UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • David Willetts – 1992 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    David Willetts – 1992 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    The maiden speech made in the House of Commons by David Willetts, the then Conservative MP for Havant, on 9 July 1992.

    I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye and so make my maiden speech. I follow the conspicuous and eloquent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). Mine is very much a valley after his great heights.
    I have the honour of succeeding Sir Ian Lloyd, who was the Member for Havant for 25 years. He was a most assiduous and well-respected constituency Member and he was ably assisted by his wife Frances who made a particular contribution to the local work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

    Ian was a most distinguished parliamentarian. He was never cramped by day-to-day political argument but always took the long view. In his maiden speech in 1965, he reminded the House of an ancestor of his who successfully introduced a measure in 1693 to denationalise the mines—one of the preconditions for our industrial revolution. It is particularly apt, therefore, that we will be able to celebrate the 300th anniversary of that measure by setting the mines free once more.

    Perhaps Ian’s influence was strongest in science and technology. It is one of those ironies of political life that, within a few months of his taking his retirement, two measures for which he fought long and hard have finally been implemented. On 1 May, we saw created the Office of Science and Technology, falling within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Ian had also fought for the creation of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. For a while, it was financed entirely through private sponsorship, but again, only a few weeks ago, the House of Commons Commission finally voted public funds to support that office. I hope that both measures can be regarded as our tribute to Sir Ian Lloyd on his retirement.

    Before the House adjourns, I should like to raise several matters that are of concern to my constituents. Havant stands literally at a crossroads and has done so since Roman times. It stands where the A3 from Portsmouth to London intersects the A27 coastal road. A new A27 was recently constructed. It was intended to bring relief to the area, but sadly it has blighted the lives of many people in Warblington and Emsworth. Its deeply ridged concrete surface produces the notorious A27 roar. When the road was opened, the Department of Transport described the surface as “experimental”. It is an experiment which has failed. We in Havant are fighting a battle for bitumen. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and I look forward to meeting our hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic next week, when we will argue forcefully for resurfacing the A27.

    Hon. Members have often referred in their maiden speeches to the sense of community in their constituencies. Havant has its sense of community, too—but perhaps that sounds a trifle worthy or even dull. I assure the House that it is not like that at all. The other week, I had the honour of taking part in the Havant annual town parade, and was preceded by giant Sooty and Sweep puppets, an array of teenage mutant ninja turtles and the south coast’s finest Norman Wisdom impersonator. It was a most enjoyable event.

    The borough of Havant comprises several distinct communities, and few issues arouse as much emotion as proposals to build on the remaining green land that survives between them. The last thing that we want Havant to become is one long anonymous urban agglomeration. Each part of the constituency, from Hartplain to Emsworth, values its own identity. Waterlooville, for example, is the place where British soldiers camped before embarking to defeat the forces of Napoleonic centralism at Waterloo, that famous battlefield 100 miles south-east of Maastricht. Napoleon, of course, had a notoriously limited grasp of the important idea of subsidiarity—it extended only as far as making his brother King of Spain.

    Emsworth used to be famous for its oysters, until a most unfortunate incident at a banquet nearly 100 years ago, when civil dignitaries, local grandees and councillors became extremely ill on eating Emsworth oysters, and I am afraid that some died. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is no way to treat local councillors.

    There are also the people of Hayling Island, who have taken the sensible precaution of preserving their distinct identity by arranging to be an island. It has rich agricultural land and a very fine beach—one of the 16 in the country to have been awarded the coveted blue flag. It was a Hayling islander who first had the idea of putting a mast on a surfboard, and thus windsurfing was created. I am pleased to say that Hayling remains one of the world centres for that sport.

    The names of some parts of my constituency may ring a faint bell with hon. Members who have read their P. G. Wodehouse—Lord Emsworth, Lady Warblington, even the Duchess of Havant. P. G. Wodehouse lived in the area for a time, and parts of it are now immortalised as the titles of upper-class eccentrics in his novels. But my constituents are very far from being characters in a P. G. Wodehouse novel, because, above all, what we do in Havant is make things. We have a concentration of world-class manufacturing firms. We are therefore particularly concerned about the state of the economy.

    There is no disguising the recession. Our firms in Havant are going through a difficult time, just like many firms around the country. It is no good gloating over the recession and taking a snapshot of the economy when it is at the bottom of an economic cycle. Instead, we have to compare the full economic cycle—the upswing and the downswing—with the previous economic cycle. That way, we can take a step back and measure the changes in the underlying performance of the economy. We find that a lot has changed for the better in the 1980s. During the full cycle from 1981 until now, the British economy has had an average growth rate of more than 2 per cent. a year. That compares with the previous economic cycle from 1975 until 1981, when we had an average growth rate of a little more than 1 per cent. per year. It is a measure of the conspicuous improvement in the underlying performance of our industry, and I see in Havant the practical evidence that lies behind those statistics.

    IBM has a large factory in Havant. Its output has trebled in the past few years. Only the other week, an IBM manager was telling me how his Havant plant could compete with its rival IBM plant in Germany and outperform IBM’s Japanese point in both quality and cost control. I asked him how that was achieved and he said that it was because of our more flexible employment legislation. We are now beginning to gain back from the far east the technological lead in computer disc drives which was lost 10 or 20 years ago.

    The other day, another Havant firm was floated on the stock exchange—Kenwood. It was created by Mr. Ken Wood, although he was not, as far as I know, a chef. That firm had languished in a large conglomerate, but, after a management buy-out a few years ago, its performance has been transformed. Kenwood’s sales have been booming and it is now beating competition from France and Germany. There are many other such firms, such as De la Rue systems, Apollo fire detectors and Colt ventilation systems. They are all at the sharp end of British industry and they are exporting much of their output. The dynamism of such firms lies behind the transformation of our trade performance, with our share of world trade increasing in the past three years, having stablished during the 1980s, after years—decades—of decline.

    Several of our exporters in Havant have criticised the performance of the Dutch firm that has taken over some of the short-term insurance responsibilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade about their concerns. Other firms still feel that they do not yet have completely open access to the European market and that we in Britain are more serious about free trade than some other member states of the EC. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have made completion of the internal market one of their priorities for the United Kingdom’s presidency of the European Community.

    Havant is a young constituency, so we are very interested in the standards of our schools. Many were built during the 1960s and, sadly, are in need of repair or even complete rebuilding. We are worried that educational planners are so preoccupied with the decline in the number of secondary school pupils that they have lost sight of the baby boom and the increase in the number of very young children. We now have nearly 4 million under-fives, compared with a little more than 3 million in the early 1980s.

    In 1998 there will be about 15 per cent. more primary school pupils than in 1984. Therefore, we need to be wary of closing infant and junior schools precisely when we can see an increase in the number of young infants who will soon join them. I shall fight to ensure that changes to our schools proposed by Hampshire county council take account of these trends and the clear wishes of parents and teachers.

    Some people ask me why my constituency, which contains Leigh Park, one of the largest council estates in Britain, returns such a substantial Conservative majority. That is the old snobbish assumption that Conservatism is just for the upper crust. One of the best aspects of the count in Havant on 9 April was when the ballot boxes from Leigh Park were opened and we saw the voting papers pouring out, so many with a cross for the Conservatives. It was evidence that the modern Conservative party understands the aspirations of the people on the council estates as well the people on the Bovis estates.

    They are people who have bought their council house thanks to Conservative policies. They are people who work in private firms and know that the success of those firms, their jobs and their prosperity depend on a healthy private sector. They are people who care about standards in their schools. They are people who try to bring up their children decently and have no truck with the sociological defences of the criminal. They are people who want more choice in health and education, who want to keep a greater share of their pay packets to spend in the way that they know best. The modern Conservative party speaks for them. I am proud to represent them.

  • David Willetts – 2002 Speech on Pensions

    David Willetts – 2002 Speech on Pensions

    The speech made by David Willetts, the then Conservative MP for Havant, in the House of Commons on 2 July 2002.

    I beg to move,

    That this House agrees with the Government’s stated aim of increasing from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. the proportion of pensioners’ incomes that comes from the private sector, but condemns the Government for failing to pursue policies which would achieve this objective and instead imposing a massive £5 billion annual tax on pension funds, and for presiding over the lowest savings ratio since records began; notes that fewer than four in ten final salary schemes are now open to new members and is shocked by the Government’s complacency in the face of widespread concern about the future of funded pensions: and therefore calls on the Government to cut the burden of regulation on pension funds, reverse the spread of means testing among pensioners, reform annuities and provide better incentives for people to save, so that they can enjoy a prosperous retirement.

    I declare my interests, which appear in the Register of Members’ Interests.

    I welcome the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to his first debate in his new post. I approach his appointment in a spirit of optimism, and hope that he will use this afternoon’s debate as an opportunity to signal a radical shift in the Government’s approach to the crisis facing funded pensions.

    The time has come for the Government to abandon their complacent denial of a problem. For too long, Ministers have had their heads in the sand: now is the time for the new Secretary of State to admit that there is a problem. I am sure that he has now been made aware of the evidence, which is compelling. The latest figures from the Association of Consulting Actuaries show that fewer than four in 10 final salary pension schemes are still open to new members, and that half of those are contemplating closure.

    A wide range of well-known companies have closed their final salary schemes to new members—Barclays, British Airways, British Telecom, ICI, Lloyds TSB, Marks and Spencer, and Sainsbury. We know from the Government’s own statistics that 59 per cent. of recently retired pensioners now have an income from an occupational pension, against 67 per cent. of recently retired pensioners when Labour came into office. Fewer pensioners are now retiring with an income from an occupational pension. The number of employees without a funded pension arrangement has grown from 40 per cent. to 44 per cent in the past two years alone. No wonder the latest policy document from the Trades Union Congress on the subject begins with a stark statement:

    “The UK’s pension system is in crisis.”

    Ministers used to ignore that evidence by citing statistics that purported to show how much we were saving. I hope that after his salutary experience in the past 24 hours the Secretary of State will not make that mistake this afternoon. I welcome his announcement that he will review the Government’s statistics on pensions contributions, but I hope that he will give the House a full account of what has gone wrong in his Department, not once, but twice. First, it got the assets in our pensions funds wrong, and more recently it got the annual flow of savings into our pension funds wrong as well. One mistake might be regarded as a misfortune, but two from the same Department on the same subject looks like carelessness.

    Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

    Is my hon. Friend aware that the Association of British Insurers informed the all-party group on insurance and financial services this morning that it calculates that the savings gap is now £27 billion, most of which relates to pensions? Will he look carefully at proposals to encourage employers to operate better schemes?

    Mr. Willetts

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is correct about the scale of the savings gap that we face.

