UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Peter Hain – 2009 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Hain, the then Welsh Secretary, to the 2009 Labour Party conference in October 2009.

    In the past four weeks I have travelled the length and breadth of Wales joining with local party members at a series of fight back meetings. I have been asking everyone a simple, solitary question and I repeat it here:  do we want to win?

    Not – ‘Yes, of course we do. Or OK, why not?

    No I mean do we really, really want to win? Do we really, really want our Labour Government back in power?

    I ask because unless we do, unless you do, then we all might as well wrap conference up now, go home, put our feet up and wait for David Cameron to give that smarmy smile of his from the steps of Number 10 next year.

    We must not behave as if a Tory win is inevitable.

    Seemingly ready to throw away thirteen years of Labour investment in schools and hospitals, to hand over everything we have achieved – minimum wage, tax credits, massive public spending increases, trebling our overseas aid budget doubling the Welsh budget, devolution for Wales, the Northern Ireland settlement – hundreds and hundreds of concrete Labour achievements – absolutely everything, to those callous, right wing Tories.

    The opinion polls have killed us already. The media have written us off, some licking their lips at their Tory mates being back in power again. Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrat leaders are preparing to work with the Tories.

    But, they have all forgotten something. Not a single vote has been cast yet.  Nobody knows what will happen on election day.

    They have forgotten something else:  this labour and trade union movement never gives up: we never have, we never will. Because the Tories have not been winning with the kind of huge leads Labour achieved before 1997.  On June 4th they won Wales – shockingly – with just six out of a hundred people registered to vote. Labour voters have simply stayed at home – by the millions.

    So, if we get under the radar – underneath the ferocious media attack on us and speak to voters directly – we can still beat them.  And nobody else can do that except us – each and every one of us.  Because in this general election campaign, more than any election I can remember, direct contact with voters on the doorstep or the telephone will be vital – absolutely critical.

    I think it will be decided at the very last moment. If we do our job as a Labour leadership, if you do your jobs at the grass roots, whatever the polls say, when people get into the privacy of the polling booth, then I think the next election will be more like in 1992 when everyone expected the Government to lose but in the end voters considered the Opposition too much of a risk. I think voters might set aside their dissatisfaction with our Government and ask themselves a much more fundamental question: do they really, really trust the Tories?  Trust the Tories with their jobs, their mortgages, their families, their pensions.

    Everyone is worried about debt, but do they trust the Tories to manage the crisis when their policies of savage cuts would make debt worse?

    Everyone is worried about rising unemployment, but they know savage Tory cuts mean millions more could lose their jobs in future.

    Everyone would prefer that the recession hadn’t driven up government borrowing, but everyone also knows if we were not investing now the economy would be much, much worse.

    What I find really offensive is how David Cameron and George Osborne so transparently relish chance to make cuts, to exploit this global crisis to do what even Thatcher could not do. Slash and burn local government.  Introduce regional benefit levels, meaning lower pensions, disability and unemployment payments for low income areas like Wales. Also in Wales ending free prescriptions, abolishing free bus travel for pensioners, and abolishing European funding programmes.

    And now, we have the extraordinary spectacle of the Liberals trying to out-do the Tories in savagery on cuts!

    Over recent months the soft Cameron mask has slipped and the real Tories have emerged blinking into the sunlight.  Tory pin-up, their European MP Daniel Hannan, revealed their true colours: “You would be better off being ill in America than in Britain.” Why on earth does he think President Obama is fighting to reform a health system that leaves nearly 50 million Americans without any health protection whatsoever?

    On Europe David Cameron has now joined up with the far right leaders:- one says homosexuality is a disease another called for global ‘chemotherapy’ against muslims.

    – one described climate change as a global myth’ another insisted the Holocaust was a myth

    – yet another celebrated his city’s local connection to Hitler’s notorious SS

    Lets remind ourselves why we want to beat the Tories. Because we all share the same Labour values, and the really encouraging thing is that the vast majority of the British people share these values too. The same values of caring, community, solidarity, social justice, equality, fairness, liberty, democracy.

    The same values that brought me into politics through the anti-apartheid struggle – opposed by the Tories.

    The same values which motivated the great Nelson Mandela – denounced as a ‘terrorist’ by the Tories.

    The same values of the trade unionists who banded together to protect working people – opposed by the Tories.

    The same values of the Chartists who struggled for working people to get the vote – opposed by the Tories.

    The same values of the Suffragettes who fought for women to get the vote – opposed by the Tories.

    And – yes – the same values of mutual care and mutual support that inspired that great Welsh Labour leader Nye Bevan to create the NHS – also opposed by the Tories.

    Labour values that today stand for fair taxation. Not greedy Tory values that will reward 3,000 of the very richest people in Britain with inheritance tax cuts of £200,000 each. £200,000 each. Whilst they plan to give nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers the sack.

    That’s the threat we face, that’s what we must all stand up and fight against.

    I’m proud of what we have achieved as a Labour Government. Yes – we have made mistakes; everyone makes mistakes.

    But nobody can take away the fact that, even after the global financial crisis, after all the problems people face, there are still 2.4 million more jobs in Britain under your Labour Government than under the Tories.

    Nobody can dispute that under Labour there are still over 800,000 more public sector workers, especially doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers to ensure waiting times for hospital operations are now down from years to weeks,  that school standards are up, and crime is down.

    All of these and many, many more concrete and tangible Labour achievements.

    We should be much more confident about our policies. This should be our era. After the terrible failures of financial capitalism, this is an era for active not passive government, an era for hands-on not hands-off government, for getting stuck in and helping people, not leaving them on their own prey to the banking blizzards. An era for Labour not Tory Government.

    So let’s be proud of our Party, proud of our Labour traditions, proud of our socialist heritage.

    And let’s do everything – absolutely everything – in our power to stop the Tories destroying all our achievements and wrecking Britain again.

  • Peter Hain – 2001 Speech at the Africa Educational Trust

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Hain, the then Foreign Office Minister, to the Africa Educational Trust on 23rd January 2001 in London.

    It is a great honour for me to be delivering this speech this evening in memory of the Reverend Michael Scott. He was a great inspiration to me and many others who campaigned against the evils of apartheid. He left an indelible mark in southern Africa, particularly in Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

    Education is vital to the British Government, here and in Africa: education for all not just an elite few. And I am therefore a great admirer of the Africa Educational Trust, which for 40 years has helped educate young Africans who have escaped from oppression and conflict. A galaxy of stars have returned home to play major roles in the transformation to majority rule in southern Africa. Many of the southern African politicians, officials, teachers and businessmen I meet have benefited in some way from your work.

    I was born in Nairobi. I am a son of Africa. As an African born British Minister for Africa, I have a personal commitment to the African continent. I want to help build a genuine partnership between the continent of my birth and my adopted homeland. The future of the United Kingdom is inexorably linked to the future of Africa. We have much in common. Britain cannot afford to ignore the plight of our African brothers and sisters.

    Our policy is straightforward. We back success in Africa. We are work in partnership with Africans to overcome past failures: African and western. We support Africans who stand up for democracy. We help those who want economic reform. And we encourage and support those who strive for peace.

    THE YEAR 2000 IN AFRICA

    On the eve of the new millennium, there was an air of optimism. Much was made about the 21st century being Africa’s century. The future looked bright. Africa had finally broken free from the shackles of colonialism. From the divisive politics of the Cold War. It was ready to decide its own future. Talk was of an ‘African Renaissance’.

    But, if we are to believe national and international media, the year 2000 was a disaster for Africa. Afro?pessimism ruled supreme. Commentators called Africa ‘the hopeless continent’, riven by conflict, bad leadership and economic failure. Journalists queued up in their attempts to put Africa down. And in doing so, one could almost sense an air of relief. Why? Because African failure lets the international community off the hook. If Africa is ‘hopeless’, then there is no point in even trying to help. With a shrug of the shoulders, attention can turn away.

    Can we blame the Afro-pessimists? At times, last year tested even my faith in Africa’s future. Pictures of Ethiopian and Eritrean armies slaughtering each other across barren and inconsequential land in scenes reminiscent of 1914 Europe. Brutal conflict in Sierra Leone, caused by rebels backed by a neighbouring state and destabilising the region. Seemingly never-ending conflicts in the DRC and Angola fuelled and sustained by the illegal trade in diamonds. Civil war in Burundi. Successive coups and counter coups in Cote d’Ivoire. And government-motivated political intimidation and violence in Zimbabwe.

    And even where Governments were trying to make positive changes, disaster struck. Devastating floods in Mozambique. Drought in Kenya. Forest fires in South Africa all set back development efforts. The collapse in cocoa and gold prices and the rise of oil prices undermined Ghanaian economic success. The terrifying plague of AIDS continued to engulf and ravage the continent. And malaria kept killing thousands of Africans.

    So, it is easy to see why Afro?pessimism dominated the headlines. In the words of President Mbeki, what happens in one part of Africa affects the continent’s image as a whole. Unfair, but it is a fact.

    And yet, as so often, the headlines betrayed the superficiality of journalism. I travelled extensively in Africa throughout last year. During my travels and my many discussions with Africans and Africa watchers, I picked up a common theme. Yes, Africa does face enormous challenges in this new era of globalisation. But a new shared vision of Africa’s future is emerging. There is a growing consensus among African leaders that they must implement urgent economic, political and governance reforms. Leaders are defining more clearly the resource needs, and development priorities required to meet these challenges. A new generation of African leaders is coming to power. Democracy and political participation are growing. A new generation of African entrepreneurs is emerging.

