not help.

    That is why this Government is boosting by two-thirds the discounts to help people in fuel poverty.

    Why our Warm Homes Discount is a statutory scheme, not a grace and favour handout relying on energy companies’ good will.

    That is also why this Government will make those in fuel poverty a top priority for the Green Deal, helped by our ECO subsidy.

    Improving people’s homes cuts fuel poverty forever, while a discount only cuts fuel poverty for a year.

    Year after year, fuel poverty rose under Labour.

    Now we are helping the poor where Labour flannelled.

    We are acting where Labour talked.

    We are delivering where Labour failed.

    But it is not just the fuel poor who need help.

    Today I can announce a new package to help the hard-pressed consumer this winter and every winter.

    We are determined to get tough with the big six energy companies to ensure that the consumer gets the best possible deal.

    We want simpler tariffs.

    Requiring energy companies to tell you whether you could buy more cheaply on another tariff.

    And you can save real money.

    Ofgem, the independent regulator, calculates that the average household could save £200 by switching to the lowest cost supplier – but fewer than one in seven households do so.

    Britain privatised the energy companies, but most consumers never noticed.

    Contrary to the Times’ report, I neither said nor meant that this was laziness.

    It is just that consumers still think that they face the same bill whoever they go to.

    So I want to help households save money.

    With simpler charging.

    Clearer bills.

    Quicker switching.

    I also want more consumer-friendly firms – co-ops, partnerships, consumer charities – dedicated to doing the shopping around for consumers to make sure that you are always on the best deal, even if you do not have time to check yourself.

    Ofgem should also have new powers to secure redress for consumers – money back for bad behaviour.

    Ofgem is already stamping out bad doorstep practices that lead to energy mis-selling, with the guilty companies suffering swingeing fines.

    And we will stop the energy companies from blocking action by Ofgem, which can delay matters by a year.

    I remember when I was on the board of Which? the Consumers’ Association that the best guarantee of a good deal is more competition for your pound.

    We want to encourage new small companies to come into the market.

    Cutting red tape so they can grow bigger.

    Making it easier for them to buy and sell electricity in the wholesale market.

    And with Ofgem, we are cracking down on any bad practice that could smack of being anti-competitive.

    It’s not fair that big energy companies can push their prices up for the vast majority of their consumers – who do not switch – while introducing cut-throat offers for new customers that stop small firms entering the market.

    That looks to me like predatory pricing.

    It must and will stop.

    Labour and Ed Miliband had thirteen years to get this market right, and all they can do now is call for another inquiry by the Competition Commission.

    Another delay of two years.

    Another chance to sit on the fence .

    How feeble!

    We know what’s wrong.

    And with Ofgem, we are getting tough to put it right.

    John Donne once said that no man is an island entire unto himself, and no government in this complex and interdependent world is entire unto itself.

    National sovereignty’s historic writ does not run over so many issues that matter to every family in this country.

    National frontiers do not bar toxic waste, sulphur or carbon.

    That is why we must always work with our partners in Europe – and more widely – to secure our objectives, nowhere more clearly than on environmental issues.

    The European Union is also key to our prosperity.

    The Eurozone takes nearly half our exports.

    We export more to Ireland alone than to China, India and Brazil put together.

    Being part of Europe is not a political choice. It is a geographical reality

    It always was. And until the tectonic plates break up, it always will be

    We will not, as Liberal Democrats in government, weaken the ties that deliver our national interest through Europe.

    Let me make another point about our Coalition.

    Whatever we think of the Conservative campaign in the alternative vote referendum, and I for one thought that the vilification of Nick was appalling, for Liberal Democrats compromise is not and cannot be a dirty word.

    Finding common ground.

    Uniting in joint purpose.

    Partnership politics.

    That is what we had to do – Conservatives and Liberal Democrats – to get this country out of the economic danger zone.

    Many countries that have suffered from the debt crisis since then – Portugal, Spain, Italy – had smaller budget deficits than us.

    Yet we can borrow money at lower rates than at any time in three hundred years.

    This coalition government saved Britain’s credit standing by compromise.

    The danger if you don’t compromise is now clear from America.

    There the markets looked over the brink when the mad-cap Republican right in Congress would not compromise with the President.

    Let that be a warning to the Conservative right here: we need no Tea Party Tendency in Britain.

    If you fail to compromise, if you fail to seek the common ground that unites us, if you insist that only you have the answers, if you keep beating the anti-European drum, if you slaver over tax cuts for the rich, then you will put in peril the most crucial achievement of this Government.

    You will wreck the nation’s economy and common purpose.

    We are all in this together and we can’t get out of it alone.

  • Chris Huhne – 2011 Speech to the Renewable UK Conference

    chrishuhne

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Huhne to the Renewable UK Conference on 26th October 2011.

    I’m delighted to be here today, at Renewable UK’s annual conference.

    Our location is rather appropriate. Manchester was the thumping heart of the industrial revolution. This was the world’s first industrial city. It is home to the first industrial canal, and the world’s oldest railway station.

    The foundations for our prosperity were laid here. The engines which drove Britain’s extraordinary economic growth were built here – from the spinning mule to the steam engine.

    We could not have picked a better place to discuss their modern equivalents.

    Revolution

    Renewable energy technologies will deliver a third industrial revolution. Its impact will be every bit as profound as the first two. My argument today is a simple one: the revolution has already begun.

    From the Western Isles to the Isle of Wight – across the length and breadth of Britain. New companies are creating new jobs, delivering the technologies that will power our future.

    As we look to pull ourselves out of recovery and back to prosperity, renewable energy can light the way.

    Today, I want to look at the contribution renewable energy is making to our economy right now. The investment it is sparking, the jobs it is delivering, the growth it is creating.

    And I will look at what we can to do encourage that growth – and sustain those jobs.

    But first, I want to take aim at the faultfinders and curmudgeons who hold forth on the impossibility of renewables – the unholy alliance of climate sceptics and armchair engineers who are selling Britain’s ingenuity short.

    “Renewables are too expensive”, they cry. “They cannot deliver energy at scale.

    “They are uneconomic, unreliable and unwanted.”

    It is time to retire these myths.

    Money

    Let us start with the most egregious: that renewables are too expensive; that they could not exist without public subsidy; that they are held up by government cash alone.

    Last year, global investment in renewable energy rose by 32% to $211 billion. And $142 billion of that was new financial investment, which excludes government and corporate R&D.

    Renewables are grabbing a large and growing share of new energy investment.

    Yes, some of that investment is attracted by public subsidy. But globally, subsidies for fossil fuels outstrip subsidies for renewables by a factor of five.

    We subsidise renewables to bring on deployment and reduce costs. And we’ve seen some remarkable successes: the cost of solar energy just keeps on tumbling.

    Right now, support for renewable energy costs the average household less than sixpence a day. But decades of underinvestment in energy efficiency and reliance on fossil fuels costs us much, much more.

    About half of the average household bill goes on wholesale gas and electricity costs. These costs are highly volatile, and as Ofgem make clear, the higher gas price is the real reason bills have been going up over the past eight years.

    That is why we need a flexible energy portfolio.

    And that’s where the counter-argument of the climate sceptics falls down. “Forget wind farms”, they say. “Shale gas will be our saviour. We should abandon everything else.”

    I don’t believe government should pick winners. And if you do, I refer you to a Department of Trade and Industry white paper from 2004 that estimated oil would reach $23 per barrel by 2010. Even last year my own Department forecast oil at $80 per barrel. Brent crude is currently trading at $110 per barrel.

    Lashing our economy to a single energy source is a risky business.

    We don’t yet know the full extent of shale gas here; how economically or environmentally viable it will be to extract, or by when. At best, it is years away.

    Unconventional gas has not yet lit a single room nor cooked a single roast dinner in the UK.

    Yet those who clamour loudest for “realistic” energy policies would have us hitch our wagon to shale alone. Shale gas may be significant. It is exciting. But we do not yet know enough to bet the farm on it. Faced with such uncertainty we do what any rational investor does with their own pension fund – we spread our risks, we have a portfolio.

    Capacity

    The second fallacy is that renewables cannot deliver energy reliably or at scale.

    But today, more than 10 gigawatts of our electricity capacity is renewable. That’s enough to power six million homes.

    And with every passing year, renewable energy takes over another percentage point of global electricity capacity.

    In 2007, 5% of the world’s electricity was renewable. In 2008, it was 6%. In 2009, 7%. And last year, 8%. And it’s still growing. More than a third of the new capacity added last year – some 60GW – was from non-hydro renewables. The message is clear: when we build new power plants, increasingly we choose renewables.

    In fact, renewable energy can make our system more secure – not less. According to the International Energy Agency, renewables increase the diversity of electricity sources, making energy systems more flexible – and more resistant to shocks.

    Yes, some renewable technologies are intermittent. But the Committee on Climate Change estimates that even with 65% of our energy provided by renewables in 2030, intermittency may cost just 1p per kilowatt hour.

    After all, biomass is instantly dispatchable. And providing back-up for intermittent renewables is just not that expensive. We already swing from a low of demand of 40GW to a high of 80GW every day. Peaking plant has long been part of our mix. Without such backup the nation’s kettles would be cold in the Coronation St ad breaks.

    Every year, renewable energy is attracting more investment and delivering more capacity. It is also gathering more support. One hundred and nineteen countries have renewable energy targets or policies – up from an estimated 55 just six years ago.

    Attractiveness

    That brings me to the third great misconception about renewable energy: that it is unwanted.

    Earlier this year, Ipsos MORI polled a thousand UK adults on which energy source they preferred. By a clear margin, people favoured renewables.

    Eighty-eight per cent of those polled viewed solar power favourably; 82% for wind, 76% for hydroelectric, 57% for biomass.

    The highest placed traditional energy source for electricity was gas, at 56%.

    Seventy-three per cent of people would support a new wind farm in their area, as opposed to just 21% for a new coal plant.

    When you get behind the headlines, you find that support for renewable energy is strong – and growing.

    And so is its contribution to our economy.

    Economy

    Across the United Kingdom, renewables are providing jobs, investment and growth.

    And the numbers are really starting to add up.

    Over the last financial year, nearly 4,500 new jobs were created in the low-carbon sector, which grew by 4.3%.

    Fifty-one thousand and six hundred companies in Britain provide low-carbon and environmental goods and services. Exports are now £11.3 billion, up 3.9%.

    By Christmas we will have 3GW of biomass installed, and by Easter 5GW of onshore wind. In the past seven months alone, plans for £1.69 billion of investment and 9,500 jobs have been announced.

    Here in the North West, more than 950 jobs: 340 at the Siemens Renewable Energy Engineering Centre, just a few miles down the road; up to 600 over the next decade at Cammell Laird; three new Farmgen developments planned in Cumbria, with hundreds of jobs.