    I wish to press the Secretary of State for more information on the two serious errors made by his Department in the past few months. The first mistake was in respect of the assets in our pension funds. Originally, the Government said that at the end of 1999 we had £784 billion in our pension funds—quite a lot of money. Then, without any explanation or prior notice, they produced a revised set of figures that showed that at the same date—at the end of 1999—they had reduced their estimate of the assets in our pension funds to £679 billion. That is a reduction of £104 billion—probably the biggest single change in the history of British economic statistics.

    The sum that the Government managed to lose is equivalent to the entire national output of Portugal, but, fortunately, three and a half months later we discovered that the money had only been mislaid, and it popped up again. The Government put out a new set of figures, announcing that they had discovered, after all, that in 1999 our pension fund assets were worth £812 billion. So the figure for the value of the assets at one date in time had moved around by £150 billion. Then the Government carried forward the series, to show that having been £812 billion in 1999, the figure was down to £765 billion in 2000 and, on the latest estimates from UBS in the City, £684 billion in 2001.

    That would mean that the assets in our pension funds peaked in 1999 and have been in decline ever since. It might be that 1999 was the peak year of our funded pension assets, not to be seen again. That was the first mistake: the Department revealed a £104 billion reduction in the value of the assets in our pension funds, with no explanation whatsoever. That surely should have set the alarm bells ringing about how unreliable the Government’s statistics were, but no.

    We investigated the figures that the Government were producing for the annual flows into our pension funds. Ministers were saying, “Don’t worry. Everybody else might say that there is a crisis in our funded pensions, but we know that everything is all right, because we are saving £86 billion a year in our pension funds.” If that figure were true, if the Government had stood back and thought about it for a moment, it would have meant that almost 9 per cent. of the entire national output of our country was going in savings in our pension funds—enough to buy for every worker in Britain a two thirds final salary pension, index-linked with inflation. The Government were saying, “Don’t worry, £86 billion a year is being saved.”

    We warned the Government, and we were not alone, that those figures were not credible. Let me quote from the chairman of the Association of Consulting Actuaries, who said:

    “We are extremely worried that the impact of the changes that are taking place in terms of future pensioner incomes is being under-estimated by the Government and, as a result, there has been an inadequate policy response.”

    The Secretary of State was quoted in the papers this morning as saying that within 72 hours of being told that there was a mistake in the statistics, he acted. Let me tell the Secretary of State that I wrote to his predecessor on 8 March 2002, telling him about the mistake and setting out in considerable detail exactly how I believed the mistake had arisen. It is not the case that the Department acted within 72 hours; it took 72 days for it to address the fundamental points that I made in the letter to the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor.

    There is now an unseemly row going on between the Secretary of State and his own officials. The Secretary of State, in a way that is all too typical of Ministers nowadays, is happy to blame everybody but himself. Referring to statistics on pension contributions, he said yesterday in the House:

    “We have now been informed by the Office for National Statistics that there are problems with the series from which they have been estimated in the past”.

    He was blaming the Office for National Statistics, but in this morning’s Financial Times the Office for National Statistics states:

    “The national statistician is not known for his apologies, and there won’t be one here.”

    The ONS is busy briefing that it is Ministers’ fault and telling the press that it warned Ministers that the information was unreliable, but that they nevertheless kept on producing the figures.

    I hope that the Secretary of State will today give us an end to that briefing and counter-briefing between him and his officials and a clear explanation of when they were first warned by the ONS about the mistakes in the figures, what steps they took to correct them as soon as they heard about them and what advice he was given by the ONS when the Department received my letter of 8 March.

    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

    My hon. Friend referred to the letter that he sent on 8 March. Presumably, a letter sent by the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions containing such serious accusations would have had an immediate reply from the Secretary of State. Can he tell me when he received the reply and what it said?

    Mr. Willetts

    I received a reply that was prompt, but brief and uninformative—exactly the sort of reply with which we are all too familiar.

    Of course, this is not just a matter of whether Ministers have confidence in the advice of their statisticians and whether statisticians have confidence that Ministers will take heed of their warnings. It ranges beyond that, as it also raises the question whether the structure of pensions in our country is right. Many Ministers were trotting out amazing statistics showing how much we were saving in our pension funds and cited them as evidence that the “structure of pensions” in Britain is “right”. If the evidence is wrong, is the conclusion that they drew from that false evidence wrong as well? I hope that the Secretary of State will also refer to that issue.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

    My hon. Friend is coming to the question of the structure of pensions. Will he confirm that a pensioner would have to accumulate a fund of about £100,000 to be better off than he or she would be having saved nothing at all? That is the case because of the deprivation of top-up payments on the basis of the fund.

    Mr. Willetts

    My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point on which we have regularly pressed Ministers. The least that people who are considering taking out a stakeholder pension, for example, are entitled to expect is information from Ministers about how much they believe that they need to build up in that pension during their working lives to float them off means-tested benefits. That is the $64,000 question; indeed, the answer might be $64,000, but we have never had any answer from Ministers. The level could be £100,000, but they have never been willing to address the important point that he makes. Again, I hope that we will hear about that from the Secretary of State.

    The real question is not just misleading statistics—something with which we are all too familiar from this Government—but what is going on with the pension funds and pension savings of the people of this country. That is the central question that the House is debating. Before the Secretary of State points it out, I accept that there are many reasons for the decline of final salary pension schemes in this country. I understand that there is a range of factors, some of which are not in the Government’s control. We are seeing improvements in longevity, and I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will welcome that as good news. The fact that people are living longer is a success that we can celebrate. There have also been changes in the labour market that will change the pattern of pension provision.

    We understand that not everything can be controlled by Ministers, but that very fact makes it even more important that the things that they do control are got right; and that, in so far as the Government control the environment in which people plan for their retirement, they get that right. Our central criticism of the Government is that Ministers have got the things that they control—above all, the burden of tax on occupational pensions—catastrophically wrong.

    Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)

    While the hon. Gentleman was recounting some of the things that might have had an effect and which Ministers controlled, did he not think that the Conservative Government’s decision to encourage and allow withdrawal of contributions and the taking of holidays by pension fundholders might have caused the massive deficit in the pension funds on which people are now looking to draw for their retirement?

    Mr. Willetts

    I undertake to cover that point later in my speech, but I want to set it in the context of the other changes. If the hon. Gentleman then thinks that I have still not addressed his question, he can come back to me.

    I want to set out the background to the tax decisions that the Chancellor has taken. At the time of the 1997 Budget, when he introduced his notorious stealth tax on our pension funds, he said:

    “Many pension funds are in substantial surplus and at present many companies are enjoying pension holidays,”—

    he was celebrating the very thing that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) just mentioned—

    “so this is the right time to undertake a long-needed reform.”—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 306.]

    The Chancellor explicitly linked the tax imposition on pension funds to the fact that those funds were in surplus.

    Last year, when the Prime Minister was challenged on this matter, he told the House of Commons:

    “The value of pension funds has gone up dramatically as a result of the success of the economy. The abolition of payable tax credits was done for the reasons that we stated at the time. It is the right reform, and as a result of the buoyancy of the stock market the value of people’s pension funds has gone up.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 285.]

    The Government justify their tax increase by saying, “Don’t worry, the stock market is going up and share prices are rising; it’s all okay.” But the value of the stock market has now fallen below the level that it was at when the Chancellor originally made that tax announcement in 1997; it has fallen almost to the level that it was at at the 1997 election. Since the justification for the tax has gone, will the Secretary of State tell us what possible reason he can have for imposing this tax on our pension funds?

    Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)

    The hon. Gentleman has criticised the £5 billion tax on pension funds. Will he tell us how much of that £5 billion would have been put back under the manifesto on which he stood at the last election?

    Mr. Willetts

    Our manifesto made it clear that we wanted to encourage people to save for their retirement. [HON. MEMBERS: “Aah!”] I would very much like to be able to reverse the tax, but the fact is that that money is now being spent. That is why we cannot pledge to reverse it.

    Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham)

    Conservative Members continually repeat the figure of £5 billion. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative Government took £10 billion out of the state pension scheme while they were in office?

    Mr. Willetts

    I am coming to this important point: we are not talking about a one-off £5 billion. It is £5 billion a year—year after year, ad infinitum. The figure is now £25 billion and rising every year. That is the point.

    Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Willetts

    I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman because I greatly respect his expertise in this area, but then I would like to make some progress.

    Mr. Field

    Given that the country is worried about its future pension provision, may I make a plea that, once the hon. Gentleman has made these points, he quickly moves on to what the Opposition will contribute to the evolving debate? It is understandable that he will point out the effect of changes in advance corporation tax on the prosperity of occupational pension funds, but does he agree that that was the second blow, and that the first blow was delivered when the Conservative Government changed the tax laws so that funds that were in surplus had to run their surpluses down to 105 per cent. of their liabilities or face penal rates of tax for not doing so?

    Mr. Willetts

    The fact is that all the other changes that have affected pension funds are dwarfed by the scale of the tax increase that the Chancellor imposed in 1997.

    Mr. Field rose—

    Mr. Willetts

    I would like to make some progress now.

    Mr. Field rose—

    Mr. Willetts

    I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I want to give him one more figure. I respect his expertise and, as he knows, I am very happy to contribute in a constructive spirit to debates on his own imaginative ideas on pension reform.

    I want to make two points. First, it is incorrect to compare the capital value of the loss of the value of shares—the capital effect—which may be hundreds of billions of pounds, with the flow of £5 billion as a tax hit. We have to realise that this is not just a one-off tax hit; it is £5 billion a year. That is why it is so significant. If we calculate the current cost of a £5 billion-a-year tax, we get a very large sum indeed.
    My second point is that Labour Members regularly mention enormous figures for the total fall in the value of the stock exchange. They now seem keen to tell us how much value shares have lost under their management—that is the point that they like to make. They talk as if those shares all belong to pension funds. Pension funds own only about 18 per cent. of British equities, so it is not correct to compare the £5 billion, which is merely the annual effect of the tax, with the £450 billion, which is the total loss in value of all shares, of which only a small proportion are held by pension funds. That is why the tax impact was so great.

    Mr. Field rose—

    Mr. Willetts

    I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman one more time, then I shall make some progress.

    Mr. Field

    I am doubly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is not it true that ACT has had the effect that it has because the Conservative Government forced pension funds to run down their surpluses? Had they not been forced so to do, many more funds would have had greater buoyancy to enable them to withstand the ACT changes. The running down of surpluses pushed more pensions nearer to the precipice. Most people would say that both sides have made mistakes, but the country wants to hear what constructive proposals the Opposition have.

    Mr. Willetts

    I should now like to make some progress, during which I hope to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s specific question about what proposals we would make.

    I shall move from abstract statistics to something vivid and direct. I cite a Member of the other place, who is well known to Labour Members because he is a Labour supporter, a Labour donor and a Labour peer: Lord Paul of Caparo Industries. I shall quote what he said about the decisions that his steel company is making in its attempt to close its final salary pension scheme. When asked why he was closing his final salary scheme, he said:

    “You see the main reason is we had this so-called final salary scheme…but in view of the tax on dividends”—
    that is the first point he mentions—

    “and also the stock market going all over the place there is no way one can really guarantee a final salary scheme”.

