UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Speech at the British-Swiss Chamber of Commerce in Central London

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Speech at the British-Swiss Chamber of Commerce in Central London

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 19 May 2003.

    It’s a great privilege to be here to speak to you today. The British-Swiss Chamber of Commerce has a vital role to play in developing business relations between Britain and Switzerland.

    It’s a role you play with distinction.

    I would like to address three issues which are of common interest to all those concerned with the future- its business environment and, its place in Europe.

    In turn, I want to deal with our competitiveness, the euro and the proposed European Constitution.
    I have three propositions for you today.

    First, that Britain’s competitive position is being undermined…

    both by the micro-economic management of a Government that does not understand how business works and by the impact of its failure to reform our public services on our tax position, our public finances and our quality of life.

    Second, that addressing these root causes of declining competitiveness is what matters most to Britain and its business economy – not focusing on joining the euro. Labour’s political obsession with the latter is to the detriment of us all.

    Third, that Europe will not be improved by deeper integration and the strengthening of its institutions – but rather by bringing democratic power and accountability closer to all the peoples of Europe by reinforcing the autonomous power of nation states.

    We will lead this fight.

    Competitiveness

    Britain does not enjoy the quality of life it should.

    · There are a million people on Britain’s hospital waiting lists.
    · One in four children leave our primary schools unable to read, write and count properly.
    · Thirty thousand children leave our secondary schools without a single GCSE.
    · 39 out of every 40 crimes go unpunished by a conviction.
    · And British people spend longer commuting to work than any other people in Europe.

    The Labour Government’s only answer has been to spend more and more taxpayers’ money.

    By the end of their current plans, real terms spending on health will have doubled — and on education will have risen by 50 per cent.

    That’s why the government tax take has already risen by the equivalent of an extra five and a half thousand pounds a year for every household in Britain.

    And that’s why public borrowing is now spiralling upwards too.

    This is nothing less than a massive tax and spend gamble.

    And our competitiveness is fast being eroded.

    Britain is once more becoming a place where people do not want to do business.

    Business investment is falling and savings have collapsed.

    Burdens on business are up and our competitiveness and productivity growth are down.

    The CBI believes Labour’s extra tax and regulations have added as much as £15 billion a year to the cost of doing business in Britain.

    And since 1997

    · we’ve lost over half a million jobs in manufacturing,
    · we’ve seen the number of days lost to strikes increased sixfold
    · and we’ve fallen from 9th to 16th in the World Competitiveness rankings.

    But more than this, we understand that competitiveness is not just about economic efficiency.

    To compete means being a country where people want to live and where businesses actively choose to locate their operations.

    A place that can attract and retain the best talent and the most investment.

    A place with something extra to offer.

    To compete means being a nation with a well educated, highly qualified workforce that doesn’t waste weeks every year, off sick, or stuck in traffic jams.

    As a global competitor, we have lost a lot of ground.

    With taxes up, we’re a more expensive place to do business.

    With regulation up, we’re no longer an easy place to do business.

    With our public services in decay, we’re no longer a magnet for talent or investment.

    So how would a Conservative administration be different?

    First, we are, by nature, a party of lower tax.

    We believe that governments should measure success not by how much money they spend, but how well – and how carefully – they spend it.

    Second, a Conservative Government will not second-guess everything business does.

    We will not be over-interfering in the way businesses are run.

    Third, on public services we are committed to a strategy of real reform — widening choice and rooting out bureaucratic waste.

    This is what it will take if we are to begin to deliver a fair deal for everyone.

    And if we fail, Britain will be a less competitive place as a result.

    Euro

    My second proposition is that rather than addressing these problems, the Government is obsessed with the euro.

    Look at the mess they are in.

    Last Wednesday, they told the BBC they had reached an agreement.

    By Thursday morning they were having to deny that.

    And shortly afterwards, they announced that the Chancellor’s conclusions on the euro would be delayed until June 9.

    In the meantime, special Cabinet sessions have been called to thrash out the issue.

    The Chancellor, the Prime Minister and their factions are still clearly miles apart on whether they will rule out a euro vote before the next election.

    And Cabinet Ministers have been contradicting each other every other day.

    Last Sunday, John Reid said it was a question of when Britain would join the euro.

    Then on Wednesday, Jack Straw said it was first of all a question of if Britain should join.

    On Thursday, John Prescott said they hadn’t even decided whether the question itself was if or when.

    On Friday, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were so concerned about the depth of the splits that they issued a joint statement to deny there were any splits at all.

    And yet we now hear that the Prime Minister does not want to hold a full Cabinet discussion on the euro until he has marched members of the Cabinet in one by one to beat up the Chancellor in private.

    I have a simple message for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor – let us all see the available evidence now.

    That way, we can weigh all the facts up for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

    The Conservatives’ position is clear.

    We would not take Britain into the euro because we believe that giving up our ability to set our own interest rates would be…

    · bad for British jobs…
    · bad for the British economy….
    · and bad for the British people.

    We believe Gordon Brown’s five tests are a sham.

    Of course the Chancellor is right to say that it would be damaging to join the euro…

    · without the necessary convergence or flexibility…
    · or if joining would be bad for investment, financial services, or jobs.

    But there is no case for saying that any of these tests have been met.

    France has 2.5 million people unemployed; and Germany nearly double that.

    It is impossible to see how the Government could argue that joining the euro would be good for jobs.

    In fact, the opposite is true.

    But, of course, these economic tests are no more than an elaborate smokescreen.

    Because the only test that matters to the Government is the political one.

    They may pretend that they want to join the euro for economic reasons.

    They may argue that remaining outside the euro will damage our economic prospects – hitting our competitiveness, our trade performance and our ability to attract investment.

    But the fact is that despite being outside the euro, Britain remains a more attractive destination for inward investment than any eurozone country.

    We remain the world’s third favourite location for inward investors, after China and the United States.

    Not being in the euro has done our investment performance no harm at all.

    And the example of Switzerland, for that matter, shows that it is possible to live prosperously alongside the euro, at the heart of Europe, without adopting the single currency.

    But we will not retain our position for long if our domestic competitiveness continues to be undermined and we cease to be an attractive place to do business.

    Our trade performance tells the same story.

    In the euro’s first three years, British goods exports to the eurozone grew by 26.4 per cent – faster than France, Germany or Italy.

    But again, in the long term, our trade performance will depend on our ability to provide goods and services to a competitive standard at a competitive cost.

    So long as our productivity growth stagnates as it has for the past five years, we are in danger of slipping behind our competitors.

    And by that I do not just mean our competitors in the EU, but all those around the world.
    As we speak, the current uncertainty is doing damage to our competitive position.

    The Government is split and concentrating on healing political rows rather than on healing the public services.

    And, meanwhile, business is crying out for more certainty.

    My message to the Prime Minister is simple.

    Ever since becoming Prime Minister he has made it clear that he is in favour of the euro in principle.

    If, despite all the economic evidence, and despite all the splits in his Cabinet, he remains determined to take Britain into the euro, then…

    …he should admit that his is an entirely political decision…
    …and he should get on with calling a referendum so the British people can have their say.

    If not, he should forget about it and get on with what matters to the British people – delivering sustained prosperity and world-class public services.

    Constitution

    I am going to turn now to my third and final proposition – that the Government’s policy on the European Constitution, like its policy on the euro, threatens to give people a raw deal.

    The Convention on the Future of Europe is drawing up a draft constitution that may determine the shape of Europe for the next half-century.

    But right now, Europe faces tougher challenges than it has for many years.

    For a long time, we Conservatives have argued that the European Union is faced with a crisis of democracy and accountability.

    Turnout in European elections has fallen below fifty per cent across Europe.

    The peoples of Europe feel little ownership of European institutions.

    But at the same time the Europe Union is growing.

    Ten new states will join next year, increasing the EU’s population to four hundred and fifty million.

    We have always seen enlargement as one of the European Union’s most important tasks.

    But I fear that the direction being taken by the draft European Constitution will do little to serve the interests of the people of Europe, present or future.

    The peoples of Europe, and most particularly those in enlargement states, want jobs and prosperity — but the EU’s economic performance has been poor, and unemployment is far too high.

    Across the EU, people also want to feel connected to the laws and institutions that government them — but at present, our democracies face a great challenge — people feel alienated from the political process.

    Economic reform and political connection – these are the two points a modern, forward-looking EU should focus on.

