Tag: Speeches

  • William Stenhouse Bettles – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    William Stenhouse Bettles – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    The candidate statement from William Stenhouse Bettles.

    Candidate Statement

    I am a 22 year old from Buckingham working in the retail industry. I have struggled throughout life giving me a grit and determination to fight for what is right. I have a strong sense of justice and am infuriated by injustice. I seek to bring these characteristics as your NEC CLP Representative. I am a Christian and a member of the *Christians on the Left* socialist society. I believe Jesus Christ gave us the model for a fair, free and compassionate society. I am your choice if you want a candidate who is inspired by Christian Socialist and Social Democrat values.

  • Johanna Baxter – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    Johanna Baxter – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    The candidate statement from Johanna Baxter.

    Candidate Statement

    Labour needs to win power for the many whilst keeping true to our radical values. We need to offer solutions as well as solidarity – a credible radical alternative that creates jobs, tackles climate change, and invests in the health and education of our nation.

    As Head of Local Government for UNISON Scotland, representing 80,000 workers, I know the reality of fighting for those values on the frontline and my track record is one of delivery.

    I’m a Labour member of 26 years, a previous CLP Chair and CLP Secretary, a CLP rep on the Scottish Executive and active campaigner.

    It’s an honour to serve as your NEC Vice Chair and I have worked hard with colleagues to sort our complaints system, improve transparency and the training and support for CLPs to make sure we are match fit for the next election.

    I am committed to engaging with members and retain the record for visiting the most CLPs to provide reports of our work.

    I’ve never shied away from speaking truth to power and will work with everyone across our broad church to put Labour back in power.
    Please also consider Akehurst, Duale, Josan & Thomas.

  • Jessica Barnard – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    Jessica Barnard – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    The candidate statement from Jessica Barnard.

    Candidate Statement

    As a youth worker I have spent years supporting young people and families experiencing insecure work, devastating cuts to their community and denied a secure home.

    More than ever we need to take the fight to the Tories and deliver a socialist Labour government that tackles wealth inequality, putting people first.

    We must fight racism, stand for peace, global justice and real action to tackle the climate emergency.

    I am standing to ensure our party is led by working class voices who will stand up for the policies we need.

    I will be a strong voice for party democracy, accountability, the rights of our brilliant membership and for equality and liberation campaigns.

    As Young Labour Chair I have worked relentlessly to champion the voice of young members at one of the toughest moments facing us.

    I have lead campaigning actions across my region for years, served as a County Councillor in Norfolk, stood as a Parliamentary Candidate and am a dedicated community activist and organiser.

    I am firmly committed to trade unionist and socialist principles, and am proud to be supported by the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance and Momentum. Please also support Mish Rahman, Gemma Bolton and Yasmine Dar.

  • Jose Alexander – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    Jose Alexander – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    The candidate statement from Jose Alexander.

    Candidate Statement

    I feel privileged to have served as a London Borough of Newham Councillor from 2010 to 2018. I am a Labour Party activist and have been a member for 21 years, including the Co-operative Party. I am a dedicated Labour Dialogue Team member who has was part of the National Phone Banking Task Force and received Best Practice Award. I am a Unite union member and was a former secretary with Remploy and promoted diversity and equality in the work place. I was supporting disabled employees and co-ordinated many meetings with Remploy management over an eleven-year period. I have shown dedication through Keir Starmer’s leadership campaign.

    Since 2003, I have been a dedicated campaigner for every election and hold experience of delivering projects to wider sections of the community. I would like to work with NPF to help elect the Labour government in 2024. If I am elected NPF for London Region, I would like to support and prioritise: Investment in education, the NHS and support climate change initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions by 2030. Invest in communities to help tackle cost of living crisis. Focus on a long-term strategy for energy supply sector to help vulnerable communities.

  • Luke Akehurst – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    Luke Akehurst – 2022 NEC Candidate Statement

    The candidate statement from Luke Akehurst.

