UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Catherine McKinnell – 2022 Speech on Child Bed Poverty

    Catherine McKinnell – 2022 Speech on Child Bed Poverty

    The speech made by Catherine McKinnell, the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 19 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered e-petition 604509, relating to child bed poverty.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. The petition asks the Government to bring an end to child bed poverty by creating a national sleep strategy. It states:

    “Bed poverty is affecting educational outcomes for children across the UK

    A national sleep strategy must resource local authorities to identify, address and ultimately end bed poverty”.

    When I was presented with the title of the petition, as part of the Petition Committee’s normal deliberations, I was frankly shocked. I could not help but question how bed poverty could be a thing in our country, but after listening to the petitioner and taking evidence on the issue, it evidently, and shockingly, is. Here we are, just days away from Christmas, and it is utterly depressing that some children will be saying to themselves, “All I want for Christmas is a safe place to sleep.”

    I express my admiration for the creator of the petition, Bex Wilson. As well as being a hard-working deputy headteacher, Bex has founded her own charity, Zarach, which provides beds for children living in poverty in the Leeds area. I congratulate Bex on the recent arrival of a healthy baby girl, Viola. I also thank Buttle UK, End Furniture Poverty, the Sleep Charity, Orange Box North East and a number of parents with lived experience of bed poverty for sharing their insights and experience with me ahead of the debate.

    It is a distressing and shameful truth that in this country child poverty has become a pervasive issue. More children than at any other point in the last decade are growing up in households that are unable to meet their most basic needs. The latest available figures suggest that in 2021 3.9 million children across the UK were living in poverty. Since then, uplifts to universal credit and local housing allowance have been scrapped, inflation has reached heights not seen in 40 years, and an absence of support has pushed millions more families into desperate circumstances.

    To those who work on the frontline of crisis services, it is undeniable that the figure of 3.9 million has been dwarfed by reality, but child poverty is more than just a statistic; it is a painful, grinding experience for each child living through it. It means growing up in stressful households, going without the same educational and development opportunities as their peers, going to school hungry or spending their evenings in a cold and damp home. For many children, it means not having a safe space to sleep at night.

    Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)

    In my constituency, the Batley & Birstall Excellence in Schools Together group of 21 schools across Batley and Birstall has identified at least 163 of its pupils who do not sleep in their own bed. They either share with their siblings or sleep on sofas or on the floor, which has a severe impact on their educational attainment, development and family life. Charities such as Zarach are incredible at providing beds for children in need, including in my constituency, but does my hon. Friend agree that those depressing statistics are a sad reflection of the poverty in our communities, and that the Government must step up to help those families and provide local authorities with the funding that they need to eliminate child bed poverty?

    Catherine McKinnell

    I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. The fact that she has that statistic is progress in itself, because one of the big challenges is that we do not know the level of this form of poverty. It is a hidden truth that many households simply cannot afford to provide each child with a bed of their own. On speaking to families with the lived experience of bed poverty, I heard some utterly heartbreaking stories: children sleeping on infested sofa cushions because the only alternative was a wooden floor, which we know would not provide support for their growing bodies; children sharing a bed with their siblings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) said, none of whom have privacy or can expect a night of undisturbed sleep; and children sleeping in a bath because it was the only safe space for them to rest. With all the resources, opportunities and potential that we have in this country, I cannot believe that that is the start in life that the Government think should be given to our children.

    Part of the problem, as I have mentioned, is that there are no official figures that I can share with Members to convey the scale of the problem. In 2018, Buttle UK estimated that around 400,000 children were going to sleep without a bed of their own. That was in 2018, so we know that that figure is wholly unrepresentative of the crisis that many families face today. The ongoing economic tumult has already left households struggling to put food on their plates and heat their homes. When the cost of furniture has increased by 42% since 2010, the prospect of buying a bed for every child is simply out of reach for some parents. Rising financial hardship has combined with a plethora of concerning trends to make the issue of bed poverty, which has come to the attention of schoolteachers, particularly acute.

    Sadly, the covid-19 pandemic saw a rise in cases of domestic violence. As the increased number of mainly women fled abusive partners, they were left with nothing but their children, and a suitcase of clothes if they were lucky—no furniture and no money to buy it with. Buttle UK has identified the pandemic as generating a sharp rise in need. Within the first year, demand for its grants increased by 70%, and the amount spent on beds almost tripled.

    Our country also faces a housing crisis in which the most disadvantaged are particularly vulnerable. Families are moving to unfurnished homes to try to save some rent just so that they can keep a roof over their heads, but the idea that they can then secure beds—big, bulky items—and new mattresses for each member of the household and get them to an unfurnished property is out of reach. Social housing rarely comes furnished.

    End Furniture Poverty found that just 2% of social homes include some form of furnishing compared with 29% of private rented properties. Given that the purpose of social housing is to accommodate the most vulnerable in our society, it seems the crisis of bed poverty, although shocking on the surface, is inevitable.

    The scale of bed poverty is really concerning when we consider how corrosive it is to a child’s life. For all of us here, getting into our bed at the end of a long day is utter relief and second nature—something we take completely for granted and that we could not imagine going without. So it will come as no surprise when I say that growing up in bed poverty has lifelong consequences. At the most fundamental level, a bed is a safe space for a child. It offers warmth, independence, privacy and comfort, and it is especially important in high stress households, which we know, when someone experiences poverty, is how it can be.

    A bed also provides a social function—a place for children to have sleepovers and build their friendships at school. If that bed is taken away, a child is further exposed to the anguish and solitude that growing up in poverty can bring. Going without a comfortable space to rest also leaves a child unable to sleep properly.

    As a mother of three, I know how irritable children can be when they miss a good night’s sleep, but the effect of sleep deprivation on a child’s wellbeing is far more detrimental than just a day of being a bit grouchy. From low moods to persistent feelings of helplessness and isolation, the mental health impact of bed poverty is something that no young person should ever experience. Parents can see that pain in their child. One mum told Buttle UK’s Chances for Children campaign that her children were

    “angry and irritable and the two of them would argue all the time because they were so tired. Both are bright and their schoolwork suffered. They were constantly late for school”,

    and one

    “started to take time off because he was so exhausted. His mood suffered and he started to get depressed.”

    I also spoke to one mother who had experienced bed poverty and was so grateful for the help that she received. After she received the bed, sheets and pyjamas from a charity, she described her child as becoming a different person overnight. It was powerful to hear about that experience. Those parents share their experiences, no matter how hard it is or how difficult it is to admit that they found themselves in that situation, because they do not want any child to go through that experience.

    The importance of sleep does not stop at emotional regulation. It is important for many physical and neurological processes that allow children to function and grow in everyday life. It is important for brain reorganisation, and it helps children to focus and process thoughts throughout the day. Sleep is when hormones are balanced, blood pressure lowered, the immune system regulated and illnesses fought. It has even been associated with a reduction in the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes. All the way down to the very smallest levels, a child’s cells and body systems perform vital jobs during the stages of sleep. Michael Farquhar, an NHS consultant in children’s sleep medicine, stated:

    “I describe sleep as like getting an MOT every night for your brain and body…the longer you leave it the more problems it causes.”

    With the short-term challenges of sleep deprivation come the lifelong consequences of bed poverty. Research has shown that pupils who get more sleep perform better at maths, science and reading—markers of educational attainment that the Government tell us are vital for securing good jobs in the future. That is because sleep helps children to solve problems, develop their memory and learn effectively. How many times do we go to bed on a problem and wake up with it solved? That is the power of sleep. How can we expect a child to concentrate throughout a day of education if their night was spent on a cold, hard floor, or in a bath? That was a question Bex put to me after explaining the backstory of her charity, Zarach. After discovering that one of her pupils was living in a home without a bed, the difficulties that she encountered in teaching conjugated verbs made more sense.

    Education has the power to improve opportunities and give young people the ability to transform their lives, but for children living below the poverty line it is their main hope of escaping a lifetime of deprivation. The Government recognise that; one of the levelling-up missions is for 90% of primary school age children to achieve the expected standard in key stage 2 reading, writing and maths by 2030. However, the Government stand by while children are deprived of that one shot at education because they do not get a decent night’s sleep. Even before the pandemic, disadvantaged children were already 18 months behind their peers at school, and covid-19 has exacerbated that attainment gap. That distressing trend is continuing. The Sutton Trust recently reported that 74% of the teachers it surveyed saw an increase in pupils too tired and unable to concentrate in class. In what universe can the Government claim to be levelling up when increasing numbers of children are struggling at school because they do not have a bed?

    The Government have said that they are acting on the issue, and I am sure that we will hear that from the Minister. In response to the petition, they stated that there are several avenues of support that are available to families affected by bed poverty. One of those is the budgeting advance, which is a loan available to universal credit and legacy benefit claimants—the only source of direct Government support for the cost of essential furniture. However, in evidence sessions, parents told me that the loans condemn them to further poverty; although the loans might allow them to buy a new mattress—at a cost of at least £100, I would say—they are left hopelessly trying to pay them back on already stretched and insufficient incomes. They are trapped in a cycle of deprivation and debt.