    But though it is clear — and almost universally agreed — that the EU is in desperate need of reform — the Convention is looking backwards towards a vision of Europe that is wholly outdated.

    Now is not the time for more centralization and deeper integration in the EU.

    It’s time, as can be seen so clearly from the health of democracy in Switzerland, to reinforce democracy in nation states.

    The Conservative Party has a different vision of the future of the European Union.

    We want to see the decentralising of powers back towards national parliaments.

    Not least because, in the case of many of the new, enlargement states, these Parliaments are young, hopeful institutions we should seek to support, not to undermine.

    That way we can achieve a Europe that is more democratic, more accountable, and better suited to enlargement.

    And it is because we believe so passionately in an alternative and, we think, better vision of a modern Europe…

    …because we believe in the dream of a prosperous, harmonious, enlarged Europe that works for all its people…
    …we believe that the people of Britain should have the opportunity to vote on any proposed European Constitution.

    Since the current Labour Government came to power in 1997, there have been 34 referendums in Britain.

    Referendums have been held on everything from devolution to elected mayors – and have been promised on regional assemblies.

    In short, referendums have become the norm wherever changes have been proposed to the way people are represented and governed.

    But when it comes to the European Constitution – a constitution that will decide how every person in this country is governed, regardless of where they live – the Government doesn’t think the British people need a say.

    The Government’s defence is that the European Constitution will merely be a ‘tidying-up exercise’.

    Let’s challenge that assertion.

    The Prime Minister meets Giscard d’Estaing tonight.

    If this is merely a tidying up exercise, then a lot of what is currently being proposed must be dropped.

    Not least the plans for…

    · a single European foreign minister
    · a Constitution with legally enforceable fundamental rights
    · the establishment of legal status for the EU – the prerequisite of a state
    · the bringing of foreign, defence and home affairs, including asylum and immigration policy, under European jurisdiction
    · the extension of EU competence over criminal law including the establishment of an EU public prosecutor.
    · the adoption of qualified majority voting, rather than unanimity, as the default mode of European decision making
    · and plans to establish a fixed term five year presidency of the EU, even if that means Tony Blair having to reconsider what he will do with his retirement.

    Unless these, and other, items are dropped, then this cannot be called mere tidying up.

    As things stand, there can be no doubt that the draft constitution proposes deep and dangerous changes to how the British people, and all other peoples of Europe, are governed.

    What could strengthen the Prime Minister’s negotiating position more, and what could reassure those who fear what will emerge from this Convention more, than a commitment to giving the British people the right to make up their own minds on a proposed European Constitution?

    In just six years they have held 34 referendums.

    And there are many more to come.

    But on the only two issues of absolutely crucial importance to every single person in Britain – membership of the euro and signing up to a European Constitution – the Government is playing political games.

    On the euro, it has promised a referendum – but is clearly planning to call one only if and when it believes it can win.

    On the Constitution it speaks volumes that the Government has so arrogantly dismissed calls for the British people to have any say at all.

    It refuses to grant them a referendum.

    Contrast this with Switzerland, where a series of referendums were held only yesterday.

    Conclusion

    Historically, Britain is a great trading nation.

    Globally, we were the forefathers of free trade.

    We retain close and important ties with Switzerland and with so many countries across the world, within the EU and outside it.

    At home, a Conservative Government will recognize that it is the flexibility and innovation at the heart of our economy that determines our ability to compete internationally, far more than whether or not we share the same currency as others.

    We believe that if we hold no-one in our society back, we will be better placed to achieve this competitiveness and to ensure that no-one in our country is left behind.

    Internationally, we recognize that people don’t want a European super-state that leaves them feeling alienated from the faceless institutions that make their laws.

    The people of Europe deserve to live in a harmonious union of free moving, free trading nations, fostering prosperity and stability.

    The nations of Europe should settle for nothing less.

  • Caroline Spelman – 2003 Speech on Government and Iraq

    Caroline Spelman – 2003 Speech on Government and Iraq

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman in Westminster Hall on 4 June 2003.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for securing this debate. There has been a dearth of debate on Iraq, particularly in the post-conflict period. Since Baghdad fell, we have been short of opportunities to discuss the matter. I believe that we are all glad to welcome the Minister back to the Department for International Development, but I am sure that the frustration of Members is tangible to him. He should be exonerated from the comments and criticisms that I am about to make because he was not in the Department during the period in question, but I have to ask why the contingency planning was so poor.

    As the former Secretary of State admitted in an interview on the Politics Show this past weekend,

    ‘the preparations for post conflict were poor, and we’ve got the chaos and suffering that we’ve got now.’

    She went on to say that the advice that she was giving about the need

    ‘to keep order, to keep basic humanitarian services running’

    was, to quote her, ‘all being ignored’.

    Those extremely serious allegations need further scrutiny. We cannot expect the Minister in a Westminster Hall debate of an hour and a half to give adequate answers to all the questions that have been asked, but there must be a thorough post mortem on why the contingency planning for the war was so poor.

    There is no excuse for the terrible sense of déjà vu that we are experiencing. The lessons from Afghanistan, which was a recent conflict, were not applied. The record in Hansard shows that in November and December last year the Secretary of State was deluged with questions, in which she was asked what contingency plans her Department was making for a possible conflict in Iraq. The record bears me out that a one-word answer of ‘None’ was given. In January, when asked what discussions were taking place with the Governments of surrounding countries about dealing with the impact of the conflict, the answer that came back was, ‘None.’

    I do not exonerate the former Secretary of State (Clare Short) from blame. It is unfortunate that she is not here this morning, participating in the debate. While criticising the poor planning, she should also be willing to answer some criticisms about her role in the matter. I feel strongly about such issues. There is a clear need to prioritise quickly. As other hon. Members have said, the key lesson is security, security, security. That should have been learned from Afghanistan and should have come as no surprise. The lack of security hits the vulnerable in Iraq most severely. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said, it is women who suffer the most in the post-conflict scenario. It was recently reported that 13 schoolchildren were abducted from school in central Baghdad. It is not safe to get on with ordinary life. That is the reality of the situation, so we can hardly say that we have fulfilled our role in accordance with the Geneva convention as an occupying force restoring and maintaining law and order. That is a clear failing.

    Children are the other vulnerable group. I was appalled to learn that there is no possibility of a child nutrition survey. I saw shepherd boys lying in hospital in Kuwait, who had been injured in the conflict. A 14-year-old weighed only four and a half stone as a result of chronic malnutrition. There is an urgent need to help the most vulnerable, but that cannot be done without security.

    I join other hon. Members in chiding the Government on their contingency planning for phase 4. Clearly, it has failed. Phase 4 envisaged taking on board the Iraqi army and police, purging and vetting the Ba’athist elements and recycling them to help keep the peace in their own country. We were told that that did not work out because people removed their uniforms and went home with their automatic weaponry, which aggravated the security situation. Given the lessons learned in Afghanistan, will the Minister explain why there was no back-up plan for phase 4? The advantage about Iraq was that at least there was an army and a police force, and some possibility of recycling them.

    What is the thinking about inter-ethnic tension? Kirkuk has become a no-go area for the non-governmental organisations to work in because the returning Kurds are at loggerheads with the Arabs. The problem is spreading to Mosul. The situation is entirely predictable. It could have been envisaged in any contingency plan that was made last year. How does the coalition intend to deal with a situation that is only likely to become worse? I flag that up now to try to prevent a disaster from happening.

    After decades of distorted priorities under Saddam Hussein and the impact of sanctions, it is no surprise that the utilities are in such a bad state. It is a good deal worse than a sticking plaster job. The fact that there were no spares for the power stations and water supply plants has produced a chronic situation. It could all have been envisaged in the contingency planning. I have received calls from people who work in the utilities here and who want to help to restore the utilities there. Why were such matters not factored into contingency planning? Why were experts who were willing to help with the problem not lined up in advance? I reiterate that we need a proper post mortem into why the Government’s contingency planning for Iraq was so weak.

    What about the relationship with the United Nations? Resolution 1483 gives America and Britain legal cover to occupy and govern Iraq, but it has been said by the leaders of our countries that the UN will have a “vital” role to play. However, so far it seems to be very much the junior partner. The group whose role is most consistently eroded seems to be the Iraqi people. On 2 April, the Prime Minister said:

    ‘Iraq should not be run either by the coalition or by the UN but should be run by the Iraqis.’

