UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Alistair Darling – 1987 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    alistairdarling

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Alistair Darling in the House of Commons on 6th July 1987.

    I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. Before I address the subject matter of the debate, I wish to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Sir Alex Fletcher, who represented the constituency for four years after the redrawing of the boundaries in 1983. Before that he had represented Edinburgh, North for some years. When I had dealings with him he was entirely courteous and during the election campaign there was no rancour. I am happy to tell the House that the campaign was conducted entirely on the issues, which is perhaps why I have the pleasure of being able to address the House this evening.

    Before I address myself to the Bill I take the opportunity of paying tribute to George Willis, who represented Edinburgh, North and who sadly died during the general election campaign.

    It is appropriate that in my first speech in this place I should talk about a local government Bill that affects Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I shall allude briefly to the position of Scotland and of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are not separatists, who form the majority of Scottish Opposition Members. If we are to be part of the United Kingdom, the position of those of us in Scotland must be considered and recognised. I consider that it is bad practice to attempt to legislate by what are essentially English provisions and to foist those on Scotland without giving them separate consideration, which they so richly deserve, from a Scottish point of view.

    There is a feeling abroad in Scotland that the Government do not care. That feeling will be exacerbated or will be fired if we are to see more legislation that applies to Scotland tacked onto the back of English legislation. The powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland are perhaps greater than those of any other Secretary of State and that makes the case all the more for giving Scotland and Scottish legislation separate consideration. If the Government are so proud of their record, let us hear those who speak for it. Let them proclaim the advantages that they say have come to Scotland. There is a junior Scottish Minister on the Treasury Front Bench and perhaps we shall have the opportunity during the debate of hearing what he has to say about the Bill.

    This is an unusual local government Bill, because it deals with Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland normally has separate legislation and Scottish legislation usually follows in about a year after the legislation has been introduced for the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the position until the introduction of the community charge legislation, or the legislation that imposes a poll tax on Scotland. In that instance Scotland was treated, for once, as an experiment. The poll tax has been tried out in Scotland as an experiment to see whether it will work and to see what the response is before it is tried in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    In a perverse sort of way it is possible that some good may come from Scotland being used in this way. Conservative Members know how greatly their forces were diminished north of the border and I believe that the poll tax contributed possibly more than anything else to their rejection at the ballot box just one month ago. The much criticised and much talked about yuppies, if there be such creatures, turned out overwhelmingly to support Labour Members.

    In Edinburgh, Central, as in the rest of the country, we have a sense of fairness and decency and of what is right and what is wrong. We believe that if a local authority is elected it should be left to get on with the job without interference from central Government. The hallmark of this Government is that they have interfered more than any other Administration in the way in which local authorities conduct their business. More than that, we value local services and we are willing to pay for a job well done. We do not want cheap and shoddy services. Instead, we want repairs that last and services that people take a pride in delivering and that others appreciate when they receive them. Cost cutting does not make for greater efficiency, and privatisation leads to cost cutting, which means in the long term that local authorities and the public sector must pick up the pieces.

    Part I of the Bill is clearly designed to squeeze direct labour organisations, although in many parts of the country they are extremely efficient and win a large share of the work that has to be put out to tender. Local authority services can be efficient, because the people who provide those services take pride in doing so. They know that they are providing a service on which local people rely.

    The Transport Act 1985 did more than anything else to undermine the provision of one local authority service-buses—by putting transport affairs into private hands. In the Lothian region, we had one of the best bus services in the country; now the ratepayers are paying £2 million more to subsidise a less efficient bus service. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will no doubt have some sympathy with that. When I was chairman of Lothian region transportation committee, he wrote to me again and again, more than any other Member of Parliament, asking whether I could do anything to restore services in his constituency.

    We must maintain and enhance DLOs, because they have to deal with emergencies and pick up the pieces when the private sector cannot meet the need. If the legislation is passed, DLOs will be weakened, jobs will be lost and it will cost us, the ratepayers and those who live locally more in the long term.

    Part II of the Bill is what I might term the morality part. It seeks to strike at those local authorities that choose not to do business with certain firms. I cannot see what is wrong with deciding that we do not want to do business with a firm that conducts itself in a way that we find reprehensible. I cannot see what is wrong in deciding that I do not wish to trade with a firm that mistreats its work force by not paying them properly, or by discriminating against certain sections on grounds of race, creed or colour. I should have thought that such an attitude would be lauded by all hon. Members. However, it appears that the Government intend to strike against it.

    I consider this a matter of decency. Where is the local authorities’ right to choose? Coming from a Government who support the right to choose and freedom of choice, this part of the Bill is ill founded. It strikes at the very right of local authorities to make choices, not just on cost but on matters of straightforward decency.

    I find part III of the Bill particularly difficult to understand. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) paid tribute to the magnificent vistas that can apparently be seen in his constituency by anyone who visits it. I invite any Conservative Member who wishes to come to Edinburgh. Indeed, I will invite the Scottish Front Bench, and will gladly pay for the two taxis that will be required to take them round the city. The Georgian facades and the historic and beautiful royal mile belie the fact that 20 per cent. of the constituents are unemployed, many of them young people. We have young bands of nomads with nowhere to live and nowhere to go. Instead of paying money to private landlords to build accommodation, we need controls over the sort of accommodation that is provided, proper supervision and proper funding. When we consider that the public purse pays private landlords some £9 million a year in Edinburgh, we realise that the money would be better spent by local authorities to provide properly supervised accommodation to suit the needs of young people—to give them a sense of pride in their accommodation, and a chance to make something of their unfortunate lives.

    Much has been said about the part of the Bill that strikes at publicity. I will say only that it seems very bad practice that the Government intend to suppress dissent to the extent of saying that communications from local authorities, perhaps to Members of Parliament, are to be struck at if they are critical of the Government. Part IV demonstrates that no one can attack the Government without fear of retribution through the courts. This Government have spent a large amount of money, both directly and indirectly, on privatisation and advertisements. We were told that businesses that had been created by the state were shackled by the state, but when they were to be privatised they became, suddenly, a model of efficiency, and we were told that they ought to be purchased when the opportunity arose. Who paid for that? The taxpayers paid for it. If the Government can spend public money on advancing what they believe to be right, democratically elected local authorities ought to have the freedom to do exactly the same.

    The Bill is one of the worst examples of local authority repression. Scotland will oppose it, just as it will be opposed throughout the country. Scotland will not be pushed beyond the pale. The legislation is bad for Scotland, just as it is bad for all parts of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members who represent Scotland will not pull down the shutters. We shall advance our arguments for fairness, justice and decency.

    The Government say that the economic recovery is taking a long time to come north. Similarly, Labour’s argument for fairness, justice and decency is taking longer than I should like, but in the end I believe that our view will prevail. One can trample on decency and scorn consensus only for so long. This Bill illustrates what a heavy-handed, centralist approach this Government have adopted. That is why the Opposition will oppose it root and branch.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2013 Speech to the Police Federation

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, to the Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth on 14th May 2013.

    Thank you for that welcome John.

    It’s a pleasure to be at the Police Federation conference – and to have been following it so far on Twitter.

    It’s impressive the way police have embraced twitter as a public forum for debate and also to get out the message on missing persons or public order.

    My experience on Twitter has not been quite so successful. I was once excited to find I was trending. Not so excited to find I had managed to tweet from my handbag:

    “Hgggg“.

    Retweeted many times. Sometimes with a sympathetic comment. Mostly with something along the lines of “what a change to hear a politician talking sense”.

    That I suspect is your concern at the Police Federation whenever you have politicians addressing you too.

    Your theme this year, 20/20 Vision, Policing the Future Together, is the right one.

    Because I don’t believe there is a vision for policing right now

    And I think one is needed.

    But let me first pay tribute to those police officers lost in service this year

    In September the whole of Manchester, and indeed the whole country paid tribute to the bravery of PC Fiona Bone and PC Nicola Hughes

    Murdered answering a routine 999 call.

    Murdered because they were police officers.

    We remember too 

    Inspector Preston Gurr, DC Adele Cashman, PC Andrew Bramma, PC Bruce Stevenson, PC Steve Rawson, Sgt Ian Harman.

    And we should pay special tribute to the remarkable bravery of PC Ian Dibell.

    Off duty. And yes, he ran towards danger not away from it. Fatally shot because he went to help others. Proof that a determined police officer is never off duty. Someone the whole country should honour for the bravery he showed to protect us all.

    And we’ve seen how the policing family also stand together in tough times. The support I know the Police Federation has shown to the families of those who lost their lives.

    And the determination to keep their memories alive.

    And a particular thanks to Fed Rep Steve Philips, who has done a charity run from Manchester to Bournemouth, over six days, to raise money for the North West Police Benevolent Fund and the Care of Police Survivors charity in honour of PC Bone and PC Hughes.

    I also want to pay tribute to someone I know will be missed here in this hall, who spent his life fighting for British policing and British police officers.

    A good man who always had a serious and thoughtful contribution to make to any policing debate. Someone who loved life – which makes it so tragic he has lost it. Many of us know we miss a friend as well as a colleague. I would like to pay tribute and say thank you to a great champion of British policing, Paul McKeever.