    This is the sharp reality of green growth. At a time when closures and cuts dominate the news cycle, next-generation industries are providing jobs just as in the recovery after the last deep depression in 1929 to 1931. It is new and innovative industries that grow fastest.

    Renewable energy is surging out across the United Kingdom, blazing a trail of start-ups and jobs.

    Across the Pennines, in Yorkshire, 2,250 jobs – £130 million in Real Ventures’ biomass plant, employing up to 285 people.

    And in the North East, more than 1,400 jobs – TAG Energy Solutions, delivering up to 400 jobs in the Billingham turbine factory.

    North of the border, one of the jewels in our renewable energy crown – £160 million of new investment and more than 420 Scottish jobs.

    Across the Irish Sea, 450 jobs in Belfast Harbour thanks to DONG Energy’s Duddon Sands offshore wind farm; 1,400 jobs in Wales.

    In the heart of England, 100 jobs in the East Midlands – and 50 in the West; 120 in East Anglia.

    Two thousand and two hundred jobs in the South East, supported by £172m – from Vestas, the Green Home Company, and more. And at Tilbury, the first UK coal plant to convert completely to biomass, safeguarding livelihoods.

    Across Britain, from the industrial heartlands to the northernmost extremities, new energy technologies are delivering jobs and growth just when we need them most.

    Capitalising on our geographical, physical and human advantages; Scotland’s research and natural resources. The Solent’s marine expertise. Manufacturing in the North East. Technology development in the M4 corridor.

    Renewable energy doesn’t just have the potential to bring Britain’s economy back to life – it has already started.

    Our job now is to allow it to really flourish. How? By setting clear and coherent objectives. And using regulation and closely targeted support to hit them.

    Targets

    By the end of this decade, we must cut our carbon emissions by 34% on 1990 levels. By the end of the next decade, they must be halved.

    To hit our EU renewable energy target, we must generate 30% of our electricity from renewables by 2020. That means a fourfold increase in deployment – turning our back on an inheritance that ranked us as the dunce in class, 25th out of 27 EU countries for renewables.

    Growth on that kind of scale will not be easy. It will require tough decisions, clear thinking, and tightly focused support.

    And everyone has a part to play.

    Industry must carry on making the case for renewables. Engaging with communities – and answering its critics by delivering renewable schemes that save money and save carbon.

    Government must break through the barriers that are stopping new schemes being built, overcoming the financial, planning and delivery hurdles that can hold up progress on renewables.

    And together we must do a better job of communicating. That means engaging with the communities who stand to benefit, and the investors who don’t yet see the promise that renewable energy holds.

    We must ensure the silent majority aren’t drowned out by the vocal minority – those opposed to renewable energy in all its forms.

    That means making sure communities that host renewables benefit more directly. That’s what our proposals on business rate retention are for. And that’s why we were pleased to endorse Renewable UK’s Protocol on Community Benefits.

    My challenge to you today is this: keep it up. Continue to develop and publicise new ways of rewarding those communities most affected by development.

    Opportunities

    Because, as the report you are publishing today shows, the opportunities are simply too great to ignore.

    Globally, around half a trillion dollars has been earmarked for green stimulus spending. We will need to spend a hundred times that by 2050 to hit our climate targets.

    We must be realistic. The pressure on the public finances means we cannot support everything at the level we otherwise would.

    So we must ensure we send clear market signals: deploying public finance intelligently, and breaking through barriers to growth.

    Our starting point is simple. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to get the most carbon and cost-effective electricity generation online.

    Review

    That is why the Renewables Obligation Banding Review has studied carefully how much subsidy different technologies need.

    The Renewables Obligation reinforces our commitment to renewables, and it provides what developers most need: a stable framework as we look ahead to the Electricity Market Reform.

    Where new technologies desperately need help to reach the market – where they can be scaled up significantly while bringing down costs over time – we are raising support.

    Where investors are on the cusp, we will give them the short-term impetus they need. So marine energy projects up to 30 megawatts will receive five ROCs under our plans.

    Where market costs are coming down – in onshore wind, for example – we’re consulting on reducing the subsidy.

    On offshore wind, we set our ambition high in our recent Renewable Energy Roadmap. And because we want to see a huge increase in deployment by 2020, we must see costs come down.

    So we’re working to help to bring investors and developers together, for example through the offshore wind investor conference.

    And our host today, Andrew Jamieson, is also lending his talents to the Offshore Wind Cost-Cutting Task Force, which met for the first time last week.

    On biomass, our support will focus more strongly on cheaper transitional technologies. Conversion from coal to biomass, for example, exploits existing assets and helps build the supply chain.

    Overall the new arrangements will mean a lower impact on consumer bills than staying with the current bandings.

    In total, our low-carbon and energy-saving policies will reduce household enegy bills compared with a ‘do nothing policy’.

    Of course, this is a consultation. We want to hear views from industry and beyond. I am sure you will not be backwards in coming forward.

    Markets

    Our approach to renewable energy must encourage investment and deliver value for money for consumers.

    We are doing three things to help.

    First, we are using policy to create new markets that will stimulate new investment – like the Green Deal, our unprecedented energy efficiency programme. It will bring jobs, growth and opportunities right across the country.

    Or the world’s first Renewable Heat Incentive. It will create a whole new market in renewable heat. Not just big industrial and commercial installations, but also homes and businesses, too.

    We expect green capital investment in heat to rise by £7.5 billion by 2020, supporting 150,000 manufacturing, supply chain and installer jobs.

    So the first thing we’re doing is to create new markets; the second is to make existing markets work better.

    This is why we published in the summer our plans for the reform of the electricity market, which will deliver secure, low-carbon and affordable electricity.

    We’ve listened to the renewables industry in drawing up the reforms. That’s why we support a contract for difference model tailored to renewables and not auctioning in the near future.

    We’ll publish a technical update on the institutional framework and the capacity mechanism around the turn of the year, and we’re planning to provide more information on the CfD too.

    We’ll also build in a phased transition from the Renewables Obligation to the new arrangements.

    By offering certainty and clarity, we can secure the scale of investment we need. And by attracting in new investors, we will also increase competition in the UK energy market.

    Benefits

    Our third priority is to capture the benefits of the low-carbon revolution. That means ensuring more clean technologies are designed and manufactured here.

    We have a blossoming low-carbon goods and services sector, which seems to be thriving even in tough times.

    But China leads the world in solar photovoltaic panel production; Germany on energy efficient housing design.

    We’re missing a trick unless we start supporting low-carbon manufacturing here in Britain – and grow the green supply chain: locking in profits and expertise, and creating the exports that will keep Britain competitive.

    Yes, climate change is a manmade disaster. Yes, the UK is only 2% of global carbon emissions. But if we grasp the opportunity now our businesses and economy can be much more than 2% of the solution.

    We are not going to save our economy by turning our back on renewable energy.

    This has been at the heart of Liberal Democrat policy for decades and it is something the Deputy Prime Minister, the Business Secretary, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury instinctively understand.

    But this goes beyond any one party. I know the Prime Minister agrees, which is why he is putting so much effort in to securing offshore wind manufacturing in the UK. And it is something I know my predecessor Ed Miliband understands.

    It is this three-party consensus that makes the UK such a good place to invest.

    It wasn’t always like that. It is nothing short of a national disgrace that in the 1980s the UK lost our leading wind research position to Denmark, because government refused to support the industry.

    It is a mistake I am determined that this Coalition Government will not make again. That is why in the recent ROC banding consultation I have sent a clear signal to the tidal stream and wave industry – we want the UK to be the best place in the world to invest, deploy and commercialise these technologies.

    So I can today assure you that this Government has resolved that we will be the largest market in Europe for offshore wind.

    We already have more installed offshore wind than anywhere else in the world and we are determined to remain at the forefront.

    That’s why we set aside £200 million for the development of low-carbon technologies, including £60m for supporting major new manufacturing projects on the English coast.

    We will be the best place to invest in marine power, and we will be the fastest growing country in the EU when it comes to renewable deployment.

    That’s why the Green Investment Bank has been capitalised with three billion pounds, to help unlock private sector investment at scale. For the first time ever, Britain will join every other leading developed economy in having a public development bank focused on key economic goals.

    Research

    And that’s why we’ll keep funding research and innovation – not just through DECC, but through the business and transport departments too.

    We’re also funding the Offshore Wind Accelerator, a partnership between the Carbon Trust and leading developers to demonstrate a new generation of full-scale, low cost energy. I’m pleased to announce today that a project funded through the Accelerator has been has been successfully installed with a met mast by the SMart Wind consortium, with funding support from DONG Energy.

    This kind of innovation will bring down the cost of offshore wind faster.

    That’s why we’ve allocated up to £30 million over the next four years to fund innovation to reduce offshore wind costs. And as part of this work, our first call for proposals will focus on components of emerging offshore wind systems, with budget of up to £5m. I expect it to be launched shortly.

    We’ve also allocated up to £20 million to support the world’s first commercial-scale marine energy arrays.

    And we’re working closely with organisations such as the Energy Technologies Institute, which just announced plans to invest up to £25m in an offshore wind floating system demonstration project. Opening up new areas off the coast of the UK, and helping to bring generation costs down.

    Non-financial

    So from the structure of the electricity market to research funding, we’re breaking through the economic barriers. But we’re also focusing on non-financial obstacles.

    We’re reforming the planning system, to ensure it’s no longer a brake on sustainable development.

    The energy National Policy Statements set out the national need for new renewable energy infrastructure. We have introduced a fast-track process for consents. And we will close the Infrastructure Planning Commission and return decisions on major energy infrastructure to democratically elected ministers.

    Over 1,000 pages of local planning policy for England are being replaced by clearer and more streamlined National Planning Policy Framework. And the Government will consult on measures for a ‘planning guarantee’.

    We’re also working to improve grid connections. The connect and manage regime is now up and running. Network companies are now looking much further ahead in their planning and engaging more effectively with stakeholders. Together, this will help the network acts as a facilitator rather than an obstacle to renewable generation.

    And a few months ago, we published the Renewables Roadmap – setting out for the first time how we will overcome barriers to deployment.

    It’s a comprehensive action plan to accelerate the UK’s deployment and use of renewable energy.

    Conclusion

    In many ways, Britain can lay claim to be the home of renewable energy.

    It is thought that the oldest tidal mill in the world once stood across the river Fleet, in London. The white cliffs of Dover looked over a tide mill that was recorded in the Domesday Book.

    And 130 years ago, we connected the world’s first public electricity supply, in Godalming, Surrey.

    It did not burn coal, or gas.