    Is that still the case? Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s envoy to Iraq, John Sawers, told The Times that the Iraqis are not ready for democracy and that the coalition would appoint a political committee of 25 to 30 Iraqis. What role do the Government expect the Iraqi people, and women in particular, to play in running their own country?

    None of my remarks is intended to denigrate the hard work and accomplishments of our armed forces—we are all proud of what they have achieved in Iraq.

    The information that I have received from recently returned aid workers is that the Iraqi people are, contrary to much of what we hear in the media, delighted to be rid of Saddam Hussein and glad to have British forces there trying to restore order amid the anarchy. Of course, they would like the current phase to end, and they would like to see a plan setting out the way forward.

    However, that should not detract from the role that our armed forces played in liberating the country from the repression that it suffered for far too long. The coalition’s victory over Saddam was swift and impressive, and our forces did Britain proud in their successful prosecution of the campaign. Our responsibility is to ensure that we do not ruin the peace.

  • Jonathan Evans – 2003 Speech Ahead of the Preparation for the European Council in Thessaloniki

    Jonathan Evans – 2003 Speech Ahead of the Preparation for the European Council in Thessaloniki

    The speech made by Jonathan Evans, the then Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, on 4 June 2003.

    Mr President,

    I congratulate you, President-in-Office, on the progress that has been made during the Greek Presidency on progressing enlargement. The special Athens Council in April was a landmark in the history of Europe following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and we look forward to the ten applicant states taking their rightful place in the new Europe.

    However, looking at the priorities which were set out by the Presidency, two of them in particular have, sadly, been a disappointment.

    First, the Lisbon process. After three years, this agenda is stalled, indeed going backwards. It is disappointing that the Presidency has been unable to persuade Governments to get their act together on an issue that is fundamental to the prosperity of people across the Union. As a result, many EU countries are looking to a future of economic stagnation and deflation.

    Second, the Presidency wanted to see “the new Europe as an international motor for peace and co-operation”. Of course, the Iraq crisis was a difficult one. However, the way in which, during the Greek Presidency, the ‘Gang of Four’ convened in April in Brussels to consider alternative defence structures to NATO, merely reinforced anti-American sentiment.

    Thessaloniki will also mark the end of the Convention on the Future of Europe, when former President Giscard presents the conclusions of eighteen months of discussion. The Convention still has work to do in the coming two weeks, but I wanted to comment today on the emerging draft Articles published last week.

    At Laeken, Heads of State and Government said: “Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens”. Having looked at the draft Articles in this Convention document, I fear that this noble ambition has fallen somewhat short of the mark. Indeed, I would say that, in many ways, it heads in precisely the opposite direction.

    The Convention is proposing a European Union that is more centralised, more bureaucratic, in many ways less democratic and certainly more federalist than is currently the case.

    I am a long-standing supporter of Britain’s membership of the European Union. But, the document that Heads of Government are likely to see in Thessaloniki is one that does, in my view, change the nature of the relationship between Member States and the European Union.

    In summary:

    A Constitution

    Incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

    Legal status for the Union

    A President for the EU

    A Foreign Minister for the EU

    The collapse of the second and third pillars

    A Common Foreign and Security Policy

    The eventual framing of an EU defence policy

    A requirement for economic policies to be co-ordinated

    Harmonisation of certain taxes

    The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor

    The British Government has called the Constitution a “tidying-up exercise”, and therefore not worthy of being put to the people in a referendum. In contrast, the Danish Prime Minister is to submit the Constitution to a referendum because: “the EU’s constitution is so new and large a document that it would be right to hold a referendum on it”. 80% of the British public agrees.

    The former Prime Minister of Italy, Lamberto Dini, who also sits in the Convention, has said: “The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people’s lives … “.

    This is not just a case of the British Government dismissing the right of the British people to have a say on their own future, it is also that the Convention proposals fundamentally change the relationship between the Union and the Member States and the way in which we are all governed.

    For those who have cherished the concept of a United States of Europe, the blueprint has been set out by Giscard, and the debate on the consequences of this draft Constitution should be based on this fundamental fact so honestly and sincerely articulated by President Prodi and many speeches in this debate.

    When the Inter-Governmental Conference begins its work later this year, my Party is determined to see that the accession states not only have a right to contribute to the discussion, they must also have a vote in Council on the crucial decisions it will take. The outcome of the IGC will impact on people in Warsaw, Prague and Budapest, just as much as London, Paris and Berlin. It is unacceptable for the EU 15 to impose a radical new Constitution on these new Member States without them having a proper, democratic role in the outcome.

    We have long been the most ardent supporters of enlargement and the rights of the accession states to take their place at the European top table. But our Europe is one where diversity is celebrated, not one where countries are forced into an institutional straightjacket. We want a Europe that is democratic, prosperous, works with the United States to defend our freedoms and confront common threats. The Convention takes us down a different route to a Europe where the nation state is no longer the foundation on which the Union rests.

  • Damian Green – 2003 Speech at the LGA Conference

    Damian Green – 2003 Speech at the LGA Conference

    The speech made by Damian Green, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Education, on 5 June 2003.

    Last summer when I addressed your conference in Swindon, I arrived to be greeted by the local paper, which had as its entire front page a strong attack on Estelle Morris for snubbing the LEA and letting down Swindon’s schools. It is interesting to see that 12 months on, with a new Secretary of State, there has been such a huge improvement in relations between the Department for Education and Local Government—or so David Miliband tells me.

    I am for obvious reasons going to talk today about the funding crisis that is hitting schools up and down the country, in areas controlled by different political parties, in urban as well as rural areas. But I want to be constructive. I want to devote most of my speech to positive proposals about the future freedoms we need to give to schools, and the future role for successful LEAs.

    I will just say a few words about the current fiasco. It is not often that a Conservative politician has the pleasure of quoting the New Statesman, so I will enjoy agreeing with Francis Beckett in last week’s magazine. He wrote “Charles Clarke, the Education Secretary, has for three weeks focussed his formidable political intellect on the schools budget crisis. Unfortunately he has not focussed on solving it. He has focussed on shifting the blame.”

    Exactly right. I think the Government owes an apology to LEAs for trying to set them as the fall guys for this crisis. I have seen many of the letters your councils have written showing how much money you were passing to schools. Detailed, factual letters, which have blown out of the water the idea that there is a five hundred million pound gap where the money has simply disappeared. I think everyone here knows that the crisis has been caused by a toxic combination of a local Government settlement that treated some councils much better than others, and a raft of increased costs on our schools which all but cancelled out the extra money that was put in. Stir in a dash of fancy footwork with standards fund money and you have the current mess.

    So let’s spend today looking forward instead of back. What I think would be the worst outcome from this crisis would be a new funding system devised in a hurry, because the Secretary of State is having a fit of pique with Local Government. Whatever your views about how to fund our schools, policy making on the hoof, driven by a sense of crisis and the search for scapegoats, will always be bad policy-making.

    It is extraordinary to realise that in one part of the Whitehall jungle the Deputy Prime Minister is running a committee designed to provide an LEA-based solution for future school funding, which is told to report by the end of this month, and next door the Prime Minister’s officials are working hard on a solution which cuts out the LEAs altogether. We are told that the Education Secretary is in the second camp.

    This is a lousy way to make policy. If we are to have effective and long lasting policy, rather than eye-catching press releases and poor delivery, Policy needs to be considered and evaluated. It should not be a knee-jerk reaction to a crisis, however serious, and it should certainly not be used as an excuse to shift the blame for current problems.

    The first step towards devising a funding system which will stand a chance of being fair and durable is to set it in the context of a regime which gives a clear role to Local Education Authorities, and freedoms for schools so that they can be the driving force for improvements in standards.

    Every policy these days needs a road map. So I think there should be a road map by which schools can become genuinely autonomous institutions. I think there should be a radical cut in the power of Government to interfere in the day-to-day running of our schools. I want this because the decisions that will improve the performance of schools year after year have to be made by heads, teachers, governors and parents.

    The guiding principle, as I have said, is that schools run schools best. By far the biggest influence on the standards set by a school is the effectiveness of the Head. So I want to go much further than the rather half-hearted attempts at decentralisation that the Government has already set out. The concept of ‘earned autonomy’ is, by any standards, a nonsense. The phrase itself is an oxymoron. If you are autonomous you cannot have earned it from a higher authority. And in practice the policy of earned autonomy is being implemented a rather arbitrary and centralising way.