    At the end of his list, he refers to

    “government action like the dividend tax”.

    That is what a Labour peer who runs a business says. He is trying to use a Labour tax to close a final salary pension scheme, and instead put his workers into the Government’s pet pension scheme, the stakeholder pension. He wants them to have one of the Government’s stakeholder pensions.

    What do members of the Labour-supporting steelworkers’ union do in response to a Labour peer trying to impose a Labour pensions policy as a result of a Labour tax? The Labour-supporting trade union goes out on strike. That is what its members are threatening to do as a result of the measures that the Government have taken.

    That is not the end of the story, because there is another stealth tax, perhaps even stealthier than the £5 billion a year tax on dividends, and that is the miserly uprating of the contracted-out rebates that was announced in April. The actuaries William Mercer estimates that those rebates are now about 15 per cent. below the level necessary to provide the contracted-out benefits that companies are obliged to provide as a condition for contracting out.

    With rebates for pensions running at about £11 billion a year, the actuaries are saying that the contracted-out rebate is £1.5 billion a year short. It is not just the £5 billion a year tax on its own, but the £5 billion a year tax plus another £1.5 billion, because the value of the contracted-out rebate does not match the cost of providing the pension that has to be provided in return.

    The Government have taken the two main forms of financial support that Governments have historically given to occupational pensions—the tax relief and the contracted-out rebates—and imposed an extra £6.5 billion a year burden on our pension funds.

    I can now answer the question put by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East. The entire value of the contribution holidays taken by companies between 1987 and 2000, which has exercised Labour Members, works out at £1.4 billion a year. That has a far smaller impact on the value of company pension schemes than the tax and rebate changes made by the Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman therefore accepts that it is no good turning to employers and blaming them for the effect of their contribution holidays.

    Mr. Connarty

    As an economist, I know that £1.4 billion invested in 1979 would be worth a lot of money now. Because it was not earning money, it is not in the fund. I have just done a little calculation. Some £81 billion has been lost in the value of pension funds if they hold 18 per cent. of the shares that have lost £450 billion in value, as the hon. Gentleman just told us.

    Mr. Willetts

    The hon. Gentleman is in a hole, and he should stop digging. I am comparing a £6.5 billion imposition by the Government with the £1.4 billion a year impact that is the maximum that can be calculated to be the effect of pension contribution holidays.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr. Willetts

    No, I shall not give way. I want to make progress, because many hon. Members wish to speak.

    The effect of the changes—the tax increases and the reduction in the value of contracting-out rebates—is to drive pensioners, now and in future, on to means-tested benefits. That is where they will end up; there will be lower pension saving and more dependency on welfare. In the early 1990s, the Chancellor famously told the Labour party conference:

    “I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the Welfare State has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people”.

    Well, that is not what the Government are doing. In fact, they will have more than half the entire pensioner population dependent on means-tested benefits. Our vision is very different—it is of a country in which more and more people build up funded savings so that they can enjoy a prosperous retirement that is not dependent on state benefits or means testing, but a source of pride in that they have built up their own savings during their lifetimes

    That is what we believe in, and that is what is being damaged and destroyed by the Government—although the Prime Minister pledged, in one of their first documents after coming into office, that his aim was to change the balance of pensioners’ dependence on benefits and funded pensions. He said that he wanted to reverse the situation whereby pensioners get 40 per cent. of their income from funded savings and 60 per cent. from the state, so that they get 40 per cent. of their income from state benefits and 60 per cent. from funded pension savings. That is an objective that we completely endorse. However, typically of this Prime Minister, despite having that grandiose objective, he has done absolutely nothing to implement it. If one asked him to do the washing up, he would announce that he had a 20-year plan for a cleaner kitchen on which he would undertake widespread consultation—but a pile of dirty crockery would be left at the end of the day. That is what he is like. He has a grandiose objective and no means of implementing it.

    Conservative Members, by contrast, know how that vision should be delivered. We are committed to the reform of annuities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has introduced a private Member’s Bill that would do so. We have voted for such a provision time and again, but the Government tried to stop it every time. We have called for reform of the accounting standard FRS17. I was pleased to hear about today’s announcement whereby, in line with our requests, there will be a delay in implementing it until we know what the European standard will be.

    We have called for less means-testing of pensioners. We worked with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and with the Liberal Democrats to propose an alternative to the pension credit, suggesting that that money could instead have been put into a higher pension for older pensioners, who tend to he poorer, to offer more help to poorer pensioners without more means testing.

    Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Willetts

    No, I want to make more progress in dealing with the perfectly reasonable challenge issued by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead as to what our policies are.

    Another policy is based on our view that the burden of regulation on pension funds is too high and needs to be radically cut back. We strongly support the Pickering review, which I am sure that the Secretary of State will talk about in his speech. However, since the announcement of the Pickering review, which was supposed to reduce the burden of regulation on pension funds, we have had, in the past nine months, another 251 pages of regulations, including 67 pages of statutory instruments and 81 pages from the Inland Revenue. Those have been churned out while the Government have boasted of their review to cut the burden of red tape on pension funds. That is the reality of what they do, despite their claims.

    Over the past five years, the Government have, in a display of hyperactivity, comprehensively messed up the provision of funded pensions in our country. The Government have taxed them more heavily, cut the value of the contracted-out rebates to which they are entitled and abolished SERPS. The Government have brought in more means-testing and introduced a stakeholder pension whose take up by the eligible target group has been pitiful.

    We now face a Labour environment for pension provision, which means less saving, low funded pensions and a poorer retirement for millions of British people. Labour Members should be ashamed of themselves.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2002 Speech on the G8 Summit in Canada

    Charles Kennedy – 2002 Speech on the G8 Summit in Canada

    The speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, in the House of Commons on 1 July 2002.

    Although all sane and democratic-thinking people throughout the world will acknowledge the importance of the summit, not least as another essential reaffirmation of the fight against international terrorism, which poses the most fundamental threat to us all, I think that the Prime Minister will accept that despite the progress achieved, there were elements of serious disappointment about the summit.

    Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, not least when we hear some of the more strident tones on this side of the Atlantic as well as on the other side, that an important lesson is that progress can be best effected through efficient international institutions in which countries play a constructive role and do not run with the tide of short-term populist opinion, which, when it comes to unilateralism, far less isolationism, history proves does not work and will not deliver? Does he agree that that is an important conclusion to emerge from the weekend and from the events that have followed on since the summit itself?

    Specifically, in welcoming the reaffirmation statement about the middle east process, will the right hon. Gentleman again take the opportunity to underscore the fact that it never looks good for international countries, democratically based, to be seen to be trying to dictate what other countries should be deciding, not least through a democratic process, however difficult the circumstances may be, where the leadership of those other countries and other states are concerned?

    Secondly, on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and given the importance that the Prime Minister rightly attached to the developing role of Russia on many fronts over coming years, was there any discussion, or did he have the opportunity to raise, the role of Russia in giving financial and practical support to Iran to develop a nuclear reactor? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is considerable international anxiety as to the use to which such a facility, such a capacity, could be put. Russia will be a major and primary beneficiary of the extra funds that are being deployed, to which the United Kingdom will be contributing. Has leverage been exerted on the Russian authorities in that respect?

    Thirdly, there is the central issue of African relief. Obviously, there will be a great welcome for the progress that has been achieved. The Prime Minister quoted the World Bank, but will he acknowledge that the bank has said in the context of what was achieved—that is the progress that was made at the G8 summit—that many of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries will still have unsustainable levels of built-in debt for a long time to come? Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, this can be only the beginning of the process. It is by no means the termination of a process.

    Finally, I return to the important lesson of international co-operation. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, as a party that has long since supported the International Criminal Court, will he confirm again that this country will continue its commitment in that direction, and point out to the American Administration the fundamental error of their ways in that respect?

    The Prime Minister

    Of course, we support the International Criminal Court. It is a commitment that we inherited from the previous Government. That is quite apart from our own position.

    As for the United States and the Palestinian Authority, it is important to be clear about what the United States is and is not saying. The United States is not saying that the Palestinians cannot choose who they want. They can choose who they want. The United States is merely saying that if the Palestinians choose someone who is not a serious partner for peace, that will make it far more difficult to conduct negotiations, and frankly I agree with that.

    As for the WMD, it is true that there are worries about Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. There are also worries about other countries’ nuclear weapons programmes. However, the WMD focuses specifically on the countries of the former Soviet Union. That is important because it is in those countries that there are large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. There is the nuclear programme, and so on. They need help to clean up the nuclear submarines, for example, and we should give them that assistance.

    In relation to the African situation and NEPAD, the truthful position is that, of course, there is a lot more that must be done. It is true that we will make a significant impact on the situation, but we will not manage to deal with it all. However, we have made huge progress on where we were a few years ago. The fact is that we have a plan in place that allows us to deal with all the issues in a comprehensive way, increase aid and assistance in return for good governance and deal with issues such as conflict resolution, which are dramatically important in respect of this issue. It is no use dealing simply with issues of debt and aid; we must deal with debt and aid, trade, conflict resolution and some of the specific health and education issues. The benefit of the plan is that it gives us an overall framework within which we can work, but the political will must continue for many years.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech on the G8 Summit in Canada

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech on the G8 Summit in Canada

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 1 July 2002.

    May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for giving me early sight of his statement? Kananaskis was the first G8 gathering since 11 September, and we welcome the practical steps agreed there to fight international terrorism, and to prevent the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. In particular, Kananaskis marked another step in Russia’s re-emergence on the world stage, and I believe it right that the G8 should help to reduce her nuclear stockpiles, and very fitting that Russia will assume presidency of the G8 in 2006.

    We also welcome the G8’s renewed commitment to supporting universal primary education in developing countries, and to assisting those countries in tackling the scourge of diseases such as AIDS, TB, malaria and polio. The progress made on international debt relief is also welcome, although we note that the sums involved barely make up for the fall in world commodity prices that has recently so affected developing economies. The Prime Minister is right to herald the G8’s meeting with African presidents and the UN Secretary-General to discuss the New Partnership for Africa’s Development as a step in the right direction. However, only last October the Prime Minister told his party conference that a partnership for Africa meant

    “no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr. Mugabe’s henchmen in Zimbabwe.”

    I agreed with him. Does he still stand by that clear statement, and if so, does he not think that the G8 missed an opportunity to send a stark signal to dictators by using the example of Robert Mugabe to show that there will be no meaningful partnership for development with countries that do not respect political freedom and the rule of law?

    The G8 summit could have demanded fresh presidential elections in Zimbabwe; it could have co-ordinated sanctions between the EU and north America; and it could have shown that we mean what we say about good governance in the African continent. Did the Prime Minister argue for those things at the conference, and if so, does he not agree that it is deeply disappointing that Zimbabwe did not merit a mention in the communiqué? or in his statement?