    No, the power plant in question was a Siemens generator driven by 100% clean, renewable power: a watermill on the River Wey.

    When Britain began its journey towards electrification, renewable energy was the future.

    But we ended up choosing another path. This time, things will be different.

    We will not heed the naysayers or the green economy deniers.

    With over £200 billion worth of energy infrastructure needed by the end of the decade, this is our golden chance to deliver a greener future.

  • Chris Huhne – 2011 Speech to the Durban Climate Conference

    chrishuhne

    The below speech was made by the then Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, at the Durban Climate Conference on 8th December 2011.

    Thank you, Mr President.

    One year ago, we brought these negotiations back from the brink. As the global economic crisis deepened, we turned away from low ambition.

    This year, we must back high ambition. Economic uncertainty may be dominating the headlines, but emissions are rising fast. Against dark skies, we must summon the strength to commit to a brighter future.

    Nowhere is this more essential than here in Africa, the continent most vulnerable to climate change. For millions of Africans, climate change is not a matter of negotiating texts, informal informals or square brackets. It is a matter – literally – of life and death.

    So here in Durban, we must signal that our objective remains a legally binding global deal.

    Nothing else will provide certainty for the businesses and investors who are building the next generation of homes, vehicles and power plants. Nothing else will close the emissions gap, delivering the carbon cuts we need to keep global warming within 2 degrees. Nothing else will show our determination to meet the climate challenge as fairly and as fully as possible.

    That is why the UK, with our EU partners, remains a firm advocate of a global legally binding agreement within the UNFCCC. We want all countries to commit now to a comprehensive global legal framework, and to complete negotiations on it by 2015 at the latest.

    The UK remains fully committed to the Kyoto Protocol. We are proud of the Protocol and the part we have played in it; it is driving the low-carbon transformation in Europe. Together with the EU, we have clearly stated that we are willing to move to a second Kyoto commitment period, maintaining ambition and environmental integrity.

    But to do that in isolation makes no sense. A second commitment period covering only the EU and two or three other developed countries would control less than 15 per cent of global emissions; some 85 per cent of global emissions would remain uncontrolled.

    That would not provide the certainty that investors need; it would not close the emissions gap; it would not meet the hopes of Cancun; it would not help the poor and the vulnerable.

    We need a clear roadmap to a wider agreement. If that roadmap cannot be agreed here in Durban, we will not agree a second commitment period of Kyoto.

    Let me be absolutely clear about this. The roadmap and the second commitment period are part of the same package, the same route towards a legally binding global deal. They cannot be separated from one another, and we will not let them be. We recognise and are encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of countries here, developed and developing, share this view.

    The UK’s commitment to tackling climate change is clear. We have adopted strict domestic targets for reducing emissions: a 50 per cent cut by the mid 2020s. We are meeting our fast start finance obligations: we have allocated more than £1 billion to date.

    On Tuesday, I announced our package for Africa:

    – £38 million for climate-resilient agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa, helping 250,000 small-scale farmers

    – £27 million for the Energy and Environment Partnership in southern Africa

    – £15 million to support Ethiopia’s new national climate strategy

    – £7 million for an adaptation and resilience programme in Kenya support through the Clean Technology Fund for low-carbon projects in Nigeria

    – £30 million for the Least Developed Country Fund

    – £10 million for the Adaptation Fund

    – £85 million for the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience

    By the end of 2012 we will have met in full our pledge of £1.5 billion in fast start finance. And we already have committed financial support beyond the end of the fast start period.

    We are determined to make the Green Climate Fund a reality and to develop long-term sources of finance. We must make progress on technology, adaptation, forests and MRV. We must move towards a common understanding of the size of the emissions gap, and how we can close it.

    These are all steps on the road to a comprehensive global agreement. And this goal is not beyond our reach. Last year’s conference in Cancun showed what we can achieve when we display flexibility and the will to compromise.

    If we continue to choose co-operation over conflict, we can show that all nations are indeed united by a common ambition: to protect our planet and our people from the dangers of climate change.

    Thank you.

  • Chris Huhne – 2010 Speech on the Green Deal

    chrishuhne

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne, on the Green Deal on 2nd November 2010.

    Thanks very much.

    Three years ago, the credit crunch hit home.

    Three years ago, the economy suffered its most profound shock since the 1930s.

    Three years ago, customers queued around the block in the first run on a British bank for a century and a half.

    From Iceland to Greece, the financial crisis changed the fortunes of countries, their people, and their governments. It framed political debate then as it does now.

    The UK was hit hard.

    Our overdependence on the financial sector left us critically exposed.

    Our banks trembled. Our credit rating faltered.

    And our gross domestic product fell by 5% in a single year – the sharpest drop since 1921.

    UK Response

    Coming after a decade of government overspending, the result was a budget deficit unmatched in peacetime.

    A fiscal stimulus package without precedent.

    And a ballooning credibility gap, as it became clear there was no real plan to lift us out of a deep recession.

    Tackling our chronic structural deficit – and rebuilding confidence in our economy – demanded difficult decisions.

    The coalition’s response was decisive.

    The Emergency Budget steered us away from a sovereign debt crisis. And the Spending Review set out a clear and credible path back to national prosperity.

    The latest indications are good: GDP is growing faster than expected. Our national credit rating is back where it belongs. Investors feel confident that the UK’s course is true.

    We have weathered the storm.

    But now we are in the open ocean, and a question still remains:

    Where is the growth coming from?

    Future Prosperity

    It is no longer enough to decry the excesses of the last Government. Yes, the cupboard is bare. Now it is up to us fill it.

    Over the past week, you have heard our plan to bring back growth.

    A tougher competition regime. Funding for scientific research. The national infrastructure programme. The local growth strategy.

    Together, they will help restore prosperity and promote growth.

    But there is something else.

    Something that can deliver a boost of macroeconomic significance.

    It is essential to the recovery.

    It is vital for our future competitiveness.

    And as the Prime Minister made clear last week, it is a critical part of the Government’s strategy for growth.

    To change our national economic story from one of financial speculation to one of future growth, we need a third industrial revolution: a green revolution.

    It will transform our economy as surely as the shift from iron to steel, from steam to oil.

    It will lead us toward a low-carbon future, with cleaner energy and greener growth. With an economy that is built to last – on more sustainable, more stable foundations.

    It is an enticing prospect.

    But what does green growth mean?

    It means jobs. It means investment pouring into the UK, and exports pouring out.

    Technologies that can be licensed and spun off to lock-in profits.

    A more skilled workforce. Able to compete in the global marketplace, furthering our reputation for innovation, boosting British enterprise.

    And at home, a more sustainable economy. One less prone to the fits and starts of a fragile energy market, and more resilient in the face of global uncertainty.

    These are the long-term rewards that await us if we have the courage to build our economy anew.

    We cannot risk falling behind. Other countries are not waiting for international agreements before engaging with the next global growth sector.

    Instead, they are nurturing new industries focused on the defining challenges of our age: the development of clean energy.

    Today, I will set out the case for green growth.

    The industries it will nurture. The investment it will spark. The jobs it will create.

    And the security it will bring, as we gain greater energy independence and build a more sustainable economy.

    A Global Market

    We are at the brink of a new industrial era.

    From electric vehicles to energy management, the global low-carbon and environmental goods and services sector is a £3.2 trillion market. It is forecast to reach £4 trillion before this Parliament dissolves.

    Last year, our share of that market was worth £112 billion. 900,000 people are employed in the low-carbon sector and its supply chain; by 2015, there will be at least a million. That’s a workforce – and a budget – to rival the NHS.

    As global efforts to cut carbon gather pace, the market will grow. Those countries which take the lead will be uniquely positioned.

    Think of Germany’s expertise in wind turbine manufacturing, or China’s growing share of solar photovoltaic production.

    We must secure a bigger slice of the pie. In offshore wind, in carbon capture and storage, Britain can establish itself as a market leader.

    Our job is to ensure British firms can take full advantage of the opportunities. Converting our technical successes into commercial opportunities.

    That means removing barriers to innovation and investment at home.

    Exporting the best of British overseas. And securing international buy-in for the low-carbon transition.

    The best way to achieve that consensus is to lead from the front. On energy supply and energy demand, we can set an example which boosts growth at home and competitiveness abroad.

    New Generation

    As with previous industrial revolutions, our primary energy source will define our economy.

    Victorian fortunes were built on coal and steam. 20th century dynasties were founded on oil and gas.

    The next generation’s prosperity will come from clean energy. It must be affordable. It must be secure. And it must be low-carbon.

    Many of the technologies that will power our future are still emerging. Wave and tidal stream tech are improving quickly. Solar photovoltaic is becoming ever more affordable. And in Britain, onshore wind is expected to be cost competitive with nuclear power.

    This rapid expansion in new technology coincides with an explosion in demand for new generation.

    Demand for electricity could double as we plug in to the national grid to power our cars and heat our homes.

    Yet the UK’s power plants are ageing fast. 20 Gigawatts of capacity will be lost by 2023 as old power stations close.

    Ofgem estimates that we need £200 billion of investment by 2020 to upgrade our outdated energy assets.

    The replacement cycle means energy investment will ramp up significantly – between 0.5 and 1% of GDP.

    Have no doubt: this is a step change. And the opportunities are breathtaking.

    As the next generation of power plants come online, so new industries will spring up around them – from manufacturing to maintenance. Each new plant must be designed, built, operated and connected to the grid.

    To take full advantage of the shift to low-carbon generation, we must allow these developing industries to flourish within our borders.

    Our policy is built on four pillars: energy saving, carbon capture and storage, renewables and – as the coalition agreement made clear – new nuclear without public subsidy.

    When saving for your retirement, it would be irresponsible to put all your eggs in one basket. It would also be irresponsible to tie the nation’s energy security to just one technology. We cannot be certain of future costs or liabilities.

    To keep the lights on and the public finances in the black, we need a solution delivered by the market.

    So we are determined to make it easier to invest across the energy portfolio.

    We want to remove the planning obstacles that have held up new nuclear. Investors looking at the next generation of nuclear power need clarity and certainty, and this Government will provide it.

    Later this year, we will consult on a new market framework for electricity; one that encourages low-carbon investment and gives consumers a fair deal.

    Our work on electricity market reform will look at how we can deliver a secure, affordable, low-carbon electricity mix. It is a fundamental change in the market structure that underpins our national supply.

    By the second half of the decade, annual investment in the UK energy system is expected to reach £25 billion.

    Key engineering companies are already planning for opportunities in power generation at a national scale.

    The world’s biggest offshore windfarm, at Thanet, is an impressive feat of engineering. Yet most of the value went to companies outside the UK. This has to change.

    The funds for ports infrastructure announced last week is a statement of intent. We want to make sure turbine manufacturers can build what they need on our shores, instead of importing expensive finished products that could be made here.