    Kim Leadbeater

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to think outside the box when it comes to bed poverty? I am fortunate to have a fantastic range of bed manufacturers in my constituency of Batley and Spen. I wonder whether the Government might consider working with them on a scheme to help families who are struggling. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good suggestion?

    Catherine McKinnell

    The Government definitely need to think outside the box and take responsibility for this issue, and I will come to why. My hon. Friend points to what the charitable sector has been doing, working with local bed manufacturers that are solving the problem in very localised ways, but this is a national issue and it needs a national response. That is the point that the Government really need to listen to.

    The anti-poverty charity Turn2us made a similar assessment, identifying the 2013 conversion of the social fund grant into a budgeting loan as the single biggest erosion of help for those living without household appliances. Among those unable to access the social security advances, there is an alarming trend of parents becoming victim to predatory high-interest loan organisations because they just cannot see any alternative to securing a peaceful night’s sleep for their children. Rather than giving a helping hand to families facing unimaginable hardship, the means-tested and loan-based provision of support is pushing families into even more desperate circumstances.

    In response to the petition, the Government have said that councils in England have been

    “empowered to establish local welfare provision”,

    which is another claim that seems detached from the reality. More than a decade of austerity has had catastrophic consequence for local authorities, and chronic underfunding has left them permanently uncertain about their future and unable to deliver the long-term, transformational policies that communities in crisis need. This year’s autumn statement doubled down on the trend, forcing yet another real-terms cut to local authority budgets: needless to say, that has impeded the ability of councils to address bed poverty.

    End Furniture Poverty has consistently challenged the alarming diminishment of local welfare assistance schemes across the country. In November, it found that more than one in five local authorities in England had closed their schemes, leaving over 14 million people without access to crisis support. Although the Government are likely to indicate that the deficit has been bridged by the household support fund, that does not offer hope to children sleeping without a bed. With tight spending deadlines and guidance provided at short notice, many local authorities have been unable to develop the infrastructure needed to ensure that they are meeting all areas of need.

    Often the fund has been given as direct grants to people on certain benefits, or to third-party organisations such as food banks. Of course, I am not here to suggest that those are ineffective or unsuitable ways for local authorities to distribute the support fund—for a child, being well fed is just as important as being well rested. However, it is indicative of the insidious nature of child bed poverty, which, being largely absent from public awareness, has become impossible to address, despite the very best efforts of charities. I hope people realise that it is a problem, which is why Bex and the supporting petitioners are calling on the Government to create a national sleep strategy.

    Given that storing, transporting and providing beds poses a number of financial and logistical challenges, the petitioners fear that the funding will inevitably continue to be redirected in order to prop up other frontline services. They therefore want the Government to explicitly commit to end child bed poverty and ensure that councils have the resources and capacity to do it. A national sleep strategy also has the potential to address several other related issues. For Orange Box North East, it could mean developing the infrastructure needed to stop good-quality pre-loved furniture going to landfill, and to divert it instead to families in need of an affordable option. For The Sleep Charity, it could provide much-needed education to an increasingly sleep-deprived teenage population, which we know is a big issue. How can we help children to develop healthy behaviours around getting a good night’s rest if they do not even have a bed to sleep in?

    There are so many people with expert insight and the drive to create a brighter future for our children, but if they are left filling the void left by a Government who are failing to provide children with a safe space to sleep at night, it is an opportunity wasted. However, despite all the possibilities that a national sleep strategy holds, my discussions with charities have led me to one conclusion: until the Government finally step up and commit to end child poverty with a joined-up and cross-departmental approach, there will always be children growing up without a bed.

    It is absurd that our country is facing such desperation that charities are being forced to compete over which symptom of child poverty the Government should pay most attention to. It is not enough to leave an overstretched and under-resourced third sector relieving the physical manifestations of child poverty, nor to repeat tired lines about the importance of getting parents into work when 70% of children living below the poverty line come from working households. Our children need a coherent, cross-departmental anti-child poverty strategy matched with ambition and investment. We need action on the social security system, on insecure, low-paid work, on housing, on education, on our early years sector and so much more. We need more than yet another pot of funding for crisis support. Enough of the sticking plasters, which simply patch over the trauma that is crippling our country.

    Despite its seeming normalisation, child poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour Government proved that and turned the figures around. Whether they are going without a bed, food, a warm home or decent clothes, children will continue to be crushed by the pressures of poverty until we see such a commitment from the Government again.

    I have a few questions for the Minister. Will he commit to ensuring there is a definition of child bed poverty within Government so that we understand and start to measure the extent of the problem? Will he set out what work the Government have undertaken with third sector organisations to understand the level of child bed poverty in the UK? Will the Government review regulations in the social housing sector to ensure that those without access to furniture have some protection when they move into a new property? Does he recognise the financial challenges that loan-based support poses for families who are in hardship or in crisis? Does he agree that the conversion from a grant was the biggest erosion of help for those living without household appliances, which is what it has been assessed as? Will he consider the petitioners’ request for all local authorities to be provided with dedicated resources to fund local schemes and support families affected by the crisis of bed poverty? Does he agree that child bed poverty is part of a much wider issue—the scandalous level of child poverty in the UK? Will the Government commit to a cross-departmental laser-focused strategy to eradicate it urgently?

    I recently visited a school in my constituency and spoke about my preparations for this debate. I can still see the shock on the faces of the pupils when they heard that there are children just like them growing up without the safe space that so many take for granted—a bed. A bed of their own is the bare minimum that we should expect for every child in this country. I still cannot believe that we are even having this debate. Even those pupils knew that bed poverty is nothing short of a crisis, but it is part of a much wider systemic problem under successive Conservative Governments. We have seen child poverty increase in this country. More and more children are growing up in households without the very basics, whether it is food in their stomachs, heating in their home, clothing on their backs or, as this petition highlights, a bed.

    It should be a source of immense shame that we have children sleeping in the bath or on the floor, or sharing beds. As a society, we are failing our children and taking away their futures. The cost of living crisis continues to hit households in the UK, which are facing double-digit inflation, so it is clear that the problem is only going to get worse. The Government can and must do much more. They are not a mere bystander to this issue; they are our only hope of tackling it. With a laser focus and a joined-up strategy, they can lift children out of poverty. Only then can we be sure that all children will have a safe space to lay their head at night. I really hope that the Minister hears this call and that the Government finally take action on this issue.

  • Ed Vaizey – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Tax-Free Shopping [Baron Vaizey of Didcot]

    Ed Vaizey – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Tax-Free Shopping [Baron Vaizey of Didcot]

    The question asked by Ed Vaizey, Baron Vaizey of Didcot, in the House of Lords on 15 December 2022.

    Lord Vaizey of Didcot

    To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact on the United Kingdom economy of the abolition of tax-free shopping.

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    My Lords, as part of the reversal of almost all the tax measures set out in the growth plan, the Government are not proceeding with plans to introduce a new VAT-free shopping scheme. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of the withdrawal of the previous VAT-free shopping schemes showed that this would raise a significant amount of revenue and have a small and limited behavioural effect on tourists’ decisions to visit the UK.

    Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)

    My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, far from costing the Treasury £2 billion a year, reintroducing tax-free shopping would net the Treasury some £350 million a year? Tax-free shopping supports many important industries in our country, such as Harris tweed—as so brilliantly sported by my noble friend Lord Pickles in support of my Question. The introduction of tax-free shopping is supported by the left-wing Mayor of London and the left-wing SNP. In this country we are lucky to have numerous new Governments; whether it is levelling up, growth or economic stability, tax-free shopping supports all three. Will the Minister reconsider the Treasury’s nonsensical decision to abolish it?

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    Well, what I can say is that, on 28 November, HMRC and HMT officials held a round table with industry stakeholders to collate feedback on the Chancellor’s decision to withdraw the introduction. As I indicated in my initial Answer, evidence from VisitBritain continues to show that the key motivators for tourists visiting the UK are our rich history and heritage and vibrant towns and cities, and less so shopping.

    The Earl of Clancarty (CB)

    My Lords, international tourists used to make up half of Mulberry’s trade in London; now it is almost none. Does not that immediately tell the Government something about the significant effect this is now having on the tourist trade? European cities will be the winners and we will be the losers unless the Government change their mind.

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    I do not agree with the noble Earl. Introducing VAT-free shopping would come at a significant fiscal cost because it would subsidise a large amount of tourist spending that already occurs without any relief in place. This is supported by OBR estimates which found that the withdrawal of the previous schemes would reduce visitor numbers by only 0.07%.

    Lord Watts (Lab)

    My Lords, do the Government understand that it may not affect the number of tourists who come to the UK, but they will stop spending in the shops and that will be lost revenue? Will the Minister not reconsider this matter?