    The G8 pledged itself

    “to work for peace in the Middle East, based on our vision of two states living side by side within secure and recognised borders”.

    It also talked of

    “the agreement on the urgency of reform of Palestinian institutions and its economy, and of free and fair elections”.

    Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said that, in his view, Yasser Arafat has

    “an attitude towards terrorism which has been inconsistent with the notion of Israel’s security.”

    Does the Prime Minister believe that a Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat can ever be consistent with the notion of Israel’s security, or does he agree with Secretary Powell, who said yesterday that if the Palestinians

    “don’t bring in new leaders, then we shouldn’t expect…approaches”

    that may be new or otherwise? Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement or the previous one?

    Today, we learn that the United States is threatening to veto the extension of UN peacekeeping operations in Bosnia unless American troops are granted immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Did the Prime Minister discuss that with President Bush and other G8 leaders during the summit? Ten days ago, the Defence Secretary told the House,

    “On the ICC, the Government negotiated an effective immunity”.—[Official Report, 20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 413.]

    Last week, however, he told a Select Committee that

    “immunity is not quite the right word”.

    Which is it? Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us what our position is.

    Was the Prime Minister not aware of grave misgivings, which we share, that the court could be used maliciously to put our soldiers in the dock merely for carrying out their duties—[Interruption.] Labour Members may complain, but the French have been able to negotiate immunity for their troops for the next seven years as a condition of signing up to the ICC. When we sought in the course of debate to introduce similar protection, that was rejected, even though it was for British troops. Will the Prime Minister tell us once and for all what protection, if any, our troops will have, apart from the judgment of the ICC—[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. Please let the Leader of the Opposition speak.

    Mr. Duncan Smith

    They hate it when they get difficult questions as they never hear the answer—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister agree with the criticism of the United States launched by the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday in the media and the newspapers? If Kananaskis is to be remembered, it will be judged by what it achieves for southern Africa, especially the 13 million people starving in that region. This is an opportunity to strike up a genuine partnership with Africa that will endure beyond the following day’s headlines. It is a two-way street, however, offering long-term assistance delivered to an agreed timetable from the developed world in return for a genuine commitment by developing countries to improve the governance of their people. But it takes action, not just words. If, with all the might at its disposal, and with the Prime Minister at the conference, the G8 cannot even bring itself to demand change in Zimbabwe, what hope is there for the rest of Africa?

    The Prime Minister

    If I may say so, I thought that that was an extraordinary demonstration of the right hon. Gentleman’s priorities. I make no apology whatever for using the vast majority of the statement to deal with Africa. It was extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman had more to say about the International Criminal Court than the state of Africa. I shall deal with the issue of Zimbabwe, but first I shall deal with the International Criminal Court, which the Conservatives supported when it was debated in the House. At the time, a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said:

    “It is a great shame that in the negotiations at Rome, where our team and others bent over backwards to try and assuage the fears of the USA…the USA ultimately felt that it could not join the countries that signed up”.

    Another Conservative spokesman said:

    “I urge the Government to introduce legislation to allow us to ratify the statute in order to realise their intention that we should be among the first 60 states to do so”.—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 934–36.]

    There is therefore a tinge of opportunism in the Conservatives’ stance today. We have taken our position because we were advised that as a result of the safeguards in place—in particular the issue of complementarity, which means that provided that a nation state is capable of trying people for any crimes, the ICC does not have jurisdiction—it is inconceivable that our peacekeepers would be brought before the court in that way. The best test of whether that is correct or not is what has happened with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which has been running for seven years and has far more intrusive powers than the ICC. In those seven years, not one peacekeeper has been up before the court. The ICC is designed to deal with people committing war crimes or genocide, and I believe that that is right. I entirely understand the concerns of the United States of America, which are perfectly legitimate. Our view, however, is that they are met by the principles that I set out and the constraints on the international court’s development.

    On Zimbabwe, let me make it clear that it will not benefit in any way from the African plan, precisely because of the outrageous conduct of the Zimbabwean Government. That is why it is so important that the plan makes it clear that only the countries that engage in good governance will qualify for the extra aid and assistance. As for what we should do about Zimbabwe, at every level—in the European Union and elsewhere, in the negotiations with the United States—of course we raise the matter.

    I looked very carefully at the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary when he was lambasting the Government for our position on Zimbabwe. I could not find a single sensible, constructive suggestion from him to deal with the matter. This is a classic instance of the Conservatives seizing on an issue, running with it hard, and having nothing but sheer vacuous nonsense to say about it.

    On HIPC, the right hon. Gentleman speaks about the sum barely making up the difference. Let us be clear. When the Government came to office, we had nothing like the help in place for Africa on debt relief or anything else. What we have done through the additional aid means that billions of dollars of debt relief will be saved for those countries, so that the money can be put into education. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. [HON. MEMBERS: “We did.”] Well, I suppose that it was a welcome of sorts. It is one of the features of the Conservatives that although in general they are against spending any money, in particular they are always in favour of spending more.

    On the middle east, in relation to Chairman Arafat, let me repeat what I said last week. I believe that if the middle east is to have a chance of getting the peace process that it needs, we need serious people to negotiate with. I have said why I believe that Chairman Arafat has let down the Palestinian people, in particular by rejecting the deal that was offered by Prime Minister Barak: he did a huge disservice to the process of peace in the middle east.

    It is for the Palestinians, of course, to decide whom they elect. We are not in a position to decide that for them, but the point that we must make and that the Americans are making is that if they end up electing leadership that is not serious about partnering the peace process, it will be difficult to make the changes that we want. That is the reality, and it is why we and the Americans have both been saying it. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the vast majority of countries agree.

    In particular, leaving aside for a moment the issue of Chairman Arafat, the key thing that the Bush speech did, and the reason why I think that it should be strongly supported, is that it set out the following principles, which are vital for progress: security for the Palestinian people, and a proper security infrastructure rebuilt; political reform of the Palestinian institutions—that is vital—en route to a viable Palestinian state, living side by side with a secure of Israel. As a result, if there are those changes on the Palestinian side, there must be from Israel in return the commitment to an end to settlements, withdrawal from the occupied territories, and a resolution of the issue on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

    That is what is important. I believe that we have the basis of a forward plan for the middle east that can work. I believe that it will work, but only if we make sure that those principles are properly implemented. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that the attempt to make differences between ourselves and the Americans may suit the Opposition, but it does not suit the peace process at all.

    Finally, let me deal with the point that the right hon. Gentleman made, in so far as he dealt with Africa at all. He said that this announcement is a deal. Yes, it is, and it gives us an important chance to make a way forward for Africa, but let us not believe that the whole of Africa is encapsulated in Zimbabwe. It is not. I am pleased to say that, increasingly, Zimbabwe is the exception in Africa, not the rule. At the same time as we take the possible action—not the impossible action—against Zimbabwe, let us congratulate those African leaders on their boldness in coming forward with the initiative, let us support it, and let us make sure that the Africa plan, which initiates the process, is carried through with the determination and vigour that has given rise to it.

  • Tony Blair – 2002 Statement on the G8 Summit in Canada

    Tony Blair – 2002 Statement on the G8 Summit in Canada

    The statement made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 1 July 2002.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the G8 Summit in Canada. Copies of all the documents agreed at the summit have been placed in the House Libraries. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Chrétien for his excellent leadership at the meeting.

    This was the first meeting of G8 leaders since 11 September. We reviewed progress made in tackling terrorism, including steps taken to cut off terrorists’ sources of financing, and action in Afghanistan and globally against al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. I set out detailed UK proposals for curbing opium production in Afghanistan, which is the source of some 90 per cent. of the heroin on our streets, and we agreed collectively to step up efforts to deal with this menace. We also agreed a set of practical measures to enhance the security of the global transport system.

    The events of 11 September proved beyond doubt that terrorists will use any means to attack our countries and our people. We therefore agreed at Kananaskis to launch a new global partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and so help ensure that these deadly materials cannot fall into the hands of terrorist groups. The world’s largest stocks of sensitive nuclear and chemical materials are in the countries of the former Soviet Union, above all in Russia. The G8 therefore agreed collectively to raise up to $20 billion over the next 10 years to fund projects under the global partnership. Among our priority concerns are the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines and the employment of former weapons scientists. As part of this programme, the UK plans to commit up to $750 million spread over the next decade.

    We also discussed pressing regional issues. On the middle east, G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the two-state vision first set out in the Saudi peace initiative: a state of Israel, secure and accepted by its Arab neighbours, living side by side in peace with a stable and well governed state of Palestine. We called for continuing efforts also on India and Pakistan.

    The Kananaskis summit also marked a major shift in the G7’s relationship with Russia. G7 leaders agreed that Russia will assume the G8 presidency in 2006 and host our summit that year. Taken together with agreement by both the European Union and the United States to grant Russia market economy status, and with the launch of the new NATO/Russia Council, these moves constitute a significant further step in building a strong partnership with Russia on security and economic issues. The next step is Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation.

    But the main focus of the summit was Africa. Let me remind the House why. The tragedy of Africa is that it is a rich continent whose people are poor. Africa’s potential is enormous, yet a child in Africa dies of disease, famine or conflict every three seconds. These are facts that shame the civilised world. In Genoa last July, G8 leaders agreed to draw up a comprehensive action plan for Africa. Central to this proposal was the concept of a deal: that African Governments commit themselves to economic, political and governance reforms, and that the G8 responds with more development assistance, more debt relief and greater opportunities for trade.

    Over the past year, African leaders have developed the New Partnership for Africa’s Development—NEPAD. This is an African-led initiative, which puts good governance at its heart. African countries have pledged to raise standards of governance and have committed themselves to a peer-review mechanism that will provide an objective assessment against these new standards. In response, at Kananaskis the G8 published its action plan for Africa. The plan sets out specific measures in eight areas, and I shall deal with some of them.

    Peace and stability are preconditions for successful development everywhere, and especially in Africa. Eight million Africans have died in conflicts in the last 20 years. The G8 committed to intensify efforts to promote peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sudan, two of Africa’s bloodiest wars, and to consolidate the peace efforts now being made in Angola and Sierra Leone.

    For the long term, we need to develop the peacekeeping capacity of African countries themselves. We agreed that by 2003 we will have in place a joint plan to build regional peacekeeping forces, trained and helped by us. But we must also tackle the underlying issues that so often drive conflict. We pledged our support for the UN initiative to monitor and address the illegal exploitation and international transfer of natural resources from Africa which fuel armed conflicts, including mineral resources, petroleum, timber and water, and to support voluntary control efforts such as the Kimberley process for diamonds.