    The sector could create 70,000 jobs, cementing our position as leaders of the offshore wind pack.

    We also need to clean up our existing fossil fuel plants.

    The Spending Review underlined the Government’s commitment to carbon capture and storage; a project worth up to a billion pounds, to tackle our fossil fuel legacy and prepare us for a future of clean coal.

    This will build the first ever commercial scale CCS plant, delivering on a technology that the IEA says will be essential for the future.

    Globally, it estimates 3,400 CCS plants will be needed by 2050 if we are to meet our critical 2 degree target.

    And the demonstration project puts the UK at the forefront of this emerging market.

    Saving Energy

    Greening the supply of energy in the UK will be critical. But action on new generation alone will not be enough. We must also do something about demand.

    A snapshot of the UK’s domestic power consumption reveals chronic inefficiency.

    A quarter of UK carbon emissions come from housing. We use more energy heating our homes than Sweden.

    Our homes may be our castles. But they shouldn’t cost a king’s ransom to run.

    In houses across the country, boilers are firing up earlier than they need to. Burning more gas than they have to. Producing more emissions than they should do.

    And all because our outdated housing stock leaks heat and wastes carbon.

    Our response is the Green Deal, a radical programme to bring our houses out of the dark ages.

    Over the next two years we expect to insulate 3.5 million homes, with a renewed focus on those in fuel poverty – and those who need it most.

    Then, from 2012 onwards, energy saving packages worth thousands will be installed in millions of homes, with the capital and interest costs covered by savings on energy bills.

    And we will look at how we can apply the Green Deal model to businesses, too – enabling them to cut carbon, and cut costs.

    The potential benefits are vast.

    From assessment to installation, from manufacturing to supply, the Green Deal means opportunities for skilled and unskilled labour alike.

    Opportunities that will last for decades – and span the length and breadth of Britain.

    Nothing on this scale has ever been attempted before. It is one of the single biggest interventions in British domestic history: a nationwide, once-in-generation refit to future-proof our homes.

    Over the last two years steady progress has been made, with two million loft and cavity wall insulations installed.

    But Labour failed to improve the private rented sector, which benefited from less than 2 per cent of these installations.

    Privately rented homes have far too many leaky lofts and icy drafts. Over half a million have the lowest energy rating.

    The Green Deal will change this. We should no longer condemn those who rent privately.

    Landlords will face no upfront cost, and will benefit from an improved property. By 2015 every tenant should be able to be as warm as toast in their home.

    This is a win, win, win situation – for the landlord, the tenant, and the climate.

    I hope and expect that landlords will respond positively to the Green Deal. But this Government will not put up with tenants needlessly living in chilly conditions.

    If a review into energy efficiency in the sector finds that landlords aren’t taking up this once-in-a-generation opportunity, we will respond.

    If necessary, we will look to take powers to ensure that from 2015, any tenant who asks for energy efficiency improvements cannot be refused.

    And we will give local authorities the power to insist that landlords improve the worst performing homes.

    We estimate that every household could benefit from energy improvements under the Green Deal, with implications for manufacturing and supply chains across the country.

    The number of people employed in insulation alone could soar from 27,000 to 100,000 by 2015. That could eventually rise to a peak of 250,000.

    This is no idle ambition. In September, British Gas announced its plan to ‘go early’ on the Green Deal, investing £30 million and creating 3,700 jobs.

    Earlier today, I visited their Energy Academy, where they’ve just recruited their thousandth green-collar worker. From school leavers to highly-qualified engineers, this is real green growth.

    Within our borders. With a long timeframe. And with no regional bias, because our homes are everywhere.

    The Green Deal will also reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels.

    The most inefficient households could save £550 a year on their fuel bills; if every household took up the Green Deal, spending on gas would fall by £2.5 billion per year.

    With over a third of our gas currently imported and UK gas production on a downward trend, the net result is a saving on a national level.

    That bigger picture is important.

    The link between the micro and the macro illustrates a curious truth: double-glazing your windows really can improve the UK’s energy security.

    Security and Stability

    And energy security matters.

    Not just security of supply, but security of price.

    For it is becoming increasingly clear that the age of cheap energy is over.

    Dwindling fossil fuel resources and soaring demand suggest we are headed towards an energy crunch.

    The Gulf of Mexico merely underlined the point: extracting fossil fuels is becoming more risky and more costly.

    Yet one of the clearest lessons of the financial crisis is that growth is nothing without stability.

    Greater energy independence – with more renewable and nuclear power – is the best way to protect our consumers and our country from the uncertainty of the energy markets.

    Our policies are not free. There will be a significant price impact, and there will be costs to the consumer.

    But not only are they offset by energy efficiency savings; they are also an insurance policy against rising prices.

    Consider oil. At $80 a barrel, energy bills will only rise by 1% in 2020.

    Yet the IAE predict a $90 barrel by 2020. And the US administration forecasts $108 per barrel.

    If the US administration right, our consumers will be saving money as a result of our policies.

    Then take the macroeconomics. I asked DECC economists to look at the impact of a late 1970s-style oil price shock on our economy.

    They found that if the oil price doubled, it could lead to a cumulative loss of GDP of around £45 billion over 2 years. That’s the equivalent of the entire Ministry of Defence budget in 2008/09.

    That’s bad for business, profits and jobs.

    Even a more moderate rise in oil and gas prices would leave us critically exposed.

    Thanks to a decade of missed opportunities on renewables, our energy import dependence could double by 2020.

    As demand grows and the global recovery picks up, it is increasingly clear that an economy dependent on fossil fuels is neither sustainable nor stable.

    The solution is to get ourselves off the oil hook – and on to clean green growth.

    We estimate the low-carbon transition will safeguard  growth by cutting UK demand for oil, and boosting our defences against oil price shocks.

    If we do not create the conditions for sustainable growth, we will be more exposed to rising energy costs. More dependent on finite fossil fuels.

    And more vulnerable to resource risk.

    A New Kind of Economy

    Instead, we have a chance to build a new kind of economy. A more balanced, more sustainable economy. Where climate stabilisation and financial recovery are not mutually exclusive but mutually beneficial.

    Delivering jobs, creating exports, and securing investment.

    Tackling the deficit without sacrificing the environment.

    Protecting us from the economic and environmental risks of runaway climate change.

    And all while maintaining energy security in an increasingly volatile global market.

    This is the promise of the green revolution.

    And this is the government that will lead the way.

    Thank you very much.

  • Chris Huhne – 2008 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    chrishuhne

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Huhne on 16th September 2008 to the Liberal Democrat Conference in Bournemouth.

    Conference, there is a Tory and Labour conspiracy on crime.

    Both are guilty of putting forward measures to tackle crime that are ineffective or even counter-productive.

    These parties are not tough on crime. They are soft on hard thinking and tough choices. Just as our party has changed the public debate on climate change, we need to change the debate on crime and punishment.

    We need a new consensus on what works, not what titillates the tabloids.

    We need common sense not sensationalism. That’s why we proposed on Sunday a National Crime Reduction Agency to report on the evidence of what works in justice and policing as thoroughly as we assess medicines in the health service.

    Instead, we now have a crime debate totally removed from reality.

    Take an example in July. A Labour Home Secretary announced she would march young offenders into hospital to see the consequences of violence. She ignored the evidence from the United States that such programmes do not cut crime, but put it up. Four days later, she ditched the idea.

    Or take David Cameron. He knows that you can get four years in jail for just carrying a knife, but he thinks that judges tiptoe around knife crime. So he wants to send every knife carrier to prison automatically.

    Just a small problem. If he did, the prison population would nearly quadruple. The basic rate of income tax would go up by a penny in the pound.

    Oh, and another problem. The evidence shows it wouldn’t work.

    What works is visible policing to reassure people they do not need to carry a knife. Intelligence led stop and search of hot spots to catch knife carriers. Working with the local community to gather leads and encourage witnesses. Telling it how it is in schools and colleges. Taking back control of the streets.

    But Labour and the Tories are addicted to punishment posturing, and that means legislative diarrhoea as a substitute for enforcing the law that we have. In their first decade in government, Labour’s new legislation takes the same amount of shelf space as 200 copies of War and Peace.

    And it is twice as heavy as John Prescott. Labour has introduced 3,600 new criminal offences since 1997 even though nearly every offence that people care about has been illegal for years.

    My favourite is a new offence which shows ministers getting really tough. You will be relieved to hear that it is now against the law to set off nuclear explosions.

    Labour and the Tories have pretended that prison is the most effective way of deterring crime. They say that if someone is locked up, they cannot offend. But that ignores the fact that prisoners leave when they serve their time.

    The whole point of prison ought to be to stop people reoffending. But if you put a young man into prison for the first time, there is a 92 per cent chance he will offend again. Our prisons are colleges of crime.

    If prison works so well, why has crime gone down in Denmark while the number of prisoners has gone down? Why has crime fallen in Canada when the prison population is the same? The Government’s own top-notch research found no evidence that tougher penalties deterred crime.

    Let’s be clear. We need prison for serious offenders and for serial offences. But we need reformed prisons that educate, occupy and prepare prisoners for life outside.

    There’s another reason why prison does not work well. It is because so few people are caught. For every hundred crimes committed in Britain today, just one criminal will end up with a conviction in a court of law. That’s a 99 per cent chance of getting away with it. And if you don’t catch offenders, no amount of threatening punishments will work.

    So if we want to cut crime, we should stop posturing about penalties because they are tough enough. The answer’s simple. Catch criminals to cut crime.

    Yet Labour, like the Tories, has done the opposite of what works. The average prison sentence has gone up – that the ineffective bit that does not work. Meanwhile, the key factor that does work – the detection rate for crime – has fallen by nearly a fifth since the end of the eighties.

    If the prison population was still the same as when crime peaked in 1996, there would be enough cash for 25,000 extra police officers. If the ID card scheme were scrapped, we could hire a further 10,000 police. That’s 35,000 extra police officers – a quarter extra – on the streets catching criminals and cutting crime.

    Of course, more does not always mean better. Year after year, Labour and the Tories have ducked the tough choices on police reform. Sheehy, Flanagan, HM Inspectors’ reports. All have come and gone.

    We need more police, but better policing too. Detection rates even for serious offences vary widely. For violent crime, just a third of recorded offences are detected in London compared with two thirds in North Yorkshire.

    Spreading best practice would mean more detection. And more detection would mean less crime. Detection works.

    That is why police performance matters. Poor performance is not tackled strongly enough. A senior police officer who has lost motivation is usually left alone. That’s not good for morale. It is not good for ambitious young officers to see deadwood prosper. The force needs to be able properly to reward not just time served, but effort, talent and skills.