    So we will replace this with a concept of assumed autonomy. If a school wants to be autonomous, and they have met some transparent criteria about standards in performance, discipline and governance, it will be their choice as a school whether they accept autonomous status. If they do, they will have control over how you spend they money, which will come to the school in a direct lump sum, and therefore mean that they will have more freedoms in other key areas.

    This autonomy will give schools the choice to manage their own affairs, remain under the control of their local authority, or join a federation of other autonomous schools. They could choose to employ their own teachers, have control over their own spending, and decide from where they buy support services such as transport, payroll, or catering.

    My intention is that the vast majority of schools would qualify for these freedoms. Obviously those who are seeing poor results, unacceptable disciplinary standards, or problems with general governance will need to be helped to reach the acceptable standard. But these will be the exceptions. One of the key functions of OFSTED, which will continue to undertake inspections, will be to look at these schools to put them back to full health.

    Clearly if schools are to be given the choice to be autonomous there is a significant change in the role of the Local Education Authority. Good LEAs will have a role in providing services that schools do not want to manage for themselves. For example, transport in many rural areas, perhaps Special Education Needs, payroll services. I am sure that local authorities that have a good track record in providing support services will continue to find a ready market for their services. Indeed, those who do not have a good track record would find themselves considerably sharpened up if they wished to continue to be significant service providers.

    The other key role for LEAs will be monitoring the progress of schools, particularly those that are struggling. There is enough data—at least enough data—demanded of schools now for this to be monitored on a continuous basis without the imposition of any new form-filling. This would allow the LEA to act as an early warning system between OFSTED inspections.

    And there is a potential new role for LEAs under our scheme for State Scholarships, which will allow new schools, state-funded but not state-run, to meet the needs of parents who are dissatisfied with the current provision. We want to create a new type of school within the maintained sector, of particular benefit to those in the inner cities who so often are unable to exercise the choices about their children’s education which the middle classes take for granted. I believe that an excellent education should be within the reach of everyone regardless of their personal circumstances. Now if we are to allow new bodies, whether voluntary or private, to set up new schools there needs to be a gateway body through which they pass, to check they meet the criteria. This could be an important role for local authorities. Since we would abolish the surplus places rule to enable the creation of these new schools, this role would replace the school planning function at local authority level.

    So there is a role for good LEAs in my vision of the future. A role in providing services for schools that want them, helping to provide information for parents so that standards can be continuously monitored and improved, and acting as a gateway for new schools from new providers within the maintained sector.

    All of this will necessarily entail a simpler funding system. Before this recent crisis I hadn’t met many who thought that the current system was simple enough to understand, or fair enough to deal justly with the different needs of different areas of the country. In the aftermath of this crisis, I suspect I never will. We are close to the position in the old joke about the Schleswig- Holstein problem. Only three people understood it, and one had died, one had gone mad, and the third had forgotten the answer.

    So we are working on a national funding formula for schools, and for the education functions of local authorities. This would remove the need for central Government to set minimum levels of delegation and to ring fence budgets. Which will mean that many of the problems that have arisen this year will have less chance of rearing their heads in the future.

    It will also allow parents to compare funding levels in different areas, force Governments to defend the weighting applied to different factors, and allow good local authorities to use savings from administration for improved services. The funding formula per child in a given area would provide a base figure for the State Scholarships—money which would follow the child.

    Now do I have a detailed plan that I can hand out afterwards? No. I try to take my own advice, and decide policies slowly and carefully, in consultation with those who will have to implement them. I have already had a number of useful discussions with practitioners pointing out the various difficulties, and I know that the Education Commission under the Chairmanship of Sir Robert Balchin is also looking closely at this issue. I look forward to hearing their findings on the issue.

    What is important is not just getting this central policy right, but putting it in the right overall context. That context is the one I mentioned a few minutes ago, in which the most important decisions in the Education System are taken by heads, teachers, parents and governors, rather than politicians.

    I hope it is clear that I am not, by habit or inclination, a centralist. But I am also not an anarchist. All schools, however independent we can make them, need to demonstrate to the wider community on a continuous basis that they are doing well for their pupils. That is why I see a continuing role for OFSTED both in inspection and in providing advice so that improvement programmes can be set in place in schools with severe problems. The assessment of the progress of improvements will also be a job for OFSTED.

    What I want to see is a system of much more independent schools, fulfilling their obligations to their local communities in an open and transparent way, checked regularly by outside bodies, and buying services they need from their preferred supplier. The main drivers for improving standards in these schools would not be central Government targets; it would be the heads and teachers, answerable to parents who will have been given choice in a way that the current system denies them.

    In this system the role of Governors will be at least as important as before. Good Governors are crucial to a well-run school. We are looking at the size of current boards of Governors, to see if they are not too large in some cases, and also at the detailed responsibilities of Governors, to see if they are not too onerous. It may well be that a more strategic role is necessary, both to make the job feasible for busy people, and to allow Governors to concentrate on what they should be doing.

    There is a thread running through all the proposals I have set out this morning. It is the notion of trust. We all say we want a more responsive school system, which offers excellence in our inner cities as well as the leafy suburbs. But we will never achieve that spread of excellence by diktat from Whitehall, and we will certainly never achieve it if the Government uses the notion of reform as a chance to pass the buck.

    There is a route out of the current morass. It requires a policy that puts the school at the centre of improving standards, and gives the appropriate role to politicians at both local and national level. Only if we trust professionals and parents to know what they want and how it can be delivered will we release the latent energies and talents of everyone within our school system.

    It is not a risk-free option. Some schools will do better than others. Some schools will fail, as they do under any system. But what I become more convinced about with every new crisis in our school system is that we will never achieve excellence under a centrally-driven, top-down, Whitehall-dominated system which generates more initiatives than improvements, and which demoralises teachers, heads, and local authorities. We need a complete change of direction. At present a quarter of our children leave primary school unable to read, write and count properly. 30,000 leave secondary school without a single qualification. The culture of truancy is growing, with a 15 per cent growth in the number of truants since 1996/97. Nearly half of all fourteen year olds do not reach the required standards in English, Maths and Science. And finally, the DfES now sends out 20 pages of paperwork every day of the school year, a real sign of the Whitehall knows best culture.
    We need a complete change of direction away from centralisation and towards local control.

    The ideas I have set out are designed to achieve just that. If we bring them to fruition, we will be able to ensure that no child is left behind, and no child is held back by the failures of a distant civil servant or Minister. We must give every child a fair deal, and a real chance to fulfil his or her potential. That is what our schools can achieve, and that is what we must achieve if we are to become a successful and civilised community in this country.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Speech at the Launch of the Conservative Party Consultation Document on Health

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Speech at the Launch of the Conservative Party Consultation Document on Health

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 5 June 2003.

    The Labour Government is dangerously divided.

    And it’s got its priorities hopelessly wrong.

    That’s as plain today as it will ever be.

    We are not be going to spend today talking about the euro.

    We are going to talk about things that are already damaging the British people’s quality of life…

    Day in, day out…

    The public services on which they depend — and which are now failing them badly under Labour.

    But the Government are most certainly talking about the euro today.

    And they’ll still be talking about it tomorrow.

    And for a long time after that.

    Even as – we – speak, Mr Blair and Mr Brown are lining up their coalitions, on either side of the Cabinet table, ready for a battle over the euro — in which the losers will be the British people.

    While the Government are busy talking about something people don’t want — the euro — we will be talking about something they do want – better healthcare.

    This distracted and divided Government should be focusing on the things that really matter to the British people.

    The British people want better public services.

    Public services that work – and work well.

    We’ve already begun.

    For the past two years, we have been conducting the most wide-ranging policy review for a generation.

    A policy review focused on making the public services better.

    We have travelled – at home and abroad – learning from whatever works best for people.

    So last month, we promised to scrap Labour’s university tuition fees – their tax on learning.

    Today, Liam Fox and I are launching fresh, exciting proposals designed to give British people the better healthcare they need and deserve.

    Today begins a full consultation with patients and professionals on something that will make a real difference to people’s lives.

    The ‘patient’s passport’ is our plan to give people real choice over the health treatment they receive.

    This will be a fair deal for patients.

    A fair deal for everyone on healthcare.