    Around 50 million children in Africa are not in school of any kind. We agreed therefore to implement the education taskforce report, prepared for the summit, which will significantly increase bilateral aid for basic education for African countries that have a strong policy and financial commitment. Recent analysis by the World Bank sets out clearly which policies work. We agreed that where countries have those policies in place, we will ensure that they have sufficient external finance to meet the goal of universal primary education by 2015.

    We also agreed to continue our efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS through the new global health fund, and G8 countries committed to provide the resources necessary to eradicate polio from Africa by 2005. Twenty-six countries, including 22 in Africa, have already benefited under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries, or HIPC, initiative, receiving about $62 billion in debt relief. Eventually, 37 countries are expected to benefit.

    At Kananaskis the G8 agreed to provide up to an additional $1 billion for the HIPC trust fund. That will help to ensure that those countries whose debt position has worsened, because of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices, will get enough debt relief to ensure that they are able to exit HIPC with sustainable levels of debt.

    On trade, we agreed to make the WTO Doha round work for developing countries, particularly in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to conclude the negotiations no later than 1 January 2005 and, without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations, to apply that Doha commitment to comprehensive negotiations on agriculture aimed at substantial improvements in market access and reductions in all forms of export subsidies with a view to their being entirely phased out.

    At Monterrey in February the international community pledged to increase official development assistance by $12 billion a year from 2006. In Kananaskis the G8 agreed that at least half of that new money would go to reforming African countries, for investment in line with NEPAD’s own priorities. That is a substantial commitment by any standards—an additional $6 billion a year for the world’s poorest continent. It recognises Africa’s needs, but it is also a strong signal of the G8’s confidence that the commitments that African leaders are making under NEPAD really will transform the environment in which our aid is invested.

    The UK will contribute its share of those additional resources. I can tell the House that we expect UK bilateral spending on Africa to rise from around £650 million a year now to £1 billion by 2006—three times the level that we inherited from the last Conservative Government.
    President Mbeki of South Africa said of the plan that

    “there has never been an engagement of this kind before, certainly not between Africa and the G8…it is a very, very good beginning.”

    President Obasanjo from Nigeria called it a

    “historic moment for Africa and for the whole relationship between the developed and developing world”.

    Africa is not a hopeless continent, as some have described it. Uganda, for example, has reduced poverty by 20 percentage points in the last 10 years, and growth has averaged around 7 per cent. a year. HIPC debt relief and aid have been used to help to provide free primary education. As a result, enrolment has doubled, putting millions of children into school. Mozambique has seen growth of 9 per cent. in the past 4 years, and Tanzania is now providing free primary education. As a result of courageous new policies, Mali has reduced poverty dramatically in the past 4 years.

    Of course, we need to do more—much more—but for the first time there is a comprehensive plan, dealing with all aspects of the African plight. For the first time, it is constructed with reforming African leaders as partners, not as passive recipients of aid. For the first time, we link explicitly and clearly good governance and development.

    So this is not our destination—of an African renaissance—achieved, but it is a new departure. It is a real signal of hope for the future, and it is up to us now to make it a reality. I am proud of the part that Britain has played in it. There are those who say that Africa matters little to the British people. The millions who donate to charities—who give up time, energy and commitment to the cause of Africa—eloquently dispute this. Africa does matter: to us and to humanity. We intend to see the plan through.

  • Tom Tugendhat – 2015 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Tom Tugendhat – 2015 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    The maiden speech made by Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative MP for Tonbridge and Malling, in the House of Commons on 11 June 2015.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I praise the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), whose tour de force demonstrated the strength of speaking skills in the northern part of our nation. I am grateful to be called to speak today, because the financing of Europe is a matter in which I must declare an interest. As the husband of a French wife, I know all about foreign powers deciding on British finances.

    It is an honour to represent the people of Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling in this wonderful House. Our beautiful towns and villages prove that England is today enjoying a bountiful summer. The fruits of our fields are enjoyed nationwide and I hope that this summer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be among the many who relish the Mereworth strawberries when you go to Wimbledon. I could give you a tour of my wonderful constituency based on the pubs, but for brevity I shall stick to the numerous towns and villages.

    In the west, Edenbridge is a wonderful market town that once made cricket balls—indeed, the balls that Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge smacked out of the ground to the delight of Kent and England fans. Chiddingstone is home to one of the finest ales in our nation, Larkins, which will, I hope, one day be on tap here. A little further on is Wolf Hall or, as it is known on the maps, Penshurst. Sadly, these wonderful communities are not entirely tranquil. As I reminded my right hon. Friend the Secretary State for Transport this morning, Gatwick’s low flights are blighting our days.

    A little to the east, our largest town, Tonbridge, is home to some of the finest schools in our country. I declare an interest again, as a governor of Hillview School, which is committed to the arts, to drama, to design and to fashion and through that enriches the lives of many young people. West Malling’s High Street shows that commerce and community can combine. The award-winning florists and shoe shops are indeed a delight to all. East Malling is more famous abroad than at home, as its agricultural research has introduced new varieties to farmers around the world, while at Hadlow College those innovations are translated into reality by the teaching of a new generation.

    Our community is not cut off from modernity, but communications too often hamper rather than improve lives. Borough Green, for example, is shaken by heavy traffic while many across our area suffer from poor trains and failing phone signals. The response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and of the Rail Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), has been exemplary, and I look forward to seeing both issues improved with their welcome support.

    I am not the first to campaign on these matters. The right hon. Sir John Stanley did so before most people can remember and, indeed, before I was born. In his maiden speech, he tested Hansard with the names of some of our wonderfully yclept villages: Wrotham, pronounced “Routem”; Trottiscliffe, pronounced “Trozlee”; and Ightham, pronounced “Item”. As I say them, I know that I am testing Hansard again 40 years later.

    The House knows Sir John’s formidable legacy. His close links with the councils he served alongside and his dedication to every part of the constituency have left an integrated approach and exemplary work ethic that I am determined to maintain. Furthermore, his dedication to our country saw him serve as Minister for housing, for Northern Ireland and for the armed forces. That connection to the armed forces is very strong in Tonbridge and I am proud to join the line of representatives that our town has sent to this House still holding a commission in her Majesty’s armed forces. Sir John continued that tradition of service and his personal courage was clear both from the ministerial offices he held during the darkest days of the troubles and, perhaps most dramatically, as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Baroness Thatcher. That really took courage. I wish Sir John and Lady Stanley well. They deserve our utmost praise and gratitude.

    My time in this House is, to be honest, unlikely to match the length of Sir John’s, so I shall briefly outline my reasons for seeking a voice in the heart of our democratic Union. The first is the law. As St Thomas More, a former occupant of your seat, Madam Deputy Speaker, once put it:

    “I would uphold the law if for no other reason but to protect myself”.

    Though my learned father invariably displayed the judgment of Solomon, I learnt clearly that the rule of law is not the same as the rule of lawyers. Those are not just words of filial rebellion but a call for the sovereignty of the people—the fundamental principle of British governance reasserted many times since Magna Carta 800 years ago—that finds expression in this House, the court of Parliament, and not through the Queen’s courts nor Strasbourg’s.

    My second reason for seeking a voice is dementia. That silent time bomb is affecting the whole community, both directly and as carers, and that in turn calls for community response. That is why I am working with the whole community to help Tonbridge, Edenbridge and West Malling to become dementia-friendly towns that can offer the support we need across west Kent.

    Finally, I come to the armed forces. Having served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq and latterly as military assistant to the Chief of the Defence Staff, I know that numerical totems are for accountants, not soldiers. It is capability that matters and that is measured in assets and readiness. As we face an uncertain future in a world in which Russia threatens our allies in the east and Islamic-inspired violent extremism is redrawing the maps of the middle east, we must not only have the ships, the soldiers and the aircraft but must be certain that they are ready. Only by demonstrating our readiness on exercises and operations can we reassure our friends and deter our enemies. Deterrence is about much more than the nuclear boats that are the British people’s ultimate guarantee of sovereignty. It is about the morale and training of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Like a fiat currency, defence relies on confidence in our ability and only truly works when no one dares test it.

    As we continue our debate on financing the European Union, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the only Prime Minister to have lowered the budget. I am also grateful and humbled to be the voice of my community in this Chamber. I will speak for the thousands who supported me and for the thousands who did not. I pledge to serve them all and the interests of our United Kingdom to the best of my ability, as long as the people of Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling will grant me that privilege.

  • Hilary Benn – 2004 Speech on Increases in the Foreign Aid Budget

    Hilary Benn – 2004 Speech on Increases in the Foreign Aid Budget

    The speech made by Hilary Benn, the then Secretary of State for International Development, at Church House in London on 2 June 2004.

    In government, Labour has given a lead in international efforts to tackle global poverty.

    Compared with 1997, today more of our nation’s wealth is being spent on overseas aid – to directly improve the lives of millions of men and women living in poverty – with whom we share this small and fragile planet.

    The UK will spend £4.5 billion on aid by 2005/06 – a 93% increase in the aid budget since 1997. In sharp contrast to this record, the Tories are committed to a real terms cut of £229 million in the Department for International Development’s budget over two years, reducing aid to some of the world’s poorest people.

    In office, we have created a separate Department for International Development – recognised around the world as one of the most effective development agencies in the international system. We have led international action to wipe out debt for the poorest nations – relieving $70 billion worth of debt so far – with the UK providing 100% bilateral debt relief for the world’s poorest countries. And we have introduced the International Development Act which says that British aid must be used for the reduction of poverty. Our resources are now targeted on supporting the internationally agreed UN Millennium Development Goals, and by next year we will focus 90 per cent of our bilateral aid on the poorest countries in the world, including £1 billion a year to Africa.

    Since 1997, this Labour government has spent £800 million on helping children to get into school around the world; over the next four years this will rise to £1 billion going on education. The UK is now the world’s second largest bilateral donor in the global fight against HIV/AIDS, and we have committed $280 million to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria up to 2008.

    Labour’s increase in development assistance has helped to bring real improvements in the lives of the world’s poorest people. Kenya now has an additional 1.2 million children in school thanks to a UK grant of £10 million. Poverty in Rwanda, where the UK is the largest bilateral donor, has decreased from approximately 70 per cent in 1994 to under 60 per cent in 2002. In Uganda immunisation coverage has increased from 41 per cent to over 70 per cent. And there are many more success stories.

    Four years ago, the international community united in committing itself to the Millennium Development Goals: to halve world poverty, reduce infant and maternal mortality, and get all of the 113 million children of primary age, not in school currently, into a classroom. We must now ensure that the promises we have made on aid, trade, debt relief and sustainable development are delivered. It is my belief that international development should be an area where there is consensus between the mainstream political parties. Britain is, after all, leading the fight to tackle global poverty, and for our fight to succeed in persuading international partners abroad, our hand should be strengthened by support at home across the political spectrum.