    Worst of all, police pay has become a political football. Police officers cannot by law strike. They suffer the same squeeze on pay and costs as the rest of us, but they cannot get a second job without their Chief Constable’s permission. In exchange for those restrictions, ministers must accept the recommendations of the independent police pay tribunal. Police need a pay system which is fair, independent and respected.

    And we need local policing. The Tories and Labour have set central targets that meddle, but do not deliver. They have distorted local priorities. By awarding the same points for minor and serious crimes, they have sucked thousands unnecessarily into the criminal justice system.

    Central targets mean wasted effort and resources chasing the wrong priorities, which is why they must go. We need local accountability to local people with the powers to set local priorities. If local people do not like the results, they can get rid of the decision-makers.

    If the Liberal Democrats did not exist, all there would be on crime and justice from the Tories and Labour would be show-boating and grand-standing.

    And if the Liberal Democrats did not exist, who would stand up for civil liberties? Not the so-called liberal Conservatives, who just this summer have called for tougher bail conditions, automatic sentences for knife-carrying, more prisons, and the removal of checks on police surveillance. I just hope the Conservatives can still be relied upon to vote against more detention without trial or ID cards. Goodbye David Davis, it was nice knowing you.

    And if the Liberal Democrats did not exist, who would rebuild our fading democracy? Not David Cameron, who has gone strangely quiet on constitutional change. I’ve got a challenge for you David, Do you even stand by your commitment in your leadership campaign to fixed term parliaments?

    And if the Liberal Democrats did not exist, who would stand up for our children’s future in a time of climate change? Not the green Tories. The first thing Boris Johnson did when he became London’s mayor was ditch green taxes on the biggest cars. As for George Osborne, he has already ditched green taxes in favour of cutting petrol taxes. Not the planet’s champion, but the gas guzzler’s friend.

    And if the Liberal Democrats did not exist, who would stand up for fairness? Not Labour, who thought it was a good idea to increase income tax on the worst off to give better-off taxpayers a cut. And not the Conservatives either, whatever they now pretend. David Cameron and George Osborne both abstained on Labour’s budget. Remember their first tax cut promise? Abolishing stamp duty on share dealing for their friends in the City. And their second was a cut in inheritance tax for households with £2 million.

    We are now told that David Cameron and George Osborne were idealistic young people who cared about fairness. Perhaps they agonised over their options as they adjusted their fancy tailcoats – mirror, mirror on the wall, which party is the fairest of them all? Tory, Lib Dem or Labour?

    Well, when young David and young George were wondering which party to join, we had a Conservative government. For eighteen years. And during that period the poor got poorer and the rich got richer, and the gap got wider. And the reason was not some force of nature, but Tory policy decisions that were hard-nosed, sharp-eyed and mean-minded.

    A Tory decision to scrap the link between pensions and earnings. Result? More pensioner poverty.

    A Tory decision to scrap the uprating of out of work and in work benefits. Result? More working poverty.

    A Tory decision to scrap the uprating of child benefit. Result? More child poverty.

    These chaps are not stupid, so why do they think we were born yesterday?

    George Osborne will go fair when George Bush goes green. Fairness will be a Tory value when hell freezes over, Notting Hill becomes a workers’ republic, and the Bullingdon club affiliates to the Socialist International.

    I’ve got news for David Cameron. You don’t make society fairer by hoping for it, or by talking about it. You can only make society fairer by helping the poor and the powerless, and that means giving them more money and more power over their own lives.

    And I’ve got a challenge for David Cameron. Name a single period of Conservative government when Britain has become more equal. Name a single Conservative measure which even helped.

    David Cameron, like Tony Blair, wants to be all things to all people. Tories would have us believe they are the party of the environment, and of owners of big cars. Of  traditional values, and of change. Of equality, and of lower taxes on the best off. Of liberty, and of removing checks on police surveillance. Of European membership for Georgia, and of pulling out of Europe’s social chapter for us. If politics is about making tough choices, the Tory party is about ducking hard decisions. A party which has every priority is a party that has none. A party with no heart, no core values and no direction.

    There’s only one party committed to the environment, and always has been. Only one party committed to civil liberties, and always was. Only one party committed to fairness. Only one party committed to handing power back to the people. And only one party for building a world based on the rule of law not the law of the jungle.

    Conference, Labour can’t deliver the change that our nation needs. The Conservatives won’t. Only the Liberal Democrats will.

  • John Hutton : 2008 Climate Change Speech

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton in Brazil on September 2nd 2008.

    Good morning.

    I’d like to start by thanking the British Embassy for organising this event with the CBI and the CNI. For me, it seems only natural that Brazil and the UK work together on the issue of climate change. Brazil continues to play a leading role in pushing forward the climate change agenda internationally. And we in the UK are keen to build on this and to work with others to make the transition to a low carbon economy a reality across the globe.

    Tackling climate change and ensuring energy security are, I believe to be, two of the greatest challenges that every country today now faces. Both are interrelated and both requiring global solutions. The work of CBI and others here today in Sao Paulo, convinces me even further that we need to work together to tackle these enormous challenges.

    Because we cannot afford to wait.

    The science is clear and beyond doubt. Human activity is causing changes to our climate. Do nothing and we threaten lives, economic growth and the standard of living of all of our citizens.

    Nicholas Stern argued this point persuasively in his report for the UK government. Inaction will cost the equivalent of between 5-20% of global GDP. Taking early action to stabilise global emissions at an acceptable level will cost the equivalent of maybe 1-2% of global GDP. That’s the equivalent of being as rich in 2051 as otherwise would have been in 2050. Is that an unreasonable price to pay?

    We can already see some of the economic and human costs associated with more extreme weather events. The occurrence of climate-related disasters in this region increased by 2.4 times during the periods 1970-1999 and 2000-2005, continuing the trend observed during the 1990s. Only 19% of these events have been economically quantified between 2000 and 2005, representing losses of almost $20 billion. In Brazil in 2001, I understand that a combination of increased energy demand and droughts affected hydroelectric supply, which amounted to a GDP reduction of 1.5%.

    Brazil, as a leading economy, is right to take into account the potential costs to its economy and people. For this reason, I understand that a consortium of leading Brazilian institutions has embarked on Stern type study, looking at the economic costs as well as the opportunities of climate change here in Brazil. The UK government, as a friend and partner with Brazil, is happy to be supporting this initiative because we know how informative it was to our own thinking. Because we must all understand the economics as well as the science of climate change if we are to make the most cost effective interventions that can help achieve what I think should be our twin goals – firstly reducing green house gases to reduce the threat of climate change and secondly securing economic growth and prosperity in the future.

    But climate change is not just a threat – there are countless opportunities as well. Opportunities for those countries in particular, those businesses and entrepreneurs who see that a high growth and low carbon economy are not incompatible. And there are opportunities too for those who move first, to deliver new technologies, create new jobs and drive economic growth.

    Now of course some companies are looking to exploit new markets and technologies. Others are looking to become more energy efficient. Others are acting to enhance their corporate image and reputation, something which is increasingly central to the value of any brand or product.

    But whatever drives these companies, the benefits of this work are huge.

    Globally it is estimated that environmental industries will be worth $700bn by 2010 – equal to the size of the global aerospace industry.

    While by 2050, the overall added value of the low carbon energy sector alone could be as high as $3 trillion per year worldwide.

    Globally, a record $73 billion has been invested in green technologies this year. And of course green jobs also mean more jobs. This could employ more than 25 million people, creating a new generation of green collar jobs, spreading wealth and opportunity in countries across the world. A country with an energy mix containing 20% renewables can create twice as many jobs as a purely fossil fuel based economy. And we in this room all know the advantage that Brazil has in the renewables market.

    Given the scale and urgency of our climate change challenge, the leadership of the global business community in this area can only increase in importance.

    So how do we enable more businesses to seize these opportunities and help build our low carbon economies in the most cost-effective way possible?

    Firstly, I believe Governments can help by creating the right incentives and frameworks to stimulate the deployment of new technologies. And at the heart of this work, there must be a commitment to competitive energy markets.

    It is often very tempting in the face of high energy prices and the speed with which we need to decarbonise our economies, for governments to steer towards over-regulation, protectionism and away from market-based solutions.

    But the transformation of global energy systems will require an enormous amount of investment in the decades ahead that in the end, in my view, only open, robust markets can deliver.

    And as more and more countries compete for the people, finance and technology to make their own, low-carbon revolution a reality, we also know that the actions of government can make the critical difference between investors choosing to invest in one country over another.

    So it is essential governments create the most stable, predictable and attractive regulatory environment to encourage companies to invest. And give investors the confidence and certainty to choose our markets as the right place to do green business. We can use the power of markets to provide the impetus for change and innovation – both of which will be needed to deal with the challenges that confront us all.

    So this market-based approach applies not just to energy supplies but also to tackling climate change by cutting carbon emissions.

    The UK is part of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which caps emissions from the electricity generating industry among others. We are making our 60% emissions reduction target for 2050 legally binding, and as the EU-ETS establishes a meaningful price for carbon, it will ensure the reductions are made in a cost-effective way. I believe the EU ETS is already starting to emerge as a model for carbon trading worldwide. UK/Brazil low carbon links

    Secondly, we must build strong bilateral and multilateral relationships to share our expertise and help diversify energy sources, suppliers and transit routes.

    Trade between our two countries began two centuries ago, when the UK Royal Navy helped to open up Brazilian ports.

    In recent years, it has increased by more than 20% – totalling over £3 billion in 2007 – and matched by significant growth in bilateral investment.

    The future development of low-carbon industries and solutions offers us even greater chances to build on this success.

    An excellent recent example of business co-operation between our two countries has been the development of Clean Development Mechanism projects under the Kyoto Protocol.

    Brazil has been a leading host country with over 290 CDM projects – a significant number involving UK companies.

    Brazil is also a world leader in the generation of renewable energies such as hydro power and biofuels. And the UK is keen to learn from your knowledge and experience.

    We have recently set measures aimed at delivering a ten-fold increase in our use of renewable energy by 2020.

    And although we’re making substantial progress to grow our renewable energy sector, especially in the area of offshore wind generation, I think in the UK we need to go much further, much faster, and develop a range of renewable sources in the future.

    By 2020 we’re aiming to source up to 10% of our road transport energy consumption from renewables – in line with the EU target.

    We expect biofuels to play a big part in this. I believe there are huge opportunities in UK and EU markets for Brazilian biofuel.

    Studies already show that Brazilian bioethanol can save up to 89% in greenhouse gas emissions when compared to fossil fuels. And your long-standing expertise in biofuel technology and as an ethanol exporter is invaluable.