    Our proposals will mean…

    Fairer healthcare, with no-one left behind, as we expand choice to everyone, not just those who can afford it.

    Fairer healthcare, with no-one held back, as we recognise the contributions of those who pay for their own treatment.

    Last year, a staggering number of people – 300,000 – paid for their own treatment.

    Most of them were pensioners — desperate people, who had suffered for too long.

    Under our proposals for a Patient’s Passport, everyone in the NHS will be able to get treatment at the hospital of their choice, free of charge.

    And people who choose to go outside the NHS for their treatment will be helped, not penalised.

    Our proposals would also mean…

    Better healthcare for everyone, with choice driving innovation and excellence.

    And more healthcare, as we expand the capacity of the health system in Britain.

    Our proposals would mean nothing less than a revolution in healthcare.

    We will preserve all the founding ideals of the NHS.

    Healthcare, according to your need not your ability to pay, and free at the point of delivery.

    But, for the first time in its history, the NHS would become a truly national health service — embracing our belief that healthcare is first and foremost about the patient.

    Compared to that, everything else is surely secondary.

    Our plans for a patients’ passport, combined with our plans to shift power from politicians to doctors, nurses and hospitals, will deliver a fair deal for everyone on healthcare.

    We care enough to find out what people really want, and we are open-minded enough to find out what really works.

    That’s why last month we promised to scrap Labour’s university tuition fees, abolishing their tax on learning.

    That’s why today we are proposing to give every patient in Britain a Patient’s Passport, making real choice available to all, not just those who can afford it.

    We have the courage and vision to commit Britain to a better course.

    Today, we are taking forward our fight, on behalf of the British people…

    For better public services — and a fair deal for everyone.

    A fair deal for people who find themselves paying higher and higher taxes, but not getting the improved public services they need.

    We will give them those better public services

    …public services where no-one is held back…

    …and no-one is left behind.

    A fair deal for people who deserve better healthcare.

    A fair deal for people who deserve a better education.

    A fair deal for people who have been made to wait and suffer too long.

    That’s our fair deal for everyone in Britain.

  • Liam Fox – 2003 Speech at the Launch of Conservative Party Consultation Document on Health

    Liam Fox – 2003 Speech at the Launch of Conservative Party Consultation Document on Health

    The speech made by Liam Fox, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Health, on 5 June 2003.

    Unless there is fundamental and radical reform, the NHS will never produce the quality of care we have a right to expect. And the people who would suffer most as a result would be the very people who rely most on the NHS.

    Labour’s internal divisions mean it is unable to deliver the reform that many
    recognise to be necessary. Only a Conservative Government will be able to deliver this.

    Our experiences during our extensive travels convinced us that we must undertake far-reaching reform on three broad fronts:

    – taking politicians out of running the NHS;
    – giving real freedom to health professionals; and
    – ensuring patients have real choice in health.

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

    Freeing health professionals from the burden of red tape and the paperwork which targets bring will enable them to spend more time looking after their patients.

    This is vital, since ultimately greater professional satisfaction is the only route to more health care professionals, something which Labour has failed to understand.

    Our principle is that we want to see total spending on healthcare increase, but we will want to see the proportion of that spending that comes from other sources increase at a faster rate than that coming from the State. This will bring the UK more into line with the pattern of spending found in most of the European countries we have visited.

    We believe that choice – a Conservative word – must be available to all patients who will receive their health care through the NHS.

    But this alone is not enough. The standard of healthcare currently available to the British people is far below that which they have every right to expect in the world’s fourth largest economy.

    Over recent years, whereas there has been minimal growth in PMI, the number of people opting for self-pay (frequently the elderly, reflecting the high cost to them of PMI and their desperation to avoid excessive waiting times late in life) has increased by an average of over 20 per cent a year.

    In order to stimulate the creation of the new, non-NHS capacity referred to above, we will send clear signals that we are fully committed over the long term to measures designed to stimulate and strengthen demand in the voluntary and private sectors.

    The most effective way of doing this is to make it more attractive for individuals to supplement what is already being spent by the State through the NHS. This will therefore be on top of what they spend through their taxes, not, as Labour falsely claims, as an alternative.

    There are three main candidates which might be thus incentivised:

    • Personal PMI;
    • PMI available through company schemes; and
    • Patients who pay for a single procedure or item of care
    (the ‘self pay’ sector).

    We saw examples during our overseas visits of cash rebates, tax incentives and reductions of the price at source, with the State reimbursing providers.

    Attention needs to be given to companies who provide all their employees with a health insurance scheme and to those who negotiate reduced rates on their employees’ behalf with private insurers.

    This will include the large number of Trades Union members who benefit from these types of scheme.

    The self-pay market accounted for some 300,000 procedures last year (the age profile for which tends to be higher than that for personal PMI), a trebling since Labour came to power in 1997. If these patients did not opt to pay directly for defined elements of their care, in addition to what they have already contributed to the NHS through their taxes and National Insurance, they would be added to NHS waiting lists. It is doubtful whether the NHS would be able to cope with that extra demand.

    Under our proposals, patients will be able to move around the NHS, with the finance for their treatment automatically following them. This will mean that for the first time there will be access to a truly national health service. Patients will be given a greater say over where and when they are treated, and by whom.

    GPs could act as independent professional advocates for patients, advising them on factors such as comparative waiting times, outcomes and locations. This informed partnership between the patient and the GP would refute the argument advanced by Labour that patients would be unable to make sensible decisions about what form their treatment should take – a view which is both patronising and outdated.

    There is no acceptance in Labour’s centralised monopoly model that patients have any ownership, in part or full, of the funds they have contributed through their taxes to the NHS.

    We believe that the concepts of social solidarity – we all accept the need to cross-subsidise others in our society – and individual entitlement to contributions already paid are not mutually exclusive.

    We believe it is simply unacceptable for choice to be available to a small proportion of patients. We want it to become the norm that patients are free to get treatment beyond the NHS whatever their income. We will therefore extend the Patient’s Passport to services beyond the NHS – that is to the voluntary, the not-for-profit and the private sectors – as soon as capacity allows.

    This will yield two important benefits:

    • It will become a realistic option for a much larger proportion of the population to have access to a very much wider range of healthcare providers than is now the case.

    • Those who choose to have their health care provided within NHS hospitals will reap the benefit of shorter queues if more patients choose to have care elsewhere. Patients will, of course, be able to stay entirely in NHS hospitals if they choose: nobody will be compelled to go outside.

    The value of the Patient’s Passport beyond the NHS – i.e. whether patients take some or all of the standard tariff funding that patients can take to voluntary or private hospitals – will need to take account of several factors: the total cost to the public purse, the level of available capacity from other providers, the predicted effect on NHS demand, the effect on the current private insurance market and the need to promote greater diversity in provision.

    During the 1980s, the Conservative Government brought choice in home ownership to millions of people who had been denied it by socialist dogma.

    This laid the basis for a home-owning democracy in which all social groups were able to take part.

    The next Conservative Government will set patients free from the restrictions they face in the centralised Labour model of the NHS, so that all patients can benefit from the type of high quality and accessible care which is taken for granted by so many of our neighbours.

  • Michael Howard – 2003 Response to the Chancellor’s Euro Assessment Statement

    Michael Howard – 2003 Response to the Chancellor’s Euro Assessment Statement

    The response by Michael Howard, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 9 June 2003.

    “The time of indecision is over.” That was what the Chancellor said about the euro six years ago.

    It’s time, he said, to “establish clear national purpose”, to show “economic leadership”, to “make . . . hard choices”.

    “Divisions,” he said, led to “indecision” and policy that was “inconsistent and unclear”.

    Today ministers are speaking with one voice. They are united in common purpose, with one objective only in mind: to paper over the cracks which have riven them apart over the last few weeks.

    Is it not clear, from any objective reading of the evidence, including the 18 volumes we were given today, that joining the euro would damage our prosperity, destroy jobs and lead to an irreversible loss of control over our economic policy? That is certainly our view. And it is the view of the clear majority of the people of this country.

    Today’s statement is not the result of any real assessment of Britain’s national economic interest. It’s a result of the frantic efforts by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to cover up their differences. After all, that’s why the five tests were thought up in the first place.

    Indeed, the Prime Minister was so determined that the Treasury view wouldn’t be decisive that he thought the unthinkable. He suddenly saw the merits of Cabinet decision-making. There’s a first time for everything. This Prime Minister will pay any price to do down his Chancellor.