    And he is also best remembered through his own words, in his last interview with the Fed magazine. They sum up both Paul and Paul’s vision of policing.

    When asked what stood out for him in 35 years as a police officer, Paul describes very poignantly taking the father of a young man killed in a motorcycle accident to identify his son in St Thomas’s, and he describes with great sympathy the pain and devastation for a man who has lost a son, then he says “that to me encapsulated the rawness of humanity and the rawness of some of the situations we have to deal with. It’s not just the physicality of dealing with the crime scene, it’s dealing with people”.

    And Paul is right.

    Policing is a unique public service.

    Yes the bravery and the unknown risk – as PC Dibbell, PC Bone and PC Hughes showed us.

    Yes fighting crime, catching criminals.

    But so much more than that.

    Picking up the pieces of people’s broken lives.

    And we should thank every officer out there on duty today, who is doing exactly that.

    When I first addressed your Conference, two years ago, I said we supported your calls for a Royal Commission or proper review of policing in this country, on how we could work together to prepare a police service truly fit for the 21st century.

    When the Government did not agree, we set up the Independent Review into the Future of Policing, chaired by Lord John Stevens. That review is now in its final stages, and it will report in the coming months.

    The Review has reached out to over 30,000 officers and staff.

    With surveys of staff, evidence from officers, partners, local communities, businesses, members of the public and academia.

    I can’t pre-empt the conclusions that they reach. But I want to say a bit about why it matters given the challenges policing faces:

    – plummeting morale

    – scale of cuts

    – chaotic reforms and fragmentation

    – policies which risk making it harder not easier to do the job

    – and that crucial lack of vision to tackle the challenges of the future

    For a start I think it is serious that policing morale has plummeted in the last few years.

    You will have seen some of the review research.

    Over half of officers and 40 per cent of police staff say they are considering leaving policing.

    Officers feeling they could not influence decisions or unhappy about the structure of career progression, or under pressure over pay or pension changes.

    Over 90 per cent responding, feeling they were not valued by the Government.

    That matters.

    It’s not just a problem for the Police Federation, Chief Constables or the Home Secretary.

    It’s a problem for all of us.

    When policing is under such strain from resource cuts, we need more than ever to have determined, motivated, valued police officers, able to go the extra mile.

    British policing relies on the strength and dedication of officers and staff.

    That’s why we need better training, support, career development.

    But the Government’s reforms are confused. They talk about talents and experience, but they cut starting salaries and make it harder for people with mortgages, experience or families to join the workplace.

    We support the College of Policing and think there is much more that it could do.

    But that’s not enough.

    The police are the public and the public are the police.

    Far more women now join the police. But too few make it up through the ranks.

    Parents and carers are finding their family friendly working has been ditched as shifts are restructured to meet the cuts.

    And too few black and minority ethnic officers being recruited.

    And too few black and minority ethnic officers stay on.

    We need a police force that is properly rooted in and representative of the communities it serves.

    And we need officers who feel valued, well managed and well motivated, with the discretion to get on a do a good job.

    We need Government to recognise the value of the job they do.

    The second problem has been the scale of cuts.

    As you know, we said from the start that 20 per cent cuts went too far and too fast – and we supported 12 per cent cuts instead.

    And we are seeing the consequences.

    11,500 officers cut already.

    At least 15,000 to go in total.

    These huge cuts are starting to hollow out policing.

    Having to do less with less.

    Crime falling more slowly.

    But justice falling too.

    For ten years while crime came down, we saw a higher proportion of crimes solved, and more offenders brought to justice.

    Yet now we are seeing the opposite.

    200,000 fewer arrests.

    30,000 fewer cases solved

    Officers I’ve spoken to know they can’t make arrests because too few officers on the streets and it will take them off the streets for too long when other problems might kick off.

    Officers who have told me they’ve had to use Community Resolutions to write cases off – even when they know the crime is serious because they haven’t the time and resources to follow it up.

    A quote from an officer who had to write to local businesses and residents to raise the money for a car, “at present we have to rely on lifts from our colleagues in marked vehicles, a pool car, public transport and regularly walking two miles to the nearest point or 10 miles to the farthest point.”

    Doesn’t look much like the 21st century does it? Officers thumbing a lift down the dual carriage way to get to the scene of the crime.

    Theresa May’s failure to fight for policing in the first spending review hit policing and justice hard.

    And with the second spending review looming – they need to do a better job.

    It is clear that all those promises the Government made that these cuts would get the deficit down have fallen through because they couldn’t get growth.

    Now it looks as though policing and communities will pay the price for the Government’s economic failure again.

    But the problem is not just about resources it is about the chaotic nature of reforms and fragmentation that are making it harder not easier for the police to do more with less.

    Policing needs to keep reforming to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

    But too often the Government’s reforms have been chaotic, piecemeal and confused, creating greater fragmentation and rearranging the deckchairs rather than creating a strong sense of direction and purpose.

    Consider Theresa May’s flagship reform, the Police and Crime Commissioners she said would secure “a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box”.

    Instead, she spent £100 million on shambolic elections and only one in eight people turned out to vote.

    Reforms are needed, but they shouldn’t waste money or create confusion.

    They need to be rooted in a positive vision of policing for the future.

    That is why the Stevens Review is looking at the different responses needed at local, regional, national and international level to deal with changing patterns of crime and disorder.

    And making sure that the great achievements of neighbourhood policing introduced over the last fifteen years are not lost – embedding police properly in local communities, working in partnership to prevent crime and keep order not just flying in to the 999 emergency call.

    Many police officers have told me that the Crime and Disorder Act in the late 90s was the most important and powerful reforming legislation on crime in decades. Because it forced not just the police but local councils, probation, the NHS, community organisations to work in partnership to tackle crime.

    Yet too many organisations are pulling back and pulling in – retreating to their core business, just when we need partnership more than ever. We need a new push for partnership in leaner times if we are to keep communities safe.

    For example we do need a clearer framework for raising standards and taking action when things go wrong.

    When things go wrong – as they did so terribly at Hillsborough – we need proper transparent investigations that can get swiftly to the truth, rather than denying victims justice for years, and also casting a shadow over policing too.

    That’s why we’ve asked the Stevens review to look at a better framework for standards, inspection and complaints to make sure mistakes are learnt from and not repeated too. How we set up a new Police Standards Authority to replace the IPCC.

    But let me say something two area of reforms I know many Federation members are concerned about at the moment.

    First compulsory severance, and second private contracting.

    I think everyone would agree that standards of policing need to be upheld, and officers need to maintain a proper level of training, skills and ethical standards to do the job. And of course they can’t stay if they don’t.

    But I have three concerns about the major changes to the Office of Constable built into the Government’s approach.

    First, I fear that this is just a cover for more cuts. You have to wonder why the Government are in such a rush to do this in time for the spending review.

    Second, there are insufficient safeguards to prevent abuse or the appearance of abuse in the new climate. If Police and Crime Commissioners can sack Chiefs and Chiefs can sack everyone else with very few safeguards in place, the principle of the independent office of Constable is fundamentally changing.

    And that is not something that should be done in such a reckless way.

    My third concern is that there was a compact on policing which is being carelessly ripped up without consultation. Police officers can rightly be summoned on duty at any time, as the service of last resort, with few industrial rights. In return police officers had the unique responsibility of the Office of Constable, valued by government and with no compulsory severance.

    I never supported the right to strike for police officers and I don’t now. But I do think the Government needs to show respect for the Office of Constable in return.

    Did anything exemplify the Office of Constable more than going the extra mile to deliver a safe Olympics?

    Officers came to London at short notice, had leave cancelled, holiday re-arranged, personal lives disrupted again, families putting up with it.

    And that disruption was made worse when a private contract badly failed.

    Yet Ministers are pushing for big private contracts to replace much of the work police do. Nothing ruled out. Not even detective work or neighbourhood patrols.

    Massive contracts with single companies for complex work.

    And many forces are looking at how to use it for the police.

    Be clear, public private partnerships can be valuable – new contracts will be needed for example on information technology.

    But contracts must pass tough tests:

    – On value for money.

    – On resilience and security.

    – On transparency and accountability.

    – And most of all on public trust.

    For the Labour Party, and for people across the country, there are red lines – or perhaps we should say blue lines.

    Policing by consent means the police need the confidence of the public.

    And the public need to trust that policing is being done in the interests of the justice not the corporate balance sheet.

    We should be blunt about this. We don’t want private companies patrolling the public streets of Britain, we want police officers and PCSOs doing the job.

    The Government’s job is also to make it easier not harder for the police to do their job.

    Too often the reverse is happening.

    The DNA of 4,000 rape suspects being destroyed – even though we know rape is a hard crime to solve.

    And under their new plans ASBOs will no longer include any criminal sanction if they are breached.

    And worst of all, they want to ditch the European Arrest Warrant just because it has Europe in the title.

    This is the real consequence of the Conservative party’s frenzy and infighting over Europe.

    The European Arrest Warrant allowed us to swiftly deport 900 foreign citizens suspected of crimes in their own country.