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    Well, it has been considered—as I say, we had a round table in November—and the benefit is pretty marginal. As far as I can tell from walking around London, the visitors are still flooding into Britain. We also need to look to next year, when we have the Coronation, and remember that we must look after the visitors who come here. But, as I pointed out, the actual benefits are marginal.

    Baroness Kramer (LD)

    My Lords, will the Government consider doing a proper cost-benefit analysis of this, which they have never done? Small shops are very much reporting that the actual spend has dropped very significantly. At a time when retail is under so much pressure, that additional loss will drive people out of business.

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    We do not have any plans to analyse this further. As I have said before, fewer than one in 10 non-EU visitors used the previous VAT-free shopping scheme, indicating that it is really not a pull factor for tourists. Canada and New Zealand also do not offer this type of tax-free shopping on the high street, and the USA does not have a countrywide system, yet all these countries are popular tourist destinations.

    Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)

    My Lords, the Treasury has a long history of downplaying the secondary effects of tax reductions. It has done it on corporation tax and the IR35. Oxford Economics tells us that 1.6 million visitors are attracted by VAT-free shopping. All those queues of people from China outside Harvey Nicks, Bicester Village and so on are bringing much-needed revenue to our economy. Will my noble friend the Minister ask his friends in the Treasury to reconsider the dynamic effects of this and other tax cuts?

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    We have no plans to reconsider this. I know that about 80% of the effect of this is on retailers—for whom I have some sympathy, I should say—in London, and 10% in Bicester Village. It is very much focused on those areas and we do not have any plans to rethink it.

    Baroness Meyer (Con)

    My Lords, is it not sending quite an unwelcoming message to our European and American friends if, when they come here, they do not get VAT back, but when we shop in America or any country in the European Union we get their VAT back?

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    Yes, but it comes back to the initial analysis by the OBR, which is very clear. As my noble friend will be aware, there was a judicial review in May 2021 and the judge ruled very much in the Government’s favour. There was also a very clear vote in Parliament on the matter, so I too am very clear on it.

    Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)

    Can the Minister tell us whether the effective devaluation of the pound against the euro and the dollar is a subtle way of attracting tourists?

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    The noble Lord is ingenious in what he brings up. It is fair to say that the value of the pound has helped in bringing tourists to London. I say again that London right now is full of people from abroad walking around—and also from the domestic side, despite the fact that the cost of living crisis is hitting the most vulnerable and we are very aware of that.

    Lord Cormack (Con)

    My Lords, why does my noble friend not exercise a little imagination? He referred to the Coronation; people will flock to this country. Let us have a Coronation bonus period to see whether this really works. I am sure he will then be converted.

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    I take note of what my noble friend says but, as I say, we have no plans to change this policy.

    Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)

    My Lords, is my noble friend not immensely encouraged by the enthusiasm for tax cuts on the Opposition Benches?

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    My noble friend makes an excellent point.

    Lord Londesborough (CB)

    My Lords, the arguments for tax-free shopping range from a £2 billion cost to the Treasury to a £4 billion benefit to the wider economy; I cite the recent survey from Oxford Economics. Whatever the truth, given the dire need for economic growth, surely it falls on the Treasury to at least review these important numbers.

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    I can go this far, which the House will take at face value: of course, all taxes remain under review. The estimated cost of introducing a new scheme was around £2 billion per year. Although this would have stimulated additional retail spending, which HMRC estimated to be around £2 billion to £2.5 billion, it is a substantial cost to UK taxpayers and the relief would subsidise a significant number of purchases that occur without any relief in place, as I mentioned earlier.

    Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)

    My Lords, while it might not have been the primary driver of tourism into the UK, tax-free shopping certainly incentivised extra spending during people’s stays. It was right to scrap the chaotic mini-Budget, but can the Minister understand the frustration of retailers who have argued for years for the scheme’s return, only to have their reward taken away because the Conservative Party crashed the economy?

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    As I said earlier, on a serious note I have some sympathy for retailers—we admit that they will see some falling off of business—but I have made it quite clear that this is very much focused on London and Bicester Village. Having said all that, I live near Bicester Village and the queues going in on Sunday were enormous. Evidence from VisitBritain continues to show that the key motivators are still not to do with shopping and much to do with coming to see our excellent sights around the country.

    Baroness Browning (Con)

    In my noble friend’s Answer to our noble friend Lord Vaizey, he said this had been decided at a round-table meeting in the Treasury. Could we know who the people around this table are? Are they shoppers? For the record—please do not take offence at this—I would like to know the gender of this circular table.

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    Hopefully, I made it clear that the round table was for industry stakeholders to collate feedback on the Chancellor’s decision. There were three main concerns, which I am not going to go through. It was really to show that the Government remain in listening mode and taxes remain under review—which is true—but we do not have any plans to change this policy.

    Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)

    Perhaps I can come in and defend the Minister for a moment. We should actually be thinking about shopping less. I am so sorry to say this to a bunch of such dedicated shoppers, but we should make do with less and understand that the climate crisis means we should perhaps want to possess less as well.

    Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

    I am almost tempted to agree with the noble Baroness—but, no, we want to encourage people to shop. On the matter of tourism itself, I am pleased to say that inbound tourism bookings were at about 70% of 2019 levels for the first half of the year. Although I admit our recovery is slower than that of a number of our close international competitors, there is a bit of a nuanced picture because, as I alluded to earlier, domestic tourism has seen a better recovery trajectory than inbound tourism levels. So watch this space; as I said, it is a slightly better picture than has been made out from certain quarters.

  • Gordon Brown – 1998 Speech at Lambeth Palace on Reducing Debt in Poor Countries

    Gordon Brown – 1998 Speech at Lambeth Palace on Reducing Debt in Poor Countries

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Lambeth Palace, London, on 29 July 1998.

    I am grateful to have, at your invitation, Archbishop, an opportunity to be a part of this Lambeth Conference, with its historic theme, the theme chosen by all nine provinces in the Anglican communion worldwide, our duty to help countries burdened and immiserated by debt.

    We are constantly reminded of the economic links that now bind countries and markets together in the increasingly globalised economy.

    But for far longer, indeed for centuries, the Church, with its worldwide mission, has avowed and demonstrated the moral links that bind us together, all of us, citizens and nations, rich and poor, in one moral universe.

    Martin Luther King spoke of how we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny, part of one moral universe.

    And it is because of our shared responsibilities, our common concerns, our linked destinies ,our dependence each upon another that our teaching tells us that an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

    To quote the experience of only one country, Niger, where life expectancy does not remotely approach the biblical three score years and ten and where a majority are dead by 50; four fifths of adults are illiterate; two thirds live on less than 1 dollar a day. It is a country which spends nearly four times more of its resources servicing its debts than it does on looking after the health of the people.

    Part of a region in which 200 million can barely move their bodies because of hunger, part of a world where 30,000 children die every day from preventable diseases and where 1.3 billions, two thirds of them women, are in poverty.

    John F Kennedy said that if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

    Because money spent on servicing debts is needed far more for health and for education, debt relief is a matter not just of dispensing charity but ensuring justice prevails.

    But debt relief is also an economic issue, because a mountain of inherited and hitherto immovable debt stands in the way of the economic development which would break the cycle of poverty disease and illiteracy.

    And it is to move this mountain of debt that, in response to the arguments and pleas of the churches, I believe our inescapable duty is to try to ensure by the year 2000 all highly indebted poor countries are embarked on a systematic process of debt reduction.

    Last year only one country had entered the process. Now there are six, most recently including Mozambique, with £3 billion of debt relief pledged.

    For the fourteen others with still with no place at the table – it is urgent that following the G7 we step up on our actions to systematically remove the barriers between them and the debt reduction measures that will help them. And I look to you to use your moral authority with governments all over the world to support the necessary action.

    First, for countries like Rwanda, Liberia, Democratic Congo weighed down by the double burden of debt and the economic consequences of war, and who without special help will never recover, we have an urgent duty to help them move from crisis to development by:

    – taking into consideration performance under the post-conflict assistance programmes in assessing a debtors track record;

    – tackling the problem of debt arrears; and

    – ensuring ,with help from bilateral donors, that IMF and World Bank funding is concessional

    Second, for all other countries, we must find faster and easier ways to secure the debt relief they need and so in the run up to the IMF and World Bank meetings in October, Britain will offer highly indebted poor countries, all the technical assistance and back up they need to enter and make the most of debt reduction programmes.

    And at the IMF meetings in October we will ask that all possible means of financing debt reduction be considered.

    Third, each country must be asked to do more.

    I want every creditor country to follow our unilateral action in targeting export credits for the poorest countries solely on peaceful and productive expenditure.

    And I want all donor countries to write off their aid loans to the poorest countries, something that the UK government has already done in its loans with over thirty of the world’s poorest countries, a policy now extended to those poorer Commonwealth countries committed to poverty eradication.