    There they sit: united in rivalry. Each determined to frustrate the other. Each determined to scheme against the other. Each determined to do the other down. So there’s no clarity in policy. There’s no consistency of purpose. And each of them is the loser.

    The Chancellor is losing. The Prime Minister is losing. And much more importantly, the British people are losing.

    The Government’s ability to deliver has broken down; on health, on education, and now on the euro. Blair goes one way, Brown goes the other way, and bang goes the Third Way, lost in conflict, compromise and confusion. No wonder so little under this Government ever gets done.

    That’s the price we are all paying for the fault line at the heart of this Government. What a humiliation for the Chancellor! Wasn’t it the Chancellor of the Exchequer who briefed there was no reason for another assessment this Parliament?

    What if the 1,738 pages of data we’ve been given today had shown that the tests have been passed? How on earth are we to know whether a similar assessment in two or five or ten years’ time would reach a similar conclusion? If the data changes in one direction, how can anyone know it won’t change back again?

    If, at any particular moment in time, our growth rate or inflation rate or interest rates are at similar levels to those in the eurozone, how do we know whether that convergence is permanent? Might it not be because our economies were like ships passing in the night, coming together for a moment before moving off in different directions?

    The Chancellor predicted that trade with the EU could grow by as much as 50 per cent over 30 years. Will he confirm that his own department’s reports conclude that improved levels of trade are totally dependent on sustained convergence that has not yet been achieved?

    At the moment, we can choose to have the same interest rates as the eurozone when that suits our needs. But why on earth should we be forced to do so when it doesn’t suit our needs? Why on earth should we accept the straitjacket of a one-size-fits-all interest rate when it’s not the right rate for our economy?

    Competitiveness would be lost. Growth would be hampered. Jobs would be put at risk. And that will be just as true at the time of next year’s Budget and in a year’s time as it is now. Other countries have discovered these truths the hard way.

    This party has learnt its lesson from the experience of fixed exchange rates. But the Government has not — despite the fact that the present Chancellor was calling for “early entry” to the ERM nearly a year before we joined. Today the national economic interest took a back seat. As the Government dithers, uncertainty is maximised.

    This is the Prime Minister who promised in Opposition not to be derailed by “internal bickering” on Europe. This is the Government whose election manifesto in 1997 pledged that Labour would make a hard-headed assessment of Britain’s economic interests, rather than be “riven by faction”.

    This is the Government which promised to “prepare and decide”. But now it’s “not prepare and decide”. It’s not even “wait and see”. It’s just “hope and pray”.

    Today they haven’t put off a referendum because they’re against joining the euro or because they think it will damage the national economic interest. They haven’t put off a referendum out of conviction. The only reason we are not having a referendum now is that they know they can’t win it.

    Today’s statement comes from a divided Government, a Government on the run. This whole exercise has been an exercise in deceit. The deceit that they had the national economic interest at heart. The deceit that they wanted an objective assessment of what this country needs. The deceit that they were united. It is time for an end to the deceit. It is time for an end to the duplicity.

    This is not the end of the beginning for this Government. It is the beginning of the end. And the sooner it ends, the better it will be for the national economic interest and for the British people.

  • Caroline Spelman – 2003 Speech to the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Conference

    Caroline Spelman – 2003 Speech to the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Conference

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman to the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Conference on 9 June 2003.

    I welcome the opportunity to come and address you today on “Domestic Violence – the National Context”. Before I move on to this subject, may I congratulate all of you who are part of the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Strategy for the work you have done and are doing to fight domestic violence. It is an extremely important and much-needed work and I am sure that there are many survivors of domestic violence grateful to you.

    When I was Shadow Spokesman on Health and when I came to be Shadow Minister for Women, I was shocked to discover the extent of domestic violence. Domestic violence is cross-cutting and is not constrained to a particular gender, age, class, ethnicity, region – it can, and does affect people from all circumstances. 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men suffer from domestic violence and domestic violence accounts for a quarter of all violent crime. Figures I found even more shocking were that 2 women and 2 children die every week at the hands of their partner or ex partner as a result of domestic violence. You cannot argue with these statistics for you cannot argue against bodies in a morgue.

    You may have heard it said that there are 3 types of victims of domestic violence. The primary victim is the person who has been directly attacked by their partner or ex-partner. The secondary victims are those who may not have been directly attacked but have been indirectly affected, for example, children who may have been in the same house or room when the violence took place. I also recently met with a group of Grandparents who had watched the lives of their grandchildren suffer as a result of the scars from seeing domestic violence. The tertiary victim is the future victim who may enter a relationship with the perpetrator if he is not sufficiently dealt with by the statutory agencies. So, not only is domestic violence cross-cutting, there are also many hidden people affected.

    Provision of services nation-wide to help those affected by Domestic Violence is far from adequate. That is why it is so encouraging to see that Solihull is taking a lead with a Multi Agency Domestic Violence Strategy. The provision of refuges in the UK is very scarce. It appalls me that there are more animal sanctuaries in this country than refuges. It is estimated that around 40,000 women are on the move in refuges every week. This ‘caravanning’ around the countryside of vulnerable women and children looking for somewhere to hide and sleep is barely credible in the 21st century.

    I am very pleased to be involved with the refuge that is being set up in the Solihull area. With little help from the Government in establishing refuges, it is a difficult process but this must not put us off. I hope that this is the start of further refuges being built in the Solihull area so those affected by domestic violence can find a safe haven away from their abusive partners, before it is too late.

    So, what is being done on a national level to fight against domestic violence? At any time now, the Government will announce a Bill on Domestic Violence. I understand the Bill will cover a number of areas. For example, unduly lenient sentencing, establishing where the public interest lies in prosecution of perpetrators of domestic violence, a focus on a multi-agency approach, and child contact orders.

    There will be a period of Government consultation and I will also be carrying out consultation with the relevant agencies and actors. May I encourage you to play an active role in the consultation process both with the Government and myself – this is a real chance to influence the legislation as this early stage, before it is ‘put in stone’. We haven’t had any legislation dedicated solely to domestic violence for over 25 years – we must not get it wrong.

    I welcome this legislation and we will work closely with the Government on it – this is not an issue to score political points. However, I feel strongly that legislation is not the only answer to the problem of domestic violence. There must be a culture shift in relation to domestic violence. Domestic Violence can no longer be termed ‘just a domestic’.

    Imagine domestic violence being seen as unacceptable in the UK; perpetrators wouldn’t be able to ‘get away with it’ and they would receive the lengthy sentences they deserve; victims of domestic violence would hopefully seek help before it was too late; those of us thankfully not primary victims of domestic violence, would be there to support our friends who were victims and have confidence to raise concerns about possible perpetrators; children being able to talk openly to their teachers about their fears. Maybe this seems unrealistic, but I honestly believe we can bring about a substantial culture change.

    Let me give you an example of how we have tried to contribute to this. Last Christmas I produced a domestic violence poster. This was the first time the Conservative Party had done something like this. The poster carried the helpline numbers of Women’s Aid and the NSPCC. Over 10,000 posters were put up in GP surgeries, hairdressers, police stations and other places throughout the country where women could discreetly write down the helpline number and seek help.

    The model for the poster campaign was the Drink Driving Campaign seen in the early to mid 1990s. Some of you may remember that few eyebrows used to be raised when people went to the pub, drank alcohol and then drove home. However, as the result of an effective, nationwide, advertising campaign over consecutive years, and I must add no specific legislation, there has been a huge culture shift. Now, it is my generation and the one above who may still be tempted to drink and drive. But on the whole, those in their 20s and 30s view it as unacceptable. They would not drive if they had drunk alcohol and they would not get in a car with someone who was over the limit. So, why can’t the same change in opinion occur with domestic violence?

    It is crucial that we target all generations but for a culture change to be sustainable, we need to target the younger generations. And may I press it upon you that this need is urgent. There are worrying figures which show that about 20% of young men and 10% of young women think abuse or violence against a partner is acceptable. This trend needs to be urgently reversed.

    Another example of trying to bring about a culture change was the recent BBC Hitting Home Initiative. I am sure many of you saw some of the programmes during that week in February. The media is an effective tool of changing public opinion and we must encourage them to do this with domestic violence, as we did with the BBC.