    And it helped us catch terrorists, kidnappers and serious criminals who fled abroad and bring them back to face justice.

    This weekend Spanish police tracked down and arrested Andrew Moran – the Salford man who has been on the run for four years after a £25,000 armed robbery involving guns and a machete.

    He was found sunbathing in a villa in Alicante.

    Under the European Arrest Warrant he was rapidly arrested and should shortly be returned home.

    But remember Ronnie Knight the East End armed robber.

    He fled to the Spanish coast too – before the European arrest warrant came in.

    He spent his time sunbathing in a luxury villa down the coast from Alicante in Fuengirola.

    But unlike Andrew Moran he didn’t have to hide or change his appearance. He opened an Indian Restaurant and R Knights nightclub.

    Because we could not get the Spanish police to arrest him and we could not get the Spanish courts to send him home.

    The Home Secretary needs to listen to the police and to the evidence on the European Arrest Warrant, not to the hysteria of Tory backbenchers.

    If they decide sound tough on everything with Europe in the title, the Government will end up being soft on crime.

    Be it about policies on crime, chaotic reforms, resources or morale, in the end the real problem remains in your conference title – where is the 2020 vision?

    And where is the plan for policing together for the future?

    I don’t believe this Government has a vision for policing.

    We want to build a vision for policing with you. Together.

    That in the end was what we set up the Stevens commission for. We will look forward to its conclusions.

    Building on the international reputation that British policing can be proud of.

    From forensics to neighbourhood policing, from counter terror to the Olympics, decade after decade this country has led the way. We want to do so again.

    Reforming together.

    Protecting the public together.

    Cutting crime and getting justice for victims together.

    But only if we have the vision of policing together – 2020 policing.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, to Labour Party conference on 30th September 2012.

    Conference, we have heard in today’s debate from delegates on a range of issues, from diversity in our Party and the challenges faced by women, to the impact of the Government’s policies on disabled people.

    But Conference, we, in this Party will not just be debating equality today.

    Yesterday, 800 women gathered for Labour’s Annual Women’s Conference.

    Tomorrow when we debate the economy, we’ll talk about child care, jobs for young people and support for disabled workers.

    On Tuesday our Party Leader Ed Miliband, who has done such a great job for our Party this year, will talk about making the economy work for everyone not just the privileged few.

    And on Wednesday and Thursday we’ll debate our public services.

    The importance of Sure Start in giving all kids a better start in life.

    And the future of our NHS – one of the most important institutional embodiments of fairness and equality in British society. One of Labour’s proudest achievements, now under threat from the Tories. An institution that we will strain every sinew to defend.

    And Conference, as we talk about equality, not just today, but throughout the week, we’ll also talk about why the police need to challenge racism and pursue hate crimes which have been rising.

    And we will remember that in six weeks the country will vote for the Government’s new Police and Crime Commissioners. Our chance to send a message to the Tories about policing.

    But also an important campaign in Bedfordshire, where we are backing Olly Martin’s campaign against a candidate from the EDL.

    Because Conference we must never, never let policing be taken over by racists or extremists. Policing must be fair for all.

    Conference, all week we will talk about Labour’s belief in fairness, in justice, in equal life chances, equal respect for individuals, wherever they come from, whatever their background.

    And our anger that this Government time and again is turning the clock back, widening the gap. Reinforcing, rather than challenging discrimination.

    Look at the way unemployment among young black men has reached over 50 per cent.

    Look at the way David Cameron is taking more money from disabled people than he is from the banks.

    Look at the way 80 per cent of the rise in long term unemployment is among women.

    And the way the squeeze on child care, social care, and universal credit are all penalising women who work.

    And with women bearing the brunt of the tax and unemployment changes, we, Conference, are more proud than ever, because it is more important than ever, that we now have the first woman General Secretary of the TUC – who made a fabulous speech at Labour’s Women’s Conference yesterday – Frances O’Grady.

    Sometimes it is the double discrimination that is hardest.

    For example, for older women, who now face a toxic combination of ageism and sexism.

    They’ve seen a 30 per cent increase in unemployment since the election, compared to 5 per cent on average for everyone else.

    And even in the Cabinet.

    David Cameron told Caroline Spelman she was too old for the job, aged 54. Then replaced her with Owen Paterson, aged 56.

    That’s why Labour has set up an Older Women’s Commission led by our Harriet Harman.

    Because the generation who fought for equal pay, for childcare, for maternity leave, will not be silenced now.

    We know too that many disabled workers are getting a bad deal. The Work Programme is missing its target for disabled people by 60 per cent.

    And Conference, it is shocking the way this Government has closed so many Remploy factories with no jobs for people to go to. They have turned their back – we will not turn our back. We will keep campaigning for those Remploy workers because they have a right to work.

    Perhaps the most disturbing thing of all is the rising child poverty that we are seeing across the UK. Families in Britain forced to depend on food banks. That is the shocking state of Britain under David Cameron and Nick Clegg. No child should have to grow up in our country in the twenty-first century feeling hungry, cold or left behind.

    Conference, this isn’t an accident.

    It is the direct result of deliberate policies.

    Economic policies that push Britain back into double-dip recession.

    Fiscal policies that help the richest in the country and make everyone else pay more.

    And an approach to equality which sees positive action as somehow a burden, as opposed to the opportunities and doors that we know positive action can open.

    So the action we took to tackle discrimination is now being dismantled.

    Abandoning Labour plans for pay audits, even though it will take another 65 years for the gender pay gap to close.

    Ending requirements on employers to protect their staff from racist or homophobic abuse.

    Repealing laws that could help older women fight the toxic combination of ageism and sexism.

    Introducing a new thousand-pound price tag to purse an equal pay claim.

    Stopping the Equality and Human Rights Commission from assessing whether policies affect the poor.

    Bit by bit they are eroding the protection people have – salami-slicing here and there. And Conference, the Labour Party must not let them get away with it.

    We can build a fairer society. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. Progressive campaigning against prejudice and discrimination has changed our country.

    When we brought in Civil Partnerships for lesbian and gay couples there was huge opposition.

    Now the majority of the public agree with finishing what we started – and introducing same sex marriage. Ministers mustn’t chuck this into the long grass because they are afraid of the Tory right.

    When people who love each other want to get married, we shouldn’t discriminate we should celebrate.

    It is time to change the law now.

    But the Government should go further. We respect freedom of religion and that means different faiths will make their own decisions.

    But freedom of religion means we should support the Quakers, the Unitarians, Liberal and Reform Judaism and other faiths who want to celebrate same sex marriage.

    And Conference this is the year of London 2012.

    Britain put on the best Paralympics ever. Ever.

    An amazing spectacular of sporting excellence – role models from Ellie Simmonds to Hannah Cockcroft, Johnny Peacock to David Weir – we celebrate their achievements and stand in awe of their excellence.

    Because, the truth is Team GB made politics look small.

    We have to be inspired by them. Our Paralympians changed Britain this summer – as a result of the Olympics and Paralympics that the whole country built together.

    We mustn’t let it slip back now.

    Because we know how much more all of us can achieve, whatever our circumstances, when we support each other, rather than leaving people to sink or to swim, alone.

    And Conference, I think this – the spirit of the Olympics and the Paralympics – underpins Labour’s vision for equality.

    It is a vision of a society that supports those who care for children or for elderly relatives, who are getting older, or who have a disability, to do all they can do. Be all they can be.

    Equality laws that create a can-do society.

    An economy that works for the working people.

    A government that works for all the people.

    Conference, this is Labour’s pledge on equality.

    This is the kind of Britain we know we can be.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2012 Speech to the Police Federation Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, to the Police Federation Conference on 15th May 2012.

    Can I thank Paul McKeever for the invitation to speak at the Police Federation Conference.

    It is 12 months since I joined you in Bournemouth.

    12 months on Thursday to be precise. Today being Tuesday.

    I always have to check what day it is, shadowing Theresa May.

    Or Theresa April as she’s known in the Home Office now.

    When last I came, and when last you gathered, I said then I was worried about the perfect storm building around policing.

    At that time we feared 12,000 officers would be lost

    We feared the frontline would be hit.

    We feared morale was falling.

    We feared that Ministers were not listening.

    Turned out we weren’t afraid enough.

    The Home Secretary told your conference last year she was on “a rescue mission, to bring the economy back from the brink and to make sure the police come through not just intact but better equipped for the future.”

    Since then the economy has gone back into double dip recession. And 5,000 police officers have gone from the frontline.

    Some rescue.

    But as we reflect on the last 12 months, we should also pause to reflect and pay tribute to the serving officers who have lost their lives in the last twelve months.

    Ian Swadling.

    Scott Eastwood-Smith.

    Perviz Ahmed.

    Anthony Wright.

    Stephen George Cully.

    Ramin Tolouie.

    Mark Goodlad.

    Neil Jeffrys.

    Andrew James Stokes.

    Karen Paterson.

    David John Rathband.

    Preston Gurr.

    The whole country was deeply moved and saddened by the tragic death of PC David Rathband.