    The UN Millennium Assembly in September 2000 was a watershed for Africa. A succession of African leaders came to the podium and spoke about what they, not the rest of the world, but they needed to do to set Africa on the road to recovery and growth. And in response, Tony Blair led the way for the developed world. Let me remind you of a little of what he said. ‘…we need a new partnership for Africa, in which Africans lead but the rest of the world is committed; where all the problems are dealt with not separately but together in a coherent and unified plan. Britain stands ready to play our part with the rest of the world and the leaders of Africa in formulating such a plan.’ This is the cornerstone of our policy. We want to see a step change in the way that Africa and developed countries engage with each other. The future involves a modern, forward looking relationship, based on equality, respect, shared convictions, mutual interest and mutual obligations.

    The OAU itself has recognised that the time is right for Africa to develop its own development strategy: entitled the ‘Millennium Africa Programme’. The Presidents of South Africa, Nigeria and Algeria have been mandated to develop it. We are working hard with these countries, across Whitehall and with the private and NGO sectors to ensure that we are ready to respond promptly, positively and productively to this African led strategy.

    I have been saying since I began this job that democracy in Africa is growing rapidly. Last year we saw further evidence of this in Senegal, Tanzania, Mauritius, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia. Yes there well publicised problems in Zimbabwe. But elections were held. And the world quickly learned of the terrible events surrounding them. Further proof that that African governments are becoming increasingly accountable. And Zimbabwe now has a functioning opposition party represented in Parliament. Earlier this month we saw the first peaceful, democratic change of government and President in Ghana. Throughout Africa, civil society has developed a voice. And that voice is increasingly being heard, loud and clear. In 1973, only three African Heads of State were democratically elected. Last year the figure was 32 – 10 times greater.

    The decision by the OAU Summit in Lome in July to exclude the Presidents of Cote d’Ivoire and the Comoros sent a clear message of rejection of coup d’etats and military juntas. Africa’s leaders made clear that only leaders who come to power through accountable and transparent means would be welcome at their table. I believe this brave decision and other efforts by African leaders played some part in the removal of the military dictator General Guei by the people of Cote d’Ivoire.

    The refrain of African solutions to African problems has been ringing for some years now. Too often, it has been used as an excuse for the rest of the world to abdicate responsibility for helping to resolve Africa’s disputes. We demonstrated through our efforts in Sierra Leone last year that we take seriously our responsibility as members of the UN Security Council and wider UN family. But we also saw renewed African efforts at conflict resolution. President Bouteflika of Algeria worked tirelessly to bring the warring parties in Ethiopia and Eritrea together. He personally, and the OAU as an organisation deserve great credit for the fact that Ethiopia and Eritrea have signed a peace deal and UN peacekeepers have been deployed. Nelson Mandela, even in retirement continues to work for peace. His efforts in Burundi following on from the work of the late Julius Nyerere – who gave this lecture in 1997 – appear to be bearing fruit. Largely through the efforts of President Guelleh of Djibouti, we are now seeing early positive signs that the largely forgotten tragedy of Somalia could be coming to an end. After more than 10 years of civil war and a failed state, reconciliation will not prove easy. But there is now hope.

    So, I would describe the year 2000 as the year of African peacemaking. Africa’s leaders demonstrated that when given appropriate international support, they can resolve African disputes. Of course, problems remain. Africa’s ‘First World War’ in the Democratic Republic of the Congo drags on with unmitigated humanitarian suffering. Of course, I deplore the use of violence and I regret the assassination of President Kabila. But I hope that creation of a new government in Kinshasa will deliver fresh impetus for peace. But importantly, no new African conflicts erupted in 2000. This is a new trend on which we must build.

    THE CHALLENGES FOR AFRICA

    But despite these positive signals, Africa still faces enormous challenges. Africa is poorer now than 30 years ago. Over 250 million, that is 40 per cent of the population of sub Saharan Africa live on less than one dollar a day. Average output per head in Africa is now lower than it was 30 years ago. GDP per head in the EU is more than 45 times greater than in sub-Saharan Africa. Africa’s share of world trade has fallen sharply, and investment has declined. Average real economic growth is currently two per cent a year. But as population growth is also around two per cent a year, GDP per head is stagnant. If Africa is to meet the international target of halving poverty by 2015, GDP will need to grow by an average of seven per cent a year. If the terms of trade continue to deteriorate, conflict proliferates or if international development assistance continues to decline, this growth requirement will be even higher.

    At the dawn of the 21st century more than 250 million people in Africa do not have access to safe water. More than 200 million do not have access to health services. 533 million do not have access to electricity. Only 10 African countries have achieved Universal Primary Education. In most countries literacy rates have stagnated over the past twenty years.

    So, while I recognise the early signs of positive change, I still have profound fears for Africa’s future. The list seems endless: HIV/AIDS, poor governance, conflict affecting half the countries in sub-Saharan Africa, economic marginalisation, deteriorating infrastructure, low levels of saving, capital flight and human migration, the continuing debt burden, deterioration of the terms of trade, declining incomes and worsening education. These all point to a continuing decline in economic and human development in Africa.

    The statistics I have seen on the impact of HIV/AIDS in sub Saharan Africa are horrific. Ten times as many people in Africa died of AIDS in 1999 as died in conflict. In some countries, a quarter of the adult population will die in the next six years. Skills will be lost. The time and energy of the healthy will be diverted from economic and agricultural production to caring for the victims of AIDS. But in despair, there is hope. The Governments of Senegal and Uganda have made great strides towards bringing the AIDS pandemic under control. There are also early signs of success in Tanzania and Zambia.

    But Malaria also offers a huge threat to Africa’s future. If it were possible to control malaria, this could translate into an additional 20 per cent growth in Africa over a 15 year period.

    New drugs are urgently needed to combat the increasing problem of drug resistance, as well as new vaccines to prevent HIV, TB and Malaria. But there is inadequate research for most of these rampant diseases and it is regarded as unprofitable for drugs companies to develop drugs and vaccines to prevent or treat them.

    The challenge is enormous, but we have examples of what can be done if there is a determination to make a difference. Polio was once a huge threat to Africa. But now Africa is well on the way towards eradicating it, even in the war-torn Democratic Republic of the Congo and Angola. There are efforts underway to tackle the threat of communicable diseases. Across Whitehall we are working hard to assess what more we can do.

    If we are to halt Africa’s economic marginalisation and decline in the global economy, international investment and flight capital must return. But international business sentiment is increasingly negative about Africa’s prospects. As Africa missed the industrial revolution, it now risks missing the knowledge revolution. Investment rating services list Africa as the highest risk region in the world. But Africa has huge economic potential. It has great strength in natural resources, and potential for processing and manufacturing. There is a new generation of entrepreneurs emerging in a number of countries. In Uganda, following debt relief, there are early signs that flight capital is starting to return. We must build on this and help our businessmen and women to discover and invest in those areas of potential. We must educate potential investors to look beyond the negative headlines.

    For example, I mentioned earlier that only nine per cent of Africans outside South Africa have access to any form of electricity. That means over half a billion people are effectively cut off from the benefits of modern technology. And these numbers are growing as electrification fails to keep pace with population growth – and grid extension stalls due to high costs.

    For Africa to catch up with the rest of the world, it may need to focus upon free-standing technology rather than fixed networks which require massive and prohibitively costly investment across huge geographical areas. A combination of mobile telecommunications and solar and renewable power could enable Africa to make the necessary leap forward.

    Modern renewable energy – including solar, wind and micro hydro – could drastically improve communities’ livelihoods and quality of life: powering equipment, pumping clean water, cooling essential vaccines and providing light for remote schools. New public/private partnerships are beginning to take forward viable and profit making schemes.

    CONCLUSION

    I would like to end by answering a question I occasionally hear expressed: why does Africa matter to us? There are many reasons why Africa matters. Firstly we have a strong humanitarian imperative to end the misery of poverty. But there are also economic incentives. Africa is an essential provider of raw materials, from platinum to timber. There is huge potential for shared economic benefits from increased trade with over 700 million people in countries with valuable natural and human resources, and with whom we have many historical, cultural, family and business ties.

    If we do not work to stop it, conflict and violence within and between African countries could grow to epidemic proportions. It could spread beyond Africa, as people become refugees and economic migrants.

    Increasing levels of crime in Africa, particularly in the trafficking of drugs, damage lives and societies here and in other developed countries as well as in Africa. The continuing spread of disease, including but not only HIV/AIDS, increases the risks to the health of people throughout the world. Three quarters of all new British heterosexual HIV/AIDS victims last year were infected whilst travelling in Africa. The global environment is threatened by continuing environmental degradation, including deforestation, global warming, erosion of bio-diversity, and air and water pollution from environmentally unfriendly industrial and other production processes.

    For all these reasons, the world shares a keen interest in halting the decline of social and economic conditions in Africa. Moreover, as the demonstrations in Seattle, Prague and Nice have shown, there will be increasing political tension if poor countries are left behind as the rest of the world moves ahead with globalisation. These are powerful self-interest reasons for action. But they merely supplement the most important motive: the human cost in Africa of lives lost and unfulfilled potential stands as an indictment against our common humanity. We have an opportunity to build a better future for Africa’s children; we must not miss it.