    There is also huge potential for co-operation between UK and Brazilian automotive companies in the design and delivery of flexfuel cars.

    But first we need to gain agreement on sustainability issues to give business, government and individuals the certainty and confidence they need to act. Events such as the forthcoming international biofuels conference here in Sao Paulo will be critical to encourage international discussion and agreement in this area.

    Facing up to the scale of the challenge presents the international community with immense opportunities. We are negotiating a new climate change agreement that will govern global emissions in the future to ensure we avoid the worst case scenarios of climate change. This is not an easy process – and alongside the DDA is an area of foreign policy today where a truly global effort is required to succeed.

    This framework will not only have long-term environmental implications but, perhaps more importantly for those here today, it will form the basis of a long-term economic framework setting the planet on a low carbon path.

    If we can achieve an ambitious global climate change deal next year in Copenhagen, we can move swiftly to a low carbon economy. An economy in which businesses like yours and ours can manage the risks and maximise the opportunities presented by a low carbon future.

    We cannot be complacent. And we must recognise that there is no easy, cheap or risk free option before us. It will take a global mobilisation of leadership and resources. If we fail, the economic and social cots will be great.

    As governments, businesses and individuals, we must act now to tackle climate change by reducing our carbon emissions, enhancing energy efficiency and adapting to some of the inevitable consequences of climate change. Consequences which will change our businesses, our livelihoods and lives.

    But I would like to leave you with this final thought. We must see this as an opportunity – an opportunity for closer working, sharing of knowledge, expertise and technology. Making the investment now that will help secure our future prosperity, with economic security and, perhaps most importantly of all, continued progress in the fight against poverty and disadvantage across the globe.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • John Hutton – 2007 Speech on Public Sector Reform

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the CBI Public Services Forum on 16th May 2007.

    Can I first of all thank the CBI for inviting me to come and talk with you this morning.

    I very much welcome the commitment of the CBI to engage in the debate about public service reform.  For many years business organisations in the UK were not always fully involved in the debate about how we improve the quality of our public services.  That has now changed.  Businesses use and fund public services.  Education, transport and health systems make a critical difference to the competitiveness of the UK economy. And increasingly you are part of the solution – partnering with the public sector in the delivery of those services.  The creation of the CBI’s Public Services Strategy Board and this Public Services Forum reflects the tremendous growth of this new industry and a commitment on behalf of business in engaging fully in that debate. We welcome this involvement and participation.

    This is probably the right time for us to reflect on what we have learnt from a decade in office – what has worked and what hasn’t worked – and for us to debate where the focus of public service reform needs to shift to meet the challenges of the coming decade.

    There is no doubt in my mind that a continuing commitment to reforming our public services will be central to the Government’s agenda.  The reason for this is obvious.  Globalisation and demographic change necessitate an appropriate response from our public services so that we can help individuals and families realise the opportunities of the new world economy.  Without such a response, our society and our economy would be impoverished – the life chances of millions diminished.

    I know there are some on the political margins who hope the coming political transition inside the Labour Party will open a window of opportunity to reverse our approach.  They will be disappointed.  The core of our reform programme – significant and sustained investment, choice, personalisation and empowerment for users, devolution to the front line, an open minded approach to who provides – is being built into the DNA of our public service infrastructure.

    There is little doubt that this Government’s progress on public service reform can be described as a journey.  It is tempting for all of us when we look back to try and retrofit a neat story about our public service reforms.  In reality, whether in the public or private sector, you have to learn on the job. And themes do emerge over time.

    There are four that stand out.

    First, that investment in our public services – in people, technology, infrastructure – has been a necessary pre-condition for reform.  But on its own it is insufficient.  Many in my party wanted to believe that we would deliver service improvement simply by building more schools and hospitals and recruiting more staff.  Ten years on we recognise the incredible benefits that that investment has brought – I see it all the time in my own constituency and across the country – but we also recognise its limits. Money can not solve all of the problems we face.

    Second, timelines are frustratingly long.  If ministers decide that something fundamental needs to change in the system today, in reality it often takes several years before the effects of that change start to flow through.  Then more time before it has widespread impact.  And for that reason alone, we should perhaps have started more of our reforms from Day 1.

    Third, that part of the political and intellectual journey we have been on, is to realise that the development of social markets hold the key to reform.  This has been perhaps the most controversial and difficult of our reforms.  Opening up monopoly state provision to private and voluntary sector providers.  In the early days we believed that structural change was a distraction from raising educational standards or healthcare.  Eventually we came to understand that structural change and incentives also have an important role to play in raising standards; that you simply could not have one without the other.

    And finally, it is clear that there are limits to central intervention, planning, targets, audit and inspection.  Self-sustaining reform – a built-in mechanism to drive continuous quality improvement – can only be achieved if individual users of public services become the drivers of performance in the system and local staff and institutions are empowered to respond to and help deliver those preferences.

    And it is on this last point – about how we create a wider ownership for reform that I want to focus my remarks today.

    It has become a familiar critique that despite substantial investment, recruitment of hundreds of thousands more staff and above average wage increases, that those who have to deliver public services feel insufficient ownership or responsibility for the reforms being implemented.

    So, one of our most difficult tasks in this next phase of reform is how to share power, responsibility and accountability with staff and institutions to create a new momentum behind these reforms, one that is less reliant on central direction but balanced by new accountabilities to customers and an intolerance of failure.

    You know only too well from the way you manage your own businesses, that there is ultimately a limit to how much you can achieve through imposing targets and practice on staff.  If those that work within your organisations do not believe in what you are saying and feel disconnected from the process of change, then change – real and sustained – simply won’t happen.

    Forging a new relationship with staff will be important.  5.5 million people are now employed in the public sector.  They are a conduit for informing and shaping the national public debate about our public services.

    There are those that think the root of this problem lies with too much top down central control and the imposition of targets that distort customer priorities.

    There are those that think we have placed too much emphasis on structural change and reorganisation for its own sake.

    There are those that think the so-called marketisation of our public services has eroded a public service ethos.

    There are those that think the cause lies with our tone, our communication strategy or ‘narrative’.  If only we explained more clearly what we were trying to do, then ‘they would get it’.

    And there are those that think it will always be like this and that we just need to accept that they will never be ‘on our side’.  Change disrupts comfortable patterns and established ways of doing things.

    As ever, there’s no simple answer.  No straightforward solution.  I’m sure that there is more we need to do to engage effectively with staff.  Communicate where we are going and why.

    But for me, what this challenge really reflects is a more fundamental question. ‘Who owns the responsibility for reform in our public services today?’

    I don’t just mean the day to day implementation of today’s priorities but tomorrow’s innovation in patient care, welfare or teaching standards?

    Because we believed strongly in the case for change, we drove it hard from the centre.  We ‘owned’ the challenge of change.  Both the problem and the answer.  We came to believe that policy makers and politicians in Westminster and Whitehall were meant to be the brain for every creative impulse across the system.  It delivered improvements and continues to do so.  But it comes with a price.  A stream of initiatives, targets and legislation in which staff often feel passive recipients; in which they have little influence or control.

    But analyse any of the UK’s best performing companies and you will find few that are able to maintain high customer service standards, innovation and efficiency without creating that shared sense of ownership deep within the organisation that can ensure continued success.

    So, if our challenge is to create a shared sense of ownership amongst both staff and customers for the future of public service reform, how we create it is equally critical.

    And I am clear that it won’t be achieved by slowing down the pace of reform.  It won’t be achieved just through engaging more effectively with staff or communicating our message.

    It will only be achieved through sharing the responsibility and accountability for change.  For as long as reform is seen simply as a dialogue between the national media and politicians, we will continue to detach local institutions and the people who work within them from owning the change that should be made.

    That shared sense of ownership can only come if we at the centre are clearer about our national priorities and frame them increasingly in ways that reflect the outcomes that we want to achieve.

    If we want to move to a system based on a shared sense of ownership then we will need to empower not only the customer but also the staff to bring about the changes they feel are necessary to respond to customer needs.

    The mistake we must avoid is sharing power and responsibility without accountability.  That will never work.  Government can only step back if there’s a strong, responsive framework of accountability for individuals and organisations that fall short.

    When we nationalised public services in the post-war era, it was based on a deal with public service professionals that said, ‘we will nationalise this service but we will give you the freedom to get on and manage’.  But there was a flaw. No one took responsibility for service failure. We had come to expect that public services would never be as good as those that could be paid for by people who could afford to opt out.

    In 1997 many people within the public sector believed that we would go back to that post-war settlement – except this time with increased investment.

    We did of course significantly increase investment.  But we also broke with the post-war past by creating new forms of accountability.  We set national targets and oversaw their delivery through one of the most expansive audit and inspection regimes in the world.  However necessary this shift, it prioritised accountability to the centre.  It underplayed the role of the consumer in shaping public services.  Or the importance of public preferences and choices in driving performance.  As such it meant the ‘ownership’ for change was ‘grabbed’ by the centre and left there.  And as the pace of reform intensified and more fundamental change advanced, the dynamic between employees and the political leadership of the country felt critical at best and passive at worst.

    So if we share ownership for change, we must base a new settlement of accountability through two routes; firstly to match devolution of power with the use of payment by results funding systems; but secondly and crucially through enhancing, wherever possible and appropriate, the use of competition that allows the customer to influence public services through the choices they make.

    If we can get this right, then public service reform will become more self-sustaining; driven not by central Government, but increasingly designed and championed by those operating within the public sector. Performance should no longer need to be managed through an overly engineered web of targets, audit and inspection.  Instead, accountability driven first hand by customers.

    At the DWP our City Strategy seeks to capture these principles – offering local consortia of providers new funding and flexibilities in return for outcome-based payments. And David Freud’s report on our welfare system earlier this year, argued for a more effective market in welfare provision, rewarding providers proportionate to the value to the taxpayer of getting an individual into work and helping them to stay there.

    With such an approach must come a re-balancing of welfare expenditure towards those who are most in need. A payment by results system – as we have tested out in the Employment Zones – could create incentives to develop programmes across the full spectrum of clients and avoid cherry-picking of the easiest clients to help by paying more to help those furthest from the labour market and facing the greatest barriers to work.   And critically, the centre will be able to step back as the system imbeds itself.

    The same is increasingly true for education and health. At the heart of the public service reform programme in the NHS is the development of a more transparent payment by results system that incentivises output based performance. While in education we are developing and piloting models of “Contextual Value Added” – measuring the results of pupils against what might be expected based on previous attainment and factors relating to their background.

    The potential power of such information is not just that it strengthens accountability and performance management – but when combined with greater contestability and choice, it can give the user of public services a strong mechanism to shape these services through the choices they make.

    We need to put an end to the essentially passive relationship that has all too often characterised the nature of the interaction between the user of public services and the State that provides them.

