Tag: Speeches

Below is the text of the speech made by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, on the subject of immigration. The speech was made on 12th December 2012.

A clear promise

Two and a half years ago, the coalition government was formed, and we made a clear promise to the British public. After thirteen years of uncontrolled mass immigration, this government would reduce and control immigration.

As yesterday’s census statistics show, the legacy we’ve been left with is a substantial one. Between 2001 and 2011, more than half of the growth in the population of England and Wales was accounted for by immigration.

Since we came to government, we’ve taken action across the board. We’ve capped economic migration, reformed family visas, and cut out the widespread abuse of the student route into the country.

And the results of those changes are beginning to show. Official statistics, released two weeks ago, show that in the year to March, we cut net immigration to Britain by one quarter – that is, by 59,000 people. That’s the biggest fall in net migration since 2008.

And we can expect immigration to continue to fall. Home office visa statistics, which are more recent than the net migration figures, show falls of four per cent in work visas, fifteen per cent in family visas, and 26 per cent in student visas.

The benefits are beginning to show. The number of people in work is up by more than half a million compared to last year. But in contrast with what happened under the last government, 87 per cent of that increase was accounted for by British-born workers.

So our policies are beginning to bite – but we are not yet all the way there. With annual net migration still at 183,000 we have a way to go to achieve my ambition to reduce that number to the tens of thousands by the end of the parliament.

I want to talk today about the measures we’re taking to make sure that the immigration system truly works in our national interest, by bringing down net migration to sustainable levels, while still attracting the brightest and the best talent from around the world.

In particular, I want to talk about measures we’re taking to make us more discerning when it comes to stopping the wrong people from coming here, and even more welcoming to the people we do want to come here.

Why we need to control immigration

But before I do that, I want us to remember why it’s important that we do control immigration. I believe there are three main reasons: its effect on social cohesion, on our infrastructure and public services, and on jobs and wages.

First, social cohesion. The debate around immigration often focuses on its economic costs and benefits, but the social consequences are often ignored. This is a big mistake, because not only is the social impact significant and important in itself, it’s often what bothers the public the most.

As Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator of the financial times, says: ‘The desirability of sizeable immigration is a matter more of values than of economics. It is not a choice between wealth and poverty, but of the sort of country one desires to inhabit.’

The point is quite simple. It takes time to establish the personal relationships, the family ties, the social bonds that turn the place where you live into a real community. But the pace of change brought by mass immigration makes those things impossible to achieve. You only have to look at London, where almost half of all primary school children speak English as a second language, to see the challenges we now face as a country.

This isn’t fair to anyone: how can people build relationships with their neighbours if they can’t even speak the same language? After years of mass immigration, we now face the enormous task of building an integrated, cohesive society. Allowing more and more immigration would make that impossible.

The second reason we need to control immigration is its impact on infrastructure and public services. It seems obvious that immigration should have an impact on things like the availability and cost of housing, the transport system, the National Health Service or the number of school places. But in the past, government impact assessments didn’t measure the effects of more immigration or determine where its effects would be felt the most.

That’s something I plan to fix – but in the meantime we are left to deal with the consequences of more than a decade of uncontrolled, mass immigration.

One area in which we can be certain mass immigration has an effect is housing.  More than one third of all new housing demand in Britain is caused by immigration.  And there is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices could be ten per cent lower over a twenty year period.

Facts like these need to be carefully considered, and I look forward to seeing the results of the work we’re doing in the home office, but I think we can already be confident that mass immigration puts pressure on infrastructure and public services.

Even if you accept that immigrants contribute to an increased tax take, there will be a ‘congestion effect’, that is, a significant lag between the increased demand for services and the distribution of those funds. And services in the parts of the country that experience the most sudden and sustained increase in immigration will suffer the most.

The third reason we need to control immigration is its effects on jobs and wages.  Again, when we arrived in government, we found that the official impact assessments assumed that the job displacement of British workers by immigrants was zero.

Now, we all know that the ‘lump of labour’ argument – that there is a fixed number of jobs to be divided up and handed round – is wrong, and that things are far more complicated than the idea that all immigrants come to Britain and ‘take British jobs’. But it was surely wrong that those impact assessments assumed absolutely no job displacement of local workers.

So we asked the migration advisory committee to look at the effects of immigration on jobs, and their conclusions were stark. They found a clear association between non-European immigration and employment in the UK.

Between 1995 and 2010, the committee found an associated displacement of 160,000 British workers. For every additional one hundred immigrants, they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed.

So, there is a ‘lump of labour’ fallacy in the immigration debate, but there is also a ‘zero displacement’ fallacy. And government must never again make the mistake of falling for it.

There is evidence, too, that immigration puts a downward pressure on wages.  Drawing on several academic studies, the committee found that immigration can increase wages for the better-off, but for those on lower wages, more immigration means more workers competing for a limited number of low-skilled jobs.

The result is lower wages – and the people who lose out are working-class families, as well as ethnic minority communities and recent immigrants themselves.

So uncontrolled, mass immigration is damaging to social cohesion, puts pressure on public services and infrastructure, and can lead to job displacement and undercut wages, particularly for the lowest paid.

And yet one of my predecessors used to talk about the ‘purity of the macroeconomic case for migration’. As a result of that mistaken belief, the last government presided over total net immigration of 2.2 million – the equivalent of two cities the size of Birmingham.

That is evidence of an immigration system that does not work in the national interest.

But to say we want to reduce and control immigration is not to say that we want no immigration. We have always been clear that we want Britain to attract the brightest and best talent from around the world – the top academics, brightest students, the best businessmen, investors, skilled workers and entrepreneurs who will contribute to our society, our economy and our way of life.

Family visas

So when we reformed family visas, we introduced a new requirement to the immigration rules. If you want to sponsor a spouse or partner who wishes to come to Britain, they will have to prove they can speak English, and you will have to prove that you can provide for them. A minimum income level for family visa sponsors – of £18,600 for a spouse or partner with additional requirements for children – will protect the taxpayer by making sure that family migrants pay their own way.

Work visas

We wanted to make sure that economic migration works in the national interest too. But that is not what the system we inherited did.

To be frank, that system was a joke. Tier one of the points-based system – supposedly reserved for high-skilled immigrants only – allowed people to work in unskilled jobs. I remember the ‘highly-skilled’ immigrant who we discovered was working as the duty manager at a fried chicken restaurant. But he was no one-off – we found that thirty per cent of people here on a tier one visa were working as shop assistants, security guards, supermarket cashiers and care assistants.

That’s why we closed down the tier one general route and said if you want to come to Britain on a work visa, you need to have a proper job offer with a minimum salary. Business told us they prioritised the tier two route – for skilled workers with specific job offers – and we listened.