  • Robert Goodwill – 2014 Speech on HS2

    robertgoodwill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Goodwill, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 28th April 2014.

    This debate has highlighted, not only the need for HS2, but also the importance of getting it right.

    This is a scheme that will play a vital role in creating the necessary conditions for economic growth.

    But that doesn’t mean we should press ahead unchecked.

    We must be clear about the impacts.

    And we must act responsibly in addressing those impacts.

    By providing appropriate mitigation for any adverse environmental consequences.

    And fair compensation for those affected by the new railway.

    Let me summarise how we are responding to these crucial issues.

    Firstly, there is the question of cost.

    Let me say that we have been clear about cost.

    It is a considerable investment, but it is spread over 10 years.

    Delivering benefits over decades.

    Perhaps even centuries.

    This is a project that will stand the test of time.

    And it is not at the expense of other investment.

    It is alongside high levels of investment in roads, in the existing rail network, and in local transport schemes.

    This is one part of a rounded transport strategy.

    It is, of course, incumbent on us to ensure this scheme sticks to its schedule and budget.

    So that tax payers get value for money.

    And they will.

    To assist us, we have recently appointed leading experts Sir David Higgins and Simon Kirby to lead the delivery and construction of the scheme.

    Following his recent review, Sir David Higgins confirmed that the scheme is on track for construction to begin in 2017.

    Secondly, is the question of how we are addressing the impacts on the environment.

    Unfortunately, it is not possible to construct a project like this without having some impacts on the environment.

    However, since the very beginning, identifying those impacts and developing proposals for appropriate mitigation have been key priorities.

    We have carried out environmental assessments.

    And we have proposed mitigation measures.

    We are committed to no net loss of biodiversity.

    We are replacing habitats for wildlife.

    We are generally tunnelling under, rather than travelling through, the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty.

    We are integrating the railway in to the landscape, hiding much of it from view.

    We are incorporating natural and man-made barriers to reduce noise and vibration.

    And we have set binding commitments to control the impacts of construction.

    On all this, we have consulted extensively. We have taken on board suggestions for improving the scheme.

    And, prior to the Easter recess, the House has received an independent report, summarising consultation responses, to inform its decision tonight (28 April 2014).

    Thirdly, let me turn to the measures to support those whose property may be affected.

    People living near the proposed route are understandably worried.

    They deserve generous assistance.

    And they will receive it.

    We have already helped over a hundred households under the current exceptional hardship scheme.

    We have now launched an express purchase scheme for land safeguarded for Phase One – helping owner-occupiers sell quickly and with less fuss, regardless of whether their property is needed for HS2. They get the full unblighted open market value of their property, plus 10%, plus reasonable moving costs – including stamp duty.

    Later this year we will launch an enhanced need to sell scheme to help owner-occupiers who need to sell their property, but cannot because of HS2 – there is no distance test to pass.

    We will also launch a voluntary purchase scheme – giving owner-occupiers in rural areas up to 120 metres from the line the choice to sell their property and receive its full un-blighted market value. We will also consult on offering them a new choice of a cash alternative.

    And we will consult on new home owner payments, for owner-occupiers in rural areas between 120 metres and 300 metres from the line, to help share more of the expected economic benefits of HS2 with rural homeowners –not just helping those who want to move, but also those who need to stay in their homes.

    We appreciate that, for some, no amount of money or help will be enough.

    And we don’t pretend that these proposals will satisfy everyone.

    But we believe they are fair and represent the best possible balance between properly helping people and providing value for money for the tax payer.

    Tonight the House faces a great decision, one of national importance that will profoundly affect the way our economy develops for generations.

    The House must be satisfied of the need for HS2.

    And it must be satisfied that the appropriate measures are in place to deliver this scheme in a sustainable way – both economically and environmentally.

    HS2 will help drive this country forward.

    It will create new capacity and enable better use of existing transport corridors.

    It will join up our cities and strengthen our economy.

    And as a result, it will help open up opportunities, currently held back by lack of investment.

    And, along the way, it will be subject to careful, detailed scrutiny.

    Tonight’s vote is an important step in taking HS2 forward.

    And I urge Rt Hon and Hon members to support this bill for Phase One.

  • Robert Goodwill – 2014 Speech to British Parking Association

    robertgoodwill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Goodwill, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, to the British Parking Association Parking Summit on 27th February 2014.

    Good morning, I am grateful to Helen for her thoughtful introduction to today’s (27 February 2014) discussion.

    As any learner driver will tell you – parking is complex.

    We ask parking and traffic management to deliver a number of objectives in parallel and managing those competing demands on our roads will never be simple.

    Recognition for the sector

    The UK has more motor vehicles per mile than France, Germany or even the densely populated Netherlands.

    And traffic on our roads is forecast to increase.

    That’s why we are investing £24 billion in the strategic road network in this Parliament and the next.

    And by 2021 we will be spending £3 billion each year on improvements and maintenance.

    This is the most significant upgrade of our roads ever.

    And it is also why parking and traffic management has an absolutely vital role to play.

    Effective management enables people, goods and services to get to where they are needed.

    And it is essential for a growing economy.

    Over the past few years we have seen great strides taken by the parking industry.

    Innovations like the John Heasman Bursary have helped increase the evidence available to inform improved traffic management.

    And at the same time the industry has become increasingly skilled and more professional.

    Now more than 90% of local authorities have taken over the civil enforcement of their parking services.

    This has improved compliance, reduced congestion, freed up the police and – most importantly – made our roads safer.

    But where effective parking management breaks down – like in Aberystwyth as well as in my own constituency in Scarborough – it causes real problems.

    So we can all learn and improve on what we do – including the government.

    Sharing experiences, information and knowledge is essential.

    That’s why I was very grateful the British Parking Association have organised today’s (27 February 2014) summit.

    Consultation

    The reason why we are all here today (27 February 2014) is the Transport Select Committee’s recent inquiry into local parking enforcement and the government’s recent wide-ranging parking consultation.

    As you will expect, we have received a very large number of responses to the consultation.

    Let me reassure you that, despite what some press reports claim, we have not already reached a decision.

    I will be looking at all the responses to the consultation carefully.

    We will not be taking any hasty decisions.

    Because, what is very clear, is that parking matters to us all.

    So – together – we need to get it right.

    The Select Committee inquiry and our consultation have been prompted by three big issues for parking and traffic management.

    The first, is the challenges facing our high streets.

    The second, is the potential for the deployment and use of new technologies that can improve the use of our roads.

    But recognition that, in some cases, these cause the public concern.

    Finally, the third is the widespread belief among motorists that councils view parking enforcement primarily as an opportunity to raise revenue.

    I’d like briefly to discuss each of these this morning to set out why they are important and I would like to hear all your thoughts on the possible next steps.

    High streets

    Our high streets are essential to our national life.

    High streets bring people together and they’re at the heart of our daily life and economy.

    For example, in London over half of the jobs in the capital are spread across just 600 high streets.

    And two-thirds of Londoners live within a 5 minute walk of their local high street.

    But our high streets have been in long-term decline.

    Despite recent encouraging economic news, vacancy rates remain stubbornly high.

    Almost 14% of shops were empty in December – that’s more than 50,000 stores.

    And that’s prompted debate about what can be done to help high streets compete with out of town and online retail.

    Ensuring convenient and safe parking is available at a reasonable cost is part of the answer.

    And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the British Parking Association for the advice you have been providing to the Portas review pilot towns.

    And, many areas, do need to improve.

    During her review Mary Portas found that in many areas – to use her words – “parking has been run-down, in an inconvenient place, and most significantly really expensive.”

    And the recent Association of Town and City Management and BPA survey found that some mid-range areas were charging 18% more for parking than larger and more popular retail locations.

    So the question is, if you are a local business or resident, what more is needed to get your local council to improve parking provision in your local area?

    In the consultation we suggested one way this could be achieved could be by allowing local residents and firms to be able to petition the council to initiate a review of parking policy in their area.

    This might be a request to lower charges.

    But it equally might be a review to see if additional spaces could be provided or for better street lighting to improve safety.

    New technology

    The second issue is the potential for new technologies to help manage our roads far more effectively.

    The introduction of GPS-based systems, new sensor technologies and the increasing integration with smart-phones can revolutionise parking.

    Better and more efficient parking services can be delivered in real-time, bringing benefits to high streets and road users throughout the UK.

    However the capabilities of these new technologies also bring with them an increased responsibility to ensure that parking is enforced fairly and proportionately.

    I firmly believe that most involved in the parking industry, from local authorities to private-sector service providers aim to do just that.

    However, the use of CCTV, in particular, causes public concern.

    The department’s guidance already states that CCTV cameras should only be used where parking enforcement is difficult or sensitive and enforcement by a civil enforcement officer is not practical.

    Because cameras can be more contentious than boots on the ground.

    The Select Committee found that residents’ permits and blue badges may not always be visible.

    And the Select Committee also found that in some areas cameras are being used ‘as a matter of routine’ for on-street parking violations.

    So our consultation asked what options there are to address these concerns and I’d like to hear your thoughts this morning.

    Public concern

    Finally, there is a real problem with the public’s view of local authorities’ approach to parking and traffic enforcement.

    In the words of the Transport Select Committee, there is a “deeply rooted public perception that local authorities view parking enforcement as a cash cow”.