    He became Raol Moat’s target simply because of the job he did and the public service he gave. Shot and left in darkness by a murderer because he was a police officer.

    An officer who inspired so many by his battle to return to service and to stand up for others injured in the line of duty.

    We must make sure the Blue Lamp foundation stands as his legacy and his tribute now.

    But I also want to pay tribute to PC Mark Goodlad whose funeral I attended in Wakefield at the end of last year and who lived just outside my constituency in West Yorkshire.

    PC Goodlad was a traffic officer. Stood at the side of a motorway helping a woman who had broken down by the side of the road. A lorry driving on the hard shoulder knocked him down and took his life.

    PC Goodlad wasn’t fighting crime when he fell. He was helping someone in need. Like so many officers day in day out. Doing his job. Taking risks to keep the public safe. And he gave his life.

    Police officers are crime fighters yes, but they are so much more besides. And I want to pay tribute and say thank you to all the police officers across the country working hard, taking risks every day of the week to keep us safe.

    But so many police officers and staff are now are worried about the future of policing.

    Over 30,000 police officers gathered on the streets of London last Thursday.

    Constables, sergeants, inspectors, superintendents and chief constables.

    Police officers on their rest day, taking annual leave, slipping in before the night shift. Over 2,000 from the West Midlands, Over 1,000 from Greater Manchester, 650 from Thames Valley. Officers from Devon and Cornwall getting on coaches at 2am and travelling through the night to make their voices heard.

    Officers from across the country who know that their forces are facing a cliff edge, worried that the service to the public is falling, and afraid that crime and public safety are being put at risk.

    Because the Government is cutting too far and too fast. Hitting jobs and the economy. But also putting public safety at risk.

    Labour MPs have voted four times in Parliament against the 20% cuts.

    David Hanson, former Policing Minister many of you know and here today as Labour’s Shadow Policing Minister has called repeatedly in Parliament for the Government to change course.

    Last week we supported your march against 20% cuts.

    You are right, communities are being put at risk.

    Cutting 16,000 officers is criminal.

    Thank you for gathering last week to stand up for the communities you serve.

    Because we are seeing the real consequences now.

    In the Midlands, officers told me about a 999 call that came in about a hit and run involving a child. Thanks to cuts in response units, the nearest officer was 45 minutes away. He got there as fast as he could. But he arrived to a slow hand clap from the gathered crowd.

    And in the South West, officers told me about a 999 call from a woman who was afraid because her partner was making threats. She was told to go round to a neighbour’s because there wasn’t a car to send. She called a second time as she became more worried and afraid. Only when she called the third time to report an assault was the response car dispatched.

    Eighteen months ago, the Home Secretary promised that the frontline would not be hit.

    Yet now we know 16,000 officers are being cut.

    16,000. That’s the number of officers it took on the streets of London to take back control of the streets after rioters burned Tottenham and Croydon, and looters ransacked Clapham and Hackney.

    The Prime Minister promised:

    “We won’t do anything that will reduce the amount of visible policing on our streets”.

    But over 5,000 police officers have gone already from 999 response units, traffic cops, and neighbourhood police.

    So when 30,000 officers took an hour and a half to march ten abreast past the Home Office to demonstrate the strength of anger and concern, I think the Home Secretary should have answered you.

    We called the Home Secretary to Parliament to respond. It is an utter disgrace that on police cuts she had absolutely nothing to say.

    Everyone recognises the police have to make their share of savings.

    Labour has said repeatedly since before the election that the police budget would have to be cut.

    We supported 12% cuts. Based on expert work in the Home Office and by the Inspectorate. But not 20% cuts.

    We supported £1bn annual savings over the course of a Parliament. And yes that would require pay restraint, reforms and back office cuts to achieve it. But it would also mean you could protect the frontline rather than watching 16,000 officers go.

    Ministers would have you believe that means we support their plans. Quite the reverse. Instead of the £1bn cuts we accepted, they are cutting £2bn. Going too far too fast. And that’s why so many officers are being lost.

    I know and you know that we won’t always agree.

    Labour in government had disagreements with the police.

    And there will be issues we disagree over in future too.

    On pay and pensions, we believe further reforms are needed.

    But they should be done through fair negotiations.

    Some officers I know now support the police having the right to strike.

    I strongly don’t. The police are the emergency service of last resort.

    But there’s a flip side to that.

    Government should respect and value the office of constable on which we depend.

    When I spoke last year I supported your call for a royal commission

    Not because policing in Britain is broken. But because to cut crime and keep the public safe, we should always seek reforms and improvements to make policing better.

    I said then we would press the Government for a royal commission or major independent review of the long term future of policing in the 21st century.

    And I said that if the Government refused to set up any kind of overarching review, then we would do so instead.

    We have done so.

    Lord Stevens, former Commissioner of the Met, has now begun work. Drawing on expert advice and contributions from serving officers, members of the public, academics and top criminologists, former Chief Officers, business people, local government workers, even our security and intelligence agencies, from Britain and across the world.

    Looking at:

    Challenges of the future – more national, international and high tech crimes. Greater expectations for fast and responsive local policing.

    The talented, flexible and professional workforce needed.

    Accountability, checks and balances.

    The balance between national and local policing priorities.

    But this Government has no positive vision for the future of policing.

    Instead we have just chaos and contradictions:

    Scrapping the NPIA with no proper plan for national training and development when it goes.

    Abolishing the Forensic Science Service before sufficient quality services are available in its place.

    Fragmenting forces with elected police and crime commissioners just when forces need to co-operate more.

    Major cuts in service, yet £100m for elections in November that no one wants.

    Promising less bureaucracy yet forcing officers to do more paperwork because so many police staff have been cut.

    Undermining neighbourhood policing – one of the most important and successful reforms Labour introduced – as some areas consider removing officers and leaving PCSOs alone to do the job.

    And demoralising the officers and staff who we need to be highly motivated by the cack handed approach to Winsor reforms.

    The detail of the Winsor proposals is of course a matter for you and your representatives to pursue in the negotiations.

    But let me raise some general points.

    I think there should be reforms to pay and conditions to support modernisation of the police. Many police officers I’ve spoken to recognise that too.

    I think there should be greater emphasis on skills, and the development of talent, faster track promotions, greater flexibility. We supported the Neyroud report. Fitness tests make sense too.

    But the Home Secretary was completely wrong to give whole sale backing to the Winsor report when it raises so many concerns.

    For example:

    Regional pay is likely to cost more not less.

    Calling for higher qualified recruits whilst cutting starting salaries makes no sense at all.

    Too little consideration has been given to the impact on individual officers at a time when family budgets are already being squeezed.

    Compulsory severance looks frankly like a plan for another huge round of cuts to policing or contracting out police work.

    Time and again the Government is failing to value the office of constable or to recognise the complex mix of skills, experience and judgement the police workforce need.

     

    We see it too in their plans to force through widespread privatisation of core public policing with no safeguards in place.

     

    Public private partnerships can be very effective. The police can and should work closely with business on new technology and developing new ways of working. There is important work for the private sector to do.

     

    But government needs to draw a line – in the interests of public confidence and public safety too.

     

    Core public policing – such as neighbourhood patrols, serious criminal investigations, or assessing high risk offenders – should not be contracted out, no matter how cheap the contract price.

     

    British policing is based on consent and it depends on the confidence of the communities being policed.

     

    The public need to be confident decisions are being taken in the interests of public safety, the community or justice, not distorted by contract or profit.

     

    We don’t want private companies on the beat on our public streets, we want crown servants, public servants, police officers doing the job to keep us safe.

     

    Chaotic, fragmented, contradictory changes.

    Cuts and confusion putting at risk the very best of British policing.

    With no vision in its place.

    That’s not reform. It is destructive chaos.

    This Government is giving reform a bad name.

    Reform should make the police service better.

    Reform should improve the quality service to the public.

    Reform should make it easier not harder to cut crime or keep the streets safe.

    And reform should create a highly motivated, talented, committed and professional police force.

    We want to see reforms from the Stevens review that support good policing rather than undermining it.

    And that also means giving police officers the confidence that they will get the backing of the public and the force when they go the extra mile to keep people safe.

    There is one reform the Government could sign up to straight away.

    Doing more, not less, to help those officers injured in the line of duty who want to get back to work in the policing jobs they love.

    Like PC Guy Miller from Kent Police who was run over by a car driven by two men he tried to arrest. At the time it was said that PC Miller would never recover from his injuries.

    Yet less than three years later, PC Miller was back working for Kent Police.

    He has since received recognition for his work in the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, solving crimes, and helping to protect the public.

    Or PC Gareth Rees, a traffic officer for Hertfordshire police, hit by a car at the scene of an incident. Now back on full duties. But only after many operations and two years recovery.

    As he told a journalist, “We are in harms way, but if it all goes wrong you hope you will be put back together again”.

    Under the Government’s plans officers who want to return, but who need time to recover and rebuild will be penalised and probably forced out.

    I believe we owe a duty of care to officers like PC Miller, PC Rees, or PC Rathband hurt working to keep us safe.