So even though we delivered our manifesto promise to cap economic migration, and bring the overall numbers down, by clamping down on the abuse of tier One we were able to set the tier two limit at 20,700, higher than the number of people who came to Britain through tier two the year before.

Business also told us they valued intra-company transfers, and we took the decision to exclude them from the limit. But to make sure that these transfers would not be abused, we raised the salary limit for intra-company transferees coming to Britain for more than a year to £40,000.

As a result, ICT numbers have remained steady and business tells us that our ICT system is one of the most user-friendly in the world.

And, to make sure that we could still attract the best experts, scientists, artists and performers, we created a new route, consisting of a further 1,000 visas for people of exceptional talent. Take-up in that route has been low, and I’m looking forward to working with UK trade and investment to encourage more exceptional people to take advantage of it.

But I also want to build on the principle of appealing to exceptionally talented people, so I intend to add a further 1,000 places a year for MBA graduates who want to stay in Britain and start up businesses.

We also want to be more proactive in attracting the wealth creators of the future.  We have made changes to the investor and entrepreneur routes to make it easier for major investors to settle in the UK. We have introduced a new prospective entrepreneur visa and a graduate entrepreneur visa. And last week, the chancellor announced that we will work with UK trade and investment to extend the graduate entrepreneur scheme to the best overseas talent.

And we want to make sure that people in emerging markets continue to see Britain as a place to visit and do business.

That’s why we’ve made it easier for Chinese visitors to come here, by simplifying documentation requirements, establishing a new business network across China, extending our express visa service, and introducing a new passport pass-back scheme for visa applicants.

So our reforms to economic migration have struck a balance, and they send a clear message. If you have skills we need, and a company is willing to give you a job, come to Britain. If you have an investment to make, do it in Britain. And if you have a great business idea, bring it to Britain.

But we are also clear that Britain doesn’t need any more unskilled immigration. The abuse of tier one has been ended. And work visas are capped, with the number of visas down by four per cent in the last year.

Student visas

The principles we applied to work visas we have applied to student visas too.  Again, the system we inherited was a mess, and it was abused on an industrial scale.

Students were coming to Britain not to study but to work. Many colleges were selling not an education but immigration. And students, supposedly temporary visitors, were staying here permanently in huge numbers.

When the last government capped unskilled economic immigration at zero, all that happened was student visas rocketed by thirty per cent to a record 303,000. The surge in numbers meant that in some parts of the world the Border Agency had to suspend student applications altogether.

When we came to government, we found ‘students’ turning up at Heathrow unable to answer basic questions in English or even give simple details about their course.  We found colleges that sent students on ‘work placements’ hundreds of miles away from where they were meant to be studying.

And of course, in each case we’re not just talking about one bogus student working in Britain – often they would bring their whole family with them, who would also work here, use public services here, and accrue the legal right to settle here.

These students weren’t the best and the brightest, they weren’t coming to Britain to study, and they weren’t making a meaningful contribution to our economy. So we changed student visas to make sure that while we still attract the brightest and the best, and we still protect our world-class education establishments, we eradicate this kind of abuse from the system.

The first thing we did was to require any institution that wanted to bring foreign students to Britain to pass inspection checks to prove they were selling education, not immigration.

Overnight, more than 150 colleges – one third – chose not to undergo the checks.  To date, almost six hundred institutions have been removed from the tier four sponsor register.

We also took action to make sure that students who want to come to Britain really are students. So the new immigration rules make clear that if you want to study here, you have to be able to speak English, support yourself financially without working, and prove that you are studying a legitimate course at a genuine college or university. In addition, there are new restrictions on the right to work and bring dependants. To prevent switching courses – a tactic that kept some students here for years – we set maximum time limits for study.  And to make sure that only those who contribute can stay at the end of their study, we set a minimum salary level of £20,000 and a requirement to get a real graduate job for students who want to work in Britain after their studies.

Our policies are starting to bite, and they prove the massive scale of abuse in the student visa system. Just by cutting out abuse, we have reduced the number of student visas by 26 per cent – that’s almost 74,000 – in the year to September.  And what is more, we have cut the overall numbers at the same time as the number of foreign students coming to our universities has increased.

Because we have always been clear that in cutting out the abuse of student visas, we want the best and the brightest minds in the world to come to study in Britain, and we want our world-class universities to thrive.

So today I can announce a further measure to encourage top students to come to Britain and, if they have something to contribute, to stay in Britain.

In future, all PhD students who have completed their studies will be allowed to stay here for longer to find skilled work or set up as an entrepreneur within the rules.  From April, all such students will be allowed to stay in Britain for twelve months after they have completed their PhD before having to find a job or start a business.

We want to work with our universities to continue to protect not just the integrity of the immigration system but the reputation of the British education system around the world. We will continue to monitor strictly the adherence of universities as well as colleges to our rules that make sure only legitimate students come here.

Where universities don’t meet those standards, we maintain the power to suspend highly-trusted status, as we did with the Teesside university and Glasgow Caledonian university, and even where appropriate to revoke a university’s right to sponsor foreign students, as we did earlier this year with London metropolitan university.

Since then, as a result of their compliance checks, colleges and universities have informed the border agency of some 90,000 notifications about foreign students whose circumstances have changed and who may no longer have any right to be here. We will work with those universities – and indeed the whole sector – in a system of co-regulation to make sure we enforce student sponsorship obligations and protect the interests of legitimate students.

Welcoming legitimate students and identifying and rejecting bogus students is at the heart of our changes to the student visa regime. And I want to announce today a further change in the border agency’s operational policies to make sure we get even tougher on bogus student applications.

Last year, I instructed the border agency to undertake pilots in which high-risk student visa applicants would be interviewed, rather than undergo the usual paper-based checks. Starting first in Pakistan and moving to other countries, more than 2,300 prospective students were interviewed. The lesson from that pilot was clear – abuse was rife, paper-based checks weren’t working, and interviews, conducted by entry clearance officers with the freedom to use their judgement, work.

So I can announce that, from today, we will extend radically the border agency’s interviewing programme. Starting with the highest-risk countries, and focusing on the route to Britain that is widely abused, student visas, we will increase the number of interviews to considerably more than 100,000, starting next financial year. From there, we will extend the interviewing programme further across all routes to Britain, wherever the evidence takes us. I believe this new approach will help us to root out the abuse of British visas, and improve the integrity of our immigration system.

So, as with our changes to economic immigration, so our changes to student visas strike a balance, and send a message. If you can speak English, and you can get a place on a legitimate course at a genuine university, you can come to study in Britain. There is no cap on the number of students able to come here – and there are no current plans to introduce a cap.