    From 1997/98 to 2010/11, net surpluses from parking rose from £223 million to £512 million.

    Net income from local authority parking services is expected to rise from £601 million in 2012/13 to £635 million in 2013/14 – an increase of 5.6%.

    I know that headline figure reflects parking charges as well as penalties, but I am determined that public confidence in enforcement should not be undermined.

    We have been very clear that the ring fence on surpluses will remain.

    Fines for those who break the rules will only be used to improve the roads or environment for those that play by the rules.

    But the Transport Select Committee also asked whether the current system is as fair as it could be for those who inadvertently make a mistake.

    First, they asked whether the independent traffic adjudicators should be able to allow an appeal where they determine a Council has ignored statutory guidance.

    Second, does the current system act as a disincentive for someone to appeal?

    There is a legititmate concern that discounts on prompt payments following appeal would result in every charge being appealed.

    So, following the Committee’s recommendation, we have asked whether the introduction of a 25% discount for motorists who pay within 7 days of losing an appeal would be worthwhile.

    Third, the committee recommended that the statutory guidance should stipulate a grace period after the expiry of paid for time.

    As the BPA’s response to the consultation states, in practice, most local authorities do this already.

    So I would like your views as to whether mandating a grace period might reassure the public that they can expect a consistent approach no matter where they park?

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, I believe that the majority of local authorities and parking providers are doing excellent work.

    You are providing well designed, fair and proportionate parking services.

    The challenge now is to deliver equally high standards across the parking sector as a whole.

    That means preventing examples of poor management or bad practice that are so prominent in the media.

    I know many of you will have responded to the recent consultation.

    I understand just how important these issues are.

    So I will be listening carefully to the views generated by the consultation, as well as the outcome of today’s summit.

    Because parking and traffic management is important.

    It’s important to the public.

    It’s important for our communities.

    And it’s vital for the health of our economy.

    Thank you for listening.

    I look forward to our discussion.

  • Robert Goodwill – 2014 Speech on Road Investment

    robertgoodwill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Goodwill, the Transport Minister, on 10th February 2014.

    I’m delighted to have been invited to attend this morning’s workshop.

    Ahead of last year’s Spending Review you challenged us to take bold steps to increase investment and make a long term commitment to capital infrastructure.

    This morning has been about how we can best deliver the record investment in our road network that we announced last year.

    I’d like to say a few words this morning about why we are investing in Britain’s roads, why, to be successful, we need to do things differently and why we want to work in partnership with you to make that happen.

    I read an account of a parliamentary debate on the state of Britain’s roads recently.

    It didn’t make for a comfortable bedtime story.

    Honourable members were complaining to the minister that despite record increases in the traffic on the roads, investment simply hadn’t kept pace.

    What was even worse was the government’s dire project management.

    Stop-start spending meant works got off the ground but were endlessly delayed and then scaled back.

    As projects stalled, costs increased and any improvements that did happen took years longer than projected.

    One honourable member described the situation as “pathetic”.

    Another was so irate that he proposed an amendment to the bill.

    The amendment would give the transport minister automatic access to borrowing for road improvements – without needing Treasury approval.

    The year was 1949.

    And the debate was on the Special Roads Act that paved the way for Britain’s motorway network.

    So while the motorways were eventually built over the next 50 years or so many fundamental problems have remained.

    Today, the road network is even more essential to the UK’s economy.

    Poor quality roads increase fuel consumption, increase delays, mean more emissions and act as a brake on growth.

    But while over the last 50 years the volume of traffic in this country has risen dramatically, investment in the road network did not keep pace.

    The UK now has more vehicles per kilometre of road than France, Germany or even the densely packed Netherlands.

    Historically, road maintenance and repair have also been the first victims of short-term financial planning.

    Investment in the road network has gone up and down faster than Bradley Wiggins through the Yorkshire Dales.

    Short-termism that created uncertainty for the industry, delays to major projects and resulted in significant cost over runs.

    To correct a legacy of historic underinvestment, we are putting record amounts into improving Britain’s transport network.

    Modernising our roads, rail, air and local transport to help keep Britain moving.

    In total, £24 billion will be invested in the strategic road network in this Parliament and the next and by 2021 we will be spending £3 billion each year on improvements and maintenance.

    This is the most significant upgrade of our roads ever.

    In total, creating around 30,000 new jobs.

    Creating a safer, more sustainable, road network.

    But it is not just about announcing the investment and identifying schemes that are needed.

    As you have heard today (10 February 2014), we are determined to learn the lesson of history and change just how we deliver these improvements to our road network.

    First, as John Dowie said, we are changing the way we fund road improvements and maintenance.

    I know stop-start investment has been a problem for you in the past.

    That’s why we have set out long-term, guaranteed plans to 2021.

    The new road investment strategy will be backed by legislation that will oblige government to fund the schemes it has announced.

    We are absolutely committed to putting the legislation in place before the end of this Parliament.

    And we are equally committed to publishing the first roads investment strategy at the same time.

    Many of you will know how certain investment in rail is thanks to the High level output specification.

    By April 2015, road investment will be on the same long-term footing that will enable you – like the rail industry – to have the security to take commercial decisions today.

    We are committed to making these changes now, locking in funding for the long-term, so you have the certainty you need to invest.

    Second, as Graham Dalton covered, we are changing the way the Highways Agency operates.

    Responses to the consultation on the changes we’ve proposed to the Highways Agency have been broadly positive.

    But they have also raised a number of very important issues I want us to get right.

    We’ll be publishing our formal response in the near future, but in the meantime the headline is; the Highways Agency will become even more commercially focussed

    That means it will be a better partner for you to work with, be more accountable to road users and get better value for money for the taxpayer.

    What we need to do now is get on and make a difference on the ground.

    I was pleased to hear so many practical suggestions this morning’s (10 February 2014) breakout groups for how we can do things faster, cheaper and better.

    We have set out long-term plans to give you the confidence you need to invest and grow today.

    Otherwise, given the scale of the investment we are making, capacity is going to become a problem.

    For example, opening a new aggregates quarry can take years of careful negotiation.

    And it takes around three years to train an apprentice civil engineer.

    So we need you to start to scale up over the coming months.

    Invest in the equipment you need and create new jobs.

    Or we risk the kind of bottlenecks that have in the past created delays and undermined public confidence.

    That means taking on more apprentices and more graduates.

    We also have to get the message out to young people taking their GCSEs and even younger that there are high quality jobs available in one of the world’s fastest moving, most dynamic industries.

    I’d like to hear what your plans are to begin to scale up.

    We will help unblock obstacles where we can and I want to help you bang the drum for new apprentices and graduates.

    So, in conclusion, we are making a historic and sustained investment in Britain’s road infrastructure.

    Because it is good for road users, good for the economy and good for the country.

    We are also transforming the way that investment will be delivered.

    Putting a full stop to stop-start.

    We are investing for the long-term.

    A commitment that will be backed up in legislation by next year.

    We want to work in partnership with you to get the best value for money for the taxpayer.

    That means, in return, we need you to invest today in ensuring you have the equipment and the staff with the skills needed, to keep Britain moving tomorrow.

    Thank you.

  • Annabel Goldie – 2003 Speech to Conservative Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Annabel Goldie at the 2003 Conservative Spring Conference on 8th March 2003.

    I welcome this opportunity to join with fellow Conservatives as the only party that stands for a low tax, low regulation regime, and the commitment to actually deliver a better transport system.

    I believe, like you, that Scotland has the potential to be a dynamic and competitive economy, worthy of its historical reputation as a nation rich in ideas with an innovative and creative people. Given the right environment our businesses have the potential to increase our economic growth that has been so stagnant in comparison to the rest of the UK since 1997.

    Unlike the other political parties in Scotland, the Scottish Conservatives have consistently argued for a pro-enterprise agenda by cutting business rates and investing an additional 100 million pounds in our transport infrastructure. I believe that these two policies will have the greatest impact on Scotland’s economic growth to the benefit of all businesses.

    I do not find it acceptable that Scotland can suffer a recession while the UK economy remains stable and that business rates can be almost 9% lower in England and 9.4% lower in Wales. Both Labour and the Lib Dems have proved that they do not understand how to create a dynamic and competitive economy.

    It is also clear that there is not one single tangible policy that the SNP will deliver for businesses on May 2. They have already conceded that their policy on business rates will only be completely delivered at the end of a four year parliamentary term. The SNP’s opposition to public-private partnerships indeed directly undermines its credibility as a pro-enterprise party, as it seeks to exclude the private sector and, in so doing, denies people the choice in quality services.

    The recent press coverage about the Scottish Government’s failing economic agency, Scottish Enterprise, highlights that its approach is failing the Scottish economy. Allegations of programme slippage, laxity of management, failure to apply for European Union funding, and excessive use of consultants, does little to inspire anyone with confidence that our economy is in good hands. Make no mistake, Scottish Enterprise is the responsibility of Iain Gray and Jack McConnell, as well as the highest paid public servant in Scotland, Robert Crawford.

    The Enterprise Networks spend over £116 pounds per year for every man, woman and child in Scotland, and they need to be accountable for their actions, or inaction. We are determined that an independent audit be done and have called for an evaluation of the organisation’s staffing arrangements to clarify how much this massive organisation spends on its own PR and consultants. It has become quite clear that there is growing unrest and unease both within the organisation and from the business community that Scottish Enterprise cannot effectively deliver the Scottish Government’s smart, successful Scotland that we have been promised for four years.