    When a police officer, seriously injured in the line of duty, is determined to return to the policing job they love, they should not be penalised. I think they deserve the confidence of knowing their force will back them all the way.

    And we need more action too from the Government to make it easier for the police to do their jobs – cutting crime and keeping people safe.

    Because in the end that is what policing is all about.

    In thirteen years of Labour government, crime fell by 40%.

    That was the result of hard work by police and communities. Reforms that built partnerships with councils and housing associations to prevent crime. More police. New PCSOs. Neighbourhood policing to get back into the community. New powers on anti-social behaviour, domestic violence, knife crime or counter terror.

    Most people think crime is still too high and they want it to come down further.

    And that in the end should be the joint aim of communities, the Government and the police.

    Instead the Government is making it harder for the police to do the job:

    Fewer police.

    Fewer powers.

    Making it harder to get CCTV, taking rape suspects off the DNA database, ending ASBOs, watering down counter terror powers.

    More bureaucracy not less.

    And no over-arching strategy to cut crime.

    Yet in the end, that means it is communities that pay the price.

    Victims of crime who get less support.

    Families who feel less safe.

    Personal acquisitive crime already going up by 13%.

    Other crimes have stopped falling when they should still be coming down.

    I believe we can work together again – the police and communities, forces, councils, voluntary sector, businesses and government all pulling in the same direction to do more not less to keep people safe.

    But it needs the Government, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to change course before it is too late.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2011 Speech to Police Federation Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper to the Police Federation conference on 17th May 2011.

    It’s a great pleasure to be here. Can I thank Paul McKeever for the invitation to come to your conference.

    And I want to take this opportunity as well to thank you and many of your members I have met since I became Shadow Home Secretary who have talked to me about the work you do and the challenges you face across the country.

    From London to Leicester, Leamington to Leeds, West Midlands to West Yorkshire, the neighbourhood officers, the towncentre beat officers, traffic cops, public order police, detectives, counter terrorism officers, dog handlers and mounted police.

    All doing their best to deliver good service in the face of new pressures.

    For me, our Shadow Policing Minister Vernon Coaker and all our Shadow Home Affairs team, the perspectives of police officers across the country are extremely important.

    And I want to thank Paul, Ian, the national and regional team and the reps across the country for the work you are all doing to stand up for your members. The Police Federation has always been straight with us.

    In Government and out. You’ve always told us when you agreed with us, and also when you didn’t. Sometimes loudly.

    Of course in thirteen years we didn’t always get it right. And we have to learn lessons from that.

    On targets that lasted too long.

    On force reconfiguration that people didn’t want.

    And on arbitration too.

    We didn’t get the pay process right in 2007, and you made clear the anger officers across the country felt at the time. Not least at this conference if I remember right.

    And we did learn lessons from that. That’s why the following year, the Home Secretary and the Police Federation leadership worked hard together to get a three year deal that everyone could support.

    But over thirteen years, the work you did, the extra 17,000 officers, 16,000 PCSOs and other staff we supported, the work together on prevention, on fighting crime, on counter terrorism, tackling anti-social behaviour, street crime, domestic violence.

    It delivered results.

    43% drop in crime.

    Violent crime down.

    Theft down.

    Burglary down.

    The risk of being a victim of crime at its lowest since the British Crime Survey and rising confidence in the police.

    Because of the work you did.

    That’s not the sign of a failing police service. It’s the sign of police officers committed to their communities and to the job.

    And I know too this is about more than just fighting crime.

    The traffic cops attending a bad crash. The search teams looking for an elderly man with dementia who wanders off. The officers working in schools. The officer I spoke to in West Yorkshire an hour after he’d faced a man threatening suicide from a third floor balcony – and had to take the potentially life or death decision when negotiations failed to send officers in to rush him and pull him back.

    The police who have to pick up the pieces – the service of last resort when other things go wrong.

    And I want to pay tribute to the police officers who have lost their lives in service, and those who have fallen since the Conference last met.

    Detective Sergeant Terry Easterby.

    Constable Sean Peter McColgan.

    Constable Daniel Alastair Gibb.

    Constable Scott Eastwood-Smith killed on Saturday on his way to work.

    And from our colleagues in Northern Ireland, I woul d like to pay tribute to Constable Ronan Kerr, who was the victim of a terrible and cowardly murder, by terrorists who want to take the people of Northern Ireland and the peace process backwards.

    People across the country have great respect for the risks you take and the job you do.

    And that respect is important. It is an essential part of policing by consent – a founding principle of British policing centuries ago.

    But that is why it is also so dangerous the way this Government is attacking the police now.

    Paul is right to raise serious concerns about the campaign of denigration.

    The persistent briefings and distorted information straight from Downing Street and the Home Office about the so called “police gravy train”.

    The Prime Minister’s claim in the House of Commons that the police are “completely inefficient.”

    You are right to be angry about attacks that are untrue, unfair and that undermine the work you do.

    But there is a greater risk.

    That kind of campaign of denigration undermines respect for the enforcement of law. It makes it harder on every estate, in every community, for the police to command the respect you need to do your jobs and to enforce the law.

    You know I won’t always agree with you. You won’t always agree with me. We won’t always agree on the shape of reform. But I will always engage with you, and I don’t believe in undermining the job you do.

    I do believe in continued police reform.

    Not because I think policing is broken, but because it can be better, and we always should go further to do more for the sake of the communities we all serve.

    Police officers I’ve spoken to across the country want to be part of a sensible, responsible debate about improving policing for the future.

    But you are not punch bags. You are not material for cheap headlines. The Government should stop acting as if you are.

    And the truth is the Government is not introducing sensible reforms. Quite the opposite.

    I believe David Cameron and Theresa May have made the wrong decisions and the wrong judgements about the future of policing – and I fear it is communities across the country who will pay the price.

    For a start they are cutting too far too fast and the police are among the hardest hit.

    Overall the scale and pace of deficit reduction is being driven by politics not by what’s good for the economy. It’s hitting growth, hitting jobs and will end up costing us more.

    I also fear that policing is among the worst hit. The Home Secretary failed to fight her corner in the Spending Review. And now we are seeing the results.

    20% cuts with the steepest cuts in the first few years.

    12,500 police officers will be lost, and thousands more support staff too.

    Of course the police can and must make savings. But let’s be clear about the difference in our plans.

    Labour’s plans were set out by Alan Johnson; a 12 per cent cut over the course of the Parliament, which the HMIC have said could be achieved without hitting frontline services and which Alan believed would have given chief constables the cash to maintain the numbers of police officers and PCSOs.

    So yes, we would have cut £1 billion over the course of the Parliament and that would have been tough.

    But the Government is cutting £2 billion, with the steepest cuts in the first few years.

    The Home Secretary is still in denial.

    Three times she was asked on Sunday whether 12,000 police officers would go. Three times she refused to answer and to take responsibility for the cuts.

    Time and agai n Ministers tell us that the frontline won’t be hit. They clearly haven’t talked to the frontline officers in Warwickshire forced now to cover back office jobs, the neighbourhood officers being cut in London and Birmingham, the domestic violence units and traffic units across the country that are being squeezed.

    Time and again they tell us that it is for Chief Constables to decide.

    Yet the truth is Chief Constables are being put in an impossible position by the scale and pace of the cuts.

    They tell us cutting bureaucracy will solve it. I welcome more work to cut bureaucracy. But they shouldn’t pretend it’s going to compensate for 12,000 officers lost. It is playing the police and the public for fools.

    Government ministers are completely out of touch with the reality in police forces across the country.

    As for the A19s. You couldn’t make it up.

    A Government that says on the one hand everyone has to work for longer, and on the o ther hand, those who want to keep working have to go.

    Officers forced to retire, then asked to come back and do the same job as specials instead.

    That’s David Cameron’s Big Society.

    But the greatest insult of all is that now we know it won’t even save any money.

    The lost tax, national insurance and pension contributions means it will end up costing the taxpayer more.

    But it’s not just the cuts. The Home Secretary is undermining leadership and morale with her cack-handed approach to reform.

    Bringing in American style elected police chiefs which concentrate power in the hands of one politician with no checks and balances is putting centuries of impartial British policing at risk.

    The uncertainty over commissioners and the chaos surrounding the national policing framework is making it harder for forces to make long term plans.

    And the handling of pay and pension reforms – briefing and pre-empting the Winsor and Hutton reviews – has left police morale at an all time low.

    But perhaps most important of all, the Government is making it harder for the police, the courts, and local communities to fight crime.

    Youth services, family intervention projects and other prevention programmes cut back.

    ASBOs abolished.

    DNA use curtailed.

    CCTV in a bubble wrap of bureaucracy.

    Dangerous loopholes in child protection.

    Chaos over the National Crime Agency, CEOP and the SFO

    Sentencing reduced at the same time probation is cut back.

    And now their latest plan to let criminals do half the time just for pleading guilty, no matter how serious the offence. That won’t fight crime and it’s not justice either.

    They used to be the party of law and order once. Not now.

    These are the ingredients for a perfect storm. Fewer police, fewer powers, weaker prevention, weaker sentencing, no checks and balances.

    And no vision for the future.