    Candidate Statement

    I was elected to the NEC in 2020 having previously served 2010-2012. I voted for Keir Starmer in the leadership election and I have been working on the NEC to make his leadership a success; to reunite and rebuild a divided and demoralised Labour Party after four consecutive General Election defeats; and to get Labour into fighting shape for the next General Election.

    A Labour activist for 34 years, I am passionate about tackling poverty and inequality. As a parent and cancer survivor I will fight to defend our NHS and schools from Tory cuts.

    Support the closest possible links with Europe. Want zero tolerance of antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism. Strong record of fairness and defending democracy in taking decisions, openness and accountability in reporting back to members.

    Extensive campaigning experience: Borough Campaign Manager in four Hackney elections increasing Labour seats from 29 to 50; parliamentary candidate Aldershot and Castle Point; full-time Organiser in Camden.

    Councillor 2002-2014, trade unionist (Unite) 29 years. Member of Co-op Party and Fabians.

    With over three decades experience of campaigning, on the NEC my absolute focus is on turning Labour back into an election-winning party.

    I recommend also nominating Baxter, Duale, Singh Josan, Thomas.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Right to Buy-Back in London

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Right to Buy-Back in London

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 9 August 2022.

    For more than 40 years, London’s precious council homes have been disappearing into the private sector, often never to be replaced. As Mayor I have maintained a relentless focus on stemming the tide and replenishing London’s social housing stock.

    I am proud that, thanks to my interventions, we have brought council homebuilding back up to levels not seen since the 1970s and I’m hugely encouraged by the enthusiasm I see from boroughs across London for building new council homes and using my Right to Buy-back scheme to return homes to public ownership.

    These homes were built for the public good and it has been painful to watch them disappear into private portfolios. Returning these homes to public ownership is a key part of my plan to build a better London for everyone – a city that is greener, fairer and more prosperous for all.

  • David Willetts – 2002 Speech on the Pickering Review

    David Willetts – 2002 Speech on the Pickering Review

    The speech made by David Willetts, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2002.

    I declare my interests that appear in the Register of Members’ Interests and thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of this very important report.

    Let me make it clear that we welcome the report, just as we welcomed Alan Pickering’s review when it was established. I join the Secretary of State in expressing our respect for the expertise and wisdom that Alan Pickering brought to the exercise. He has produced a valuable report.
    Conservative Members respond to the Secretary of State’s comments by saying that we understand that the regulatory regime for pensions must be stable to ensure long-term planning, and we will contribute constructively to the debate about the best ways of cutting the burden of regulations on pension funds. That is an obligation on all hon. Members on both sides of the House.

    The starting point of the debate has to be a frank recognition of the scale of the problem that faces funded pensions. For years, Ministers have been shockingly complacent, saying that everything was all right when it clearly was not, and citing statistics that they have since admitted were seriously misleading. The Secretary of State should accept the stark warning in Alan Pickering’s report that

    “without change, the current trajectory suggests less private pension provision in the future.”

    That warning lies at the heart of his report.

    We shall obviously want to study the proposals in the Pickering report very carefully, but I can tell the Secretary of State that we welcome the themes that are expounded in it. For example, we support the call for a proportionate regulatory environment, and we welcome Alan Pickering’s vivid expression that a pension is a pension is a pension. There are too many different forms of pension, and it is right to try to simplify them. It is also true that too much pension provision has become a form of archaeology, with pension providers delving deep into the past to identify the date on which a pension was first set up in order to understand the tax and regulatory regime around it. That needs to be tackled

    Can I press the Secretary of State for more information about the timetable to which he is working? The recommendations will be pointless unless the Government act quickly. As Alan Pickering said in his report

    “Time is not on our side.”