    Fourth, we must help our citizens do more.

    Clare Short will tell you how as an individual government we are both increasing aid – by 28 per cent in real terms or 1.6 billions over the next three years – and redirecting aid to health, education and anti poverty programmes. Our goal as a government is to halve the proportion of the world’s population living in absolute poverty by 2015.

    But we also want British people to be part of a giving society.

    And I can tell you that we have also set aside 60 millions as a tax supplement for individual donors giving Millennium Gift Aid to education, health and anti poverty programmes in the poorest countries. The 60 million we have set aside from government could produce an additional 250 million for work of the charities and organisations in Africa and the poorest countries.

    Finally, we must now redouble our efforts to find long term solutions that create a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty reduction, and economic development,

    Last year, the 48 least developed countries received, between them, less than 1% of foreign commercial investment in all the developing nations.

    And if countries are to draw on secure flows of commercial finance in a world disciplined by the realities of an inescapable and endlessly judgmental global market in capital, then it is to their advantage not just to tackle corruption, secrecy and wasteful military expenditure but also to follow internationally agreed and publicly recognised standards or codes of monetary and fiscal policy, corporate behaviour and there must be freedom from corruption.

    These international codes of good practice -the rules by which nations and people live – operational rules for fiscal transparency, monetary and financial good practice, good governance and good social practice – codes that will be applied to all countries by international agreement, rather than be imposed by the rich on the poor, and signed by rich and poor countries alike, would, in my view, provide a new framework for world economic development that would give new hope to the poorest and the most vulnerable countries.

    And in my views these new codes of good practice that can bring both stability and international investor confidence need not be oppressive: indeed they can be liberating because they offer the poorest countries a chance to break the power of lack of governmental accountability, secrecy, and corruption which have held them back by denying them international credibility and confidence.

    And let me make one further suggestion: if international institutions can agree on codes of practice that set minimum standards in economic management, they can also go on to explore the possibility of a new international code of good social practice. Perhaps based on minimum social standards, core labour standards and decent provision in health and education.

    Harold Macmillan once famously spoke of the wind of change blowing across Africa, changing the politics of that great continent.

    What inspires your vision is something more fundamental. Your vision is of a new climate of justice across the world, a new climate of justice that will eventually liberate nations from debt, people from poverty, and millions of individuals from unfulfilled lives, bringing our global economy and our moral universe into harmony for the benefit of all, transforming not just the politics on one continent but economics society and politics the world over.

    One that recognises that by the strong helping the weak it makes us all stronger.

    I was taught in church to believe that an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

    So today, let us resolve from here in London today, within 15 months of a new century, to work together, churches, political leaders, the peoples of the world to :

    – tackle debt
    – tackle poverty directly
    – tackle the causes of poverty and the causes of underdevelopment.

    So to end the long night of injustice and make the Millennium a new dawn of hope for Africa and the poorest of the developing world.

  • Gordon Brown – 1998 Speech to the News International Conference

    Gordon Brown – 1998 Speech to the News International Conference

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the News International Conference on 17 July 1998.

    INTRODUCTION

    I am delighted to have the opportunity to make this contribution to your conference, and I wanted to accept the invitation – not so much to discuss day to day policies, but to take the chance to explore the broader themes that underpin the new uk government’s approach to the challenges ahead, an approach that I believe has lessons beyond our own borders.

    Indeed, I am sure that from wherever in the world you do business or report the news, recent weeks will again have demonstrated what we all know – that the size the speed and sheer ingenuity of global markets make them more dynamic and more volatile than their old national counterparts.

    Against this background, perhaps the major challenge facing politicians is how, in that more fast changing and yet more insecure environment, we encourage and reward the dynamism and ambition on which modern economic success depends – and how we combine this with the stability and cohesion this now more insecure generation so obviously require and want.

    Successful economies in a global marketplace will need more competition more entrepreneurship, more flexibility to adapt. Countries that do not have this are already suffering lost markets, stagnation and economic decline.

    And successful societies will need to work harder to build the cohesion and trust which is necessary to cope with the insecurity of permanent change. Not to achieve this, we already know, can lead to economic protectionism, social breakdown and – in some countries – ethnic nationalism.

    You catch glimpses of these changes in the concerns that people express. When people talk, for example, about their own economic insecurity, and about restricting imports, or worry about the damage of a dependency culture and express anxieties about economic security and social division, they reflect, for me, what will become some of the defining issues of our times and demand new responses from politicians.

    Now for most of the century, most would argue that parties of the right have tended to champion dynamism and entrepreneurship. Parties of the left have tended to champion security and a framework of social rights.

    Consequently, parties of the right concentrated on questions of wealth creation; parties of the left tended to focus on issues of distribution.

    Put crudely the right liked talking about the good economy while the left liked talking about the good society.

    But today, when the challenge of a global marketplace is to combine the dynamism we need with the cohesion people yearn for, it is obsolete politics to perpetuate that old and sterile left right divide. We can no longer afford to make the mistake of the old left which in a closed national economy could, for periods, indulge social policy at the expense of economic efficiency as they tried to trade off dynamism for protecting the status quo.

    Nor, in the more insecure global marketplace, can the right any longer deny the important contribution a good society makes to a good economy.

    So I would like, today, to set out the new government’s vision of what will underpin and advance both the dynamism required and the cohesion we need.

    An agenda of national politics for the global marketplace – of relevance not just to Britain and Europe but more widely – an agenda for stability, competition, the promotion of work, education and enterprise, and social cohesion, and – as I will address in my final section – international co-operation.

    I will argue that what unites this agenda is a new politics of opportunity and responsibility – where opportunity for all is matched by shared obligations accepted by all. I will set out how the government is trying to make stability, dynamism, cohesion and opportunity a reality – and point to the next stage of this agenda of modernization, the next wave of reform.

    And I also want to share with you how in the national politics of the united kingdom, Tony Blair and his government are engaging with the new global economy and trying to give expression to this new politics. Of course, government has taught me the difficulty and complexity of translating general global understandings into practical measures that affect. But we have made a start, as I will show today.

    Stability

    First, stability. The first objective national governments must have, in a global marketplace, is to maximise economic stability. We have learnt that monetary and fiscal stability is a necessary pre-condition for national economic success. For in a global economy, funds will flow to those countries whose policies inspire confidence. And investors punish mistakes more quickly and more severely than in the past.

    Both the old keynesian fine-tuning, and the rigid application of fixed monetary targets, were policies designed for sheltered national economies and based on apparently stable and predictable relationships which have now broken down in our modern, liberalised and global capital markets.

    So our policy has been to set a new long-term framework for monetary and fiscal policy that can command new confidence. The way forward is, in my view, to recognize that long term, open and transparent decision-making procedures which command credibility provide a better route to stability than fixed monetary or exchange rate rules.

    That is why, when we came into power in Britain last may, we took the view that to find the right route to long-term stability we needed a wholehearted commitment to well understood long-term objectives: the 2.5 per cent inflation target and clearly defined fiscal rules – and proper procedural rules based on open institutions.

    So our first act in government was to grant operational independence to the Bank of England and so establish a clear and well understood pattern of making decisions – through the new monetary committee of the Bank of England with its regular decision making process – all underpinned by commitment to openness and transparency. I believe this new system of monetary decision-making – free of the suspicion of short-term political manipulation – is best for Britain.

    But we also had to act decisively to prevent a return to the boom-bust economic cycles which have served the UK so badly in recent decades. When we came into power, it was clear that necessary interest rate decisions had not been taken and that inflation was forecast to head well above 4 per cent. Inflation was getting back into the system and a slowing of economic activity was essential to get the economy back on track for sustainable growth – which is why we raised interest rates at once and have tightened fiscal policy decisively over the past year.

    And we applied the same approach to fiscal policy- tough rules, clear procedures , independent monitoring. Our rules – the golden rule, and the sustainable investment rule – are being met over this parliament. We have reduced public borrowing from 27 billion pounds to 8 billion pounds – a tightening which is locked in from last fiscal year into the next and amounts, as we promised in our march budget, to 3.5 per cent of GDP – the largest fiscal tightening since 1981. We have kept within the tight spending ceilings we set in our manifesto for the first two years of the government . And now, with the announcements of the results of our comprehensive spending review, we have reaffirmed that our two fiscal rules will be met over the next three years as we run current budget surpluses over the rest of the parliament.

    We have been prepared to sell off assets that we do not need to release funds for what we do need, and the principle of public private partnerships has been extended into new areas, making public money go further.

    People said that the new government would never keep to its spending limits or take tough decisions on fiscal or monetary policy, or that we would refuse to sell assets and government-owned companies. It has done all these things and will continue to keep to the targets we have set. A policy based on a new understanding of modern economic policy in a new international economy.

    Competition, enterprise and dynamism

    But stability is only a means to an end – a necessary platform which allows businesses and individuals to plan ahead with greater certainty. The second challenge national politicians face is to promote productivity and growth by creating an environment that encourages and rewards competitiveness and high productivity. And to do nothing to frustrate the potential for dynamism of the economy.