    The Scottish Conservatives will reform this organisation and we are committed to ensuring both value for money and delivery of higher economic growth. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be retained as signposting organisations and will be tasked with offering advice to all businesses and providing training to improve their relative competitiveness.

    It is our belief that although there may be a role for the state to help businesses improve skills and provide advice, it should not be expected to dish out grants to a few businesses that are not available to all. It is not and should not be the role of government to pick winners. We seek to reduce the dependency culture that is clearly not working as is evident from the 22.6% drop in new businesses recorded in the third quarter of 2002, compared to the second quarter alone.

    Our opponents also accuse us of threatening the present focus and funding of training and skills, but let me make this clear, the Scottish Conservatives will be retaining the entire budgets of lifelong learning and the present priority area of training and skills within the enterprise networks.

    But there does need to be a complete rethink of how government improves the current economic climate, and contrary to what Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP believe, the answer is not simply more money.

    Politicians and bureaucrats do not have all the answers. As Conservatives we trust business men and women to spend their own money on their businesses to best effect. The other tax and spend parties suffer from the misconception that higher spending delivers greater economic growth. It doesn’t – widely quoted OECD research has shown that a 1% increase in the tax ratio is associated with a reduction in output of 0.6-0.7% of GDP.

    The Scottish Conservatives are committed to cutting over £260 million pounds from the overall enterprise budget to restore the uniform business rate, improve transport infrastructure and focus on skills.

    This is our agenda for generating stronger economic growth.

  • Liam Fox – 2011 Value for Money Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, at Civitas in London on Tuesday 22nd February 2011.

    Introduction

    Being the Secretary of State for defence was always going to be one of the toughest jobs in the new Government.

    Defence was the worst in a grim set of inheritances.

    As the Chancellor said, Defence was the “most chaotic, most disorganised, most over-committed” budget he had seen.

    Labour had avoided a strategic defence review for 12 years.

    As a consequence we were always going to need a step change not incremental reform.

    The black hole in the MoD budget by the end of the decade was more than one year’s entire defence spending.

    This had resulted from the serial failure of Labour ministers to take difficult decisions and what Bernard Gray described as ‘the conspiracy of optimism’ in the department’s planning.

    On top of this was the need to contribute to the deficit reduction.

    Next year’s interest payment on the national debt will be bigger than the defence, foreign office and the international aid budgets combined.

    Unless we deal with the deficit it will become an increasingly dangerous national security liability as more and more money is swallowed up in interest and less is available to spend on the safety of our country.

    In less than a year huge progress has been made in turning these problems round.

    The SDSR set a clear direction for policy, implementing the National Security strategy.

    It decided on an adaptive posture for the UK – neither Fortress Britain nor overcommitted expeditionary forces on the other.

    We had inevitably to divest ourselves of some legacy to enable us to invest in dealing with the threats of the future, not least in cyberspace where government will now spend an extra £650m.

    But the SDSR was not a single event, it was part of a cycle of five yearly defence reviews designed to constantly adapt to changing global security circumstances.

    The 12 year gap in defence reviews, the budgetary black hole and the need for deficit reduction inevitably meant that we would have to take tough and sometimes unpopular decisions.

    But we were able, nonetheless, to show a path to the Future Force 2020 where Britain’s defences will be coherent, efficient and cutting-edge.

    But the change cannot stop there.

    Across Government, we must transform the way public services are delivered.

    For years successive Defence Secretaries have failed to get a grip on the equipment programme and failed to hold the department and industry to account for delays and poor cost-estimation

    Only today we are reminded by the Public Accounts Committee of Labour’s desperate legacy.

    In their final year in office just two programmes reported an increase of cost by a staggering £3.3 billion.

    The MoD must fundamentally change how it does business and today I want to set out how this change will come about.

    The drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability, from ministers down, must be tackled if we are to avoid history repeating itself.

    The constant postponement of difficult decisions created a bow wave in the department’s finances which became increasingly difficult to handle.

    It would be folly to tackle this, as are doing, only to allow the systemic failures which created it to continue.

    We need greater accountability and transparency to ensure that our resources genuinely match our ambitions and cost control is rigorously enforced.

    Too often when ministers have wanted to pull levers they find themselves pushing string instead.

    So there are a number of changes that are crucial.

    First, the so-called conspiracy of optimism, through which the risks and costs in new projects are under-estimated, only to find mushrooming costs later, needs to end.

    Second, future programmes should not be included unless there is a clear budgetary line for development, procurement and deployment.

    Third, we must end the lack of real time cost control with tight budgetary discipline.

    And fourth, we must rebalance our relationship with industry so that we achieve maximum value for money, remembering that the primary purpose of the procurement process is to give our Armed Forces to the need when they need it at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

    Dealing with the Conspiracy of Optimism

    For too many years projects have been included in the future defence programme without a proper appreciation of the risks or costs.

    The conspiracy of optimism based on poor cost estimation and unrealistic timescales, across the Department has – to be frank – involved politicians, the civil service, the military and industry.

    Too often in the past, in order to get pet projects included in the programme, unrealistic costs have been accepted at the outset knowing that they can be recovered later due to what are euphemistically called ‘cost overruns’.

    These practices in the MoD would not be tolerated in the private sector and they cannot be tolerated in the MoD.

    By looking at and approving programmes in isolation from the totality of departmental spend any programme can be made to look affordable.

    But when they are considered together, the cumulative risk and cost become unmanageable.

    So a risk-aware and cost-conscious mentality must permeate every level at the Ministry of Defence, civilian and military alike.

    Now more than ever, every penny counts.

    Value for money is not about compromising your defence aim. It is about realising that aim in a sustainable way.

    From now on, guarantees of realistic budgets for development, procurement and deployment must be presented to ministers before spending can begin on new programmes.

    At the same time we must examine the future programmes we currently have to ensure risks and costs are well understood and that they remain affordable.

    I have asked the Permanent Secretary, Ursula Brennan and Bernard Gray to carry out this process immediately.

    Real Time Cost Control

    If we are to achieve real budgetary discipline we must also have better real-time control of project budgets.

    How often have we had to listen to the National Audit Office detailing projects which run over time and over budget?

    Too often the MoD has simply presided over a post-mortem on programs — in my previous profession a post-mortem was not considered a good professional outcome and it will not be so in the MOD.

    There are a number of changes we need to make.

    We need to give project managers the right resources and authority to deliver what we ask of them and hold them to account.

    We also need to keep them in post long enough to deliver, ensuring that they have the skills available to make the tough calls necessary.

    The private sector would view the rapid turnover of project managers in the MoD – with what I call the repetitive loss of expertise – as crazy.

    It is for all these reasons that I am establishing the Major Projects Review Board.

    This will be chaired by me as the Secretary of State and will receive a quarterly update on the Ministry’s major programs to ensure that they are on time and within budget.

    This will begin with the 20 biggest projects by value and will rapidly expand to the 50 biggest projects.

    There must be a real sense of urgency about achieving this goal.

    Where projects are falling behind schedule or budget we must take immediate remedial measures.

    Those responsible will be brought to account in front of the project board.

    And in addition we will publish a list every quarter of the Major Project Review Board’s ‘Projects of Concern’.

    That way the public and the market can judge how well we and industry are doing in supporting our Armed Forces while offering value for money to the taxpayers.

    I want shareholders to see where projects are under-performing so that they can bring market discipline to substandard management where required.

    Rebalancing Our Relationship with Industry

    But change cannot just be internal.

    This government showed from the outset its commitment to the defence industry and an understanding that the best way to sustain defence jobs in the long term is to widen the customer base through enhanced defence exports.

    A great deal of energy has already been devoted to this across government departments with substantial results.

    It will ensure that skills and employment are retained in some of our most technologically advanced areas, that SMEs can compete as equals and we keep British industry at the cutting edge on the world market.

    In the Ministry of Defence we established the new Defence Exports Support Group to ensure that MoD, alongside our UKTI colleagues, is focusing its efforts in support of defence exports.

    This way, the MoD can be at the forefront of the Government export led growth strategy.

    In December we published a Green paper on equipment support and technology for UK defence and security and we are currently consulting on this.

    The defence industry is a major source of revenue, jobs and exports and can play an important role in the government’s growth agenda.

    But industry must also play a role in reducing costs at a time when budgets are constrained by the need to control the deficit we inherited.

    Following the SDSR, we have entered into a period of intense negotiation with a number of our major industrial suppliers.

    This is already looking at 130 contracts relating to SDSR decisions to ensure they are both necessary and give greater value for money for the taxpayer.

    For the first time these negotiations are taking place at a company level as well as a project level.

    The number of these contracts will soon be expanded by around 500 contracts and we will complete this work over the next 18 months releasing significant cost savings across the Department.

    We must also have a relationship with industry that is open, transparent and reflects the realities of the current business environment.

    We have recently launched an independent review, led by Lord Currie of Marylebone, into the pricing mechanism – called the Yellow Book – which the MoD uses for single source contracts.

    Some of you may never have heard of this.

    But these are arrangements have been in place since 1968 without a fundamental update from either Conservative or Labour governments.

    They reflect an entirely different industrial era and they need to be updated.

    Under the Yellow Book we currently place around 40% of our contracts on a non-competitive basis, worth around £9 billion annually.