    Yet the Secretary of State offered us a second Green Paper on pensions. I have here the Government’s previous pensions Green Paper, which was published nearly four years ago. That contained the Prime Minister’s promise that his Government would increase the proportion of pensioners’ incomes that comes from private savings from 40 to 60 per cent. Since then, the Government have made no progress whatsoever towards achieving that objective. Instead, they introduced stakeholder pensions that were supposed to go to the 5 million people in their target group, although they reached only about 100,000, and scheme after scheme has closed. Why should the second Green Paper make any progress, given the comprehensive failure of the first?

    If we do not get legislation until 2004, as has been suggested, the changes will not be implemented until 2005 at the earliest. Yet, if pension scheme closures carry on at their current rate, there will not be any pension schemes open to new members by the time that the Government finally get round to implementing the proposals in Alan Pickering’s report. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to inform the House of the likely timetable of any legislation to implement proposals for reform?

    May I also press the Secretary of State for more information about the burden of regulation, which is still increasing? Since the Pickering review was established in September 2001, we have had 251 pages of new regulations. We are still waiting for the final results of the Myners review. It is good to see a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench because the Treasury, in its commitment to implementing Myners, has been threatening pension schemes with yet more regulation. There is a useful warning in Mr. Pickering’s report: he hopes that the people taking forward Myners—he might be thinking of the Financial Secretary—will

    “keep in mind our arguments for simplification.”

    Can we have an assurance from the Secretary of State, as the minimum to show his good will on this exercise, that more regulation will not be imposed on pension schemes while we wait for his supposedly deregulatory legislation? Without such an assurance, it will be difficult to take the Government’s commitment to deregulation seriously.

    The terms of reference for Alan Pickering’s report were very narrow and excluded some of the main factors that have been driving the crisis in funded pension provision. Why was Alan Pickering unable to comment on the structure of state pensions, including the state second pension, which left-wing think tanks such as the IPPR are now saying should be abolished before it has even begun?

    What about the burden of ever more means-testing of pensioners? Why could not Pickering comment on the spread of means-testing, which will soon result in more than 50 per cent. of all pensioners finding themselves on a means test? If so many pensioners are to face means tests, which will mean that they are not fully rewarded for their saving, does the Secretary of State recognise the serious danger that the main beneficiaries of the review could be the richer half of the population? They will not be trapped by the means test that he is imposing on the less affluent 50 per cent. of pensioners.

    What about the financial burdens that the Government have placed on pension funds which are their direct responsibility? What about the £5 billion a year tax on pension funds, and the £1.5 billion a year cost of the insufficient value for the contracted-out rebate? Does the Secretary of State recognise that that adds up to £6.5 billion a year being taken from our pension funds? That is the real reason why our pension funds are closing, and nothing that he said today showed any willingness to recognise the scale of that problem and what needs to be done to tackle it.

  • Andrew Smith – 2002 Statement on the Pickering Review

    Andrew Smith – 2002 Statement on the Pickering Review

    The statement made by Andrew Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2002.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Pickering report that was published this morning.

    The report is the culmination of nine months of hard work by Alan Pickering and his team. I should like to thank him and also everyone who took the time and effort to submit their views—some of whom are here today.

    In his report, Alan Pickering acknowledges the encouragement that he received not only from my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister for Pensions, but also from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Northavon (Mr. Webb).

    Pensions simplification has to be at the heart of any strategy to encourage greater pension provision. We need to deal with the complexities built up over the years by successive Governments.

    Alan’s report makes 52 recommendations. The key ones include: a new pensions Act to consolidate all existing pensions legislation; a new more proactive regulator; a better, more targeted approach for communicating with pension scheme members; more flexibility to modify schemes; allowing employers to make membership of their occupational pension scheme a condition of employment; and the ending of compulsory indexation for defined benefit pensions, and compulsory survivors benefits.

    The report, together with Ron Sandler’s proposals, announced by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on Tuesday, represents the first stage of a comprehensive review of occupational and personal pension provision.

    The Government will take a radical look at the issues, together with the results of the Inland Revenue review of tax simplification, when that is completed. In the autumn we will come forward with our proposals in a Green Paper.