    It may surprise you that I want to aggressively promote and extend competition. I believe that when we look at Britain’s relative economic decline over this century, one of the central causes is that there has not been enough competition, dynamism and entrepreneurship in many areas of our economy.

    People say that Mrs Thatcher created an enterprising society. I say there is still not enough enterprise and we have to do better. I want Britain to be, in every area, a creative innovative and enterprising economy.

    I want more people starting small businesses, more people self-employed and – by reforming capital gains tax, cutting corporation tax to the lowest level of the G7, by cutting small business tax to 20p in the pound, and by stimulating the venture capital industry – we are trying to clear away the barriers that frustrate new entrepreneurs entering the market place.

    We must match the success of the venture capital markets in the usa and to orient our venture capital industry to hi tech early stage and start up companies, encouraging a new approach to risk taking and increasing the number of entrepreneurs.

    And I have already said that in future budgets I will take measures that are demonstrated to be necessary to ensure our capital markets work better. We are determined to surmount the barriers – fiscal, regulatory, economic and cultural – that have frustrated the growth of enterprise in Britain.

    Companies that are sheltered from competition in the national economy are much less likely successfully to compete in the global economy. Our policy is for greater competition – an opening up of competition through the new competition bill to all areas of the economy from the utilities to the professions.

    People are increasingly asking why, in a global market place, prices for the same goods vary so much between countries. For example, according to the OECD, household appliances like washing machines and dishwashers are about 30% more expensive in the United Kingdom than in the United States, prices in restaurants and hotels are more than 50% higher and furniture is nearly 60% more expensive. Of course, size of markets, national regulations and different tax regimes are part of the answer. But there is no doubt that insufficient competition with cosy cartels is a further explanation – which means consumers are often paying over the odds. In Britain and Europe we will continue our enquiry into securing a fairer deal for the consumer.

    So I believe there is a case for promoting a new competition agenda worldwide. Europe has to clean up its act. In the next year we will be pushing hard for greater openness in telecommunications, energy and financial services in Europe.

    And we will go further. Just as in monetary policy we made the monetary authority, the Bank of England independent, so too there is a case for longer term consideration of whether there should be a greater degree of independence for competition authorities than already exists – in Britain and Europe too. And while an international competition authority is a long way away, we will encourage the multilateral negotiations for cooperation between competition authorities to open up global markets.

    So the new economy is one where competition is extended and enhanced, and where the consumer has a right to expect the best deal.

    And let no one be in any doubt about our commitment to free trade and our resistance to protectionism. Our plans involve breaking down more barriers to goods and services. That is why we are not only interested in the world trade organizations proposals for change but in the idea of a great transatlantic marketplace stretching across europe and america involving some 600 million consumers and citizens. I want to see new progress on the transatlantic economic partnership, confirming the strong relationship between the USA, Britain and Europe. And we will continue to press for trade barriers to come down.

    Employment and social cohesion

    The third challenge for national politicians in a global economy is less tangible but no less important. In an economy where jobs are less secure and lost more regularly, the task is to revitalise the work ethic in our society and to actively promote the ethic of self improvement – and, in doing so, to equip people to cope with change.

    I grew up as the son of a presbyterian minister in a scottish industrial town. And anyone like me who was brought up in a community shaped by a long historical adherence to the work ethic – and then the blight of long-term unemployment – knows the importance of creating new opportunity for work and also matching it with responsibility to work.

    Our aim in reforming the welfare state is quite simple – to reduce dependency by making sure that more people take responsibility for their lives.

    Not by abandoning people who need new opportunity, but by matching the opportunities we can provide for training and work with obligations and responsibilities to take them up.

    This is the new agenda. To back it up we have set up a welfare state review and we will promote a new round of labour market reform to promote flexibility and adaptability. Our policy is to make opportunity available but in return for adaptability and flexibility in employment.

    For the central question is not whether we preserve old vested interests or restricted practices – that agenda we reject – but how we ensure that every person is properly equipped to meet the challenges of the new economy.

    It is for this reason that our national economic interest demands reform of our national system of education. The challenge of the future is not that a few do well by the age of 16 but that all have the opportunities to learn throughout their life.

    Despite all our great traditions in education, Britain has performed badly in education compared to other countries. So we have embarked on educational reforms that are at least as radical as our reforms in welfare. The new investments we are now making in education will have to be matched by structural reforms – money but only for modernization, new resources but only in return for reform. So we will reform teacher training, introduce a new qualification for head teachers, monitor and inspect every education authority, and set targets to raise literacy and numeracy, cut truancy and to ensure that far more have qualifications when they leave school.

    Until this year, 30 per cent of our young people went into higher education, but the costs of grants and fees set a limit on student numbers. We have introduced new fees and loans as we have reformed the financing of our universities and colleges. New opportunities will be provided to half a million more students. But in return the individual must repay part of the country’s contribution to his and her learning.

    Perhaps our biggest long term educational reform will be the individual learning account, where government will provide help for individuals to open an education account to pay for life-long learning, to be backed up by a university for industry, which will offer to millions in their homes, through satellite, cable and terrestrial TV new opportunities to learn and upgrade their skills – helping people to help themselves.

    But in each area – not just education but all our public services – our policy towards public money is that there must be reform in return for resources. Reform is not optional. The resources are conditional.

    So we have set targets in each area and demanding efficiency standards which must be met. We have agreed new public private partnerships – in education and science to name two – which represent the biggest, reform in public services. To those who think that while the investment takes place, the reform will never happen, I have a message: the special cabinet committee that the Prime Minster has asked me to chair, a committee that will report to him and will monitor and scrutinize performance in every department, will deliver our promise to reform. Just as the century started with a radical government of reform, so it is ending with a radical reforming government.

    Our education and employment policies are critical because they unite two objectives promoting economic dynamism and social cohesion – an agenda which touches all aspects of our economic and social policy.

    The old certainties which many of us took for granted when we were growing up – strong families, weekly church attendance, stable communities – our traditional institutions are now under pressure. And this social insecurity reinforces the economic insecurity I have already mentioned and undermines dynamism and creativity.

    Government cannot, of course, alone provide the answer. But families need help – not least in balancing work and family responsibilities, but also in tackling juvenile delinquency, and problems with drugs, and in helping people cope with change.

    So policies for social cohesion – which promote opportunity in a supportive community – do not aspire to stop the clock, or guarantee outcomes like jobs for life or rights irrespective of responsibilities, or level down.

    The new politics is about enabling people to take more responsibility for their own lives by treating people fairly, maximising opportunity, and modernising the public services, that British people have chosen to have and continue to support like our National Health Service, that people in Britain see as essential to a decent society.

    But here again, in health, we have invested money but only in return for modernization. Hospitals will now have to produce league tables on performance. The hospitals that are 20 per cent less efficient than the best will now be subject to targets and timetables for improvement. Budgets that have run over will be subject to limits. More private capital will be involved in hospital building. There will be no let up in our reform agenda – far from it, for in Britain’s public services, a whole new wave of reform is on the way.

    So we are undertaking a reform agenda and it is because of this modernisation that we can do more to build a more dynamic economy and a stronger society.

    Opportunity for all

    There is a thread that runs through all of these policies. It is the idea of opportunity for all – equality of opportunity – that encapsulates our approach.

    A dynamic economy depends on companies recruiting the best people and getting the best out of people. To narrow the pool of talent by perpetuating old privileges or practising discrimination is an inefficiency no economy can afford. The modern economy must draw on the widest pool of talent. So the dynamism we need requires opportunity for all.

    But equality of opportunity is as important in achieving social cohesion. For society to maintain social cohesion in the midst of economic insecurity it must retain legitimacy and trust. And to do so people must feel that they have a fair chance. There can be no room in a society that values work, effort and merit for perpetuating old establishment elites that unfairly hold people back and deny opportunity.

    So what underpins and advances both the dynamism our economy requires and the cohesion that is sought is the vision of a society where there is opportunity for all in return for obligations shared by all.

    The opportunity which matters depends on the exercise of personal responsibility; contains within it the notion of self-improvement; does not seek to replace individual responsibility with state responsibility; is not about equalising outcomes but equal opportunity; and equal opportunity requires Governments to act.

    So for me a vital key to the dynamism and cohesion we need is opportunity for all in return for obligations shared by all.

    So what are the opportunities I am talking about- the opportunity for decent education, the opportunity to get the chance of a job, the opportunity to start a business, the opportunity to have equal access to our culture, the opportunity to participate in the political system of the country if that is what you want.

    All opportunities that should be realisable and not be frustrated by inherited Privilege, by aristocracy, by elites, monopolies cartels or vested interest. Opportunities that men and women should have a fair chance of taking up.

    But equality of opportunity cannot be achieved by markets alone, however dynamic, by individualism however enterprising, or by charities or voluntary or community organizations however well meaning.