    We will set out the first stage of this review, recommending changes in consultation with industry, in the summer.

    This will affect all future non-competitive contracts and is intended to save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.

    The MoD is also working through the Centralising Category Procurement Initiative, run by the Cabinet Office, which will transform how government buys common goods and services through centralised management, standardisation of specification and aggregation of spend.

    This again will deliver significant and sustainable cost reductions across government.

    Finally, we need to update the way in which the MOD engages with industry itself.

    The relationship must take into account both the overlapping interests and the differences which government and industry have.

    We have a synergy to bring in areas such as defence exports where profits to industry also result in relationships and influence which can benefit the national interest.

    Yet we must also remember that industry is ultimately answerable to shareholders for their profits while government is answerable to the taxpayers for the management of their money.

    At present, the National Defence Industries Council acts as the body that represents the interests of the defence industry to Ministers.

    This body, however, is self appointed and excludes some of the department’s major suppliers.

    And though our defence industry relies on many thousands of Small and Medium-Size Enterprises (SMEs), I believe they are currently under-represented.

    I can announce today that I am establishing a new Defence Suppliers Forum that I will chair which will include representatives of the full range of the Department’s defence suppliers from the UK and overseas and which will better reflect the defence industry as a whole.

    Conclusion

    We need to have the mechanisms to ensure value for money in the Ministry of Defence.

    The SDSR took the necessarily tough decisions to correct years of mismanagement under Labour.

    The Ministry of Defence needs to have the structures and mechanisms to deliver the conclusions of that Review and ensure value for money for the tax payer.

    We need a new, frank and honest relationship between government and industry based on the national interest, mindful of commercial realities and sensitive market mechanisms.

    The measures I have set out today will help towards achieving these goals.

    Change, let’s face it, is seldom popular but the case for change in these areas is overwhelming.

    Let us just remember that there is no such thing as government money.

    There is only taxpayers’ money — money raised from individuals and from businesses large and small.

    They expect us to spend money wisely and properly and to enter into contracts that will deliver the equipment that our Armed Forces need when they need it while protecting taxpayers’ interests and sustaining industrial growth.

    Successive Labour Defence Secretaries have played pass the parcel with the black hole in the defence program.

    Each one has made the situation worse for their successor by failing to take the difficult decisions necessary.

    Well this is where the music stops.

    It has fallen to this government and to me as defence secretary to deal with Labour’s appalling defence legacy.

    It cannot be done overnight and it cannot be done painlessly.

    But it can and will be done.

    In the first nine months of government we have already started implementing a programme of fundamental change and will not rest until the job is done.

    And the changes I have announced today will continue that process.

    In the months ahead we will set out further reforms-for the Armed Forces, including the Reserves and Senior Rank structures and for structural change within the Ministry of Defence itself, including as a result of Lord Levene’s work on Defence Reform.

    Our National interest requires that we continue to take difficult decisions.

    And, as promised, we intend to govern in the National interest.

  • Liam Fox – 2011 Speech on Protecting National Security in the 21st Century

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, on Thursday 19th March 2011 at Chatham House.

    INTRODUCTION

    The true test of Government is to act not for party political advantage, but to act in the national interest.

    The Coalition Government inherited a level of debt and economic mismanagement that represents a national economic emergency.

    To deal with it we have had to take difficult and potentially unpopular measures.

    But they are essential if we are to put Britain back on track in the long-term.

    This is as important for national security as it is for national prosperity.

    This requires not only dealing with the here and now, but charting a course 10, 15, 20 years ahead – acting to position the country for the safety and prosperity of future generations.

    ACTING IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST

    So in no area is this more important than in Defence and Security.

    Our Armed Forces remain at a high and sustained operational tempo.

    The requirement to fight, and win, the wars of today is not optional but necessary to protect national security and meet the national interest.

    And when our Armed Forces are committed, they deserve and the country expects that they get the support they need to do the job we ask of them.

    That is why current operations in Afghanistan and in Libya remain the priority for the Ministry of Defence and the men and women of our Armed Forces fighting on the front-line get first call on MOD resources.

    But the requirement for strategic thinking, for strategic planning and preparation – the requirement to play the long-game – is equally necessary.

    Why?

    First – because conflict and threats to national security do not fit neatly into electoral cycles.

    The hunt for Osama bin Laden and the campaign against al-Qaeda’s brand of violent extremism has been taken forward under three American Presidents and three British Prime Ministers of different political persuasions.

    For the long watch of the Cold War – it took 10 different US Presidents and 9 different British Prime Ministers.

    Second – the character of conflict evolves and new threats arise, but the complex military equipment required to meet these challenges can take a decade or more to design and build.

    So we must constantly scan the horizon and prepare for the world as it will be, not as we hope it will be.

    In Defence, contingency planning is central to ensuring that we are prepared for what may come – even if we can’t predict exactly when and where threats may emerge.

    This drives a continuing requirement for Armed Forces that are agile, adaptable and of the highest quality.

    Third – building and sustaining the power, influence and prosperity of a country in the long flow of history – particularly in our age of rapid change and unpredictability – requires action now to ensure the country can succeed in the future.

    Energy security is one example.

    Climate change would be another.

    So today I want to set out what we have achieved in Defence over the last year to set in place a long-term strategy for the safety, security and prosperity of our citizens.

    The Strategic Defence and Security Review has ensured that we will remain in the premier league of military powers.

    It is not an agenda for retrenchment; it’s an ambitious agenda for transformation over time.

    It is not an agenda for the next general election; it’s an agenda for the next generation.

    This long-term vision for Britain’s Defence depends upon a sound economic base that enables sustainable military power to be built – together economic power and military power are the foundation of global influence.

    A proper strategy for the long-term health of our country must balance ends and ways with the means available.

    That is why tackling the crisis in the public finances is not just an issue of economics but an issue of national security too.

    It is central to sustaining in the long-term Britain’s reach, military power and influence.

    THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

    Let us not forget our own history.

    The contraction of European influence in the 20th century was driven as much by the economic exhaustion of European nations over two World Wars as it was by political enlightenment in support of decolonisation.

    As a result of the First World War in the 1920s and 30s, Britain’s national debt was regularly over 150% of GDP.

    After World War Two, it peaked at around 250% of GDP.

    As examples of the effect, economic considerations underpinned both the British withdrawal from Palestine in 1948, and the abandonment of the Suez campaign in 1956.

    It wasn’t until the 1970s that the debt position recovered to under 50% of GDP – a quarter of a century after the end of the War.

    Britain’s so-called ‘East of Suez’ moment in 1967 when the Wilson Government announced a major withdrawal of UK forces from South East Asia, was a response to the decline in the country’s relative economic strength.

    Equally, the Cold War was won because the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of an economic system that could not sustain the myth of communism’s superiority – nor sustain the military forces required to hold it together.

    During the early 1980s for instance, the Soviet Union was spending around 20% of GDP on Defence – roughly four times the level of the US and wholly unsustainable in the long-term.

    The lessons of history are clear.

    Relative economic power is the wellspring of strategic strength.

    And conversely, economic weakness debilitates every arm of government.

    Structural economic weakness, if not dealt with, will bring an unavoidable reduction in our ability to shape the world.

    ECONOMIC WEAKNESS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY LIABILITY

    Let’s relate these lessons to our situation today.

    Speaking at Chatham House last week, Niall Ferguson said:

    “fiscal and monetary stimulus, no matter how much it may take and how many times you read aloud the collected works of John Maynard Keynes, sooner or later brings a hangover.”

    It has fallen to this Coalition Government to nurse Britain through the hangover of the decade of financial mismanagement that put us where we are today.

    When, as Chancellor, Gordon Brown abandoned sticking to the previous Conservative Government’s strict spending policies, Britain’s national debt began an inexorable rise.

    Despite the benign economic environment of most of the last decade, from 2002-2007 under Labour, UK national debt as a percentage of GDP increased not decreased – from around 31% to around 37%.

    On the back of the financial crisis it has ballooned to around 60% of GDP.

    The Coalition Government inherited from Labour a record peacetime annual deficit equal of over 11% of GDP – in 2009/10 alone that meant a spend of over £150bn more than the Government brought in in income.

    Until the structural deficit is eliminated, Britain’s national debt will only continue to grow.

    Even with the Coalition’s aggressive action, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts public sector net debt to peak at over 70% of GDP in 2014/15.

    It currently stands at over £900bn – equivalent to almost a quarter of a century of spending on Defence at the level of this year’s budget.

    By 2015 it is likely to reach well over 1.3 trillion pounds.

    The interest, just the interest, paid out last year alone was £43bn – greater than the annual budgets of the MoD, FCO and DfID combined.

    £43bn pounds a year of taxpayers’ money that could pay for a tax cut to each taxpayer of almost £1,500 a year.

    Or it could pay for a million teachers or over a million nurses.

    In Defence – a dozen Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carriers or 33 Astute Class submarines.

    And the bad news is, next year the interest payments will be £50bn.

    This is all while we are tackling the deficit and before we even begin reducing the national debt.

    So let me boil down this barrage of statistics to my central point.

    The Chancellor doesn’t just sit on the National Security Council to tell us how much everything costs, he does so because this Government recognises what the last did not – that our national security is linked to the health of our economy.