    A relationship that can be particularly damaging for those who need good quality public services the most – where poor outcomes can all too readily become accepted as all that can reasonably be expected.

    Exercising choice over a provider or programme can be a powerful way of restoring a real sense of personal responsibility in the individual – enabling them to shape the service outcomes that they themselves want. Of course there are limits to choice – and we must always understand this. But that must not become an excuse for failing to extend the opportunity of choice to those most in need of our public services.

    At its most simple, the ability to make an informed choice is still about getting the very basics of a service culture right within the public sector; choice about which channels to use to access services or booking a next-day appointment with a GP online. At its most complex, choice is about a deliberative process of engagement with a school about a child’s education.

    Afterall, public services are there to give people a choice. The choice of a good education, good health and the chance to succeed in life – especially for people who could never afford to buy these services themselves.

    Critically, over the past decade we have also learnt about the intrinsic benefits of managed competition as a way of strengthening accountability and shifting the ownership of change.  It is that process of competition and how we structure it that creates the dynamic for change – not necessarily whether competing services are delivered by the public, private or voluntary sectors.

    I have always believed that strong public services are the best provider of opportunity that any society can have.

    But ultimately our values can only be maintained in the decades ahead if we are prepared to continue radical reform. If we are serious about transforming people’s lives by making our public services accountable to the people they serve.

    And if, in doing so, we hope to make the best possible use of the energy, expertise and commitment of public service professionals, then we must be prepared to see through the fundamental change we have begun.

  • John Hutton – 2007 Speech to NAPF Conference

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the NAPF conference on 24th May 2007.

    I’m grateful to Joanne and the NAPF for the opportunity to join you again at your annual conference – what is without doubt, the leading forum for occupational pension provision in Britain.

    A year ago today, we published our White Paper on Pension Reform. It set out a new structure for the long-term future of the UK Pensions system based on the proposals of the Turner Commission.

    At its heart a simpler, fairer and more generous state pension paid for by a higher State Pension Age; and a new system of personal accounts that will help more people to build these savings by extending the benefits of an occupational pension to those without good company schemes.

    These proposals have laid the foundation for a consensus around a lasting pensions settlement that would meet the challenges set out so vividly by the Pensions Commission – rapid demographic change; chronic under-saving and the historical legacy of an overly complex system that delivers unfair outcomes with excessive means-testing. We need to sustain this consensus because this will be in the long term interests of our society and our economy.

    Thanks to the leadership of the NAPF – along with many others – I believe the broad consensus around the main elements of our reforms is stronger than ever.

    The Pensions Bill currently before Parliament is fixing the main elements of these reforms in legislation. The restoration of the earnings link will mean that by 2050 the Basic State Pension will be worth twice as much in real terms as it is today. And there are signs of political consensus too – with no votes against the Bill at its Third Reading in the Commons last month.

    Thanks to the work of the new Pensions Regulator, most companies facing pension fund deficits now have, or are putting in place, comprehensive and affordable programmes to make good these shortfalls. Just last weekend, research from Aon consulting found that the UK’s largest pensions schemes are back in the black for the first time in more than five years.

    And a range of surveys highlighted in this year’s NAPF Conference Magazine even suggest some signs of optimism and confidence returning. In March, the ACA found that while half of firms had reviewed their schemes in the last year, less than a fifth planned a review in the coming year; and Towers Perrin found that around half of employers surveyed saw their occupational pension schemes as having significant recruitment and retention benefits.

    But my argument today is not that we have solved every problem connected with our pensions system. This is far from true. Real challenges remain.

    Public confidence will not be restored overnight. Many employers are still finding that there is too much red tape in running good schemes. Overall participation in occupational schemes has been falling since the late 1960s.

    My argument today is that if we get the next stage of reforms right – in particular around auto-enrolment and personal accounts – then we can embed a new savings culture in Britain – not one that competes with existing occupational pension provision – but actually builds on it, expanding its coverage and making occupational pensions the centrepiece of retirement saving in Britain for all.

    Achieving this will depend on three things.

    Firstly, the effectiveness of the new system of personal accounts in targeting this key group of moderate to low earners who do not have access to a good quality occupational pension.

    Secondly, ensuring that personal accounts complement rather than compete with existing occupational schemes – and that we take steps to strengthen this existing provision; not weaken it.

    And thirdly, the quality of information and guidance on which people can make savings decisions with greater confidence about how much they need to save to achieve the income in retirement they want.

    I’d like to say a few words about each.

    Firstly, personal accounts.

    Last December we published our White Paper on Personal Accounts. It began a consultation on a number of important issues – and we will be responding formally to this consultation next month – along with our response to the report from the Work and Pensions Select Committee.

    But what I can say today is we are determined to ensure that the accounts are designed as a no-frills occupational pension. Research shows that simplicity is a crucial design feature in reaching our target group of under-savers. Aside from keeping costs down, we know that too many options can be confusing – and the majority do not want to be taking decisions over the investment or administration of their savings.

    We’re also clear that accounts must be independent of Government. That is why we are creating the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority to commission the infrastructure to deliver the scheme from the private sector. The delivery of the scheme will be a huge undertaking – one of the biggest challenges our pensions system has faced for many years.

    Personal accounts will be the biggest step forward for workers seeking to build up a pension since National Insurance was introduced in the 1940s. But if we are to make them a success for the millions of people who currently aren’t saving for a pension, we must put in place measures to ensure they have the interests of future members at their heart.

    It is protecting the interests of members that underpins our decision to establish the scheme as a trust-based occupational pension. As such they will face the very same level of regulation as all other trust-based occupational schemes.

    A Board of Trustees will take ultimate responsibility for setting the strategic direction for the scheme from the collection of contributions to the investment of assets and payment of benefits. This will include deciding on the choice of funds and the strategy for the investment of the default fund; the appointment and management of external fund managers and ensuring that contributions are invested in the best interest of members.

    This will be important in ensuring that personal accounts deliver for our target group. As we emphasised in our Personal Accounts White Paper, it is essential to the success of the scheme that members’ needs remain at the core of operational decision-making. Trustees are legally obliged to handle the scheme’s assets in the best interests of the beneficiaries. They must have a good level of knowledge and understanding of the law relating to pensions and trusts – the principles of funding and the investment of assets of occupational schemes.

    We want the trustees to be highly-qualified experts in their field in order to make the best decisions possible for the millions of members and to retain the confidence of the public.

    We know from the National Pensions Debate and from the examples of the consultation procedures of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the BBC Trust, just how important it is to involve members in the key decisions that will affect them. That’s why I’m keen for the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority to draw up an ambitious approach to deliberative consultation around the implementation of personal accounts and automatic enrolment.

    We are making the system of Personal Accounts an occupational pension; because occupational pensions are the gold standard in pension provision. That’s why, in building personal accounts, we’re modelling the new scheme on what you do – as leaders in the field.

    We want to follow the best practice of other occupational schemes in ensuring an appropriate degree of member representation whilst being mindful of the costs and practicalities of a scheme on the scale of personal accounts, with multiple employers and millions of members.

    In taking this forward, our plan is to create a members’ panel along similar lines to the Thrift Savings Plan in the USA.

    The Panel could nominate a proportion of the trustees and would be consulted by trustees on key decisions, providing them with access to the views of members, and a stronger sense of collective ownership.

    Given the scale of personal accounts, I believe such an approach could be absolutely critical to the success of the scheme and to increasing confidence across the whole pensions industry.

    Secondly, we need to go further in supporting existing occupational schemes.

    We have always been clear that personal accounts are designed to complement, not compete with, existing occupational schemes. And the NAPF has played a pivotal role in helping us to ensure that this will be the case.

    As a simple defined contribution scheme, with a limited amount of choice and a basic structure, personal accounts will not compete with existing high-quality occupational provision. And neither should they.

    We’ve been clear that there will be no transfers into or out of personal accounts. There will be a simple self-certified scheme exemption test based around clear principles not heavy-handed regulation. And I can confirm today, that a similar approach will also apply to hybrid schemes. Rather than a complex series of specific tests, employers will be able to use their discretion to apply just one of the three simple high-level tests or an appropriate combination.

    And, of course, there’s the annual contribution limit. I think it’s important to be clear that while the NAPF and others in the financial services and pensions industry have always felt that a cap of £5000 was simply too high, many others, especially those that are consumer-based, would prefer not to set a limit at all – concerned about placing a cap on people’s aspirations for their retirement and the need for flexibility for the consumer, so individuals can deposit inheritance sums or other windfalls.

    This is a very difficult balance to strike and we are still looking carefully at how we can best meet these varying objectives. But I do not under-estimate the importance of getting this right and it will be an important part of our response to the consultation next month.

    Strengthening existing provision is not just about ensuring that personal accounts remain focused on their target group. We must also revitalise the whole occupational pensions sector with reforms that will help all schemes.

    From 2012, employers will automatically enrol their employees into personal accounts or into their own existing occupational pension scheme, as long at it meets the specified minimum standards. This simple but radical step will affect around 10 million employees in Britain, and will be vital in overcoming the barriers that prevent many people from making the decision to save. Around 1 million employees will be auto-enrolled into existing schemes as a result of our reforms.

    Again we will look to support those good employers who offer higher contributions or benefits in meeting the costs of extending their scheme by permitting a short waiting period. And by allowing employers the flexibility to re-auto-enrol employees at set points in a way that suits their business, rather than on an individual basis.

    I believe the NAPF’s own Quality Mark is also an important development in supporting existing schemes and valuable too in helping employers to communicate the benefits of good quality schemes. I know there are a number of issues that are still being worked through, in particular around the clarity of exactly what the mark would indicate but I’m keen to re-emphasise my support for the principle of the industry developing such a scheme.

    Government does, however, need to be careful not to become part of the Governance chain and confer legal or technical status on it. Not least because the mark must never become a benchmark for future regulation such as raising the personal accounts minimums.

    For our own part as Government, the Deregulatory Review represents a real opportunity to simplify the regulatory framework for all occupational schemes – to make running schemes easier; to lighten regulation and reduce bureaucracy. I’m serious about having a real debate here. There is nothing more frustrating for those of you engaged in running good quality schemes than feeling as if the system is working against you. But equally, our duty to protect the saver is also crucial.

    As with the National Pensions Debate, people have to come to this debate prepared to achieve a consensus; and to compromise. But be clear about one thing. Now is the chance to make a real difference on this agenda. There is a genuine opportunity here for real change.

    Thirdly and finally, information and guidance.

    Embedding a new pensions savings culture will depend critically on being able to offer people the right information and guidance.

    But the challenge is wider still. Because people don’t just want pensions advice, they want to talk about their money in general. That’s why the Generic Advice Review being led by Otto Thoresen is so important.