    Despite the poor Tory record on overseas aid – in office, the Conservatives halved the aid budget as a proportion of national income from 0.51 per cent of GDP in 1979 to 0.26 per cent in 1997 – I had hoped we had seen a conversion. In 2002, the then Shadow Chancellor Michael Howard said the Tories would support measures we announced in that year’s Spending Review to increase the budget for international development.

    But the two-year cash freeze in international development announced by the current Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin would mean a real terms cut of £229 million in the development budget.

    So, having pledged to meet our commitments, the Conservatives have now broken that pledge, and in doing so have set their face against the growing international consensus about the need for more aid. They have committed themselves to a real terms cut in public spending which would affect help for some of the poorest people in the world.

    With typical candour John Bercow has admitted, “I cannot say to you that a freeze would not apply to the international development budget.” It would be disingenuous for the Tories to pretend a cut of this scale could come from waste or without eating deep into the international commitments we wish to make. This is especially so given Oliver Letwin’s confirmation last week that the Tories are looking to reduce public spending as a share of GDP.

    Let me illustrate the scale of the cuts the Tories would need to find.

    The first year of Conservative cuts would amount to the equivalent of eliminating the UK’s annual programmes for the Sudan (£14 million), Sierra Leone (£40 million) and Ethiopia (£57 million).

    92,000 people could be lifted out of poverty each and every year with the money the Tories want to cut.

    690,000 children in Africa could be provided with school places each year with the money the Tories want to cut.

    For each £100m spent on education in Asia, we could put an additional 2 million children in school. Spent on health in Asia, this could save the lives of another 250,000 children under 5, or avert over 50,000 maternal deaths

    The Tories must now explain where the £229 million cut from DFID’s budget over 2 years would be found.

    They must also explain why, having supported EU action to co-ordinate overseas aid as part of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, they are now calling for withdrawal from the EU overseas aid programme.

    Europe plays an important role in our efforts to alleviate global poverty. The EU is the biggest donor in the world for humanitarian aid and the third largest donor for development assistance. The EU is a major contributor, for instance, to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

    Labour believes we should continue to press for reform in the way EU aid is used: to increase the proportion spent in low-income countries and to focus aid where it can have most impact. We also want Europe’s complex and slow procedures to be further streamlined and simplified.

    With Labour, Britain has led the demand for fundamental reform of the EU’s development programmes to contribute to global poverty reduction. This is in contrast to the Tories who did nothing to improve the quality of EU aid while in government and now claim that they can withdraw the UK’s contribution to the EU’s aid programme. This isn’t possible. The Tories cannot simply unilaterally withdraw from existing treaty obligations without the agreement of the 24 other EU member states – but they have yet to identify one country that would support them. It is not credible for the Tories to pretend they can fulfil this commitment unless they plan to withdraw from the EU.

    Oliver Letwin has now placed the Tories in a position where they are reneging on a pledge to match Labour’s spending on international development. They have made what should be an issue of consensus an issue of contention, and it is the very poorest people in the world who would suffer from their cuts.

    And that’s why Labour intends to continue making international development a priority. Because it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. And because unless we tackle poverty, injustice and inequality, then we will never have a safe and secure world in which we can all live.

  • Tony Blair – 2004 Speech on Public Services

    Tony Blair – 2004 Speech on Public Services

    The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 23 June 2004.

    Over the coming three months, I will be setting out an agenda for a third term Labour Government. A major part of that agenda will be about the future of public services in health, education, law and order, transport, housing and employment. But the battle over public services is more than a battle about each individual service. The state of our public services defines the nature of our country. Our public realm is what we share together. How it develops tells us a lot about what we hold in common, the values that motivate us, the ideas that govern us.

    The New Labour Government was created out of the reform of progressive politics in Britain. For the first hundred years of our history as a party, we had been in government only intermittently.

    Our ambition was to govern in the way and manner of Labour in 1945 and the reforming Liberal Governments of the late 19th and early 20th century: to construct a broad coalition of the better off and the less advantaged to achieve progress, economic and social, in the interests of the many not the few.

    In seven years, we have delivered a stable economy, rising employment, and big reductions in unemployment and poverty. With that behind us, we have invested in our public realm. In particular, we have systematically raised the capacity and quality of our public services. Over the last few months there has been a growing recognition and acceptance that real improvement is happening.

    Now, on the basis of this clear evidence of progress, is the time to accelerate reform.

    In simple terms, we are completing the re-casting of the 1945 welfare state to end entirely the era of “one size fits all” services and put in their place modern services which maintain at their core the values of equality of access and opportunity for all; base the service round the user, a personalised service with real choice, greater individual responsibility and high standards; and ensure in so doing that we keep our public services universal, for the middle class as well as those on lower incomes, both of whom expect and demand services of quality.

    I am not talking about modest further reorganization but something quite different and more fundamental. We are proposing to put an entirely different dynamic in place to drive our public services: one where the service will be driven not by the government or by the managers but by the user – the patient, the parent, the pupil and the law abiding citizen. The service will continue to be free, but it will be a high quality consumer service to fit their needs in the same way as the best services do in other areas of life.

    This is a vision which combines choice, excellence and equality in a modern universal welfare state.

    We will contrast such a vision with that of the Conservatives whose essential anti-public service ideology is shown by their policy to subsidise a few to opt-out of public services at the expense of the many; to abandon targets for public service performance; and to cut the overall amount of public spending drastically. There are frequent gyrations in their precise policies; but unchanging in each new version is that a privileged minority can and should opt out in order to get a better service.

    By contrast, I believe the vast majority of those on centre-left now believe in the new personalised concept of public services. It is true that some still argue that people – usually other people – don’t want choice. That, for example, they just want a single excellent school and hospital on their doorstep.

    In reality, I believe people do want choice, in public services as in other services. But anyway choice isn’t an end in itself. It is one important mechanism to ensure that citizens can indeed secure good schools and health services in their communities. And choice matters as much within those institutions as between them: better choice of learning options for each pupil within secondary schools; better choice of access routes into the health service. Choice puts the levers in the hands of parents and patients so that they as citizens and consumers can be a driving force for improvement in their public services. And the choice we support is choice open to all on the basis of their equal status as citizens not on the unequal basis of their wealth.

    This is the case we will take to the British people. It is a case only possible because of our investment. Without investment in capacity and in essential standards and facilities, sustained not just for a year or two but year on year as a matter of central national purpose, there is no credibility in claims to be able to extend choice to all. They become mere words without meaning for the great majority of citizens, as demonstrated by the last government which promised these things but refused the investment in capacity and so ended up making its flagship policies on choice the assisted places scheme, a grammar school in every town, and subsidies for private health insurance; all of them opt-out policies for a small minority at the expense of the rest.

    Some propose to return to these policies. To return to choice for the few. To offer what is in effect not a right to choose but a right to charge. To constrain investment, either by directly cutting it or by siphoning it off money to subsidise those currently purchasing private provision.

    Our goal is fundamentally different and more ambitious for the people of Britain and I will set it out today.

    Let me go back to 1997 and describe our journey as a government.

    We inherited public services in a state of widespread dilapidation – a claim almost no-one would deny. This wasn’t because public services and their staff were somehow inferior; on the contrary, our health and education services had achieved about as much as it was possible to achieve on constrained budgets and decades of under-investment. The problem was too little resource, and therefore grossly inadequate capacity in terms of staff and facilities.

    This under-investment was not tackled in the Eighties and into the Nineties, even as economic conditions allowed. On the contrary, it was maintained as an act of policy and philosophy right up until 1997. So in 1997 the hospital building programme had ground to a halt, despite a £3bn repairs backlog. Capital investment was at its lowest level for a decade. Waiting lists were rising at their fastest rate ever. Nurse training places had been cut by a quarter. Training places for GPs were cut by one fifth. In education, teacher numbers had fallen by 36,000 since 1981. Funding per pupil was actually cut by over £100 between 1992 and 1997. Police numbers were down by 1,100.

    Underinvestment and chronic lack of capacity led, inevitably, to a failure to meet even basic standards. Standards not simply unmet, but undefined, for the simple reason that defining them would have demonstrated how far each public service was from achieving them.

    So there was no national expectation of success at school for young people – although nearly half of 11 year-olds were not even up to standard in the basics of literacy and numeracy and a similar proportion left school at or soon after 16 with few if any qualifications.

    There was no effective maximum waiting time either for a GP appointment or for hospital treatment – although the hospital waiting lists stood at over 1.1 million and many patients were waiting more than 18 months even for the most urgent treatment, with rates of death from cancer and heart disease amongst the highest in Europe.

    There were no national targets for reducing crime or dealing with youth offending, though crime had doubled since 1979 and it was taking four and a half months to deal with young offenders from arrest to sentence. Community penalties were not properly enforced, fines were not paid.

    And not only were none of these basic foundations in existence. Perhaps worse, there was a fatalism, cultivated assiduously by those opposed to public spending on ideological principle, that this was the natural order of things, that somehow there was a ‘British disease’ which meant we were culturally destined to have second-rate education and health and rising crime. The nation with some of the best universities in the world somehow destined to have crumbling, substandard primary and secondary schools; the nation which under Labour founded the National Health Service in the 1940s – one of the great international beacons of the post-war era – still leaving patients on trollys in corridors, with easily treatable conditions – hip and knee-joint replacements, cataracts – largely untreated because of lack of facilities.

    Our first task in 1997, within an indispensable framework of economic stability and growth, was to invest in capacity; to herald public investment in education, health and law and order as a virtue not a curse; and to define basic standards and to reform working practices so that extra resources delivered real capacity improvements service by service. We did so with confidence and optimism. With confidence that public service staff – the doctors, teachers, police officers, and the vital ancillary staff of all kinds – would rise to this challenge, with the better pay, training and incentives they needed and deserved. And with optimism that they would bring abut radical improvement – not immediately; not until the resources and reform programmes on which they depended had started to make an impact; but in a sustained fashion once the real rates of investment – rising now to 7.5% a year in health and 6% a year in education – had begun to drive reform and build capacity.

    Let me pause to say what that year on year investment means. In health, it means a budget now doubled from £33bn in 1997 to £67bn this year, and set to rise to £90bn by 2008, bringing our health spending towards the European average for the first time in a generation. This is enabling us to recruit 20,000 more doctors, 68,000 more nurses and 26,000 more therapy, scientific and technical staff. In education it means a budget nearly doubled, from £30bn to £53bn, again bringing us towards international standards with 29,000 extra teachers in our schools. In law and order it means a 25% real increase in police funding since 1999, and police numbers up 11,000. Across the public services, infrastructure being transformed – new buildings, ICT, equipment, facilities, in every locality in the country in ongoing programmes of investment. The schools capital programme, for example, up from £680m a year in 1997 to £4.5 billion a year today, enabling us to embark on a programme to bring every secondary school in the country – all 3,400 of them – up to a modern standard by 2015. A completely different physical environment for learning, transforming the potential of our teachers.