    One area I am extremely concerned about is child contact arrangements. I acknowledge this is an extremely contentious area but one that needs to be resolved in the forthcoming legislation. I think that we must address the problem of abusive and violent parents – particularly those convicted of a sexual or violent offence against a child, having unsupervised contact with their children following separation. This may sound shocking but it does occur.

    Courts are putting children and their mothers at unnecessary risk. There have been incidents of child contact arrangements being used by an abusive partner to track down his wife and children and then to kill them. A court needs to consider all the relevant evidence, assess the risks and take all reasonable steps to ensure the protection of the child when a violent parent applies for contact or residence.

    I am very encouraged about your emphasis on a joined-up approach to the development and delivery of services. Domestic Violence will only be tackled if we work together. It is very important that we make early intervention with victims of domestic violence. A woman is likely to be assaulted by her partner or ex-partner 35 times before reporting to the police. This is unacceptable. A victim of domestic violence may feel unable to go to the police but they may have to receive medical treatment for their injuries. If we can make contact with them at this point, and encourage them to seek help, we may be able to prevent further abuses against them in the future.

    A multi-agency approach will only work if all the relevant agencies receive better training. This is particularly needed with the magistracy. Survivors of domestic violence will be more willing to press charges if they feel justice will actually be done. Unfortunately this is not the case at the moment. Perpetrators of domestic violence do not receive the sentences they deserve. I was, however, very encouraged to read in the strategy that Solihull Magistrates Court will be dedicating Wednesday mornings to Domestic Violence Cases. I hope this practice will be extended as time goes on.

    So, let me bring my remarks to a close. This week, people are suffering at the hands of their partners or ex-partners, some may even die; there are not enough refuge places to deal with the demand; perhaps a child will be forced to have contact with a parent they are terrified of; perhaps a perpetrator will receive a light punishment for the crimes committed.

    But it is not all negative; I really believe the tide is turning in relation to domestic violence. The new piece of legislation will bring about some important changes but we have to make sure we get it right – we owe that to all those affected by domestic violence. May I once again congratulate you on all you are doing to fight domestic violence and urge you to continue to give it a high priority. And every day, we can all play a part in the daily fight against domestic violence. By talking about domestic violence, we bring it into the public arena and if we actually do something to fight it, we can bring about the much needed culture change and change the lives for the better of many people affected by domestic violence in this country.

  • Michael Ancram – 2003 Speech During the Opposition Debate on the European Convention

    Michael Ancram – 2003 Speech During the Opposition Debate on the European Convention

    The speech made by Michael Ancram in the House of Commons on 11 June 2003.

    I beg to move, – ‘That this House believes that any Treaty providing a constitution for the European Union should only be ratified by Parliament once it has received the consent of the British people, democratically given in a referendum.’

    This is a straightforward and democratic motion that I hope will win widespread support across the House. It is also a timely motion, as it is being debated on the eve of the national referendum on a referendum that is being conducted by the Daily Mail. I congratulate the Daily Mail on its initiative, and it is not alone. A referendum is also backed by The Sun, The Daily Telegraph, the Yorkshire Post, The Birmingham Post, The Scotsman and many other newspapers, but, most importantly—as shown in opinion poll after opinion poll—it is massively backed by the British people.

    The terms of the motion are simple and straightforward. They are as politically neutral as possible, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on his position when we reach the end of the debate.

    I hope that as many people as possible will register their opinion tomorrow, if only to show the Government that the British electorate will not readily be sidelined on major issues that involve the transfer of powers from this country.

    At a time when referendums have become an instrument of our political system, and when popular involvement in decisions has become part of our national culture, it would be wrong for an important decision affecting the future of our country to be taken without reference to the people. We should provide them with the opportunity to choose, “And then the people will decide”.

    Those are not my words, but those of the Secretary of State for Wales on the “Today” programme on 27 May when he thought, perhaps unguidedly—until he was required later to unthink—that next year’s elections could be used as some sort of surrogate referendum.

    The words of the Secretary of State for Wales are important, because they reflect the purpose of this motion, which is to enfranchise the people, not through the European elections but through a referendum. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who—I am sad to see—is not in his place today, will have the intellectual integrity to support us in the Lobby later.

    What of the Liberal Democrats? I was pleased to hear the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife say that “If Convention proposals have constitutional implications, there should be a referendum.” That sentiment is broadly reflected in the amendment that they have tabled today. Our motion refers to a “Treaty providing a constitution for the European Union”.

    It is impossible to see how a constitutional treaty providing a constitution can, by definition, be said not to have constitutional implications. I cannot see how even the Liberal Democrats can, with integrity, avoid supporting our motion today.

    We will be told that when we were in office we did not propose referendums on European matters of constitutional significance—that attack has been made on previous occasions—but was not it John Major who promised a referendum on the single currency? After six years of commitment from this Government, we are still waiting for that referendum.

    We are told that we will still get a referendum on the euro, but we will have to wait and see. All that we are getting at the moment is the Tony and Gordon roadshow—the Government’s answer to our ill-fated Eurovision entry Jemini, being ill matched and out of tune. After six years of being told that the single currency was simply an economic decision, with no constitutional significance, suddenly we are told that it has achieved constitutional significance again.

    The Prime Minister said in Warsaw on 30 May that “if we recommend entry to the euro, it would be a step of such economic and constitutional significance that a referendum would be sensible, and right, which is why we have promised one.”

    The Prime Minister used the phrase “constitutional significance”, but what about the Convention? At Question Time today, the Prime Minister said again that he did not believe that the Convention was constitutionally significant, but I ask the question again: if a constitutional treaty providing a constitution for the EU is not of constitutional significance, what on earth is? Surely it would be as sensible and right to have a referendum on the constitution as on the euro?

    I am sure that we will also hear the usual attacks for not backing referendums in the past. The answer is straightforward. Ten or 12 years ago, we did not have referendums. Even Labour Members argued in many debates—and I can give the House examples, if necessary—against referendums. However, nowadays we do have referendums, and that is because this Government have made them readily available as a political and constitutional device for allowing people to decide. There has even been legislation on the systems of referendums.

    The Government have used referendums with gusto. There have been 34 referendums since 1997, on matters ranging from the Belfast agreement and devolution for Scotland and Wales to the London Mayor and Assembly and the much-canvassed mayor of Hartlepool; many more are promised on regional assemblies. This Government love referendums, as they have shown over and over again—but not on this matter, the most important and far-reaching issue of the lot. It is their instant ruling-out of one on the European constitution that stands out.

    Why this matter? What are the Government afraid of? If the people’s consent to set up a mayor of Hartlepool is so important, why is it to be denied for the setting-up of a European president of a European political Union? The answer, we were told by the Prime Minister again in Warsaw, is that neither the Convention nor the IGC represents “a fundamental change to the British Constitution and to our system of parliamentary democracy”.

    How does the Prime Minister know what an IGC that has not yet begun is going to represent? On that basis, how can he rule out a referendum now?

    Today’s amendment changes the criteria. Out goes the phrase “a fundamental change to the British Constitution”, and in comes the phrase “do not involve a fundamental change in the relationship between the EU and its Member States”.

    Those are two very different sets of criteria. In a sense, it is perhaps all about words, but what matters is the reality. It is the reality that matters, not the words. We are at the moment part of an albeit imperfect Europe of nations. I believe that the European Union is in need of reform, but if the Convention proposals as they stand were ratified in a treaty we would be part of something fundamentally different.

    I do not mind whether we call it a superstate, a federal power or—the Prime Minister’s preferred option—a superpower. I do not care whether we call it a politically united Europe or even Romano Prodi’s “advanced supranational democracy”. All I know is that it will not be what we have now. It will be a step change away from that. I do not understand how can the Government can claim that that does not involve a fundamental change of the relationship between the EU and its member states, because it changes that relationship: member states would go from being partners to being subservient components.

    If we look at the overall result of the Convention’s proposals, we begin to see what is happening. The proposals will lead to a legal personality, a constitution, a president and a foreign secretary. It will involve fundamental rights, including the right to strike, legally enforceable at a European level. There will be a common foreign and security policy, and a European prosecutor. European law will have explicit primacy, and it will have an increasing role in criminal law, especially in procedure. There will be shared competence over immigration and asylum, with no veto, and Europe’s powers will be expanded into vast areas, from transport to energy. There could even be—who knows?—a common currency.