    No strategy to keep crime falling.

    No bigger picture.

    Through the Police Federation, you have called for a Royal Commission on the future of policing to turn things round.

    You know the next election may not be for 4 years

    I can’t promise you a Royal Commission after that – to pronounce in five or six years time. It’s too long to wait.

    But I do think there is a strong case for an independent review – be it Royal Commission or other form of overarching review to start now.

    On clearing up the mess of the current reforms.

    On the challenges for the future – from counter terrorism to cyber crime.

    On ensuring the police are flexible enough to respond, promoting not stifling the talents of officers and staff.

    On putting communities at the heart of the fight against crime and delivery of justice.

    On increasing accountability, transparency, checks and balances and remedies when things go wrong.

    And on how, in the modern world we maintain what is precious about British policing – it’s impartiality, international reputation , sense of public service and policing by consent.

    The Government should set up that independent review now and they should talk to you about how it should be done. And if they won’t we will.

    Policing is too important to get it wrong.

    For thirteen years, I believe Labour’s approach – “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” – delivered results. Now the Tory-led Government is putting that progress at risk.

    Officers on the frontline say they fear crime will go up as a result.

    And it is victims and communities across the country whose lives are wrecked and who pay a terrible price when things go wrong or when justice is denied.

    We have to do everything we can to stop that happening.

    We are determined to do everything we can to force the Government to change course.

    They’ve done it before.

    They’ve paused on the NHS.

    They’ve u-turned on forests.

    If they can do it for trees, they can do it for police and crime.

    That’s why we will keep up the pressure in Westminster and across the country.

    Along with hundreds of thousands of people across the country already raising their voices in alarm.

    The fight against crime, the work for safer communities and the pursuit of justice are too important to put at risk.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the Labour Party conference on 27th September 2010.

    Conference,

    Last week I talked to a mother in my constituency.

    Her daughter Ellis is 16.

    She got her GCSEs this summer. Her mum said she worked really hard.

    She was due to start an apprenticeship this September at a local nursery school.

    In August they told her the coalition Government has cut the funding.

    Her mum was told Ellis can still do her training.

    But only if she forks out £1,200. That’s £1,200 she and her family haven’t got.

    Conference this is the Britain David Cameron and Nick Clegg want to build.

    Hopes betrayed.

    Ambitions abandoned.

    Young people left to sink or swim.

    Unless you can afford to pay yourself.

    This is what the Big Society really means.

    And this is why, for Ellis and thousands like her, we have to fight to get the Labour Party back into Government as soon as we possibly can.

    And that is why we need to come together now, behind our new leader, Ed Miliband, who will lead us in:

    – exposing the madness of the Tories’ attack on jobs,

    – challenging the deep unfairness of their plans,

    – and fighting the biggest assault on families in any of our lifetimes.

    Conference, throughout our history the Labour Party has fought for jobs.

    Remember as recession started, economists said unemployment would reach 3 million.

    That is what happened in the Tory recessions of the 80s and 90s.

    But this party vowed we would not let that happen again.

    Government, businesses, unions , councils, voluntary groups all pulled together.

    Backing jobs building new schools and homes.

    Guaranteed work or training for young people.

    Working together to keep Britain working.

    Look at the results.

    The dole queue started coming down last autumn.

    Far earlier than in any other recession.

    Far below the 3 million predicted.

    One and a half million fewer people on the dole than in the 80s and 90s recession.

    One and a half million more people in work supporting their families. That is Labour’s achievement and this party should be proud of it.

    And Conference I saw the pressures Labour’s Chancellor faced, the decisions Alistair and Gordon took, that:

    – stopped banks crashing,

    – stopped millions of people losing their savings,

    – saved jobs.

    Conference we should pay tribute now to Gordon and Alistair for the work they did for this country.

    Over the summer, the world economy ha s slipped back into more dangerous waters.

    In Ireland the sharp austerity drive has triggered a double dip recession.

    Here at home private sector job growth is still too weak.

    Vacancies have dropped in the last three months.

    And the number of people on the dole has gone up for the first time since January.

    So what is David Cameron’s answer?

    To cut jobs just when we need them most.

    George Osborne’s own Budget said 100,000 more people on the dole each and every year, just as a result of the decisions they made.

    Over the next few years, Treasury’s own papers show:

    – Half a million jobs lost in the public sector,

    – Over half a million jobs lost in the private sector,

    – Half a million fewer jobs and opportunities for the unemployed.

    So what do ministers have to say to the 90,000 young people now being denied a job on the Future Jobs Fund.

    David Cameron said the Future Jobs Fund was “a g ood scheme” and “good schemes we will keep”.

    But he didn’t keep it. He abolished it.

    Nick Clegg was asked whether these job cuts were fair. He said “of course it isn’t…. It’s a decision taken by the local council.”

    But Nick, it wasn’t a council decision, it was a decision announced by a Liberal Democrat Government Minister.

    Doesn’t this tell you everything you need to know about this coalition.

    David Cameron tells people whatever they want to hear.

    Nick Clegg tells them it’s someone else’s fault.

    And we in the Labour Party must make sure every conceit and every deceit is exposed for what it is – a betrayal of young people across Britain.

    And what reason do they give for cutting so many jobs?

    They say they need to do this to get the deficit down.

    Conference, of course the deficit does need to come back down. And that will mean some tough and unpopular decisions.

    But cutting jobs to get the deficit down?

    More people on the dole to bring the deficit down?

    What planet are they on?

    We’ve heard the Tories say this before.

    In the 90s they told us that “unemployment is a price worth paying to bring inflation down”.

    20 years later they are telling us again unemployment is a price worth paying to bring the deficit down.

    Both times they were badly wrong.

    Unemployment is never a price worth paying.

    Rising unemployment pushes the deficit up not down.

    Every 100,000 people on the dole costs us £700 million in lower tax and higher benefits.

    Unemployment isn’t the price of bringing the deficit down.

    Higher unemployment means we all will pay a higher price.

    Nick Clegg claims the public finances are like a household budget, and we have to cut back quick.

    But think about it. Because this is a family with a choice to make.

    It’s a family with a mortgage who cut the rep ayments when dad lost his job in the recession – to make sure they could get by til he found work, and to make sure the family didn’t lose their home.

    And now they have a choice.

    Make good those repayments steadily, bit by bit. Go for some extra overtime or promotion, tighten their belts a little. But spread the payments sensibly.

    Or follow the George Osborne plan. Pay it off all at once. Sell the furniture, the car that gets mum to work, sell the dog, even the house itself – whatever it takes to get the debt down.

    The truth is that every family knows cutting back too far too fast causes deep damage and ends up costing you far, far more.

    Unemployment won’t get the deficit down, more people in jobs will get the deficit down.

    Conference, our task is getting more people into work

    That means supporting jobs and yes it also means going further on welfare reform too.

    We brought in extra help and stronger rules. We cut the numb er of people stuck on out of work benefits. But we need to go further.

    We know from the doorstep, we talked to parents worried about whether their children could find work, neighbours worried that other people weren’t playing by the rules.

    We should have started sooner on reforms to help people off long term sickness benefits and into work.

    And we should go further to guarantee more jobs, but to require more people to take them up.

    Opportunities alongside obligations.

    But that’s not what this coalition is doing.

    Iain Duncan Smith says he wants more people in work.

    But George Osborne is cutting jobs for them to go to.

    Iain Duncan Smith says he wants people to be better off in work.

    But George Osborne cut working tax credit.

     

    Iain Duncan Smith says he wants more conditions on claimants.

    But the Government is ending the requirement for young people to take work.

     

    Iain Duncan Smith says a lot. But no one else in Government seems to be listening.

     

    He said himself, he was the quiet man.

     

    So quiet no one else can hear.

     

    They’re not setting out welfare reforms to help people into work. They’re just setting out old fashioned cuts that hit the poorest hardest.

    George Osborne is swaggering round like the playground bully – working out who won’t fight back, picking on the weakest – and that’s just Iain Duncan Smith.

    Hitting the poorest harder than the rich.

    Women harder than men.

    Hitting the sick and disabled.

    Pensioners and children are being hit hardest of all.

    The nasty party is back, and this time they’ve brought along their mates.

    From this April, over 50,000 of our poorest pensioners will lose an average £11 a wee k from their housing benefit.

    Thousands of pensioners who will struggle to pay the rent.

    Conference this party believes people who worked all their lives have a right to a secure home in their retirement.

    And we should be proud of action we took to lift 600,000 children out of poverty. But the government is trying to turn back the clock.

    Cutting maternity allowance, ending the child trust fund, the baby tax credit.

    Taking £1200 from working families with new born babies in that important first year of life.

    At least Margaret Thatcher had the grace to wait til the babes were weaned before she snatched their milk.

    That money is what lets a new mum stay home with her little one a bit longer before she goes back to work to pay the bills.

    It lets new dads cut back on the overtime so they can spend more time at home.

    For thousands of new parents across the country, that money means precious, precious time at the start of a family’s life.

    David Cameron said this would be the most family friendly Government ever.