    That will initiate a wide-ranging consultation. It will look at private pensions policy in the round, including the opportunities open to people around retirement, and will set out the Government’s proposals to enable people to build up more pension savings.

    Alan Pickering’s report covers complex issues and includes some tough choices—the inevitable dilemmas faced by all simplifiers. The report presents challenges to us all: employees and their unions, employers and commercial pension providers, the Government and the Opposition. I believe that we will need to be guided by the following principles and objectives, grounded in a long-term approach: fairness; security in retirement; informed choice for consumers; simple and proportionate regulation; ensuring that incentives are effective and well understood; promoting employment among older workers; and flexibility to give individuals more choice about the pace at which they retire from the labour market. I hope that we can secure all-party agreement on those matters.

    The Government believe that pension provision should be based on partnership, which can secure lasting buy-in from all key players. We must strike the right balances between sometimes competing goals. We want the simplicity that enables people to make informed choices without stifling product innovation and competition. We want a proportionate regulatory framework that provides sufficient security for savers while making it worth while for employers and commercial providers to make available good pension products. We need to ensure that we remove unnecessary barriers to employer provision and employer contributions. We also need to make it easier for people to save and make it easier to sell pension products, as Ron Sandler’s report proposed on Tuesday. We need to achieve all that and more against the remorseless arithmetic that tells us that, because we are living longer and want to maintain a good standard of living in retirement, we need to save more or work longer, or a combination of both.

    We wanted Alan Pickering to present a strong challenge to the degree of regulation around private pensions. He has done that—he has made some valuable proposals for simplifying pensions legislation and reducing administrative burdens on both schemes and employers, cutting costs and simplifying choices for individuals. His recommendations also present some tough choices. Take, for example, his recommendation that employers should have the choice to make joining a company pension a condition of employment. Some 16 per cent. of people who could benefit from a company pension scheme currently choose not to do so. Compelling people to join would restrict their choice, but against that consideration, we need to balance the beneficial effects for schemes and the overall effect on extending pension coverage.

    Alan has also made a number of specific recommendations on easements of legislation—in particular, repeal of section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995. Again, that throws up a tough choice. The recommendation would mean that, if employers faced funding constraints on their scheme, they could have an option to reduce future funding costs rather than close the scheme. Of course, that would remove an absolute guarantee against the consequences of change, but might well secure a better outcome for members and the future of the scheme, set against the alternative of its closure.

    Alan also recommends an end to compulsory indexation of pensions and removal of compulsory survivors’ benefits as a condition of contracting out. On first reading, those proposals are not attractive. They go against the drive of the past 30 years to price protect pensions and to enhance survivors’ benefits, but again, in the light of the report, we will need to look carefully at all the consequences.

    As well as the big themes and recommendations to which I have referred, a number of more modest issues are addressed to my Department and others. For example, they include improving the way in which contracting out is administered; streamlining procedures and reducing general administrative burdens; looking at ways better to provide advice through the workplace; and improving information going to pension scheme members. Those recommendations have considerable merit, and subject to the responses that we receive to the report, I intend to take them forward.

    In conclusion, I believe that Alan Pickering’s report offers clear options for simplification and makes a valuable contribution to the debate that we need to have on the next stage of pension reform. We need to face up to the tough choices that he sets out. In seeking to simplify the future we must also face up to the—in many ways harder—challenge of simplifying the past, in that we need to simplify the different regulations that have built up over the years. Otherwise, we will end up adding yet another layer to the existing layer cake of regulation and complexity.

    Alan Pickering’s proposals are radical, ambitious and pragmatic. I urge hon. Members, the public, employers, trade unions and pension providers—all those whose partnership is essential for effective pension reform—to give them full and constructive consideration. The Government certainly will. The acid tests for the Green Paper must be increasing the level of savings for retirement and making a secure occupational pension accessible to as many people as possible.