    It is only government that can ensure equality of opportunity is not an illusion but is made a reality.

    But it is a new role for Government – not as command and control but as enabler, empowerer. Put simply, to rephrase a famous phrase – ask not what Government can do for you, ask what it can enable you to do for yourself.

    Individuals accepting personal responsibility, the Government matching it with opportunity.

    It is the extension of opportunity, whether it be by competition policies that open up opportunity to start a business, or through education policies that open up opportunities for those denied education, that can help make our economy more dynamic, our society more cohesive.

    People label this approach in different ways – a new citizenship, enlightened self-interest, empowerment, stake-holding, the third way. Some insightful commentators have spoken of a politics that recognizes a desire for belonging as well as for belongings. People’s desires not just to consume but also to contribute. Not just society that values getting but a society that values giving.

    I do not want to make this argument anything other than straightforward. These are simple – some might even say traditional values – finding an expression in a new politics: opportunity for all matched by obligations shared by all – a new politics of opportunity and obligation. And around this our policies for stability, enterprise, work and social responsibility are built.

    National Governments in the global economy

    So having talked about some of the reforms the new Government has begun, domestically, and the philosophy that underpins them, let me conclude by saying something about my final point – the growing need for international co-operation between national Governments in the global economy.

    The challenge for all national Governments is how to advance the national economic interest in this new global marketplace. And the role of national Governments cannot be to retreat behind old frontiers – that just will not work, the new frontier is that there are no frontiers – but to play a full and constructive part in shaping the international agenda. And this is what the Government is seeking to do.

    While the recent turmoil in World Economies is centred in a handful of Asian countries, and with its effects most sharply felt in Asia, it is a global problem not an Asian problem. And it is a problem of the modern age. It could not have happened in this way when finance was confined within sheltered national systems, as they were when the international institutions like the IMF were established.

    The turbulent period is not over. Government must remain vigilant, not least against the threat of protectionism which must not be allowed to return as inevitable adjustments take place over the next year.

    But we are also now in a period of reflection about the lessons we can learn and on the way the international monetary system is set up. The institutions and systems we have were created in the main for the old world of national economies. We need to devise new rules, and where necessary reform institutions for the new world of global markets.

    What the world needs is an approach that combines the continued flow of international finance with the right kind of national and international operational rules of the game and public policy framework. The challenge we face is to build the operational rules and institutional architecture we need for the global financial, and thus the stability we need.

    First, we need to strengthen the regulation and supervision of financial institutions.

    Second, we need in every country open accountable and transparent decision- making which informs and educates the public and the markets in a way that commands credibility.

    Third, when crises do occur we need to find new and better ways to involve the private as well as public sector in their resolution.

    Fourth, at all times and particularly at times of crisis we must finds ways to reinforce social cohesion. There need not be a shared understanding of the need for reform and appreciation of the social problems.

    Which is why, at the recent G7 meeting, I proposed four codes of conduct to guide international policymaking: on fiscal policy, monetary and financial policy, corporate governance and welfare state reform.

    And on the continent of Europe, too, where the search for macro-economic stability is being pursued through monetary union, the same lessons are being learnt: that fine tuning cannot work, that fiscal and monetary disciplines are essential, that prudent management of public finances must be combined with action to create a low inflation environment.

    And the British message from our European Presidency is that there must be structural reform in capital, labour and product markets throughout Europe.

    But of course we all know the search for stability has led Europe to new proposals that will be implemented next year – to create both a single currency and a growth and stability pact to ensure sustainable public finances.

    What is the position Britain should take?

    One of the enduring responsibilities of National Governments in global markets is to advance the national economic interest and this forms the basis of our approach to the current debate about the single currency. And I have just set out why we are determined to see Britain fully integrated into a world economy based on free trade, open markets and greater competition.

    We have no intention of surrendering or subjugating the British national interest. Our’s is a mature patriotism. Just as we have no intention of doing anything other than strengthen our participation in the world economy.

    What we have to do is look at how Britain, with 50 per cent of its trade with Europe, will be affected by the single currency.

    The single currency – the Euro – will cover an area that accounts for 20 per cent of the world’s trade – as much as the united states. It will be an important – indeed global – currency.

    As far as Britain’s position is concerned, my statement to the house of commons last October is and will continue to be the policy of the government.

    I said that, in principle, we could see benefits in monetary union. I did not say there are no constitutional implications of a single currency.

    What I did say is that it is because of this that the economic benefits to theUK, as set out in our five economic tests, must be clear and unambiguous.

    To rule out monetary union in principle, and to be prepared to do so even if the economic benefits were overwhelming, is not the right way to advance the British national interest.

    So this is our policy and it will not change – any decision on membership of the single currency will be made in the national economic interest. The benefits of the single currency will be subjected to five economic tests because its benefits must be clear and ambiguous. And if any decision is recommended, there will be referendum of the people.

    But let me just add that more than half of our trade is with Europe, and rather than standing on the sidelines unable to influence the course of the European debate, the government will be engaged and constructive in setting out our ideas for its future.

    Conclusion

    I hope I have been able to convey not just the sense of the new politics, but the purpose and commitment of Tony Blair’s new government.

    Not just the reforms we are undertaking but the reasons we have adopted a new approach.

    And not just the program itself but the principles that underlie the program.

    I hope I have conveyed a sense of the importance and urgency of developing a politics that advances opportunity and recognises responsibility.

    It is a cause, which I believe addresses the economic and social needs of our time.

    I have talked about the dynamism our economy needs and the social cohesion people yearn for.

    I have suggested we need a new politics of economic opportunity and social obligation.

    There was a fashionable view that we had reached the end of history. There is no end of history. There are still divisions that have to be healed, wrongs that have to be righted, vested interests that have to be opened up, goods that have to be promoted, potential that ought to have the chance of being developed.

    Great causes to argue and fight for.

    And that’s probably good news not just for those of us who believe that to be the case but for a global media that I hope will continue to be interested in what we say.

  • Neil O’Brien – 2022 Speech on NHS Dentistry in Salford and Eccles

    Neil O’Brien – 2022 Speech on NHS Dentistry in Salford and Eccles

    The speech made by Neil O’Brien, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this important debate. I share her frustration and am aware that some areas in the country face serious difficulties with access to NHS dental care. She used some powerful examples, which are exactly the kinds of things that we are trying to fix.

    As we recover from the pandemic, activity is going back up again and we want it to go up faster. Dentistry is an important part of the NHS. We are committed to addressing the challenges that NHS dentistry faces in some parts of the country. We are continuing to take important steps to improve access for patients. There are variations around the country, which was already an issue before the pandemic.

    The specific risks from covid in dentistry, for obvious reasons given the nature of the treatment—looking down people’s throats and breathing in the same air—resulted in the need to reduce the amount of care that could be delivered, in line with infection prevention and control measures to keep patients and the workforce safe. The pandemic placed further pressure on the system. However, NHS dentistry provision has been increasing gradually and safely. I am pleased to say that NHS England asked all dental practices to return to 100% of their contracted activity in July this year. Many practices are already delivering at that level and, in some cases, beyond. I will go on to talk about delivering beyond.

    To support the industry during this testing time, we took unprecedented action and provided over £1.7 billion in income protection, to ensure that NHS dentist capacity was retained and services were provided and available after the pandemic. We made an additional £50 million available for NHS dental services at the end of last year, to increase capacity in NHS dental teams. Appointments were given to those in most urgent need of dental treatment, including vulnerable groups and children. As a result of that funding, I am pleased that say that an additional 1,110 patients were seen in Salford. To support the provision of urgent care, more than 170 urgent dental care centres remain open across the country. One of those centres is in the Salford locality, as the hon. Lady knows.

    Across the nation, the system is recovering and delivery of dental care is increasing. In 2021-22, 24,272 dentists performed NHS activity—an increase of 539 on the previous year. In the 12 months to 30 June this year, 5.6 million children were seen by an NHS dentist, compared with 3.9 million children in the same period the previous year. That represents a 43% increase.

    John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

    There have been reports in a number of our constituencies of almost a dental health epidemic. Can the Minister explain whether there will be targeted resources for a number of our constituencies where there is such a high level of child dental ill health?

    Neil O’Brien

    I am exploring how we can best target the places with the most acute problems. There are problems in a lot of different places, and we are thinking about that actively at the moment. I will come back to that as I make progress.

    Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) rose—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wanted to intervene, he ought to have been here right at the beginning, because it is the hon. Lady’s Adjournment debate, and it is about Salford and Eccles? I leave it to him to decide whether he wishes to intervene.

    Neil O’Brien

    I am happy to take whatever interventions are appropriate.

    We know that there are still further improvements to be made. Although I am pleased that over 75% of the patients who tried to get a dental appointment over the last two years were successful, this is not back to the level that we were seeing pre-pandemic, which was 92%. That is why in July and in our plan for patients, which the hon. Lady mentioned, we announced some improvements to the 2006 contract to ensure that patient access was improved, although I want to reassure her that we do not regard those as the end of the story; they were a stepping stone.