But we are also clear that student visas are not a backdoor route into working in Britain. We are clamping down on that kind of abuse. Colleges have lost their right to sponsor foreign students. Bogus students have been turned away. And, through more and more interviewing, we are getting better at identifying and rejecting people we don’t want to come to Britain.

The official statistics show that we are achieving what we set out to achieve.  The number of student visas issued is down, while the number of successful applicants to study at British universities is up. That success means we can now look forward to a period of stability on student migration policy.

Tackling some misconceptions

But those statistics also show that there are some misconceptions about our immigration policies that need be corrected.

One, that all foreign students coming to this country are good for the economy. In fact, many so-called students have been applying for low-grade courses at bogus colleges in order to work here in low-skilled jobs.

Two, that foreign students are only temporary visitors, so they’re not really immigrants. In fact, one in five foreign students are believed to stay here for more than five years.

Three, that our student visa regime is damaging Britain’s universities. In fact, while we have cut the number of student visas, just by tackling abuse, the number of foreign applicants to British universities is up.

Four, that the cap on economic migration is hurting British businesses. In fact, because of the abuse of the old tier one system, we’ve been able to set a reasonably generous limit for tier two visas, and that limit has not yet been reached.

Five, that you can’t control immigration without hurting the economy. In fact, uncontrolled, mass immigration displaces British workers, forces people onto benefits, and suppresses wages for the low-paid. Controlled immigration means you can attract the brightest and the best who genuinely contribute to our economy and society.

Six, that wanting to control immigration in future is an attack on people who have already settled here or their children. In fact, the evidence suggests that recent immigrants and ethnic minority Brits are amongst those who lose the most from mass immigration.

Seven, that you can’t control immigration because you can’t do anything to restrict European immigration. In fact, net British and European migration is broadly in balance. And we can introduce transitional controls on new member states, we can take action to restrict the demand for European workers from British employers, and we can be smarter about the benefits and services we provide for foreign nationals. These are all issues I plan to return to in the new year.

Conclusion

But overall, the biggest misconception is that by saying some immigration can be good for Britain, we shouldn’t try to control it at all.

Our record is disproving that false belief. We’re proving that it is possible to get the immigration system to work in our national interest. We are bringing down the numbers to sustainable levels, and we are continuing to attract the brightest and the best talent from around the world. And we are doing that by making the system much more discerning – we’re welcoming the people we want to come to Britain, and we’re stopping the wrong people from coming here.

With family visas, the applicants must speak English, and the sponsors must prove they can provide for them.

With work visas, if you have the skills we need and a proper job offer, you can come to Britain. If you have an investment or a business idea to bring here, you can come to Britain. But we don’t need any more unskilled immigration, and we are closing down the routes – both formal and informal – for unskilled workers to come to Britain.

And with student visas, there is no cap on the number of legitimate students able to come here to study legitimate courses at genuine institutions. But we’re cutting out abuse and stopping the student visa system being used as an easy route to working in Britain.

The evidence is vindicating the government’s policies. The rise in employment over the last year has benefited British workers, not migrant workers as has happened in the past. Net immigration is down by one quarter in a single year. The visa statistics suggest further falls in net immigration to come.

Two and half years ago we made a clear to the promise to the British public. We still have some way to go, but we’re delivering on that promise.

Thank you very much.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to the Police Federation on 19th May 2010.

There is no greater act of humanity than to put your life on the line to protect others.

And there’s no starker or more tragic reminder of the risks you take; and of the courage and dedication that you show every day to keep us safe in our homes and on our streets, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year.

So I would like to add my tribute, to:

– PC Gary Toms

– PC Christopher Dent

– PC Phillip Pratt

– PC Michael Johnson

– Sgt Iain McLay

– PC Bill Barker

– PC Daniel Cooper

– PC Daniel Gibb

– PC Sean McColgan

The word “hero” is used too easily these days.

But these officers died doing the job they love, protecting the public they serve; they are real heroes.

Being Home Secretary is a great privilege. And I do not underestimate the challenges that I am going to face.

There will undoubtedly be difficult times ahead … with an economic crisis that limits our resources and breeds uncertainty … at a time when the challenges of fighting crime are ever expanding in a world of global terrorism.

But my focus is clear: you are the professionals and I want to help you do what you do best.

You do an amazing job

I know I’ve got a lot to learn from you – to really understand the challenges you face.

But let me be clear – I know what an amazing job you do.

Every single day, you do extraordinary things.

When others would step aside – it’s you who step in.

When people are running away from danger, you are running towards it.

Day in and day out; in fair weather and foul; it’s you who maintain the law and order that is so fundamental to our free and civilised society.

This isn’t the glamorous fiction portrayed in TV programmes that romanticise the work of detectives, crime scene investigators and SWAT teams.

It’s about you, the constables, sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors who are the face of the police service for every man, woman and child in our country, including the millions of tourists who flock here every year.

And it’s about the work you do.

Preventing and detecting crime.

Intervening in violent situations.

Responding night and day to the public.

Making it safe to enjoy our great national events – from taking the kids to the football to watching the Queen open Parliament.

Keeping our traffic flowing and our streets and highways safe.

And keeping the peace at public demonstrations.

These are fundamental to our free society – and you make it all possible.

You put up with abuse and worse, but you do so to keep us free and allow us to live and work together in safety on this crowded island.

You do an amazing job – and it’s time we gave you all the respect you deserve.

For your courage, your dedication to duty and your sheer hard work – I want to say, thank you.

You do an important job

As Home Secretary I will never underestimate the importance of the job you do.

Some of the challenges you face are different from before and changing every day.

Fighting serious and organised crime – especially the battle with drug trafficking.

Fighting terrorism – the new and biggest policing challenge of the 21st century.

And you are facing other challenges which have been around for longer but are no less difficult and no less important.

Disorder and anti-social behaviour blight far too many communities and cause misery for far too many people – and you’re on the frontline in the fight back.

We all know crime is too high; and we know the damage that the fear of crime is causing in our communities.

As the incidence of crime breeds fear – so our society begins to break down.

How many people walk away from a gang of young people on their street and just assume they’re up to no good?

How many parents will keep their children away from the local park because they’re worried about them being confronted by drug dealers?

How many elderly couples hesitate before leaving their homes for fear of being mugged?

How many people avoid making eye contact with strangers for fear of how they might react?

What do these things say about our society?

This is not the Britain that we want – and we must fight to change it.

We need to mend our broken society and build instead the Big Society.

In the broken society … too many families break down, children are brought up in households where nobody works, and they go to school with little hope of good grades and a better life.