    In fact they have launched the biggest assault on the family in the entire history of the welfare state. And this party must fight it all the way.

    This is a Government which just doesn’t understand women’s lives.

    They’ve halved the number of women in the government – and let’s be honest we needed more women before.

    George Osborne’s Budget hit women three times as hard as men.

    £8 billion raised, £6 billion of it from women.

    Even though women earn less and own less than men.

    Nick Clegg says things like working tax credits, child benefit, carers allowance make people dependent and should be cut back.

    For millions of women across Britain the opposite is true.

    The tax credits help mums pay for child care so they can go out to work.

    The carers allowance helps daughters look after their elderly parents.

    That support doesn’t make them dependent. It gives them greater independence, greater choice about how to cope with the different pressures of work and family life.

    Conference, all my life I have assumed that each generation of women would do better than the last.

    I know I’ve had more choices, more opportunities than my mum and my grandma, not least because of the battles they won.

    With each generation, I assumed, we would break more glass ceilings, change more of the world.

    But now for the first time I worry about my daughters, about all our daughters. For the first time I worry that our daughters will have fewer chances in life than we did.

    Conference, for women across Britain, backed by the Labour Party, the fight back starts here.

    Throughout our history the Labour Party has fought for equality.

    Fought for working families.

    Fought for dignity in old age.

    And throughout our history – from the Jarrow marches to the New Deal – we have fought for jobs.

    Fighting for jobs, backing our economy, standing up for fairness, united behind our new leader; this must again be Labour’s crusade.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2009 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the 2009 Labour Party conference.

    Conference.

    12 months ago we gathered in Manchester with the world economy on the brink of disaster

    Think back for just a moment

    Banks bigger than nations teetering on the edge of collapse.

    Fearful families moving their savings from bank to bank.

    The madness of markets in crisis.

    The terrifying realisation that things people had taken for granted might all come crashing down

    And yet in the midst of that crisis we learnt something else:

    The strength of peoples, governments and nations standing together, arms stretched from country to country;

    First to calm the wildness of the storm

    And then to stop recession turning into slump;

    And we learnt too how much we owe to the strong leadership of our Chancellor and our Prime Minister. And we should start our debate by thanking them now: Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown.

    Never forget how close we came to catastrophe last year.

    And never forget how easy it would have been for governments to stand back, to turn their backs, to retrench.

    That was what governments across the world did in the thirties. And for years working people paid the price.

    That was what the Tory government did here in the 80s. And for generations entire communities paid the price.

    And that is what David Cameron and George Osborne wanted us to do again.

    Conference we know unemployment is never a price worth paying. We will never leave people to stand alone.

    Our Labour government will never turn its back on those hit by recession or global crisis.

    We know unemployment hurts. Unemployment scars.

    That’s why we are putting an extra £5bn into jobs and training.

    And conference that support and our welfare reforms have made a difference. In just three months this summer more half a million people who were out of work found jobs.

    But it’s still hard. Now is the time to increase – not cut back – on the programmes that help people get jobs.

    Programmes like the Local Employment Partnerships between Job Centre plus and businesses that are getting people off benefit and into jobs in every one of our constituencies.

    Helping people like Anthony in Castleford, who got a job after 14 months on the dole and told me its transformed his life — he’s got his own place, started management training, and been on his first ever holiday abroad.

    I spoke to Rebecca Robertson, at Job Centre Plus in Castleford who helped Anthony get work about how she does it. She said; “I like to get under the employers skin – know what they really need. Then I can make sure I get people ready for the job.” She gets people training, boosts their confidence, and even goes to the interview with them if they need it – and she takes a spare tie and a spare pair of tights along just in case.

    Conference, its people like Rebecca, going the extra mile to help people not just get a job but build a future. That’s public service.

    But we need still to be much more ambitious. There are thousands more people like Anthony.

    So we will do more. I can announce today that we will expand those successful local partnerships to help far more people. Already they’ve helped over 250,000 people into jobs. Now we will treble our original plans to help a total of over 750,000 people into jobs by the end of next year.

    Because no one should be denied the dignity of work.

    Across the country, major employers have been signing up to the Backing Young Britain campaign.

    From Bradford to Brighton, Coatbridge to Cardiff, councils, housing associations, football clubs and countless community organisations are signing up to our £1bn fund to deliver over 100,000 youth jobs, as we guarantee no young person is stuck on the dole more than 12 months.

    Even Tory Councils are signing up. Praising the programme and claiming the credit in their local papers.

    But hang on. Where do they think the money is coming from for those jobs? I’ll tell you where. Its coming from £5bn extra this government has provided to boost the economy.

    £5bn that George Osborne believes should never be spent.

    £5bn the Tory party is determined to cut.

    Conference we need to challenge every Tory MP, every Tory councillor and candidate to tell young people why their party wants to destroy their jobs.

    Conference the Tory party want to turn their backs on young people again. And we must not let them get away with it.

    So what would David Cameron put in place of training places and support he would cut?

    Just one policy. As he told Tory party members in July: “50 of our candidates, MPs and councillors are setting up job clubs.” Instead of 100,000 youth jobs, 50 Tory job clubs.

    Imagine it. Job clubs run by Tory MPs.

    David Cameron might have some useful advice on interview techniques.

    William Hague would certainly be able to help on getting second jobs or making extra cash on the side.

    But what about the rest?

    John Redwood on how to look interviewers in the eye.

    Ken Clarke on how to dress for success.

    You know what Norman Tebbit’s advice would be: take a cycling proficiency course.

    Conference, may be there’s a reason why David Cameron doesn’t get the importance of training and employment support.

    For his first job he got a royal equerry to ring up on his behalf. For his second job he got his mother in law Lady Astor to put in a good word.

    Conference, that’s not how people like Anthony in Castleford get jobs.

    Back in the real world thousands of people rely on the help from training colleges and Job Centres the Tories want to cut.

    Conference, the Tories say we can’t afford to invest in the unemployed. I say  we can’t afford not to.

    Look at the facts. For every 100,000 people we get off unemployment we save £700m.

    There is no better way to cut the deficit once the economy is growing than to get people off benefit and back into work.

    That is why we will make sure no one is written off.

    Keeping up the employment support and the welfare reform that is getting people back off long term benefits and into jobs.

    Helping disabled people overcome discrimination to work.

    Helping parents get the child care they need.

    More support and also making sure everyone does their bit.

    Working with businesses, the voluntary sector in the Flexible New Deal.

    Not a passive welfare state, but active support for work.

    David Cameron doesn’t believe in active government to help the unemployed because he doesn’t believe in active government.

    Their campaigns for Broken Britain, for an age of Austerity, all designed to break people’s faith in a brighter future.

    He wants us to despair of purpose of politics or the role of government so they can roll back the bounds of government – a counsel of despair that would have run Britain into ground if we had followed it last year.

    We know things are tougher in recession. But we know if we stand together we can come through it stronger.

    And we know there will be tough choices on the public finances. But we will make those tough choices guided by our vision of a fairer Britain, for our parents, children, neighbours.

    That is why we will increase the top rate of tax and we won’t cut inheritance tax for millionaires.

    It is why we will keep helping families.

    Backing Sure Start and child benefit.

    Making sure mums and dads can balance work and family life.

    Helping carers.

    Putting into law our commitment to end child poverty for ever.

    That is why we will keep doing more to help pensioners.

    Tackling decades of unfairness so millions of women can get full basic state pensions that should be their right.

    Requiring employers to make pension contributions for the first time for millions of low paid workers.

    And conference, because fuel bills are still high, as well as paying the Winter Fuel Allowance at the higher rate again, I can announce we will also pay Cold Weather Payments at the higher rate again cold

    But conference you can’t do any of those things if you don’t believe in the role of government.

    You can’t do any of those things if you don’t believe in standing together to help build a fairer country.

    You can’t do any of those things if you have a Tory government

    In the thirties one of the first ever women Labour MPs, Ellen Wilkinson, marched with our fore fathers from Jarrow to fight for jobs.

    In the eighties I marched with my father and with many of you under the Union Banners to fight for Jobs.

    But Conference. We marched then in vain. Because we didn’t win the arguments. We didn’t win power. And there was nothing more we could do.

    That’s why we have to fight now. That is why there is so much at stake. That’s why the Labour Party today has more to fight for than ever.

    We owe it to the young people today, but also to the Jarrow marchers we couldn’t help, to the 80s unemployed we couldn’t support.

    We owe it to them to fight for every vote, to fight together to win the next election and to build a fairer Britain.

  • Nick Clegg – 2014 Speech at BIS Manufacturing Summit

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, to the BIS Manufacturing Summit in Liverpool on 19th June 2014.

    Growing optimism

    For the first time, I think, since these summits began, there’s a real sense of optimism emerging – albeit cautiously – about the future of British manufacturing.

    Our economy is growing again – with Britain forecast to grow faster than any other G7 economy this year.

    We have more people in work than ever before – with your businesses adding around 10,000 new manufacturing jobs to our economy every month.

    Orders are increasing. Exports are rising. Output is up.