  • Oliver Letwin – 2002 Speech on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud

    Oliver Letwin – 2002 Speech on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud

    The speech made by Oliver Letwin, the then Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2022.

    I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his statement and for his courtesy in letting me have an early copy.

    If the Home Secretary is asking the country to debate a strictly defined benefit entitlement card, the purpose of which is to prevent fraud, the Conservative party will strongly welcome it. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) proposed it when he was Secretary of State for Social Security. He began to implement the mechanism for such a card because he was hugely determined to cut fraud. Ironically, the current Government aborted that implementation.

    However, is the item about which the Home Secretary seeks to consult a strictly defined benefit entitlement card? I confess that, having read through the paper and listened to his statement, I am still not clear.

    In the first paragraph of the consultative paper, the Home Secretary states:

    “A universal entitlement card scheme would…establish for official purposes a person’s identity so that there is one definitive record of an identity which all Government departments can use if they wish”.

    What, if anything, does that opaque and gnomic sentence mean? What does the Home Secretary mean when he suggests that the card is one,

    “which all Government departments can use if they wish”?

    Does the Home Secretary recognise the real and widespread scepticism and anxiety engendered by such utterances when they come from a Government and a Department, which, under his stewardship and in the past few months have sought to introduce vast new powers for Departments of State and other public agencies to interrogate aspects of people’s lives? Those proposals have been withdrawn only under a hail of parliamentary and public protest.

    Does the Home Secretary realise that these opaque utterances are bound to be read in a certain way by a public who have come to understand that the language of liberty is usually far from his lips, and to understand also his intense suspicion of the judiciary and judicial processes? Does he realise that such opaque statements are bound to be worrying when they come from a Government who, in discussing the double jeopardy rule, and advancing the European arrest warrant, have paid scant attention to the significance that most of us in the House still attach to the presumption of innocence in English law?

    If these are unreal fears, why is the Home Office in the lead on this matter? Why is a benefit entitlement card the proper pre-occupation of a Department that is not responsible for administering the benefit system? How will an entitlement card that is genuinely an entitlement card improve the criminal justice system for which the right hon. Gentleman’s Department is largely responsible? If the police will not be able to demand production of this card—as the Home Secretary’s paper and statement suggest—what effect can the card possibly have on street crime, or any other crime apart from fraud?

    I fear that neither the Home Secretary’s statement nor his paper present to the British public a clear proposition that can foster a rational debate. In place of clarity and definition, we have obscurity and spin. This issue is too important an area of our national life, too central to the protection of society against fraud, and too fundamental to the preservation of our liberties, for us to accept such obscurity and spin. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that in the coming days and weeks he will make it clear what he is actually asking us to debate?

  • David Blunkett – 2002 Speech on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud

    David Blunkett – 2002 Speech on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud

    The speech made by David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 3 July 2002.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement in launching a consultation exercise on entitlement cards and identity fraud. Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the Vote Office.

    Since the terrorist atrocities in the United States, I have been asked a number of times whether the Government would introduce identity cards. I have made it clear that any debate must not focus on issues of national security alone. Of equal importance are the issues of citizenship and entitlement to services. The focus should therefore be on whether entitlement cards would be genuinely useful to people in their daily lives and in affirming their identity. That will be the acid test of any scheme.

    In a parliamentary answer on 5 February, I ruled out a compulsory card scheme—compulsory in the sense that the card would have to be carried by each individual at all times. As I made clear, any scheme that was eventually approved would not entail police officers or other officials stopping people in the street to demand their card. We are not, therefore, consulting on that option.

    Instead, we would welcome views on a universal entitlement card. Everyone would register for and be issued with such a card, which would be required for the purpose of gaining access to services or employment. We also consider in the consultation paper the pros and cons of a voluntary card, in respect of which people could choose to opt into the scheme. That would be based primarily on their wish for secure and verifiable identification.