    In developing Personal Accounts, we need to consider carefully the relationship between any generic advice service and the Personal Accounts board; and the appropriate protocols on which to base generic advice. Further, to consider who would monitor the advice provided and how any generic advice service could get the balance right between communicating the uncertainties inherent in pension saving and the simplicity that most people want in practice.

    These are real challenges. But your PensionsForce project report today shows the appetite of savers for good quality information and advice. Funded by my Department’s Pensions Education Fund, since last September we’ve seen 1000 employees in over 70 meetings for employers of all sizes. This can be particularly important for women and many in small and medium sized companies who can tend to be bypassed by the traditional adviser community – as well as, of course, for workers who already have access to a workplace pension and employer contribution but who do not take full advantage of it.

    And therein lies the ultimate challenge of embedding a new pensions savings culture in Britain. Enabling each and every individual to take control of their retirement planning; to make informed choices over their retirement provision and to save for that retirement with confidence.

    The last year has seen tremendous progress in building a consensus on a new foundation for long-term savings. I am clear that in taking decisions on the next stage of legislation, we must now go further in not only maintaining our commitment to consensus – but actually deepening that consensus around the details of the Personal Accounts system. The coming year could be the most important of all in getting this right.

    After 80 years at the heart of occupational pensions in Britain, I know I can count on the NAPF to work with us in rising to the challenge. And with it we can not only secure – but actually revitalise the workplace pension as the foundation for retirement savings for generations to come.

  • John Hutton – 2007 Speech on Skills, Employability and Immigration

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, on 14th June 2007.

    Earlier today we launched the new Employer Skills Pledge. A public and voluntary commitment made by 150 leading employers to train all their staff to at least level 2 in the workplace. Recommended by Lord Leitch in his report last December, the pledge – backed by Government and including all central Government departments – will guarantee employers access to a skills broker through Train to Gain and embed a new partnership with business for improving skills in the workplace.

    It will pave the way for the full Government Response to Lord Leitch’s report later this Summer – and mark the beginning of a radical step-up in the investment made in the skills of the British workforce.

    If we are to reach our goals of a record 80% employment rate and the eradication of child poverty in Britain, it simply can not be done without taking action to raise the skills base of an economy where today there are 4.6 million people without qualifications and a further 1.5 million with qualifications below level 2; and where Leitch predicted that the demand for low skills is likely to continue falling with some 850,000 fewer low skilled jobs by 2020.

    But in an increasingly globalised labour market, we can not conduct the debate about skills in a vacuum; we have to consider it also in the context of the dramatic changes in demography and in the global economy of which we are a part.

    To consider the implications for our skills base of an ageing society – where in the UK today there are now more people over State Pension Age than children. And the question of how we develop a managed approach to migration – that will allow us to reap the benefits from the skills which migrants can bring, but which also helps more of our own people compete successfully for the growing number of jobs in the British economy.

    Certainly our country is changing. New figures from the Office for National Statistics last week showed that foreign-born mothers accounted for 1 in 5 babies born in England and Wales last year, helping to put the birth rate at its highest for 26 years.

    The debate around migration is often polarised and stark. The prospect of migration can provoke uncertainty and sometimes fear. People want security – and rightly so.

    But deep down they know, too, that our future as a successful economy will depend on our ability to work through these changes, not turn away from them. We must be an open not a closed society. The same is true for our economy.

    At a point when the integration of our communities has perhaps never been more important, it is absolutely right that we recognise the significance of the changes in our society.

    But we also need to keep these changes in perspective. To be rational and clear in our assessment of the challenges facing both our society and our economy; and above all to find a way forward that promotes our values; that asks how we can best support every single Briton – regardless of background or origin – to make the greatest possible contribution to our society.

    In doing this we first need to overcome a number of popular myths and misconceptions about migration. I think there are four that stand out.

    First we need to be clear that migration is not a new phenomenon. As Europe boomed in the post-war era, so major European countries looked to migrants to satisfy unquenchable labour demand – first within what were to become EU countries, then in former colonies.

    While immigration slowed in the 1970s and 1980s, it has subsequently increased dramatically – from half a million in 1998 to over 1.5 million a year in each of the three years up to 2005.

    So migration is a long-standing global phenomenon. And Britain is no particular magnet for migrants. Between 1990 and 2005, the USA gained 15 million migrants. By contrast Spain and Germany each gained 4 million; the UK just 1.6 million.

    Secondly, we should acknowledge that migration is actually a two-way process. Today an estimated 5.5 million UK nationals are taking advantage of the opportunities to live and work abroad – with the largest groups in Australia, Spain, USA, Canada and Ireland.

    Thirdly, that Britain is not being populated by large numbers of migrating families. Rather this current wave of migration into Britain is markedly different from anything we have seen before. Unlike the migration to America at the beginning of the 20th Century, or to the UK in the middle of the 20th Century, this early 21st century migration is in essence transient – in that it is often characterised by people coming to work in the UK for short periods before they return home.

    Since 2004, around 450,000 people have come from A8 accession countries to work in the UK. But rather than bringing their families to settle, as many as half of those economic migrants did not stay. They came to work and save money for themselves and their families.

    Fourth and perhaps most significant of all is the myth that this temporary economic opportunism is a threat to British jobs. As the TUC acknowledged at their conference last year:

    “If migrant workers are treated fairly and paid a decent wage, they represent no threat to the livelihoods of people who are already living and working in the UK.”

    The economic benefits of migration are clear. Recent migration has had a positive impact on our economy – accounting for up to a fifth of economic growth between 2001 and 2005. With independent research showing that migrants are contributing more than their share of taxes, migrant workers are in fact making a net contribution to the exchequer. And the Bank of England concluded that overseas workers have played a significant role in boosting the pool of available labour and helping to ease labour shortages.

    The Government’s decision to introduce a new points-based system is a radical and progressive approach to manage the flow of migrants coming to the UK. A case-by-case system to attract the brightest and best from across the world while being robust against attempted abuse.

    This is absolutely the right decision for our economy. Together with the new Migration Advisory Committee – which will advise on skills and labour market shortages – we will help to ensure that migrants continue to fill the gaps in the labour market – increasing investment, innovation and entrepreneurship in the UK.

    But we also know that migration brings real challenges too. First and foremost, we have to know who is coming and going in Britain. Managed migration has to mean exactly that. Next week the Government will be publishing its strategy to build stronger international alliances to manage migration. It will focus on strengthening our borders, ensuring and enforcing compliance with our immigration laws and facilitating quicker and easier legal migration for those we seek to attract.

    Migration also creates new pressures on local services, on local schools, on hospitals and housing. Challenges for active labour market policies and welfare systems. For communities experiencing immigration for the first time.

    As today’s report from the independent Commission for Integration and Cohesion highlights, we must go further in helping these communities to adapt to such change and in promoting and supporting local solutions to improving the integration of migrants within strong, resilient and cohesive local communities.

    We can not make decisions on managing migration in isolation from these social factors.

    Two years ago, when we made the decision on the 8 European Accession countries, business leaders were calling for us to open the labour market.

    At the end of last year, when considering the question for Bulgaria and Romania, the economic imperative was not as strong while it was ever more important that we ensured our local authorities and public services could continue to manage the existing A8 migration. It is critical that we continue to balance these factors as we continue to make decisions on the best way to manage migration.

    We know that many migrants are today working in what are traditionally seen as “hard to fill” – but predominantly low-skilled jobs. The question is – why are many of these jobs so hard to fill?

    With 4.5 million people still on out-of-work benefits in the UK, the right response is not to get defensive; to retreat – or talk of pulling up the drawbridge on migrants. But rather to ask how we can raise our game in helping UK citizens to compete in today’s labour market?

    We’ve made tremendous progress in helping people into work over the past decade. Yesterday’s labour market statistics marked ten years of progress – with a reduction in the claimant count of three quarters of a million and employment up by over 2.5 million; the best performance in the G8.

    Helping individuals to acquire the skills, confidence and ambition to progress up the career ladder has to be a core ambition of a dynamic welfare system. The old “Labour Exchange” of the past – where labour seeking work met employers anxious to hire – must now become the skills exchange of the future.

    Achieving this will mean finding a new place for skills at the heart of a renewed welfare contract for the 21st Century. A new approach to skills, based on a simpler, clearer and more coherent system of delivery – that meets the needs of both businesses and individuals.

    The new Commission for Employment and Skills – led by Sir Michael Rake – will be at the forefront of this new approach. A demand-led skills system that will ensure that the skills employees develop are economically valuable – not just to get into work – but also, critically, to support sustained employment and progression through the workplace.

    I want Jobcentre Plus to play a crucial new role in helping to ensure the maximum possible employer engagement at local level. That is why we will be establishing a series of Local Employment Partnerships whereby people claiming long-term benefits will receive job trials and mentoring from sponsoring employers – and at the end of the programme will be guaranteed a job interview.

    Our ambition is for this to go sector-wide. And in a world where the premium on high skills is only set to increase, this must not be simply about helping people into low-skilled jobs.

    It must also then be about the way that employers are helped to access and deliver the support that will enable employees to progress to middle and higher levels within their organisations.

    Our welfare to work system must therefore raise its game. Training British workers for British jobs will be crucial not just for our future economic prosperity but also for our ambition of a fair society.

    The growth in world trade presents all of our economies with huge opportunities, if we are prepared to take them. But to do so will mean we have to invest in all our people – in their skills and talents.

    One part of this must be an earlier and more focused assessment of the skills needs of those out of work. The need to get action on early skills assessments is highlighted by the evidence on basic language training. A study of over 500 learners and 40 teachers carried out by the National Research and Development Centre found that the longer someone lives in the UK before taking ESOL courses, the slower their progress in learning the language.

    And at the Centre for Employment, Language Training and Integration in Copenhagen, language training as part of Denmark’s Adult Vocational Training Programme combines modules of basic language training in the morning with vocational training in the afternoon. So in addition to a foundation of basic language skills, trainees also learn the sector specific vocabulary that will enable them to develop their trade.

    With language skills so crucial to the integration of our society – and with a persistent ethnic minority employment rate gap of 14% – such interaction between skills and employment support could play a crucial role in helping us to build a fairer and more inclusive society, with employment opportunity for all and prosperity for Britain in a world of global opportunity.

    To achieve our goal, we must stay true to our shared values – of solidarity and social justice – of security but liberty – with tolerance, understanding and respect of others. To embed the social partnership that says we are not merely individuals fighting in isolation from each other, but members of a community who depend on each other; who benefit from each other’s help; who recognise their obligations to each other.

    There is no greater challenge facing us today. But equally, I believe, no greater prize within our grasp.