Michael Howard: The importance of faith in rebuilding trust

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=120010&speeches=1 ^

[oursouls]

Michael Howard: The importance of faith in rebuilding trust

In a speech to the Faithworks charity in Kennington tonight the Rt. Hon. Michael Howard QC MP, Leader of the Opposition, will say:

Check against delivery

"It is a very great pleasure to be here with you this evening. Of course, it is not for me to tell the leaders of Britain's faith groups how to do their job. It's difficult enough being leader of the Opposition! However, as someone who belongs to the Jewish faith - and with a son currently in training for the Anglican ministry - I hope I am at least partially qualified to comment on the lively debate that can take place between people of differing faith commitments! Thank you Steve for your introduction and for the opportunity to set out my position on this important subject.

Behind the veneer of recent architectural changes, this building has a long history. It was here that the social and political movements led by such great names - such great Conservative names - as William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury developed.

Wilberforce and Shaftesbury were above all men of deep faith, who found in their religious commitment the inspiration to work tirelessly on behalf of our most deprived people. Through their relentless determination, they changed the political landscape of our nation and indeed the world.

It is hard to think of a better illustration of the power of faith to inspire men and women to build the common good in Britain.

You asked me here this evening to speak about the issue of trust, and the importance of faith in building trust in 21st century Britain.

What is trust and why does it matter?

Trust is a pre-requisite to the healthy functioning of society. Without exercising trust in others, we would not send our children to school, take medical advice or enter into business contracts.

Nonetheless, trust is in decline in Britain. Poll after poll tells us that public confidence is diminishing in our banks, insurance companies, lawyers, estate agents, doctors and journalists. And of course, trust is no higher in our religious organisations or our politicians! We are suffering from a collective crisis of distrust.

There are many reasons for this. Increasingly today, people recognise that trust needs to be earned. No-one has the right to be trusted without good reason. It is the sign of a healthy society when the legitimacy of the institutions and people in whom we trust is tested. We expect our leaders to show they are worthy of our confidence.

But we must distinguish between the testing of trust and a cynical refusal to conceive of trusting at all. You do not have to look far to see this kind of corrosive cynicism at hand. In order to safeguard the basic requirement for co-existing with others, we must remain hopeful about the possibility of trusting each other and our leaders.

The loss of trust has been exacerbated by the culture of spin and the obsession with manipulating facts. This over-riding emphasis on presentation was all too clear in the debate over Iraq. Many people trusted the Government on this issue and feel severely let down.

Another cause of distrust has been the failure of politicians to deliver on their promises. Politicians - of all parties - have made promises they have failed to keep.

It is hard to overstate the potential damage to future British Governments when such a bond of trust is broken.

Lack of trust in politicians affects the future of our democracy by increasing political apathy. If voters don't trust politicians to deliver on their promises, turn-out in elections falls. In the 2001 General Election, turnout was 59.4%, the lowest recorded since 1918. This cannot be good for democratic life in Britain.

That is why I believe that accountability is the key to restoring trust in politics and why I will only promise what I can deliver. I will do this in two ways: firstly, by laying out a specific list of actions a Conservative Government would take when in office, and a timetable by which they would be done; secondly, by trusting people - especially public service professionals - to do their jobs properly without interference from politicians.

Conservative politics are premised on trust and trusting in people. Shortly after taking on the job as Conservative leader, I published a list of my core beliefs. One of those assertions was that 'I believe that the people should be big, that the state should be small.' I believe this because placing trust in people - individuals, families, doctors, nurses and teachers - is preferable to placing trust in government. "Politics", said Charles de Gaulle, "is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians."

The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, has argued persuasively that the "politics of responsibility" cannot rely on coercive government legislation or direct government control. He argues that human character is such that we are capable of taking responsibility and are "motivated by the desire to create things of worth". I couldn't agree more. Individual responsibility is at the heart of our approach.

And this approach is in turn at the heart of the Conservative response to doctors, nurses and teachers. I know that they are motivated by wanting to make people's lives better, and I want them to have the opportunity to exercise that responsibility. For example, I want one person in each hospital - a matron - to take charge of hospital cleanliness, to ensure a direct line of responsibility and a direct line of accountability.

It is also the way in which I want to respond to the faith community, because I recognise that it is in the very nature of the great religious traditions to contribute to and inform public debate, and I want members of faith communities to have the chance to exercise that responsibility too.

I am the son of a Jewish immigrant family. I owe everything I have to this country and the opportunity it afforded me.

I believe Britain is infinitely enriched by the breadth and variety of its cultural heritage, and by the contributions brought by people of goodwill, regardless of creed or colour. I believe that an ongoing vigorous conversation between advocates of differing faiths can only benefit our nation as we learn from the sharing of diverse perspectives and insights.

That is why religious liberty is so important. And that is why I am opposed to the Religious Hatred legislation presently before Parliament. I believe it has the potential to limit freedom of religious expression and have the opposite effect to the one intended.

But this raises the question of how religious diversity can co-exist.