In the Big Society … we tackle these root causes of poverty and criminality.

In the broken society … we put up with crime and anti-social behaviour because ‘that’s just the way things are’.

In the Big Society … we say enough is enough and we come together to reclaim our communities for the law-abiding majority.

In the broken society … people live in fear of criminals.

In the Big Society … criminals will live in fear of the people – because there is nowhere for them to hide.

Our communities will stand tall – because we’re all in this together.

You can’t be expected to do this on your own.

Wide-ranging reform

We need to reform our courts, probation services and prisons. And I know that Ken Clarke, the new Justice Secretary, agrees with me.

That is why Nick Herbert has been appointed as Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice -working not just in the Home Office but in the Ministry of Justice too, looking not just at Criminal Justice System issues but also at issues like rehabilitation to reduce offending.

Paul said about the number of people who have been Home Office ministers. Nick Herbert is somebody who has been in this area for a number of years. He has a commitment to helping you do your job, as I do.

I would also like to welcome James Brokenshire, who was also part of the shadow Home Affairs team.

Somebody once said you need to be ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’.  And, for once, he was right.  He just didn’t really do it.

But we will be tough on the causes of crime.

That’s why the new Education Secretary, Michael Gove, will set about the most exciting programme of school reform for a generation … so our children are given the hope of a better future.

That’s why the new Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, will pick up our plans for welfare reform … to get people into work and lift children out of poverty.

And, as Home Secretary, make no mistake: I will be tough on crime.

I know I’m a new Home Secretary.  I know that many of you don’t know me.  And I know that you want to know what sort of Home Secretary I will be.

So let me begin by saying this: I’m not interested in running the police.

If I’d wanted to run the police, I’d have done what you all did and join the police force.

That is not the Home Secretary’s job.

That’s not something many of my predecessors have understood. They just didn’t get it.

They reached for what they thought was the lever but only found a clamp.

Tying you down in more and more red tape.

Issuing central government diktats. .

Inventing more criminal offences.

Undermining your professional responsibility.

Destroying your morale and devaluing your vocation.

They treated you as pen-pushers not police officers.

They imposed standardised national targets without prejudice for the vastly differing needs of local areas – so the police in a seaside town such as Bournemouth are set the same objectives as those in Brixton.

They assessed you against key performance indicators which rewarded you for recording crime not cutting crime.

They failed to tackle the bureaucracy around charging which keeps you off the streets.

They promoted a “one size fits all” Whitehall-knows-best brand of policing that rides roughshod over the experience and professional expertise of local officers.

And what I’m sure was most maddening of all, they spun endless gimmicks and initiatives – marching yobs to cashpoints, night courts, ASBOs for unborn children – that were forgotten about as quickly as they became tomorrow’s fish and chip paper.

I won’t tell you how to do your job

I didn’t go into politics to run public services.

That’s the job of the professionals like you.

So I’m not going to presume to tell you how to do your job … anymore than I would tell a surgeon how to operate – or an engineer how to build a bridge.

Professional policing means policing run by you, the professionals, not us, the politicians.

I believe it’s time for a whole new approach.

What that approach is, how it will be delivered and what it means for the job you do is what I now want to focus on.

But before I get into the specifics, it’s important I set out the philosophy underpinning our new approach – and indeed, underpinning so many of the changes this new Government will undertake in reforming our public services.

Our starting point is that public services should serve the public – meeting their needs, responding to what they want, answering directly to them.

Of course, in an ideal world, what the public wants from the police is no crime, no violent crime, no homicides, no thefts and no drunken louts.

But that is not the world we live in.

Most of us live in big cities – sharing scarce space with people with diverse backgrounds and diverse interests.

That is the reality of our world.  The world in which you have to operate.

That’s why we want to change the way the police forces of our country are managed.

We want to replace the big government, bureaucratic accountability that has been grown in recent years…

…where police officers are forced to answer to politicians through a range of inspections, targets, gimmicks and performance indicators…

…with democratic accountability that reflects the fact that not all communities in our country are exactly the same and have the same policing needs…

…where you are accountable to the people you serve.

That way, we can help to build confidence in the system and deliver policing that meets local priorities.

In practice, this means striking a new deal with you, the police service.

I want to give the service back its professional responsibility…

… getting rid of the centralised bureaucracy that wastes money, saps morale and crushes innovation … and freeing the men and women of our police forces to do what they are trained to do, want to do and the public expects them to do – make our society safer.

But in return for this new freedom, the police service must accept a transfer of power over policing from Whitehall to communities…

…by giving local people a real say over how their streets are policed.

Let me take each in turn.

Professional responsibility

First, professional responsibility.

I’ll always remember that police recruitment campaign with people like Lennox Lewis and Simon Weston saying how they’d struggle to cope with the pressures of being a police officer.

It ended with them saying: “I couldn’t do it. Could you?”

You could. That’s why you chose this job.

You do. That’s why you still do this job.

Each one of you has taken an incredibly brave decision to put yourself in harm’s way to protect the public.

I said it was time we gave you the respect you deserve.

That means giving you the responsibility you deserve.

It means trusting you.

Because if government won’t trust you, then what kind of message does that send to the public?

So we want to give you back that trust, restore pride in your job and bring some common sense back to policing.

How you operate is for you to decide with your leaders – that’s what professional responsibility means.

So we will return some charging decisions to the police.  Instead of waiting around police stations for a charging decision, you the officer will be given the responsibility to decide whether to charge for minor offences.

We will also look at untangling the knot of health and safety rules.

At the moment, legislation tilts too far in favour of discouraging officers from intervening.

We want to tip the scale back, while at the same time ensuring your safety.

Dismantling targets

We will also look at dismantling the targets in disguise – the Key Performance Indicators – which set national, one-size-fits-all priorities for local forces and instead allow you to pursue the crimes and criminals you believe you should.

And I am determined that we will be the government that finally gets to grips with all that paperwork you find so frustrating.  So we will scrap the ‘stop’ form in its entirety and reduce the burden of the ‘stop and search’ procedures.

I understand that some of the paperwork is necessary, to provide intelligence, to protect you and protect our civil liberties.

But there is far too much.

So in the weeks, months and years ahead I want to work closely with you to reduce the amount of paperwork that comes across your desk.  If there is bureaucracy that you think is unnecessary and time wasting then I want to hear about it and stop it.

Let me be absolutely clear: I want the police to be crime fighters not form fillers; out on the streets as much as they think necessary, not behind their desk and chained to a computer.

Perhaps most importantly of all, I want to free you by stopping all the initiatives and gimmicks that emanate from central government.