    Those changes included: making sure that dentists were remunerated more fairly for complex work, which will improve access for patients; implementing a minimum value of £23 for each unit of dental activity, boosting incomes in the places where the UDA value is lowest; and enabling dental practices to deliver up to 110% of their contract levels, to increase activity and allow those practices that are delivering NHS care most effectively to deliver more. This effectively takes away the cap that has been in place since the 2006 contract, which the hon. Lady mentioned.

    This package will increase and improve access to dental care for patients across the country. We have already taken action to implement these changes, including through regulations that came into effect on 25 November. The changes have all been decided with careful consideration, working collaboratively with the dental sector. The Department has worked with the General Dental Council on legislative proposals that will make registration processes for dental professionals qualified outside the UK more proportionate and streamlined, making the process to join the UK workforce more efficient for dentists from overseas. These changes are another way in which we are seeking to improve access for patients.

    Finally, to make it easier for patients to find dentists taking on new patients, we have made it a requirement for NHS dentists to update their information on the NHS website, which has historically been out of date, but of course we are looking to go further to ensure that those appointments are there. These changes are just the beginning. They are the necessary first steps of our work to improve NHS dentistry. These are the measures that we can take immediately, and they will have a noticeable impact, but we will go further.

    Looking forward into the new year, we have been working with NHS England and the sector on further changes to improve access. Our priorities for this next phase of reform include: improved access to urgent care for patients who need to see someone immediately; better access to care for new patients; and further workforce and payment reform. We aim to take the necessary steps to implement these changes next year, but I am keen to seek every opportunity to take action wherever I can, and ahead of those reforms we are also actively considering what support we can offer to help patients who do not currently have access to the dental system and those who are not attached to a practice, who have the worst access. We are also considering how the recruitment and retention of dentists can be improved, particularly in the parts of the country where the need is greater. We are also thinking further about how overseas qualified dentists can be supported to start working in the NHS more quickly.

    I am strongly committed to improving our NHS dental system wherever I can for all those who need it. The hon. Lady has set out a powerful case today on why we need to go further, and we will go further. I thank her for raising this important debate, and I hope that she will be reassured that although the reforms we have made so far will make a difference, they are far from being the end of the story, and that we will continue to take action to improve access to NHS dentistry across the nation.

  • Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2022 Speech on NHS Dentistry in Salford and Eccles

    Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2022 Speech on NHS Dentistry in Salford and Eccles

    The speech made by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Labour MP for Salford and Eccles, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    The British Dental Association states that NHS dentistry is facing an existential threat. It says that the threat predates the pandemic, when only enough dentistry for about half the population of England was commissioned. Access to NHS dental services was already very poor in many parts of the country, but access problems have now reached an unprecedented scale, with existing deep inequalities in access and outcomes set to widen. Sadly, nowhere are those access problems more acutely felt than in my constituency of Salford and Eccles. I have been receiving unprecedented levels of casework from people who simply cannot access an NHS dentist.

    One constituent works night shifts on minimum wage. She had required urgent root canal treatment for some time but could not find an NHS dentist and could not even contemplate the cost of a private dentist, so, like millions across the country, she struggled on. The problem is now so severe that her tooth is beyond saving with root canal treatment. She is having to consider having it removed, which she is told will cost her several hundred pounds. She has not got several hundred pounds. She does not know where to turn.

    Another constituent, who is also on a low income, had been trying to find an NHS dentist for over two years. They had two broken teeth and other dental issues that they could not afford to have treated privately, so they called the emergency dentist helpline. The helpline advised them to go for private treatment. Now, at only 21 years of age, my constituent cannot afford any dental treatment at all, and they fear that they will end up losing their teeth.

    Another constituent, who is registered with a disability and who works full-time for the NHS on low pay, tried as far as Rochdale and Oldham but eventually had to pay £250 for a private tooth removal that left her with little money to live on until her next pay cheque.

    To assess the severity of the situation, my office rang every single dental practice listed on the NHS website as falling within my constituency, to inquire if they were accepting new adult NHS patients. Every single one said no, and only two said that they were taking on new NHS child patients. What is worse, when I raised that very issue with the Government back in October 2021, I was informed that they had not made an assessment of the numbers of people refused NHS dental treatment, nor did they hold any waiting list data at all on access to NHS dental services in Salford or Greater Manchester. Not even to be aware of the scale of the problem is, in itself, somewhat staggering.

    As I am sure the Minister is aware, this is not just a Salford problem, but a national one. Researchers for the BBC documentary “Disappearing Dentists”, which aired in August, attempted to call every one of the dental practices in the UK that holds an NHS contract. Of the 26 dental practices with NHS contracts across Salford, 96% were not taking new adult NHS patients, and UK-wide, 90% of practices were not taking new adult NHS patients.

    I must pay full credit to the local staff and teams across Salford: all the dentists, hygienists, therapists, nurses and administrators, and the Greater Manchester integrated care partnership’s dental commissioning team. They are giving their absolute best in incredibly difficult circumstances. However, our dental services are under unprecedented strain.

    I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the following issues in his response. First, there has been chronic underfunding of NHS dental services. In real terms, net Government spend on general dental practice in England was cut by over a quarter between 2010 and 2020. It is also important to note that England invests significantly less in dental services per head of population than other parts of the UK. For example, before the pandemic Government spend on NHS dentistry per capita was £37 in England, compared with £49 in Wales, £56 in Northern Ireland and £59 in Scotland. The Minister might respond by saying that in January the Government pledged £50 million for a “dentistry treatment blitz”. However, that was a time-limited, one-off injection of funding which had very modest take-up, as practices were so overstretched in trying to hit unrealistic activity targets that they struggled to find any additional capacity. The British Dental Association estimates that it would take £1.5 billion a year just to restore dental budgets to their 2010 levels. I hope that the Minister will agree to take back a proposal to his Department for the ringfencing of long-term funding on that scale.

    Secondly, the current target-based NHS dental contract is causing serious problems in the recruitment and retention of staff. The British Dental Association says that we are facing an “exodus” of dentists from the service: 75% of dentists surveyed are thinking of reducing their NHS commitments next year alone. Central to this is not only the issue of chronic underfunding that I have already mentioned, but the current discredited target-based dental contract that was imposed on the profession in 2006 and was widely considered unsustainable and unfit for purpose even before the pandemic. Indeed, in 2010 both Labour and the Conservatives committed to amending the contract. It sets restrictions on the number of NHS patients that a dentist can see, and it punishes dentists for taking on new patients with high needs.

    The Minister may, of course, refer to a package of marginal changes that the Government introduced in November, including dentists’ updating a “find a dentist” website regularly with details of the availability of appointments, a higher reward for treating three or more teeth, and a new payment rate for complex treatment. While those are of course welcome changes, sadly there is little point in setting up a “find a dentist” website for appointments when the Government know that no appointments are actually available.

    Furthermore, the British Dental Association states that the changes will do little to arrest the exodus of dentists from the service or to address the crisis in patient access, given that they have been introduced with no additional funding. With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister told me when formal negotiations on fundamental long-term reform of the dental contract are due to begin.

    A constituent contacted me to express concern about the Government’s plan to go ahead with proposed changes pursuant to the recent consultation on changes to the General Dental Council’s international registration legislation despite the large number of respondents who have raised issues relating to the proposal. I hope that the Minister will take those concerns on board, and will agree to review it.

    Thirdly, let me stress to the Minister that NHS dentistry must cease to be treated as an afterthought in healthcare policymaking. Changes in primary care commissioning in the Health and Care Act 2022 must not lead to further cuts, and dental services must be represented adequately in the governance structures of the new integrated care systems.

    Let me finally point out that prevention is key, but has lost its way somewhat in recent years. The Government must undertake to build on historical commitments to prevention, in parallel with support for dental services. That must include supervised brushing in early years settings, dedicated funding for new water fluoridation schemes, and measures to reduce sugar consumption.

    I hope that the Minister has listened to the concerns I have raised and will address each point in turn, rather than reiterating previous Government responses on what they have done so far. What the Government have done so far clearly is not working. If my constituents cannot get access to an NHS dentist across Salford and Eccles, something needs to change urgently. Access to dental treatment should be a right, not a luxury.

    As I set out at the start, NHS dentistry faces an existential threat. My constituents are not receiving the access to care that they deserve. It is clear that urgent action is required. Finally, let me take this opportunity to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a fantastic Christmas and a happy New Year, and the same to the Minister and all staff in the House.