    Each of those elements diminishes our existing national sovereignty in one way or another. Together, they build a new and distinct political entity that has many of the attributes of a country. That is the truth, however hard the Government seek to disguise it. To call this a tidying-up exercise is laughable, and simply not true.

    One of the Convention’s leading members, the former Italian Prime Minister Lamberto Dini, said in The Sunday Telegraph of 1 June: “The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people’s lives . . . and eventually will become an institution and organisation in its own right.”

    That may not suit the Government’s agenda, but Lamberto Dini is on the Convention, and that is what he believes will happen. That is the reality.

    If we look at the totality of what is being done. I used to practise in the courts, and one could take little bits of evidence and say that none of them amounted to much on its own. What matters is the eventual result of putting them all together. I am suggesting to the House that what is being created, whether one wants it or not, is very different from what we have now. If that is the case, it is of constitutional significance, and it should be the subject of a referendum.

    I believe that those components will change the nature of the EU. An EU foreign secretary and a common foreign and security policy would mean that the circumstances of the EU would be very different from what they are at the moment. We must consider that point as we determine whether a referendum is necessary or not.

    The Government know that the proposals are far reaching. The Treasury’s own single currency assessments published on Monday state: “Many of the issues being considered by the European Convention could have far reaching consequences for the future performance of EU economies whether they are part of the euro area or not.”

    That means us, and it does not sound to me like tidying up. It sounds much more like the Prime Minister’s criteria of economic significance as well as constitutional significance, about which he spoke in Warsaw, where he said that they make a referendum sensible and right. His words also apply to what we see coming from the Convention.

    My party opposes the constitution, but that is not the point of the motion. The point is to give the British people the right to decide whom they believe and what choice they want to make about how this country goes forward in Europe. That is why we are pressing for a referendum. Parliament is sovereign, but, in my view, that sovereignty is granted to it in trust by the people. Parliament should not be able to alienate sovereignty permanently and irreversibly without the express consent, democratically given, of the electorate. In the absence of a general election, such authority can be given to Parliament only by a referendum.

    Authority has not been given, nor have the Government sought it. There was no mention of a European constitution in their manifesto. That is another reason why a referendum is necessary. That is not just the view of the Conservative party or our country: the hon. Member for Moray reminded us of the origins of the Convention, and I shall quote what Valéry Giscard d’Estaing said on 28 February 2002 when he launched it: “Treaties are made by states and agreed by Parliaments, but constitutions are created by citizens and adopted by them in referendums.”

    That was his view then; I believe it remains his view today. The Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Rasmussen, was reported as saying on 28 May: “What is at stake is so new and so big that it is right to hold a referendum”.

    From all corners of the debate in Europe, people are telling us that the constitution is a significant move forward and that it is a subject fitting for a referendum. The case for a referendum is compelling.

    The motion refers carefully and deliberately to “a treaty providing a constitution for the European Union”.

    That makes it even more difficult for me to understand how, without their knowing the eventual shape and contents of the treaty, the Government are able instantly to rule out a referendum. If they do not know what they will be looking at in the long term, how can they say that there will be no referendum? Why are the Government so frightened? Are they frightened that their smokescreen will be blown away, and is that why they dare not let the British people decide? Other countries will let their peoples decide. Denmark and Ireland will let the people decide. France, Portugal, Sweden, Finland and Austria may, in various ways, let their people decide. The Netherlands has just decided on a non-binding referendum. Only Britain, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece refuse point blank to let the people decide.

    The Government’s position insults the British people. They continue to play what I call the “big lie” card, saying that the debate on Europe is about going right in or coming out of Europe, and that they want in and we want out. That is dishonest spin of the worst sort—the kind of spin that has already brought them into disrepute, a lesson from which I hope they learn. The real Europe debate, which the Government are so keen to avoid, is the debate about the sort of Europe that we want to be in. Is it a Europe of sovereign nations that we seek, or is it a European superpower that the Prime Minister proclaimed in Poland in October 2000 and in Cardiff in November 2002? That is the real choice.

    This motion is about trusting the people. It is a democratic motion. It exposes the arrogance of a Government who will not let the people have their say. What is the betting that the Leader of the House will shortly tell a newspaper that there are rogue elements in the electorate, let alone in the House, who are seeking to undermine the Government, and that that is why we cannot have a referendum? Only six years ago, the Government asked us to trust them. What we are saying is: “Trust the people.” Why do they continue to say no?

    We will trust the people. We will not take no for an answer. We will let the people decide. I call on the House to support the motion.

  • Jonathan Evans – 2003 Speech on the European Council in Thessaloniki

    Jonathan Evans – 2003 Speech on the European Council in Thessaloniki

    The speech made by Jonathan Evans, the then Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, on 4 June 2003.

    Mr President,

    I congratulate you, President-in-Office, on the progress that has been made during the Greek Presidency on progressing enlargement. The special Athens Council in April was a landmark in the history of Europe following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and we look forward to the ten applicant states taking their rightful place in the new Europe.

    However, looking at the priorities which were set out by the Presidency, two of them in particular have, sadly, been a disappointment.

    First, the Lisbon process. After three years, this agenda is stalled, indeed going backwards. It is disappointing that the Presidency has been unable to persuade Governments to get their act together on an issue that is fundamental to the prosperity of people across the Union. As a result, many EU countries are looking to a future of economic stagnation and deflation.

    Second, the Presidency wanted to see “the new Europe as an international motor for peace and co-operation”. Of course, the Iraq crisis was a difficult one. However, the way in which, during the Greek Presidency, the ‘Gang of Four’ convened in April in Brussels to consider alternative defence structures to NATO, merely reinforced anti-American sentiment.

    Thessaloniki will also mark the end of the Convention on the Future of Europe, when former President Giscard presents the conclusions of eighteen months of discussion. The Convention still has work to do in the coming two weeks, but I wanted to comment today on the emerging draft Articles published last week.

    At Laeken, Heads of State and Government said: “Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens”. Having looked at the draft Articles in this Convention document, I fear that this noble ambition has fallen somewhat short of the mark. Indeed, I would say that, in many ways, it heads in precisely the opposite direction.

    The Convention is proposing a European Union that is more centralised, more bureaucratic, in many ways less democratic and certainly more federalist than is currently the case.

    I am a long-standing supporter of Britain’s membership of the European Union. But, the document that Heads of Government are likely to see in Thessaloniki is one that does, in my view, change the nature of the relationship between Member States and the European Union.

    In summary:

    A Constitution

    Incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

    Legal status for the Union

    A President for the EU

    A Foreign Minister for the EU

    The collapse of the second and third pillars

    A Common Foreign and Security Policy

    The eventual framing of an EU defence policy

    A requirement for economic policies to be co-ordinated

    Harmonisation of certain taxes

    The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor

    The British Government has called the Constitution a “tidying-up exercise”, and therefore not worthy of being put to the people in a referendum. In contrast, the Danish Prime Minister is to submit the Constitution to a referendum because: “the EU’s constitution is so new and large a document that it would be right to hold a referendum on it”. 80% of the British public agrees.

    The former Prime Minister of Italy, Lamberto Dini, who also sits in the Convention, has said: “The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people’s lives … “.

    This is not just a case of the British Government dismissing the right of the British people to have a say on their own future, it is also that the Convention proposals fundamentally change the relationship between the Union and the Member States and the way in which we are all governed.

    For those who have cherished the concept of a United States of Europe, the blueprint has been set out by Giscard, and the debate on the consequences of this draft Constitution should be based on this fundamental fact so honestly and sincerely articulated by President Prodi and many speeches in this debate.

    When the Inter-Governmental Conference begins its work later this year, my Party is determined to see that the accession states not only have a right to contribute to the discussion, they must also have a vote in Council on the crucial decisions it will take. The outcome of the IGC will impact on people in Warsaw, Prague and Budapest, just as much as London, Paris and Berlin. It is unacceptable for the EU 15 to impose a radical new Constitution on these new Member States without them having a proper, democratic role in the outcome.

    We have long been the most ardent supporters of enlargement and the rights of the accession states to take their place at the European top table. But our Europe is one where diversity is celebrated, not one where countries are forced into an institutional straightjacket. We want a Europe that is democratic, prosperous, works with the United States to defend our freedoms and confront common threats. The Convention takes us down a different route to a Europe where the nation state is no longer the foundation on which the Union rests.