When policing priorities are dictated by the news-cycle rather than what works, you only get the most superficial, short-term change.

We’ve got to entrench long-term thinking, working with laws that we’ve got and the powers that you already have to score the line between right-and-wrong in our neighbourhoods.

This is a question of implementing what exists, not legislating for something new.

And I believe it will mean you can go about your job without worrying about the next edict to come from on-high.

With these changes, we will give you the licence to police.

But you will understand the need for an appropriate system of checks, so this new freedom must come with strings attached.

I can assure you, these will not come in the form of bureaucratic meddling from Whitehall.

Instead, they will come from greater accountability to the public you serve.

You will have read about the changes we propose, you may even be worried about what they mean for you, but these will largely affect your chief constables.

Instead of having them answer to Whitehall, we will make them answer to police individuals with a mandate to set local policing priorities.

That mandate will have been earned through election – and those policing priorities will have been developed with the consent of local people.

This is what we mean by democratic, not bureaucratic, accountability…

– directly involving local people in developing local policing strategies…

– providing a clear and visible link between the police and the public…

– and, of course, giving communities the power to kick people out of office if things go wrong.

Won’t politicise police

I know the concerns you have that individuals might result in the politicisation of the police force or, worse still, interfere with your operational independence.

I want to put your mind at rest.

The truth is that constant interference by previous Home Secretaries has caused the real politicisation of policing – and locally-elected individuals are a giant step in the right direction.

And let me make it absolutely clear – elected individuals will in no way undermine your operational independence.

They will not manage their forces and they will recognize that the only way of making a police force effective is by letting the professionals get on with it.

The duty and responsibility of managing a police force will fall squarely on the shoulders of its chief constable – as it always has done.

The job of the elected individual is to ensure the policing needs of their communities are met as effectively as possible…bringing communities closer to the police, building confidence in the system and restoring trust.

But quite apart from these high level changes, you will need to accept greater accountability too.

Parents expect to be able to compare standards between schools in their area, patients between the performance local hospitals, and residents should be able to do the same with local police forces.

So we will give the public much more information about crime in their streets, with each neighbourhood having a detailed crime map of the crimes in their area.

And with this information in hand, they will then be allowed to challenge you, and your performance, in local beat meetings every month.

What is happening about the dark alleyway where people keep on getting mugged?

What are you doing about the spate of shoplifting that happens after school?

Why are these crimes happening and what are you going to do about it?

These reforms add up to a massive transfer of power from me, the Home Secretary, to the people.

They will be in charge, and everyone – from commissioners, to chief constables to you on the street – will have to answer to them in a big way.

So, this is the deal

So, this is the deal – more freedom to the police professionals; more power to the people.

And if we do these things, I believe there will be one extra massive benefit.

We all know there are tough times ahead.  And I know that you are concerned about police officer numbers and pay.

The country faces the worst budget deficit it has ever had.

So the Government’s priority is to cut the budget deficit and get the economy moving again.  We need to be honest about what that means for us: the Home Office and the police will have to bear a fair share of the burden.

As part of the coalition agreement, we will have a full review of the remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff.

My priority as Home Secretary is to help you to do your job.  That means I will do all I can to make sure we maintain a strong police presence on our streets.

And as Nick Herbert told you yesterday, we will honour the remainder of the three-year pay deal negotiated by the last government.

But we’re going to have to deliver real value for money.  And I can’t do this without your help.

A big part of the answer comes from finding the waste and cutting it out.

I know how much the police is already doing through shared procurement – but we’re going to need to do more.

The scale of our country’s deficit makes the challenge we face very severe indeed.  We’ve all got to pull together to get Britain back in the black.

I will fight to ensure your voice is heard, but like other departments and organisations, we need to make sacrifices too.

But the bigger argument I want to make is this.

If we take on this deal I have outlined today.

Cutting bureaucracy and freeing you to do your job…pushing power down and giving people control over policing…we’ll get new ideas, new ways of doing things, real innovation.

We’ll get better results. And we’ll save money too.

So yes, there will be tough times ahead, yes the decisions will be difficult…but if we come together and embark on this change we’ll be able to look after the public, save money and protect the resources that are key for you to do your job.

I believe that under this new coalition government we have a unique opportunity to effect real and lasting change.

With a five year parliament we can get on with the job, without the ‘will he, won’t he call the election?’ sort of uncertainty and distractions we’ve had for the last three years.

Instead the focus will be on bringing in good, sound legislation that has common sense and better governance at its essence, and not just a good news story.

A constantly changing political landscape isn’t good for the country.

I truly believe that this government will bring some much needed stability and focus;  allowing us all to get on with making Britain a better, brighter and safer place.

Let me end by saying this.

We could go on as we are.

We could on with the paperwork, the diktats, the bureaucracy.

We could go on with crime too high and public confidence too low.

Or we could do things differently.

If you want to get rid of interference from bureaucrats in Whitehall …

If you want your judgement and discretion back …

If you want to answer to the people you signed up to serve and protect… then come with me.

And if you come with me, I will make this promise: I will always back you, I will always support you, I will always fight for you.

That’s the deal I am offering today.

It offers radical change – real change. And I hope you accept it.  Together we can make sure that British policing remains the envy of the world.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May to the Guild of Business Travel Agents on 20th January 2004.

Mr Chairman, I am honoured that the Guild of Business Travel Agents has invited me to speak at this lunch. Members of this Guild play an important role in our economy – and a role that is very often forgotten. When the term travel agent is mentioned most people think only of tourism and leisure travel forgetting that business travel plays a key role in underpinning our economy. For a trading nation like ours business travel is an essential aspect of business life.

With some 75% of corporate travel spend going to members of this Guild you do indeed have a central role to play and as such the standards of your industry are very important. I know from my own past experience in the City where I did quite a lot of business travel the importance of being able to rely absolutely on the travel arrangements made. And I was pleased to learn that this Guild certifies the only professional qualifications in the industry.

Members of this Guild along with others in the travel sector have been at the forefront of an often unremarked but indeed remarkable revolution over the last fifty years, the revolution in people’s freedom to travel.

As a result of this revolution people have more choice than ever before over where they live, spend their leisure time and holidays and where they conduct their business. As an example of the choices people make today which would have been unheard of in the past, I met a constituent on Saturday who lived in Maidenhead but who had worked for a number of years in Bradford. He flew to and from Bradford every week. Proximity to Heathrow was doubtless a benefit as it indeed is to many of my constituents.

This element of choice is important not only in opening up opportunities for people, but also in giving them the freedom of more control over their lives and of offering enhanced economic opportunities. But it is this very element of choice that is too often the first casualty when governments decide to interfere.