    The key issue is the use to which a card might be put, so a genuine consultation exercise is aimed at hearing from the public what services people would like to be linked to a card. We wish to hear from organisations in the public and private sectors about whether they would take advantage of the card to help them with delivering and providing access to their services. We have set out for illustration examples of some areas in which a card might be helpful. In each of them, we demonstrate the cons as well as the pros, to ensure that people understand the downside as well as the gains that can he made.

    I have already mentioned the use of a card to help to provide better and more appropriate access to services. It could also act as a convenient travel document and as a proof of age card, and could help to promote new ways of voting.

    Crucially, an entitlement card could help us to tackle illegal working. Illegal working undermines the minimum wage and the rights and conditions of the lowest paid. An entitlement card could give businesses and employees a simple, straightforward and verifiable way of establishing the right to work legally. It could thereby assist us in tackling the sub-economy.

    Although we have an open mind on how a card scheme could operate, we have set out a possible scheme for comment. Most people already possess some form of photo-id such as a passport or photocard driving licence. Many have already said that they would like fewer cards in their purse or wallet, and some have suggested that a scheme might incorporate both the driving licence and the recently announced passport card. Entitlement cards for those not covered by existing documents would be provided in the form of a non-driving licence card, which would be similar to those issued in many states in the United States. Existing powers to require proof of identity would reflect those used for the purposes of driving and travel.

    The consultation paper asks whether existing passport and driving licence checks are sufficiently secure, given the increasing sophistication of fraud. We would welcome views on whether biometric information such as fingerprints or iris images should be recorded. That would ensure that people could not establish multiple or false identities, which allow the personal fraud with which public and private services are bedevilled.

    Any scheme will have costs, which we spell out for the different options that are given in the paper. We are not talking about large bids to the Treasury that would displace investment in public services. The entitlement card scheme could be made self-financing by increasing charges for more secure passports and driving licences, discounted over the lifetime of the card, and by charging a lower card fee for those who do not have either a driving licence or a passport.

    There is always a danger of bureaucracy in such areas. We spell out that possible downside and illustrate potential ways of dealing with it.

    However, by building on existing systems and expertise we should be able to reduce the risk and costs inherent in an undertaking of this size. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)

    This is a vote winner for us.

    Mr. Blunkett

    I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s humour, especially given that 38 million people hold a driving licence and 44 million people, including young people, hold a passport. Technological advance is already projecting major change.

    As I said earlier, we recognise that there are inevitably real worries about the infringement of personal freedoms and historic concerns as regards the legal requirement to carry a card. The paper sets out the way in which a scheme would comply with the Data Protection Act 1998.

    The amount of data required and its accessibility or relevance would be determined by Parliament; the use of a chip would he determined by individuals.

    I hope that my comments will reassure all hon. Members that we painfully understand the genuine need to protect privacy. However, we are asking the following question: given that to drive a car, move freely in and out of the country, open a bank account or obtain credit, we need to identify ourselves correctly, would it be easier or harder if there was one entitlement card to assist the process?

    In addition, each year, thousands of people have their identities stolen by criminals, often without their knowing about it. Bank accounts are raided, and goods and services bought in their name. Identity fraud now amounts to £1.3 billion a year. For good reason, there is genuine concern among the public about that growing criminal activity. A universal entitlement card would be a powerful weapon in the fight against identity fraud. However, it would take time for a card to make its full impact. We are therefore also using the consultation exercise to seek views on several other projects that could provide rapid gains. Today, we are publishing a separate paper on identity fraud, which I have placed in the Library.

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for the work that he undertook on the matter when he was Chief Secretary.

    No one should fear correct identification. There is nothing to fear from the proper acknowledgement and recognition of our identity. There is everything to fear from wrongful identification, or the acquisition of our identity for fraudulent purposes.

    Freedom from intrusion into our private lives by public or private organisations is crucial. Freedom to avoid abuse and ease of access to our identity is an essential part of the consultation process. I commend it to the House.