  • Douglas Ross – 2022 Speech on Alcohol Duty

    Douglas Ross – 2022 Speech on Alcohol Duty

    The speech made by Douglas Ross, the Conservative MP for Moray, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)

    It is encouraging to hear support from across the House for these duty reforms, which were originally announced as a manifesto commitment at Roseisle distillery in my constituency. Of course, Moray is home to more Scotch whisky distilleries than any other constituency in the House. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) says, many are very good ones. I have been pressing both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to maintain the freeze on duty for Scotch whisky for as long as possible, which is important for the entire industry and the jobs that rely on it. Will the Exchequer Secretary take on board what the Father of the House said? When it comes to the Budget in March, will the Government listen to the industry, which has time after time proven wrong Treasury officials who predicted that an increase in duty would increase revenue to the Treasury? In fact, a freeze in duty increases revenue to the Treasury and it would be welcome to see that continuing.

    James Cartlidge

    I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great knowledge on these matters. He has been a consistent champion for the Scotch whisky industry, standing up for it in this place, whether on tariffs or duties. I know that he was lobbying the Chancellor and the Prime Minster to continue the freeze, so I hope that he is pleased with the result. On what happens going forward, I will engage with the Scotch whisky industry and indeed all the other alcohol sectors. The clear point is that the extension of the freeze is good news for every single sector and I hope that colleagues welcome that.

  • Stewart Hosie – 2022 Speech on Alcohol Duty

    Stewart Hosie – 2022 Speech on Alcohol Duty

    The speech made by Stewart Hosie, the SNP MP for Dundee East, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    I welcome the statement. I have long supported an alcohol content duty regime, and I hope that it delivers the fairness that the sector needs. As a gentle aside, may I say that we did not need Brexit to bring in this regime? The UK could have applied for a derogation, but it chose, over decades, not to do that.

    I have some technical questions. The previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), announced a one-year freeze on alcohol duty in “The Growth Plan 2022”; that was due to cost £545 million in 2023-24. The current Chancellor scrapped that, but anticipates an additional yield of £1.3 billion in 2023-24; that was in the autumn statement 2022. First, how can a one-year freeze cost £500 million, while its cancellation in the same year suddenly generates £1.3 billion of additional yield? Also, we have been told that the freeze is being reintroduced and will last until August. How much will that cost the Exchequer?

    The proposals following the post-2021 Budget consultation have been reported as having a modest cost of only £25 million next year—that was in the autumn statement Green Book. But this statement seems to suggest that the cost to the Exchequer of the draught beer relief scheme alone will be £100 million a year. Will the Minister explain what the net cost of this measure will be either to the Exchequer, or to the industry? As things stand, the numbers are not clear and in some cases do not add up.

    James Cartlidge

    I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman supports the principle of the reform package that will come into place next August. I hope Members across the House can do so. The cost obviously depends on what decision is made in the Budget next year. That is a matter for the Chancellor at the time. We know that that will be on 15 March, so there is not too long to wait.

    The right hon. Gentleman made the point that it was not necessary to leave the European Union to make these changes. To be clear, EU law does not allow member states to differentiate beverages on qualitative characteristics such as whether the product is on draught. EU law actively discourages any attempt to support the on-trade through the duty system. That is also true for a system based on ABV; by and large, that would have been very difficult as well. The fact is that this is a radical reform and it has been made possible by Brexit.

  • Peter Bottomley – 2022 Speech on Alcohol Duty

    Peter Bottomley – 2022 Speech on Alcohol Duty

    The speech made by Sir Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    Like the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), who speaks for the Opposition, I support what has been announced today. I declare an interest: I drink most things, except super-strength draught cider.

    On wine, using an average rate of 12.5% is right; stepped rates would not have worked, because growers do not know what strength a wine will be—the strength fluctuates naturally. A revenue-neutral level makes sense. I hope that this approach will continue beyond the 18 months.

    I hope that the Minister will consider whether farm-gate concessions can be made for the growing number of vineyards in this country. I hope that between now and the Budget the Chancellor will calculate the price and tax elasticity, because often, when duty rates are frozen, revenue goes up. There have been times when the rate has gone up and the revenue has gone down, which is perverse.

    James Cartlidge

    I am grateful to the Father of the House for his question—I do not think that I will ever get another that mentions both elasticity and high-strength cider; it was an interesting combination of points. He made a very good point about wine. I have enjoyed engaging with all the main alcohol sectors, mainly in November, in the run-up to the making of this decision. As he knows, we are requiring all wine between 11.5% and 14.5% ABV to be treated as though it were 12.5% ABV for the purpose of calculating the duty rate. That will apply for 18 months, so there is a transition. We have to ask ourselves: if that were made permanent, would it not undermine a regime that is ultimately based on taxation by strength? I understand my hon. Friend’s point and will continue to engage with the sector on it.

  • Abena Oppong-Asare – 2022 Speech on Alcohol Duty

    Abena Oppong-Asare – 2022 Speech on Alcohol Duty

    The speech made by Abena Oppong-Asare, the Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Government have confirmed that they are freezing alcohol duty rates for six months. I know that the sector will welcome the announcement, especially given the difficulties that businesses are facing, whether they are producers, suppliers or hospitality venues. I must say, however, that it is absolutely laughable that the Government have announced the change in the name of certainty. We should call it what it is: a U-turn. The previous Chancellor announced a freeze, the current Chancellor scrapped it, and now it is back on.

    How did we get here? In October 2020 the Government announced a call for evidence to seek views on how the alcohol duty system could be reformed. At the time, they said that they would make the system

    “simpler, more economically rational and less administratively burdensome on businesses and HMRC.”

    What we have seen since then, however, is indecision, U-turns and delays.

    The Government finally published a response to the alcohol duty consultation in September this year. Then in the shambolic mini-Budget that crashed the British economy, the then Chancellor announced a freeze on alcohol duty that was due to come into force in February 2023. The new Chancellor scrapped the planned freeze, however, in October’s autumn statement—just a couple of months ago. We now have a screeching U-turn; the freeze is back in place.

    We see again that the Government have no long-term plan for the British economy. They cannot provide the certainty that businesses and their hard-working employees need to plan for the tough winter ahead. They have left businesses and consumers out in the cold. They may not want to hear it, but that is the reality. They are unsure what regulatory systems will be in place in as little as two months.

    Today, Labour found that more than 70,000 venues have had to reduce their opening hours due to the price of energy bills, which means that almost a third of pubs, bars and hotels are missing out on customers at the busiest and most profitable time of the year. Those businesses and producers of wine, beer, cider and spirits enrich our communities and boost our high streets. I recently popped into the Standard, a pub in my Erith and Thamesmead constituency, which is really struggling with soaring energy bills and the lack of Government support. It needs the Government to be on its side. The Government promised to tell the House what the new energy bills support scheme would look like before Christmas, but we have yet to hear anything from them. Only Labour has set out a long-term plan to get our economy growing again.

    Looking to the future, we agree with the principles behind the alcohol duty review and we want the alcohol duty system to be made simpler and more consistent. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck between supporting businesses and consumers and protecting public health, and maintaining a source of revenue for the Exchequer, but this statement leaves many questions unanswered.

    Can the Minister give an indication of his plans for duty reforms in the coming spring? Can he confirm whether the alcohol duty reform package will be implemented in full? If so, what impact assessment has been carried out on the impact of the transition to the new duty regime? I hope that he can provide some clarity. The alcohol sector and the businesses and jobs that it supports have suffered enough uncertainty and U-turns. These are major changes that will affect businesses and consumers in all our constituencies, so I hope that they will be properly thought through and that we will not see last-minute policy announcements and changes, as we have today.

    James Cartlidge

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady. To be clear, this is good news for every single part of our alcohol industry and for those who drink in our pubs. Crucially, it gives certainty to the industry. The hospitality industry employed 2.1 million people at the latest reckoning, so it is a huge part of our economy and we want to do what we can to support it.

    The hon. Lady mentioned a U-turn. To be clear, we said that we would introduce a radical reform of alcohol duty, and we will introduce that reform. It will come into effect next August. That reform could not have happened if we had not left the European Union. It will introduce, for the very first time, differential duty rates on tap and in the supermarkets. The public want that, because they value their pubs and understand the importance of pubs to their communities. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady intervenes, having sat down. She talked about her local pub. Obviously, we want to assist her local pub, and all pubs up and down the country; that is why we have put in place an energy bill relief scheme worth £18.1 billion, which is a huge intervention.

    The energy bill relief scheme is very generous, but it is expensive, and we need to ensure longer-term affordability and value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we are carrying out a review of the scheme, with the aim of reducing the public finances’ exposure to volatile international energy prices from April 2023. We will announce the outcome of the review in the new year to ensure that businesses have sufficient certainty about future support before the scheme ends in March 2023. We should remember that this energy-related support comes on the back of the enormous support that we put in place during the pandemic. There were grants, bounce back loans, and of course furlough for all staff working in the hospitality sector.

    We are proceeding with this ambitious reform package next year. We felt that it was appropriate to give the sector certainty as soon as possible that it would face only one uprating. That is the right thing to do, and it shows that the Government are supporting the hospitality industry.