Your job is to make sure that wherever people live and work and wherever they want to do business they are able to travel to where they need to be in a way that is cost-effective and fits their individual circumstances. You want the transport system that meets people’s needs. Yet too often government policy is trying to do the opposite. It tries to fit people to the transport system rather than the other way round. Government wants to decide how people should travel and change their behaviour where necessary, rather than asking what people need and trying to deliver accordingly.

Of course there are areas where Government needs to play a role and there are always balances to be struck. For example, I believe that more people should be able to travel by air in the future. I also believe that a balance needs to be struck between further growth in opportunities to travel by air and the need to preserve the quality of our environment. But the need to strike a balance in this and other cases does not mean that government of whatever hue should be given carte blanche for centralisation and political interference.

If I may be allowed to spend a moment or two musing on the wider aspects of the industry, as living standards have risen, people have chosen to spend more of their time and money on travel. And the travel revolution has broadened the horizons of us all. While this is true of all forms of travel it is perhaps most true of air travel. In the last half-century air travel has been transformed from a luxury available to a few to a service available to all. In 1952 air travel accounted for just 0.1% of all travel, today it is almost 8%. Today 90% of us have flown at least once in our lives and half of us took a flight in 2001 alone.

This revolution has also made an enormous contribution to our economy. It has been estimated that aviation generates and supports more than half a million jobs in the UK. But as members of the Guild will know, the economic benefits of air travel are also indirect. The benefits of air travel to tourism which is one of the two biggest contributors to Britain’s invisible earnings might be obvious, but the other major contributor to our invisible earnings is the financial services sector which also benefits from air travel.

That travel is something people enjoy and is vital to our economy may seem obvious. Yet, substitute the word ‘transport’ for ‘travel’ and a very different picture comes to mind. The word transport conjures up images of traffic jams, delays and cancellations. The very word ‘transport’ suggests that rather than being a matter of personal choice and pleasure and in providing economic opportunities, travel is actually nothing more than a logistical chore.

The current government’s ’10 year plan for transport’, with its targets for almost every aspect of travel, was the logical outcome of such an approach. Evidence of the government’s failure confronts us on a daily basis, yet the Government still puts much effort into trying to suppress it. Last week, it blocked the publication of a report by the Strategic Rail Authority. A leaked copy catalogued, in depressing detail, the true state of our rail network.

The Commission for Integrated Transport, the very body the Government set up to further its 10 year plan for transport, has been stripped of its power to monitor progress after making it clear that the government was failing to deliver.

Air travel has generally provided a refreshing contrast to the growing problems that beset surface transport. This is largely because it has had the freedom to respond to increases in consumer demand that government direction has denied elsewhere. In fact, air travel has shown the fastest growth of any type of travel in recent years with dramatic reductions in fares and charges. These improvements have been the result of increased competition made possible by liberalisation of the European air market.

The London to Glasgow route is a good illustration of the impact of these changes. The advent of low-cost operators meant that the number of carriers on this route doubled between 1995 and 2001 and the total capacity on the route has increased by around 80%. In fact, competition has become so intense that some passengers find they pay more in airport charges and taxes than they do for their ticket.

That air travel has been so successful undermines the fallacy behind Labour’s policy that transport must be subject to planning and centralisation. Indeed, one could not think of a more complex and decentralised form of travel than air travel. Many different carriers compete for passengers. Services are provided by an array of travel agents, airport operators, national air traffic systems and others. Even though the amount of people handled by British airports almost doubled between 1990 and 2000, there was no related increase in accidents and air travel remains by far the safest way to travel.

I believe there are important lessons from the experience of air travel that should be applied elsewhere, but recent actions suggest that the long period of certainty and stability that has resulted is now under threat.

The publication of the Aviation White Paper in December was due to give a long-term coherent view of the development of air transport in the UK. I fear that far from doing that it has introduced yet more uncertainty.

As you know the first new runway in the South East is to be at Stansted. Most of the growth at Stansted has been in the kind of low-cost flights that have done so much in recent years to increase people’s opportunity to travel. Yet a new runway at Stansted will mean higher charges, which may drive away these low-cost operators. Indeed, it is not clear that a new runway at Stansted is commercially viable.

At the same time we are told that Heathrow may also get another runway, but not yet. A new runway at Heathrow depends on action to reduce emissions to meet EU standards. That requires action on road traffic as well as in the air. Yet the Government has given no indication of whether it is going to do anything towards meeting the target. Moreover Stansted will need improvements to rail access and any expansion at Heathrow would if not require then certainly benefit from improved rail access certainly to the west and south. Here again Government has given no indication of any firm plans to do anything – and the Strategic Rail Authority doesn’t have the money to make the improvements needed. The airport operator is being asked to provide funding – but there undoubtedly will be a limit to the extent to which they are prepared to fund rail improvements that are of more general use. With possible legal challenges on the Government’s proposals there is still much uncertainty about the future.

Another area where Government is impacting on air travel currently is the whole area of safety. We support the Government’s plans to introduce armed ‘sky marshals’. We must do everything we can to improve security on flights and to reassure passengers. Yet the way the Government chose to announce this move was disappointing and again symptomatic of its bureaucratic and centralist approach.

Alistair Darling told the House of Commons that Government had announced they were going down this route a year ago. If so why was it that when they made their announcement after Christmas they had not had or completed the necessary discussions with airlines and pilots. They had a year why weren’t the protocols in place? For passengers to feel more secure they need to know that pilots are happy with the scheme.

The issue of safety is one where Government needs to balance the issues carefully. They have a duty to citizens to provide for their security. But there is of course a need to examine carefully the impact of any new measures and assess their benefits. The passenger flying out for a two week holiday may not mind some extra delay in the name of security. But the business traveller for whom time is usually of the essence may take a different view. It is the business traveller who may well decide to use technology to access their client or supplier rather then flying to meet them if the delay is too great.

I therefore welcome the moves being made by the Guild to take a more active role in lobbying government, in putting the case for business travel. It is important that Government understands the impact of its decisions not just on air travel but on issues affecting surface travel too.

The Guild has an important role to play in that and I wish you the best in all that you do in future.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May to the Conservative Party Spring Conference on 6th March 2004.

What an extraordinary year it has been since we were last here – for you, for me, and for the Conservative Party.

Now of course we all know that politics can be a rough old ride. And sometimes we even find ourselves asking, “Why do we do it?”

But then you have days like yesterday. Yesterday, I visited All Saints Junior School in Maidenhead. I sat in with a class of ten-year-old boys and girls. The class was persuasive writing. The childrens’ project had been to write an advert for products they wanted to be invented in the future.