For some, an attempt is made to overcome the distinctiveness of different faiths by looking for common denominators. However, any attempt to bundle distinctive faiths together as one homogenised 'multi-faith sector' fails to grasp the reality of the situation. As Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said:

'The passion in religious disagreement comes not simply from abstract differences as to how the holy is to be talked about, but from differences as to how human life is to be lived… Inevitably then, the disagreements are profound.'

We will only benefit from our religious diversity if we create the freedom for these religions to reflect their differences.

And if we are to create this freedom, we must be vigilant in the defence of free speech.

One of the striking things about our age is that, despite widespread cynicism, religious growth continues to increase around the world. In Britain, the 2001 census indicated that the vast majority of British people still consider themselves to have a religious affiliation. It is therefore incumbent upon all politicians to acknowledge the legitimacy of our faith communities and to listen to and respect this 'forgotten majority'.

That is why I recently spent an hour and a half with Britain's Black Majority Church leaders. It's why I attended the independent Conservative and Churches Standing Committee, set up by the Conservative Christian Fellowship to present Christian perspectives to the Party.

It is why in September I went on patrol in this borough with the Street Pastors, a black Christian group working to defuse violence and steer teenagers away from guns, knives, drugs and crime.

Through the national Listening to Britain's Churches conference in September, Conservative politicians listened to speakers from CARE, The Salvation Army, the Evangelical Alliance and others including Steve Chalke. I pay tribute to Steve and Faithworks for the important message they are communicating so persuasively.

Let me be quite clear then - religious faith makes a distinctive and vital contribution to Britain's public life and is a force for our well-being.

Religious faith brings a number of benefits - it provokes vision, integrity and a commitment to justice. It motivates individuals towards participating in this vision through personal responsibility and accountability. All the great religious traditions emphasise the duty we have towards others. They help to forge the neighbourly society in which people who would otherwise be on the margins are able to belong. These communities become places of learning, where the values of the faith are passed on to future generations, to the benefit of the wider society.

But is there any difficulty in our remaining one nation and at the same time enabling diverse expressions of religious faith to flourish?

My answer to this question is a resounding 'No!' You only have to look at our history if you are in any doubt. Tony Blair once said: 'no one is interested in what we were, except for nostalgia.' But Conservatives have always valued the example and wisdom of the British way of life. And it would be a grotesque mistake to imagine that the dilemmas of tolerance and pluralism have not been addressed in our nation before or that there is not a well-established framework for ordering them.

For much of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, the English and then the British state had to accommodate competing expressions of the Christian faith. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it accommodated an increasing secularism. Now of course, we face the task of integrating the voice of other religious traditions from around the world.

The key to the way in which we in Britain have resolved these tensions has been through the establishment of the Church of England on the one hand, and democracy on the other. They help to enshrine the values which define the British way of life - freedom, responsibility, integrity and justice. My personal view is that it is right that they are safeguarded in our constitutional identity. As the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has said, 'disestablishment would be a significant retreat from the notion we share any beliefs and values at all. And that would be a path to more, not fewer, tensions.'

There are calls today for the disestablishment of the church in favour of a secular alternative. I do not believe there is any reason to suppose such a change would create any benefit or increase in tolerance. In fact, the examples of many secular states both in history and in the present day are less than comforting.

There is a wealth of evidence that, today, leaders of other religious communities in Britain find Christian establishment preferable to a secular alternative. The Chief Rabbi has described the Church of England as an umbrella under which all religions can contribute to public life. He has said that:

'It is one of those endearing British idiosyncrasies that non-Christians are more likely to appreciate the benefits of establishment than members of the Church of England itself. It is a force for good, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Likewise, Dr. Zaki Badawi, the eminent Muslim scholar, has argued that the established church protects the Muslim community against sectarian and secular extremism.

For these reasons, my colleague Oliver Letwin said in a recent speech on pluralism:

'Given Britain's tradition of tolerance, we should presume in favour of existing arrangements. Indeed, the burden of proof should be placed on those seeking radical change - proof not only that existing arrangements somehow curtail freedom, but also that new arrangements would extend freedom.'

We therefore have in our heritage the very tools to enable a robust and vibrant debate to take place between differing faiths - and in such a way as to strengthen trust. We expect all faith communities to operate within the established framework and so respect the historic values which order the debate. Since these values are, in any event, common to all the major world religions, this should not be problematic.

We also expect the freedom of speech for all participants to be expressed through the democratic mechanism. It is by agreeing to abide by these governing principles that each faith community has the freedom to articulate their distinctive position. At the same time, the cohesion of our nation will remain secure and intact.

Responsible politics has a role to help faith communities generate trust - by creating the conditions in which these communities can freely flourish as a part of civil society. Politicians need to trust faith communities and welcome their growth.

Conservative philosophy has always believed in encouraging small and local voluntary networks to strengthen civil society. Edumund Burke famously described these groups as the 'little platoons.'

Religious communities are prime examples of these civil society groups.

Unfortunately, the important role these associations play in strengthening the fabric of our society has been overlooked too often in recent years.