    Creating military power on the back of borrowing at times of extreme or existential threat, such as during the World War Two, is understandable and reasonable.

    But if you continue to do so as a matter of routine, as Labour did over the last decade, you set off a ticking fiscal time bomb that if not defused will inevitably result in strategic shrinkage.

    I didn’t come into politics to cut the defence budget, but neither did I come into politics to be fiscally irresponsible – because the consequences of that are written deep in the historical record.

    To be a hawk on defence, you need to be a hawk on the deficit and the national debt too.

    THE DEFENCE DEFICIT

    Defence spending represents the fourth largest chunk of public expenditure, so the MoD must play its part in addressing the current economic challenges.

    In the MOD we face a particularly tough job.

    The Defence budget was perhaps the worst inheritance of all – before the SDSR the forward defence programme was overextended to the tune of £38bn over the next decade.

    That was spending on all the equipment, programmes and all other variables previously planned over and above a budget rising at the rate of inflation.

    Everyone knew the Defence Budget was running hot and that addressing this would have been required regardless of fiscal tightening.

    This is one of the reasons why, in relation to the vast majority of government departments, the MOD is contributing less to deficit reduction.

    And this is also why the transformation of Defence will have to take place over a longer-term period too.

    This cannot be done overnight – with sunk costs, kit in build, contractual liabilities and other inherited committed spend, room for manoeuvre in the short-term is limited.

    So it’s a process charting a course for the recovery of Defence capability and the sustainability of its funding.

    The Strategic Defence and Security Review has set the right direction – and I will return to this and Future Force 2020 in a moment – but staying the course will require sustaining the strict cost-control regime I have put in place at the MOD.

    This will inevitably require that tough decisions are taken on a regular basis to keep the budget on track.

    Following the SDSR we made it clear that there would be a series of complicated second order consequences including the basing and reserves reviews, as well as the emerging work from the Defence Reform Unit.

    Having completed the current planning round, we have started the next Planning Round to take forward the work needed to balance defence priorities and the budget over the long-term.

    The Department has recently initiated a three month exercise as part of that work to ensure we match our assumptions with our spending settlement.

    This allows us to draw all this work together to inform the next planning round and to avoid the mistakes of the previous government in building up to an unsustainable Defence programme

    We have made it clear that while the SDSR had made substantial inroads into the £38bn funding deficit, there is still more to be done.

    Given the mess we inherited putting Defence on a sure footing, with a predictable budget, was always going to take time, but we believe it is better to be thorough than quick

    The Prime Minister has set out his personal view, with which I strongly agree, that achieving our vision for the future structure of our Armed Forces will require year-on-year real growth in the Defence Budget after 2015.

    As we approach the next General Election, and as we prepare for the next Defence Review in 2015, a commitment to meet Future Force 2020 will be a key signifier for those political parties dedicated to the vision of a Britain active on the world stage and protected at home.

    BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE

    As the National Security Strategy clearly sets out – our national interest requires our continued full and active engagement in world affairs

    Our trade and economic relationships are global.

    A threat that appears in one part of the world can swiftly be felt at home.

    In order to protect our interests at home, we must project our influence abroad.

    Coming together as they did, the National Security Strategy, the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review, set us on a course to maintain our strategic reach, renew military capability on a sustainable basis, and address the structural weakness of the economy.

    In the MOD it was not only a budgetary deficit that we inherited.

    It was also a capability deficit.

    We had failed properly to adapt to meet future challenges.

    We had scores of tanks on the German plains, but insufficient cyber capability.

    We were committed to an expeditionary policy, but increasingly dependent on ageing strategic airlift.

    So we have embarked on a long-term programme of renewal and revitalisation in Defence that maintains our strategic reach.

    In doing so we have rejected alternative postures quite strongly advocated by some.

    One was that we should invest in what you might call ‘Fortress Britain’, withdrawing back closer to home and investing in the appropriate assets in that direction.

    Under such a posture there would be no requirement for expeditionary capabilities on our current scale, for example.

    There were others who said to go exactly the other way, and that we should have a highly committed posture and just assume that the conflicts of the future would be like the one we currently face in Afghanistan.

    Under such a posture there would be no requirement for widespread maritime capabilities, for example.

    Something that is difficult is to quantify but undoubtedly real is Britain’s invisible export of security and stability carried out by our Armed Forces, including the Royal Navy.

    Clearing mines in the Arabian Gulf, anti-piracy actions in the Gulf of Aden, protecting our own sea lanes – all contribute to international stability and the free movement of goods upon which our prosperity relies.

    So neither a fortress nor a committed posture would have met the requirement in the National Security Strategy for continued engagement in a world where threats are evolving and unpredictable.

    The adaptable posture we have embraced gives us the best capability to respond with agility to changing threats in an uncertain world.

    This means keeping our forces ready to react swiftly to those things we cannot easily predict.

    It means upgrading strategic lift capability.

    It means investment in Special Forces.

    It means being efficient, cutting down on duplication and numbers of equipment types to shorten the tail.

    And it means investing in areas of capability that suit the future character of warfare – such as cyber, intelligence and unmanned technology.

    It also means investing in activities, such as conflict prevention and aid, that prevent the development of threats ‘upstream’, before they require a more demanding military response.

    But in doing so we are not ignoring conventional military power required for flexible, multi-rolled, deployable forces.

    By 2020, The RAF will be built around hi-tech multi-role combat aircraft Typhoon and the Joint Strike Fighter, surveillance and intelligence platforms such as Airseeker, and a new fleet of strategic and tactical transport aircraft including A400M and Voyager.

    The Royal Navy will have new aircraft carriers with the JSF carrier-variant, a high readiness amphibious capability, a new fleet of Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines – and ready at that point to accept the new Global Combat Ship.

    The Army, based on Multi-Role Brigades, will be powerful, flexible, fully equipped for the land environment and able to operate across the spectrum of conflict.

    We will remain one of the few countries who can deploy and sustain a brigade sized force plus its air and maritime enablers, capable of both intervention and stabilisation operations almost anywhere in the world.

    And we will remain a nuclear power, maintaining a minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

    I am absolutely clear, as I said in the House of Commons yesterday, that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at sea deterrence is right for the UK.

    We still have the fourth largest defence budget in the world and will continue to meet the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on Defence over the spending review period.

    CONCLUSION

    Of course, pursuing the necessary long-term strategy set out in the SDSR is not the only mark of renewal in Defence over the last year.

    For years successive Defence Secretaries have failed, often through no fault of their own, to get a grip on the equipment programme and failed to hold the department and industry to account for delays and poor cost-estimation

    The drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability, from ministers down, must be tackled if we are to avoid history repeating itself.

    That is why the work of Lord Levene and his Defence Reform Unit to reform the operating model of Defence is so important along side the work of the Chief of Defence Materiel, Bernard Gray, to set the forward equipment programme on a sustainable basis.

    We are also acting to redraw and rejuvenate the relationship with industry to ensure the tax payer gets the best deal from the investment in Defence.

    These are all measures in support of the long-term transformation of Defence and the vision set out in the SDSR.

    Labour’s Defence Green Paper published just months before the election admitted with what I have to say is spectacular understatement that:

    “the forward defence programme faces challenging financial pressures”

    It said in particular that the MOD:

    “cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations and investing in the new capabilities we need. We will need to make tough decisions”.

    Well, we have made those tough decisions, and I stand by them.

    I believe in setting your strategic direction and sticking to your plan unless the facts change.

    Since we completed the SDSR, the financial position of the country has not changed nor substantially have the nature of the threats we face.

    Let us be honest about this.

    Those who are arguing for a fundamental reassessment of the SDSR are really arguing for increased defence spending.

    But they fail to spell out the inevitable result – more borrowing, more tax rises, or more cuts elsewhere.

    The bottom line is that a strong economy is a national security requirement and an affordable Defence programme is the only responsible way to support our Armed Forces in the long term.

    There are no easy answers.

    There are no silver bullets.

    There are only tough decisions, hard work and perseverance.

    To pretend otherwise is to fail in our duty to our country and its people.

  • Liam Fox – 2003 Speech to Conservative Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox to the 2003 Conservative Spring Conference on 16th March 2003.

    Our proposals need to be seen against the backdrop of one simple, stark and shocking fact. The British people do not enjoy the standard of healthcare we deserve.

    During our extensive and detailed analysis of healthcare provision in more than a dozen countries over the last two years, we have seen systems which share our ideals, but which offer a considerably higher standard of care and much better clinical outcomes than the NHS.

    Unless there is fundamental and radical reform, the NHS will never produce the quality of care we have a right to expect in the World’s fourth largest economy.

    That reform must occur on three broad fronts:

    – taking politicians out of running the NHS;

    – giving real freedom to health professionals; and

    – ensuring patients have real choice in health.

    Only the Conservatives will be able to undertake that reform. The result will be an NHS which offers high quality care, free at the point of use and irrespective of the ability to pay.

    There is a clear ideological difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party over where power should lie in the NHS. Labour believes that the best way to achieve a quality agenda is for Ministers to determine clinical priorities and to try to enforce them through a rigid target culture.

    Conservatives believe that politicians should be taken out of the running of the NHS, that clinical staff should be given more power and that only by giving patients greater freedom about where and when they are treated can the NHS produce quality care better tailored to the needs of individuals.

    We believe that the NHS is there to service the patients not vice versa.