I heard about the ‘sugar sprouts’ – all the goodness of sprouts – but with a sweet taste! I heard about ‘dinner gum’. A traditional roast dinner in a single bubble gum. And then I heard about the ‘Zippo car’. The Zippo Car would get you to Australia in just 60 seconds.

Imagine the possibilities! Of course, there had to be a question or two. What would your question have been? I know what mine was – how much would this amazing car cost? A fortune surely? Well not for these children.

Rather than ask how much it would cost or how many would be available, the first question was – does it pollute? The answer by the way was sadly yes, the Zippo car does pollute – it emits chocolate!

But the answer does not alter the fact that the most important question was about the environment. These young primary school children already understand what’s really important.

They truly care about the environment we live in. And they will expect us to tackle their concerns. So there you are. We don’t have to guess what it is that future generations want. We should just ask them. But you can’t just listen to what they want. You have to understand it.

And that’s the problem with Labour. They listen, but they don’t understand. They don’t know what it would take to improve our environment, sustainably, for all time. Tony Blair ‘proved’ his green credentials by signing up to endless European Environmental directives that he has no idea how to implement.

That’s why today there are mountains of fridges piled up across the country – because we don’t have the systems to dispose of them. That’s why our towns are scarred by fly tipping and abandoned cars that Labour do nothing about, while our countryside is being blighted by the construction of ten thousand wind turbines.

Of course, the headline was Labour’s commitment for 10% of Britain’s energy to be from renewable sources. But Labour doesn’t understand that it isn’t helping the environment if you ruin the natural beauty of our countryside in the process. And you see, there’s the problem.

Labour say they are environmentally friendly, but they don’t know the half of what really makes up our environment.

It’s the air that we breathe. The land we walk on. The view we look at. The place we live. It’s our quality of life! If you fail to protect, or worse still destroy, parts of it as you improve something else, then you are achieving nothing.

And we cannot afford to gamble with our future. That’s why we have a right to demand honesty from this Government over GM crops.

Of course, we know that this Government doesn’t understand our rural way of life either. They know what they think is most important for our countryside – they’re going to ban hunting.

This is a government that doesn’t know and doesn’t care what matters for our countryside.

We’ve got to make Tony Blair understand.

You don’t create a better planet, a better environment, a better countryside just by generating better headlines. Labour’s 20th Century approach to Government – controlling, interfering, narrow-minded, just isn’t working.

Not on health and education.

Not on crime.

Not on the economy.

Not on our society.

And certainly not on the environment.

If we are to deliver the sustainable future for generations to come, we, 21st century conservatives – we will have to find a new way.

A way to start treating the planet as if we intended to stay. Not as if we were just passing through. And we are working hard to do just that. Not only me, but also my excellent Environment team.

I would like to say thank you for all the work they do – Caroline Spelman, James Gray and Anne McIntosh on environment.

John Whittingdale, and Owen Patterson on Agriculture.

And of course Damian Green, Chris Chope, and Greg Knight on transport.

We have only been up and running for a matter of months, but already this new team is working hard to tackle these difficult issues.

Sometimes it’s things that aren’t always sexy or exciting, but just sometimes plain necessary if we are going to put together a credible plan for tackling the challenges we will face in government.

And it’s not just them, but also our MEPS in the environment and agriculture committees out in Brussels, who are playing such an important part in the Conservative Environment team.

And finally of course there are our Conservative councillors across the country, who are daily forced to deal with the raft of targets and requirements forced on them by this Government.

It will be no surprise to anyone in this room to learn that 8 out of the top 10 councils across the country for recycling are Conservative ones. And it should be no surprise to hear the Conservative Party focusing so seriously on the environment.

After all, it was our leader, Michael Howard, who represented Britain at the landmark Rio Summit back in 1992.

And we’re going to keep doing it.

There are issues we must tackle, as a Party and as a country, if we are to secure a better future for the generations to come.

What we do about GM crops. How we deal with mounting problems of waste. The creation of a roadmap to a sustainable balance of environmental priorities.

Under the leadership of Michael Howard, we have embarked on the most radical and wide-ranging consultation this Party has ever engaged in on the environment.

And we want your views too so please get involved today.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we all know that we are the party of the countryside.

We must continue to be that.

But we must demonstrate too that we are the party of the environment.

Because we can be. And we should be.

We must capture the imagination and respect of the children like those in All Saints Junior School.

Young people are the voters of tomorrow, the voters of the future. They live in a world of aspirations and dreams. Our job, as Conservatives, is to work to realise those dreams.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May at the 2003 Conservative Spring Conference on 15th March 2003.

Today, we meet in the shadow of great and terrible events.

The situation currently unfolding in the Gulf dominates all our thoughts.

British servicemen and women are preparing to risk their lives to disarm Saddam Hussein and to uphold the rule of international law.

The debt we owe them is immense.

Let us send them a message today: we’re thinking of you. We back you. We believe in you.

But while we support what our armed forces are doing, we shouldn’t kid ourselves. There is widespread concern about war. Many people feel the Government’s actions should be opposed and they ask us why we aren’t doing it.

The reason is because we believe Tony Blair is taking a risk to make the world safer. And as a matter of principle, he deserves support.

But I know we need to continue to make the case. Leadership isn’t just about embarking on a course and expecting others to follow. It’s also about explaining. It’s about taking people with you. It’s about being open and honest.

We must set out point-by-point why this conflict is necessary.

And we owe it to the people of this country to take their concerns seriously and explain why it is right, indeed it is moral, for Britain to act.

So let’s firstly be clear about what this war is not about.

This is not about oil and profit.

If it were we could achieve our aims far easier by striking a trade deal with Saddam Hussein.

This is not a war against Islam.

Many Muslims would like nothing more than to see the back of this evil dictator.

And above all this is emphatically not about American global domination.

Critics often accuse Americans of being isolationist. Now they accuse them of Imperialism.

But can anyone really question why – today – Americans are determined to act against those who have shown a willingness to do them harm?

No. When people ask what this conflict is about, we must be clear and honest.

This is about forcing Saddam Hussein to comply with international law.

This is about forcing him to disarm.

Above all, this is about the safety and security of Britain.

On September 11th, billions of people around the world saw for the first time the immense destructive power of the new terrorism.

We now all know, in a way that many didn’t realise before, that there are people and organisations that have no moral limits, who are prepared to butcher totally innocent people, however young, however helpless, just to advance their own fanatical cause.

The new terrorists are well organised, lavishly funded and highly motivated.

They are actively seeking terrible new weapons of mass destruction.

And, let’s not kid ourselves, we are a target.

Not because of anything we’ve done. But because of who we are.