    But money alone was never going to put even the basics right. We in government never tired of saying – alongside so many public service leaders themselves, frustrated at past failure – that it had to be money tied to reform to ensure that basic standards were defined and delivered in each service. The workforce had to be modernized as it was enlarged and better paid; basic standards and practices defined and delivered; rewards tied to service improvements; a new engagement with private and voluntary sectors; and full accountability to the public which was being asked to pay for the service improvements, with proper independent inspection and assessment.

    So our policy was not simply smaller class sizes and more teachers – although we achieved both. It was also literacy and numeracy programmes, building on best existing teaching practice, to raise basic standards systematically nationwide – 84,000 more 11 year-olds a year now up to standard in maths and 60,000 in English. It was a radical recasting of the teaching profession to embed teaching assistants alongside teachers and give them a defined role – now more than 130,000 of them, double the number in 1997. It was a reform of secondary education – including Excellence in Cities and the specialist schools and academies programmes – tackling failing schools systematically and embedding higher standards and a culture of aspiration school by school. Substantial progress is now evident on all fronts: the number of failing schools is down, there is a new culture of achievement and expectation in our secondary schools, and 50,000 more 16 year olds a year now achieving five or more good GCSEs.

    Similarly, our policy in heath was not simply more doctors, nurses and new buildings – although we have achieved a step-change in all three. It was the first national system of hospital inspection. The first national maximum waiting times for GP appointments, hospital treatment and A&E. New national service frameworks for treatment of cancer and heart disease. Premature deaths from heart disease – the single biggest killer – are down by a quarter since 1997, with a third more heart operations, twice as many patients receiving immediate access to clot-busting drugs and cholesterol lowering drugs now prescribed to 1.8 million people.

    The statistics don’t of course tell the real story of lives saved and transformed.
    Take, for example, the family turning up at A & E with their elderly relative who has fallen at home.

    Before the investment and reforms now in place they would most likely have faced a long and worrying wait, probably in a shabby casualty department. They would have read the stories about ‘waiting 48 hours on a trolley in a corridor’ and expected the same.

    Today, their elderly relative will be seen and treated within 4 hours at the very most, but typically much quicker. There will be more staff in the A & E than previously and the facilities will very likely have been refurbished with play areas for children and so on.

    In law and order, too, it is a similar story of bold statistics proclaiming real change – not only the 11,000 extra police, but also 3,300 community support officers where this type of role simply didn’t exist in 1997. Overall crime, according to the British Crime Survey, down by 4 million incidents a year, with the blight of burglary down to its lowest level for over 20 years.

    This week we held a reception at No 10 for front-line staff. Many of them were people whose jobs didn’t even exist seven years ago. New Deal advisers who have helped cut youth unemployment to a few thousand nationwide. Sure Start workers. Nurse consultants. Community Support Officers. NHS Direct staff. Classroom assistants. All of them giving us the capacity to help thousands upon thousands in new ways.

    So, taking stock, we have raised capacity to a new plateau. And it is from this plateau that we can climb to the next vital stage of public reform, to design and provide truly personalized services, meeting the needs and aspirations of today’s generation for choice, quality and opportunity service by service on which to found their lives and livelihoods.

    Choice and diversity are not somehow alien to the spirit of the public services – or inconsistent with fairness.

    The reason too many of the public services we inherited were stuck in the past, in terms of choice and quality – and the two or even more tiers of service they offered – was because their funding, infrastructure and service standards were stuck in the past too.

    Back in the 1940s, the public services were top-down in their management – like so much else at the time, and this remained too entrenched thereafter. But they were every bit as good as the private sector in terms of choice and quality – if not far better, particularly after the 1944 Education Act and the founding of the NHS, which offered services and opportunities transformed from the pre-war years within a post-war economy and society governed by rationing, funding constraints, and pervasive low skills and aspirations. Aneurin Bevan said the NHS civilized the country. It extended choice, quality and opportunity in its generation: it didn’t limit them. And when it came to means rather than ends, Bevan was entirely pragmatic about how provision should be funded and structured within the new NHS, consistent with its values of equality and fairness.

    The following decades saw a growing divergence between the availability of choice – and the perception and often the reality of quality – between the public and private sectors. But on the basis of the new plateau of capacity, we can change that, whilst keeping intact the ethos of public service.

    Choice and quality will be for all – driven by extra capacity, without charges or selection by wealth.

    In health, we will set out tomorrow a new guarantee of treatment within a set time which starts from the moment a patient is referred by their GP – not the time that they get onto the queue for their operation. Every patient will have a right to be seen and treated within this period, with a choice of which provider undertakes the treatment.

    In education, we want every parent to be able to choose a good secondary school. So we are providing for every secondary school to become a specialist school, with a centre of excellence in one part of the curriculum; and to raise aspiration and achievement in areas where the education system has failed in the past, we will expand the number of academies significantly. We will also reform the curriculum so that students get a better and broader range of options for study beyond the age of 14, developing their talents and challenging them to achieve more.

    In law and order, we will re-introduce community policing for today’s age with dedicated policing teams of officers and community support officers focused on local priorities, implementing tough new powers to deal with anti-social behaviour. There will also be personalised support for every victim of crime as we introduce a new witness care service nationwide.

    The same principles will be extended across the public services. In social housing, for example, we will extend choice-based lettings – which give council and housing association tenants a new service to identify locations and properties, in place of traditional schemes where tenants were simply allocated a property on the basis of a centrally-imposed points system.

    In welfare, every person of working age able to work – wherever they live and whatever their needs – will receive personalised support, including personal advisers able to provide tailored support to help people back into work, not just registered job seekers but steadily more of the three million of working age who are otherwise economically inactive.

    As we accelerate reform on the basis of enhanced capacity, these personalized services will be made available in every community.

    Over the last seven years New Labour has time and again shown how ideas that are supposed to be irreconcilable can be brought together: social justice and economic efficiency; fairness at work and a flexible labour market; full employment and low inflation.

    It is the same with choice, excellence and equity. There is no reason except past failure why excellence need mean elitism – why there can only be good schools and universities if a majority are kept out of them; why there can only be real choice and diversity if a majority are deprived of them. With the right services, expectations and investment, we can have excellence for the great majority, with choice and equity. And we don’t base this on theory, but on what is now happening in practice.

    Consider healthcare, where we have now been trialling choice in the public services for a number of years. The evidence shows there is demand for choice and that this is not only compatible with equity but that choice itself helps to ensure equity.

    In the NHS there have been trials in elective surgery with patients offered a choice of up to four hospitals for treatment, often assisted by a Patient Care Adviser. Take-up is high.

    Half of all those offered a choice of where to have their heart operation in the nationwide cardiac scheme took up the offer. More than two thirds of patients offered a choice in the London trial took up the offer. Three quarters did so in Manchester.

    The schemes have had a dramatic effect on waiting times. In the London pilot, extending patient choice led to a decrease in waiting times of 17% (compared with a 6% fall nationally).

    The recruitment of overseas suppliers into the NHS – setting up new treatment centres extending choice – has also had a significant effect. As the FT put it a fortnight ago: ‘By introducing a clutch of overseas providers … to provide treatment centres for National Health Service patients, the government has at a stroke transformed a significant chunk of the country’s health care … exposing to scrutiny some of the myths on which private medical care is sold.’

    Greater choice and diversity are having a similarly positive effect in education and childcare. Our new under-fives provision – Sure Start, nursery places for three and four year-olds, better maternity and paternity support, a massive extension of childcare supported by tax credits – is enabling parents to choose the provision that is best for them and their children, where previously there was often no provision at all. It is also giving parents much greater flexibility in their working life, where previously they often had none, or indeed little incentive to work at all.

    In secondary education, specialist schools have shown significant improvements in results, and most secondary schools and are now exploring the best curriculum areas in which to develop real centres of excellence and boost their provision. We have made it far easier for successful and popular schools to expand where they wish to do so, including special capital grants for new premises. New secondary school curriculum options, including junior apprenticeships for 14 to 16 year-olds, are giving pupils more choice to meet their aspirations, and we will take curriculum reform further. Academies are offering a wholly new type of independent state school, serving the whole community in areas where better provision is needed, and are proving popular. I have opened two of the new academies in the past year; it is truly remarkable what is possible when investment, aspiration and inspirational leadership – not tied down by past failure – go hand in hand.

    Let me return to my starting point. With growing capacity in our public services we can now accelerate reform. We have the opportunity to develop a new generation of personalised services where equity and excellence go hand in hand – services shaped by the needs of those who use them, services with more choice extended to everyone and not just those that can afford to pay, services personal to each and fair to all.

    It is now accepted by all the political parties that the economy and public services will be the battleground at the next election. That in itself is a kind of tribute to what has been achieved. The territory over which we will fight is the territory we have laid out.

    For our part, we must fight it with a boldness no longer born out of instinct but of experience. When we have refused to accept the traditional frontiers but have gone beyond them, we have always found more fertile land.

    And there is another reason for approaching our task in this way: the world keeps changing ever faster. With the change comes new possibilities and new insecurities. It is always our job to help realise the one and overcome the other; to provide opportunity and security in this world of change; and for all, not for a few.

    Take a step back and analyse seven years of this Government. Setbacks aplenty, for sure. But also real and tangible achievement and progress for many who otherwise would have been kept down, unable to realise their potential, without much hope and with little prospect of advance. Now we have to take it further: always with an eye to the future, always maintaining the coalition of the decent and the disadvantaged that got us here, always recognising that in politics if you aren’t adventurous, you may never know failure, but neither are you likely to be acquainted with success.

    There is still much to do and we intend to do it.

  • Arthur Balfour – 1903 Speech Following the Loyal Address

    Arthur Balfour – 1903 Speech Following the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Arthur Balfour, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 19 February 1903.

    I need hardly say that I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to obtrude any legal opinions upon the House, not merely because the hour is late, but because I am incapable of giving an opinion on such a subject which is worth listening to. But I think I have gathered what it is that has influenced most of the speakers, and many of those who have listened to them, who feel that the House of Commons ought to take some action on the present occasion. I do not misinterpret the feeling of the House when I say that there is no man on either side of the House who, either in public or in private, or even to himself, has made any suggestion of suspicion as to the motives by which the Attorney General was actuated in the course that he has taken.