    We will give new freedoms to patients, empowering them to take more control over the health care they receive. We also intend to develop new capacity by encouraging more spending on health on top of that already spent in the NHS.

    The principle will be that we will want to see total spending on health increase, but we will want to see the proportion of that spending that comes from other sources increase at a greater rate than that coming from the state.

    In today’s NHS choice is highly restricted. Freedom of choice cannot be limited just to those who opt to pay for extra care on top of what they contribute to the NHS. Choice must be available for all patients whether they receive their health care from the NHS or from another provider. Unlike Labour, we do not believe that this choice should only become available after the system has already failed you.

    There needs to be a profound improvement in the overall quality of healthcare available.

    This can be brought about only by increasing the volume of treatment carried out, and raising the standard of such treatment.

    Increasing the volume of treatment carried out can be achieved only by either increasing the output of existing suppliers or introducing new suppliers. Under Labour, despite vast increases in expenditure on the NHS, the total output of the system has barely increased. All the indications are that further huge increases would not be matched by increases in output, since Labour refuse to introduce the radical reforms needed to encourage diversity and innovation. In order to create new capacity and to encourage diversity, it will be necessary to persuade new, non-NHS suppliers of healthcare to invest.

    At present, the state holds a near-monopoly on the supply of healthcare. The most recent available data on health expenditure in the UK shows that it comprises 85% from the NHS, 4% from Private Medical Insurance (PMI) and 11% from a variety of self-pay sources.

    Over recent years, whereas there has been minimal growth in PMI, the number of people opting for self-pay has increased by an average of over 20% per annum.

    In order to increase the quality and quantity of healthcare undertaken, we will need to take a number of steps:

    – Create an environment in which the private and voluntary sectors believe it is worth their while to invest, in order to generate extra capacity.

    – Reform the NHS, removing political interference and giving clinical freedom back to professionals

    – Funding the NHS on the basis of real activity not block contracts

    – Allow patients the option of moving between any NHS provider based on a national tariff system which would define set costs for specific procedures

    – Allow NHS patients to take some or all of the NHS tariff with them if they decide to have treatment outside the NHS.

    The most effective way of stimulating the creation of new, non-NHS capacity is to make it more attractive for individuals to supplement what is already being spent by the state through the NHS. This will allow total expenditure to rise in a pattern more like that in neighbouring European countries where the amount of money spent on health by private citizens is higher than in the UK.

    There are three main candidates which might be incentivised:

    – Personal private medical insurance (PMI)

    – PMI available through company schemes

    – The pay-as-you- go market where patients pay for a single procedure or item of care.

    Other countries use a combination of cash rebates, tax incentives and reductions of the cost at source with the state reimbursing providers.

    PMI offers a chance to insure against unforeseen circumstances in a way that self-pay cannot do. Experience in Australia with the use of financial incentives has resulted in a large increase in those carrying PMI.

    Company PMI schemes have the attraction of greater risk sharing, and thus better value for money and a wider income distribution than personal products provide.

    The self-pay market accounted for 250,000 procedures last year; if these patients did not opt to offload themselves in this way the NHS would be unable to cope with the extra demand. It is vital that this number is maintained or increased. It will therefore be necessary to produce a carefully balanced system of incentives to prevent the NHS (with its tiny increases in recent capacity) from becoming swamped.

    We want that choice to be extended to as many as possible.

    We will introduce a Patients Passport which will enable patients to move around a number of providers, NHS, not-for-profit, voluntary or independent. This freedom is essential if we are to see greater plurality and diversity in both the funding and provision of healthcare that we seek. We intend to move away from the state monopoly with its increasing centralising targets and standardization of supply.

    The changes to the organization of care set out in “Setting the NHS free” will enable us to move towards an NHS where the patient as a consumer is sovereign for the first time.

    Knowing the cost of all NHS procedures and treatments and funding providers on the basis of activity will enable us to radically change the balance of power in the direction of the patient.

    Our Patients Passport would enable patients to move around the NHS and to take the standard tariff funding with them. This would set them free from dependence on block contracts agreed between PCTs and agreed providers. The NHS is there to service the patients not to control the patients.

    It would seem sensible that the point of entry to this passport system should be the GP who is best able to determine the type of referral and the level of clinical urgency. GPs could act as independent professional advocates for patients advising them on factors such as waiting times, outcomes and different options on locality. This counters the argument that patients would be unable to make decisions about their own treatment- a view that is both patronizing and outdated.

    We will extend the “Patient’s Passport” system to those services beyond current NHS hospitals – in the voluntary, the not–for-profit and private sectors.

    This will yield two important benefits. It will become a realistic option for a much larger proportion of the population to have access to a very much wider range of healthcare providers than is now the case. Further, those who choose to have their health care provided within the NHS will reap the benefit of shorter queues if more patients choose to access care elsewhere. Patients will, of course, be able to stay entirely in the NHS if they choose.

    The proportion of the standard tariff funding that patients can take beyond current NHS hospitals will need to take account of several factors: the total cost to the public purse, the level of available capacity from other providers, the predicted effect on NHS demand, the effect on the current private insurance market and the need to promote greater diversity in provision.

    We will produce a level relevant and suited to the UK and the varied, pluralist and consumer responsive health service that the Conservative Party would like to see.

    Only by raising our sights can we achieve the level of care that the people of this country deserve.

  • Liam Fox – 1992 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Liam Fox in the House of Commons on 12th May 1992.

    It is with no little pride and a great sense of honour that I speak for the first time in the House. I must immediately make known the debt that I feel to my constituents for sending me here. I hope that the faith that they have shown in me will not be misplaced over the years.

    My constituency is Woodspring. Like many hon. Members, I have received several hundred letters since the election saying, “Congratulations on a wonderful Conservative result—by the way, where is Woodspring?” Those who have been in the House before will not be surprised to learn that the reason they have not heard the name of the constituency more often is that it was represented by Sir Paul Dean, who spent a record length of time as a Deputy Speaker. He gave record service both to the House and to the country. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House join me in wishing him a happy retirement. After the length of time that he spent as Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he more than deserves it.

    One of the questions that is of immense pertinence to Woodspring is its location. After the reorganisation of local government in 1974 the people of Woodspring, who had always belonged to north Somerset, found themselves in the much loathed county of Avon. The quicker Avon is abolished, the better—and the quicker my constituents are returned to Somerset, which is where they belong, the happier they will be. Any Minister who can push that through quickly will be assured of a warm welcome when coming to speak in Woodspring.

    Woodspring extends from Portishead, south of Bristol in the north-west of the constituency, through Clevedon, Nailsea, the Chew valley and down to Paulton, a town which has particular difficulties in the wake of the Robert Maxwell affair. Like many of my hon. Friends, I shall he trying my best to get a fair deal for those who have suffered from the scandalous behaviour of Robert Maxwell and what he has done to those poor people.

    There are several other problems in the constituency, courtesy of Avon county, not least of which is shared by many of my hon. Friends, and that is the problem of traveller sites. We require urgent reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It is becoming scandalous that law-abiding citizens who work hard to improve their community and their homes and surroundings should be discriminated against by a piece of legislation which gives priority to those who have no semblance of regard for local community and no community spirit, and who contribute nothing. I urge the Government to undertake a far-reaching and rapid reform of that legislation.

    It is with some sadness that I speak in this debate. I am one of the many doctors who qualified under the Conservative Government and their far-reaching reforms of the health service. I was disappointed—indeed, disturbed—to find that the Opposition, who a few weeks ago told us that health was the single most important issue facing the electorate and that the election was a referendum on the NHS, chose not to debate the subject in the six days of debate on the Loyal Address. Why has it slipped so far down the Opposition’s agenda? Could it be that they were rumbled during the election and were shown to be posturing in the extreme, with no solid policies to oppose the reforms that the Government have made? That is the case.

    Conservatives do not need any lessons from our opponents about caring. We heard the word “caring” used today during health questions as though it were the exclusive preserve of the Labour party. As a junior doctor and a medical student during the health workers’ strike, organised by caring NUPE and COHSE and supported by the caring Labour party, I took blood samples in taxis through picket lines. That was the extent of their caring. In this spirit of great caring, dredging up personal cases of misery to try to find the one case that has gone badly in the national health service and overlooking all the reforms and successes that we have had, they have resorted to the lowest form of political debate. To try to say that every case that has gone wrong is typical is loathsome.

    For the first time since its inception, Conservatives have introduced into the health service the idea that preventive medicine is important. Before the GP contract was introduced, we were told by our opponents—by the British Medical Association and by those who now oppose the new Home Secretary, whose bravery in introducing the reforms should be attested to—that we would lose the ability to see elderly patients and that people would riot get the medicines that they require. We have seen record immunisations, record numbers of women having cervical smears, and record numbers of visits. Yet when our opponents are asked to say what is good about Conservative health reforms, they are not able to give any examples.

    I look forward to giving many examples and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is not here to listen to some of the positive aspects of Conservative health policy. It is time he realised that not everything that the Government do—even in his view—is bad.

    It is a great honour to speak in the House. I hope that in the coming months and years the health debate in the House will be more constructive than in the past, but, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, I fear that it will be a triumph of my fears over my hopes.

    I hope that Conservative Members will contribute constructively. The Queen’s Speech was excellent and Conservative Members, especially the newcomers, look forward to the legislation that follows it, which will be good not only for our party but, more importantly, for the country.