A Conservative government under my leadership would create the conditions for platoons of local religious organisations to blossom.

In this building sits a think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, which was established by Iain Duncan Smith and which is dedicated to promoting effective grass-roots solutions to problems of poverty. Since it was launched last summer, I have spoken twice on their behalf and confirmed my commitment to social action through faith-based and other civil society organisations. And, both in London and around the country, I have heard about the fantastic and life-changing work being undertaken by faith-based organisation such as the Maxie Richards Foundation, Jewish Care, the Street Pastors and CARE.

I believe these initiatives have a profound role to play in restoring trust in local neighbourhoods. The evidence shows they are greatly effective at helping some of the most vulnerable in society today.

It is this strength which makes faith-based social action so unique and successful. As you yourself know, Steve, because of their faith, those involved with faith-based social action are committed to building strong personal relationships with those people they help. The reality is that Government can never achieve as much as initiatives such as the Street Pastors can.

It is because I believe faith-based social action works that I am committed to giving a fairer deal to faith based organisations. If elected, my government will encourage faith-based initiatives through the removal of bureaucratic blocks. I will give voluntary organisations more freedom, and more opportunity, to serve the communities they are intended to serve.

We plan to change the culture within government so that we approach the voluntary and faith sectors as a first resort, rather than as a last one.

I want good causes to benefit from taxpayers' money. But today, getting money from government all too easily drags a charity into the bureaucratic world of form-filling and politics. Charities find they have to sideline the very entrepreneurial innovation that created their success in the first place, forced instead to re-organise around predetermined, outdated and inflexible funding targets.

This cannot be allowed to continue. The confidence and support of the local community should matter more than whether they can use the latest jargon in a grant application.

For these reasons, within the Conservative Party's "Value for Money Action Plan", I propose to make greater use of endowment, voucher and matched funding arrangements. These will be specifically designed to ensure taxpayers' money reaches good causes more quickly and efficiently, protecting charities and faith groups from unnecessary bureaucratic micro-management. Additionally, I am determined that a Conservative Government would take action on late payments of funding by government bodies to charities, as I know just how damaging late payments can be.

I also believe that faith schools should be allowed to flourish. Despite the fact that faith schools are consistently popular with parents, usually heavily oversubscribed, and deliver better exam results than the average of non-state schools, the Left has always been deeply sceptical about them. Since Labour came to power, there has actually been a drop in the number of faith schools in Britain, while the Liberal Democrats have openly called for the sector to be shut down.

Conservatives, by contrast, recognise that parents should have the right to choose faith schools. We will encourage new ones to be set up, existing ones to expand, and will provide taxpayer funding for parents currently forced to pay for wholly private schools in order to uphold their faith.

In return, those faith schools wishing to be eligible for public funding will have to agree to deliver the National Curriculum, to accept OFSTED inspection, and to provide at least 10% of their places for pupils from a different faith or no faith background, thereby promoting much greater integration than the politically correct doctrines of the Left.

Tonight I have tried to underline the importance of faith to the life of this country.

And at the heart of faith is hope. Hope believes in a better tomorrow. It is constantly battling with the cynical creed of defeatism.

Defeatists tell us that drug addiction is for life.

Defeatists say that nothing can be done about failing inner city schools.

Defeatists tell a single mother that she'll never own her own home.

Defeatists say that strong families are a thing of a past.

As I near the end of my remarks, I hope you'll allow me to speak politically.

I reject defeatism.

I reject defeatism because I know that people can conquer drug addiction. The next Conservative government will increase drug rehab places ten-fold and bring hope to desperate parents who, today, can't get their children help.

I reject defeatism because I know that bad schools can be turned around by a good head-teacher and by parent power. Conservative education policy will give head-teachers new powers to restore discipline in failing schools. We will help churches and other voluntary groups set up values-based schools and give every parent hope of a better education for their children.

I reject defeatism because lower income families can be helped to own their own homes. Conservative policies on shared ownership and transferable discounts will give hundreds of thousands of lower income people the chance to step onto the property ladder.

I reject defeatism because marriage is not yesterday's institution. It's an abiding institution that strengthens society and secures children.

That is why my colleague Theresa May has made clear that a Conservative government will support the proposed expansion of the Community Family Trust pilots. In the coming weeks, she will spell out exactly how we support more parents and families through projects such as these.

Marriage is a separate and special relationship which we should continue to celebrate and sustain. Doing so does not denigrate those who don't want to marry.

Freedom from drugs. Schools that help every child to succeed. More people owning their own home. More marriages flourishing. These are the goals of my politics.

Politicians can play their part in rebuilding trust - and I believe the Conservative Party has unique policies to help make this happen. But politicians can never build the future of Britain alone.

That is why I am so committed to the vital role that faith communities must assume in this process. I believe that by working together, we can overcome any cynicism and distrust and help to build the stronger Britain we all seek for the twenty-first century.

Such concerted action can, I believe, create a legacy of which William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury would be proud."

[2banana]

And never, ever trust a muslim...