The new terrorists of Al-Qaeda are at war with the West because our free societies are everything they hate.

The question we must ask ourselves is this:

Should we wait…

Or should we take action now to stop it happening?

You only have to ask the question to know the answer.

The western democracies must have a proactive strategy for identifying and neutralising terrorists.

And not only those who carry out the atrocities – but those who have the means, the mentality and the motive to help them.

I believe Saddam Hussein is such a man.

Any objective observer attempting to identify those who might have the means and the motivation to supply weapons of mass destruction to Al-Qaeda or other similar groups would have his name right at the top of their list.

He has shown he does not recognise the rule of international law.

Some people say we have known about his evasion for years. Why act now?

To them I would say one thing: Remember September 11th.

‘Why now’, cannot – and should not – mean not now.

Resolution 1441 didn’t just ask Iraq to work with the weapons inspectors. It demanded full compliance and active cooperation so there could be no conceivable doubt.

Since that Resolution was passed, Saddam Hussein has done everything in his power to resist full compliance and delay active co-operation. His time is running out: of that, there can be no conceivable doubt.

It is time for him to disarm by choice or by force.

Our policy on Iraq is based above anything else on this country’s national interest.

And over the past months, we have been fortunate to be led by Iain Duncan Smith who has shown the capacity to look beyond passing newspaper headlines and tackle the big challenges of our time.

Iain has been warning of the threat from Saddam Hussein since 1995. He has consistently advocated strong international action to force him to disarm.

After I have finished speaking, Iain will address the international situation. We’re lucky to have as our Leader a man who is not afraid to take a stand of principle on the really big issues.

At times of crisis like this people expect their politicians to be able to put aside short-term party advantage in the country’s interests.

But, the problem for most people is why, when major crises pass, do politicians go back to point-scoring rather than working together…

Bad mouthing rather than supporting others when they know they’re right…

Mud-slinging when what people want are ideas and solutions.

Britain is changing. The public have become more discerning. A world in which most people are automatically Labour or Conservative no longer exists.

We could just accept this as a new fact of life in the 21st Century.

But I believe this is an opportunity – an opportunity to show people we have solutions to their problems.

And we must seize the opportunity to build a bridge to the millions of people who feel their voice is simply not being heard.

People who hope that by paying extra taxes they will get the operation they need when they need it – but fear they will not.

People who hope their savings will provide them with a secure future – but fear their pension will be worth nothing.

People who hope their child’s hard work will be rewarded by a university place – but fear they won’t be able to afford it.

People who hope that their children are safe going out at night – but fear that they are not.

These are the voiceless millions who hope for a party to speak for them.

We must be their voice.

We must be that Party.

This Government has dashed people’s hopes and played on their fears.

We must show that we are a credible alternative to this Labour Government.

That means working together as one party united.

It means talking the people’s language – living in their world.

It means showing that we agree with them that everyone should have a fair chance to fulfil their potential.

It means showing that we care passionately about the things they care about.

It means being 21st Century Conservatives.

Conservatives who are open and honest, clear about where we stand, and ready to take the tough decisions necessary to make this country better.

It means challenging the artificial divisions that have built up in politics in this country and that have so bedevilled our chance to get things right.

There is no contradiction between helping young criminals off the conveyor belt to crime and putting more police on the streets.

There is no contradiction between supporting businesses and helping the vulnerable.

There is no contradiction between a low tax economy and better public services.

You see, we understand how to improve public services without wasting taxes, because that is what Conservative Councils do.

Over the past few months, I have seen a great example of the Conservative Party in action at its very best. Our councillors at work.

They’ve been working hard to provide a fair deal for local people.

But don’t take my word for it. Look at what the Audit Commission has to say. Conservative councils are the best. They take less of your money but deliver better services than others.

A real record of success. Conservatives in Government delivering results.

Our Conservative councillors record helps us show that Conservatives in government can make people’s lives better.

It will be a great help when it comes to persuading people of our case at the general election.

But it won’t be enough.

We have to show in everything that we believe, say and do that we are 21st Century Conservatives.

Conservatives whose belief in freedom makes them cherish the diversity it brings.

Conservatives who know the virtue of paying your own way but believe in helping those who can’t.

Conservatives who believe in their country and recognise that Britain is at its best when it is helping to build a better world.

The people who have supported this party through thick and thin know these things in their hearts. But this Party has always been at its best when our appeal has extended beyond those who think of themselves as life’s Conservatives.

When our hopes have matched people’s hopes and we’ve worked together to realise them.

Helping people from across the spectrum, because the right policies give a fair deal for everyone – regardless of background, income, gender, religion or race.

The Conservative Party is at its best when at its broadest.

We must show people now that we have the policies and the commitment to deal with the problems of today.

Challenges where Conservative values point the way forward.

Challenges in health.

The challenge of one million people on waiting lists.

People waiting for hours in accident and emergency when they would be seen much quicker in other parts of Europe.

But only Conservatives have the vision to learn from abroad how those values could be better delivered.

Challenges in Education.

The challenge of one in four children leaving primary school unable to read, write and count properly.

30,000 children finishing school without a single GCSE.

It’s the Conservative belief in standards, discipline and effective teaching methods that points the way out.

Challenges in law and order.

The challenge of a crime being committed every five seconds.

Criminals with only a one in forty chance of being caught.

It’s the Conservatives who are looking at innovative ways to help young people off the conveyor belt to crime.

And trusting local people when they say they want more police on their streets.

In every area of our lives, Conservative values can deliver results.

That’s why people in today’s Britain should be at home with today’s Conservative Party.

People who are determined to help the poorest in society, and who believe that penalising the rich for being rich helps no one.

People who believe they have a duty to pay their taxes, and who believe that the Government owes it to them not to waste their money.

People who want a successful NHS for everyone, and who believe that people let down by the NHS should be helped to go elsewhere.

People who hope the best possible schools for their own children, and for everybody else’s.

People who believe that Britain is a force for good in the world and that we can learn from other countries too.

That’s what people in 21st Century Britain believe, and what we as 21st Century Conservatives believe.

Our job now is to build a bridge between us.

And the careful and sensible way we have been developing our programme over the past 18 months helps us to do just that.

We have begun to build that bridge.

We have an ambitious and progressive agenda for government.

Our country faces huge challenges in the years ahead.

We must be open, honest and clear.

Clear about who we are and what we stand for.

Clear about what we can deliver and what we want to achieve.

To those people who feel the country is going in the wrong direction…

To those who feel let down or betrayed…

To those who feel they are being ignored…

We say simply ‘join us. Come with us.

We will be your voice’.

Together we can build a bridge to a better future.

Let’s show them we can do it.