    There is probably no man in this House, not even those who, like myself, are entirely ignorant of the law, who doubts that the Attorney General’s advice has not only been honestly given, but has been given by a man eminently qualified to give advice upon any matter connected with the laws of this country. The third observation I think I may make with general assent is that it is not intended on this occasion to make an attack upon His Majesty’s Government. It is perfectly true, as an hon. Gentleman said opposite, that every Amendment to the Address is an attack upon the Government, and in that sense, of course, this is an attack upon the Government; but it is not an attack upon them in a matter in which they have any discretion. It is due to the Attorney General to say in the clearest manner, not only in the interests of the Attorney General but in the interest of all, that his position as the District of Public Prosecutions is a position absolutely independent of any of his colleagues. It is not in the power of the Government to direct the Attorney General to direct a prosecution. No Government would do such a thing; no Attorney General would tolerate its being done. Though it is, I believe, peculiar to the British Constitution that political officers, like the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney General, should occupy what are in fact great judicial positions, nobody doubts that in the exercise of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions they act entirely independently of their colleagues, and with a strict and sole regard to the duty they have to perform to the public. That is the position of my learned friend, and that is the position of the Government in connection with this subject.

    Now I pass to what I believe to be the animating motive of almost all the speeches we have heard tonight in favour of the Amendment. I think that motive is a feeling of deep and profound indignation at the fraudulent transactions in which Mr. Whitaker Wright has been engaged. Nobody can have even a most cursory knowledge of those transactions without being conscious that if these are things which can be done in a great commercial centre like London, in connection with a vast transaction like that of the London and Globe, and can be done with impunity, a great fault lies somewhere. The only question is where that evil lies. I venture respectfully to say that no man can have listened to the debate tonight and have weighed—I will not say the reasoned legal view of my learned friend the Attorney General, because I imagine he was precluded by the fact that there were proceedings pending in this matter from going into the details of the reasons which have influenced his judgment—but have listened to what he said, or what the Solicitor General told us of the enormous pains taken by the Law Officers of the Crown in examining this case, without admitting that the fault does not lie either with the Director or Public Prosecutions, or with those who advised him. The fault lies in the law. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION side of the House: No, no.] Is that a lawyer or a layman? Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that it is the jury which make the law? My hon. friend below the Gangway says that in his view an offence has been committed.

    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

    Under the Statutes of 1861 and 1862, and at Common Law.

    MR. A. J. BALFOUR

    Well, both the question of Common Law and the question of Statute Law have been critically and carefully examined by the Law Officers of the Crown, and they, rightly or wrongly, take a different view from that held by my hon. friend. Whilst all admit that if such scandalous frauds are allowed to go unpunished the fault lies somewhere, I venture to say to the House that the fault does not lie with my learned friend, but with the language of the statute. The phraseology of the statute is evidently intended to protect the shareholders in a company and the creditors of a company against fraudulent prospectuses; and it is a very grave omission in the framing of the statute that it does not provide an adequate remedy against fraud, however gross, however scandalous, which is not directed against these persons. My learned friend’s attention has been called to this defect in our law by the very scandalous and painful case of Mr. Whitaker Wright and the Globe Finance Company; and he has expressed his opinion to the Government that there ought to be an amendment to the law making such practices absolutely impossible. The Government, advised in that sense by my learned friend, entirely share his view, and think that an amendment of that kind ought to be introduced as soon as possible. I need hardly say we shall take steps to carry that view into effect.

    Meanwhile, what I ask the House to do is to make the law what it ought to be, and not to attack a judicial officer whose duty it is to administer the law as he finds it. I cannot imagine a worse precedent than that this House should constitute itself a kind of grand jury in criminal matters; that, moved by passions which in this case we all share, and which, I believe, are amply justified by the facts, we should endeavour to compel a judicial officer to do that which, in his conscience, he believes he ought not to do. Let the House reserve itself for the function for which it is fitted—the amendment of the law—bringing it into a condition to meet the needs of the community, and into harmony with the general principles of justice. I hope and believe the House will not differ from the general principle I have laid down, and will be content with the pledge I have given, that we shall endeavour to amend the law in accordance with that broad view of commercial morality so ably defended by my hon. friend. We shall do that which it is our function to do, and not set a precedent which, in this case, may only do an injury to the Government and my hon. and learned friend, but which, followed in different circumstances by the House, may inflict a real blow on the criminal jurisprudence of this country.

  • Kenneth Baker – 1968 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Kenneth Baker – 1968 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    The maiden speech made in the House of Commons by Kenneth Baker, the then Conservative MP for Acton, on 24 April 1968.

    As this is the first occasion on which I address the House, I wish to pay tribute to the previous Member of Parliament for Acton, Mr. Bernard Floud. We were political opponents, but that did not prevent us from being good friends and he always treated me with characteristic kindness. In Acton, he was liked by people of all parties and his death came as a great shock to his many friends.

    Acton has a unique political record, because four former Members of Parliament live there. There is my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), his predecessor whom some hon. Members may remember, Mr. Sparks, and before him, Mr. Henry Longhurst, the golfing correspondent, who won the last by-election in Acton in 1943, and also the Member who represented the constituency from 1918 to 1929, Sir Harry Brittain. It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that of those four, three are Conservatives, which I find a satisfactory proportion. I can assure hon. Members that the political volatility in Acton is at an end.

    I am glad to have been called to speak on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and I want to make two comments on it. First, I believe that the Chancellor has misread the economic signs. I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I believe that the Chancellor has over-deflated the domestic economy. To take out £600 million this year and £929 million in a full year is overdoing it and I am as disturbed as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale about the rising trend in unemployment. If this trend continues for the next two months the Chancellor will have to take urgent action to reflate the economy and mitigate the harshness of the Budget. This is, after all, the most harsh Budget we have had in peace time. In the 13 years of so-called Tory wasted rule—a period which is rapidly assuming an aura of a golden age—we never had to introduce a Budget even half as harsh.

    My second comment is that, having read the Finance Bill, I feel a tremendous sense of disappointment. I am disappointed that yet another opportunity has been lost to start the long and necessary work to revitalise and reshape our entire tax system. The most important job on the domestic front for any Government, irrespective of party, in the next five to 10 years is to reshape our tax system. Our present system is the most complicated in the world. Daedalus could not have made for King Minos a more confusing and obscure labyrinth. Each year we witness a struggle between the cleverness of Treasury officials and the cleverness of an army of private accountants. It is a struggle which is usually fought to a draw—it is a battle without honour, a war without blood and a devastating waste of human intelligence.

    Our tax laws are so complicated that in the Finance Bill 16 of the 50 pages are given to blocking up loopholes, although the Chancellor in his speech today seemed to be proud of that. But when we must spend one-third of the Finance Bill blocking up loopholes he must agree that the system which we are trying to shore up is suspect.

    The system which I would like to see is one based primarily on a sales tax whereby spending rather than earning is taxed. The system which we have at present is the one which we inherited largely from Gladstone, subject to the pressure of events over the years—mainly the pressure of two world wars—and it would be surprising if such a system were appropriate to the conditions of today. It certainly is not. I would therefore like to see a system based on a sales tax.

    The introduction of such a system would mean that direct taxation would be cut substantially but that indirect taxation would rise substantially, and also—those of us who advocate this course must face this fact—that those who are less well off in the community would be adversely affected. Thus, at the same time as introducing such a reform, I would like to see a complete reform of the social security system; and these twin reforms would, I submit represent real progress.

    It is exciting to think that we have got to the threshold of achieving these twin reforms because they are dependent so much on technological advance and the use of computers. I therefore suggest that before the right hon. Gentleman introduces any more tax changes—although it is not up to me to say whether the party opposite will have another opportunity of doing so—he should pay considerable regard to three principles which I believe should underlie any tax system.

    The first principle is simplicity. Taxes must be simple and understandable to ordinary people. Our taxes are not. Some research done at Glasgow University about 18 months ago showed that of a sample of factory floor workers and executives hardly any knew what rate of tax they paid and what their marginal rates of tax were, that rate being of particular importance, it being the rate they would pay on any increases. It would be interesting to know how many hon. Members could answer those two questions. I wager that very few of them could. But I would also wager that anybody asked those questions would feel that both rates are too high.

    A further example of complexity is provided by the Income Tax returns which are now being dropped through our letter-boxes. It has become the custom for even ordinary people to hand these returns to professional advisers because ordinary people do not know how to fill in these forms. Again, it would be interesting to know how many hon. Members fill in their own tax returns. I think that the answer would be very few. Does the Chancellor fill in his own, or is this one of the domestic duties which he pushes over to someone else at the breakfast table?

    The second principle is that of equity. Taxes must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair. I feel that there are many instances of inequity being perpetuated by the Bill. For example, it is inequitable to aggregate the income of husband and wife. I should have thought that it was unnecessary to debate the pros and cons of that in this, the 50th anniversary year of women’s suffrage. The Bill goes further because now the investment income of infants is to be aggregated with that of parents. This is inequitable. The Treasury is turning the family into a sort of financial pudding in which the separate identity of the ingredients is lost. There are cases involved in this aggregation which will lead to real injustice. I have in mind a case where money has been settled on a child as a means of compensation when one of the parents has died. I hope that in Committee the Treasury Ministers will look carefully into cases of this kind. A further example of inequity is the present Estate Duty. This tax is paid only by the miserly, the eccentric, or the unlucky. I would like to see it replaced by a legacy duty coupled, possibly, with a gift tax.

    Another example is the distinction in our tax system between earned and unearned income. There was a time when such a distinction was valid but I question whether it is still valid. Unearned income arises, after all, from capital which in one way or another has been taxed. If it has been inherited, there is Estate Duty. If it has been gained during one’s lifetime, there is Capital Gains Tax. If it has been saved out of earnings—and that is the most unlikely circumstance of all—there is Income Tax. It seems grossly unfair to penalise the income arising from this capital by a higher discriminatory rate of tax, particularly since it bears most heavily on people of modest means who have put money aside for their old age.

    The third principle which I recommend to the Treasury Ministers is that taxes should not hinder the production of wealth, which is just what our present system does. It is almost impossible for people today to save out of their incomes. Yet in the final analysis the expansion of private industry—the better machines, better factories and more employment which we all want to see—comes from private savings; but this Budget does little to encourage that. Hon. Members who have looked at the Japanese economic miracle will have seen that between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of incomes are saved, whereas in this country the figure is just over 5 per cent. The Bill does nothing to encourage savings, and this is a major omission.

    The Bill also does nothing to relieve the extremely high rates of personal direct taxation which, I believe, are a major disincentive in our society. Far too many of my contemporaries have already left this country for good, and still the trend goes on. About 42 per cent. of newly qualified engineers leave each year and about 23 per cent. of scientists leave upon qualification. They take this step because they cannot earn enough here and because they cannot keep a high enough proportion of what they earn. I hope that, as a matter of urgent attention, the direct taxation rate will be reduced.

    Following this Budget the British taxpayer is the most heavily burdened taxpayer in the world. The burden is too great. I feel that our position as individual taxpayers is rather like our position as a country. It was summed up well in a couplet by Robert Graves, who wrote: In the midst of life we are in debt, Here to pay and gone to borrow. That is the position in which we find ourselves as individuals and as a nation. That is our position after three and a half years of Socialist misrule. The Bill is the monument to those three and a half years and one hopes that it may be the tombstone as well.