    And, to take just one example, Britain now has the most productive car sector in Europe. We’re exporting more vehicles than ever before – with a new vehicle rolling off our production lines every 20 seconds. By 2017, UK industry predicts that Britain will be producing 2 million cars a year, beating our all-time peak of 1.92 million in 1972.

    That’s no accident. It’s down to your hard work, your expertise and the close partnership you’ve built with our government – especially Vince and his team – to help Britain get back on its feet.

    Why manufacturing matters

    Yet, of course, whatever these results, there’s always going to be an economist or statistician ready to point to a pie-chart and question the ongoing importance of British manufacturing. Some talk about global shifts in demand, the rise of lower-cost competitors and say that manufacturing is only around 10% of our economy.

    In truth, its impact is so much more. I only need to look at Sheffield, the city where I’m an MP, to see how much your success still matters. In fact, travel anywhere in the UK and ask people about the place they come from and they’ll talk with pride about the industries and products that put their communities on the map.

    To name just a few – in Sheffield it’s steel. In Sunderland, Birmingham and across the North West it’s cars. In the Highlands, it’s whisky. In County Antrim, it’s buses. In Broughton, it’s planes. And hopefully in years to come, here on the Wirral, it will be building renewable technologies.

    Your industries create a whole network of businesses that keep our local communities’ economies alive.

    Take the good news that Jaguar Land Rover will be investing a further £200 million in their Halewood plant, near Speke. This investment will bring production of the new Discovery vehicle to Halewood in 2015, creating 250 jobs. And will increase Halewood’s workforce to 4,750 – trebling it since 2010.

    Currently, this plant is producing a new Range Rover Evoque and Land Rover Freelander at the rate of one vehicle every 82 seconds. Over 80% of everything they build at Halewood is exported to markets including Brazil, India, China, the US and Hong Kong.

    Yet this is only part of the story, with countless local businesses supporting the plant across its supply chain. Companies like GETRAG, which produces transmissions for these vehicles and recently received investment from the Regional Growth Fund to expand its Merseyside plant.

    Beyond that, we also have the hundreds of service companies that contribute. Whether it’s the accountants or legal services used by Head Office, the building services teams that maintain JLR’s factories and offices, the sales teams that market their cars around the UK or the local pubs, cafes and shops that serve their employees after a hard day at work. The reality is your companies are creating jobs, driving growth and boosting productivity in manufacturing and services.

    And, as a sector, you delivered around £140 billion in GVA (gross value added) last year alone. You produce over half our exports in goods; invest more than anyone else in UK business R&D; and employ millions of highly-skilled people.

    With figures like that you’d never get a French politician talking down their manufacturing industry. And the UK’s manufacturing base is growing faster than France’s right now!

    Our commitment to you

    That’s why, when we joined this coalition government, we were committed to sitting down with you to set out what Britain’s long-term industrial strategy should be.

    It’s a conversation that had been long overdue: tackling the big issues that impact your companies – skills, access to finance, procurement, innovation and technology – and identifying the levers government could pull to help you grow.

    And we’re delivering on our promises – with globally competitive taxes, less red tape and more generous capital allowances.

    We’re establishing the British Business Bank to help make finance markets work better for small firms. And we have set up the Green Investment Bank – which is leveraging extra private sector investment for major green projects. This includes the partial conversion of the Drax Coal Power Station to biomass fuels – which when completed will provide around 10% of the UK’s 2020 renewable electricity target.

    We’ve created our Catapult Centres – a national network of cutting-edge business research facilities, dedicated to commercialising the latest processes, materials and technologies.

    Earlier this month, Vince and I opened a new Rolls-Royce facility in Washington, Tyne and Wear, which uses innovations developed at our Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in Sheffield: to radically cut the time and energy it takes to produce essential engine components.

    And Vince’s announcement today of a new £7 million grant to support research into cutting-edge aerospace technologies at Sheffield’s AMRC will help secure the UK’s global lead in this sector also.

    More widely, we’ve expanded our apprenticeships programme, with 1.7 million new apprentices since 2010.

    And, wherever possible, we’re giving power back to local councils, colleges and businesses like yours – through our Local Enterprise Partnerships, our Regional Growth Fund, as well as City Deals and the billions of pounds worth of Growth Deals we’re now negotiating. Together, this is helping to boost local skills and kick-start local infrastructure projects like the development of new transport systems and roads to support your business.

    I’ve also established a new Local Growth Committee – which brings together ministers from across government to speed up the critical decisions needed in Whitehall to get projects in your local area moving.

    Planning for the future

    But despite all the progress the job’s not done.

    And I know that, as the economy improves, many of you are questioning just how committed Whitehall will be to sticking to this strategy in the long-term.

    You work in industries where it can take you years to develop your next big idea: whether it’s 3 to 5 years to develop a new car, 10 years to produce a new drug and up to 15 years to design and build a new aircraft.

    These long timescales do not sit easily with the minute-by-minute demands and 5-year election cycles of the political world. And, over and over again, in Britain, we’ve seen politics not business drive the focus and scope of our country’s industrial policy.

    And it’s staggering to see that, in the 10 years of the last government, the importance of our manufacturing base to Britain’s economy was left to decline 3 times faster than it did under Margaret Thatcher – shrinking from 20% as a proportion of our economy to a little over 10%.

    Compare this to France, Germany and Asia where, for decades, your competitors have benefited from governments committed to preserving their countries’ industrial strengths, whatever the global challenges.

    Taking the politics out of industrial policy

    In my view, it’s time we had that same kind of certainty and stability here in Britain. The way I see it is like this: if this 5 year parliament was about rescuing the British economy, the next will be about renewing our economy. If this parliament was about reviving our economy, the next must be about finishing the job of rebalancing our economy.

    It is about ensuring that we’re never again reliant on just one sector, just one region or over rely on simply boosting public sector jobs to shore up growth across our country. And, to make that happen, we need British governments – now and in the future – to act in a more strategic and less short-term way.

    To put it bluntly – we need to take the politics out of Britain’s industrial policy. The country needs us to establish a cross party consensus – strong enough to last in this parliament and beyond – which isn’t about picking winners, on the one hand, or leaving it all up to the market, on the other. But, instead, builds on the work of individuals from across parties – such as the Conservative’s Lord Heseltine, Labour’s Lord Mandelson and Vince in the Liberal Democrats – to lay the best possible foundations for the future.

    I know as much as anyone about trading blows in the Westminster bear pit. And I’m not going to pretend that’s going to end anytime soon. Yet, as we’ve seen in the last 4 years, there are times when – in the national interest – we need to put the political point scoring aside.

    And whether it’s tackling the deficit, securing long term pension reform, creating the Office of Budget Responsibility or delivering the biggest programme of economic decentralisation in a generation – we are committed to pushing through the big, ambitious reforms Britain needs to make its economy stronger and prospects brighter, working with others across party lines where needed.

    We’re committed to governing for the long-term – guaranteeing a government that is ready, on the one hand, to get out of the way of your businesses, so you can generate jobs and growth.

    And that, on the other, is equipped to step in – where needed – to tackle market failures and create the best possible conditions for securing your success.

    So, today, I want to set out 3 possible policy areas where, I believe, we could achieve the long-term, cross-party agreement we need. It starts with government’s industrial strategy.

    Supply chain strategy

    Over the past 4 years, working in collaboration with you, this government has been able to set out a long-term plan to boost Britain’s competitiveness and secure jobs.

    The importance of this work shouldn’t be underestimated. For example, Richard Parry Jones – co-chair of the Automotive Council – has talked about the critical role that our industrial strategy is playing in securing that sector’s recent success.

    Businesses have confidence in our industrial strategy, because they have helped to develop it and they’re helping us deliver the strategy. And this powerful partnership gives us the chance to rectify some of those mistakes of the past – notably, by strengthening Britain’s supply chains.

    Every time a UK manufacturer has moved overseas in the past 40 years, we’ve seen the local companies that support them disappear too. Company by company, this has led to a hollowing out of the UK’s domestic supply chain – meaning that over half of the materials and components used in British manufacturing are now sourced from overseas.

    But, if we move now, I believe that trend can be reversed. As you know, the Fukushima earthquake 3 years ago heavily impacted global supply chains – forcing factory closures in Japan and months of production delays across the world. That’s led to companies like Nissan taking a serious look at basing more of their supply chains here in the UK to mitigate problems like this in the future.

    I believe a new UK Supply Chain Strategy – developed in collaboration with your core UK suppliers – would help us identify how we can turn that intention into long-term investment. These supply industries are huge, important sectors in their own right – our steel makers, petrochemical companies, glass producers and so on – all of which employ thousands of people and generate millions for our economy.

    Leading business organisations, including the CBI, believe that real potential exists for the UK’s share of global supply chains to be much higher. And, to help make that achievable, I believe this new strategy should focus on answering 3 central questions:

    What exactly are the big issues your sectors face in basing more of your supply chain in the UK?

    What are the common barriers to investment and growth in the UK’s supply chain sectors – such as access to finance, regulation and research etc?

    How can we tackle these issues to make the most of opportunities like major government-supported infrastructure projects?

    Take our offshore wind industry – which is so important to this region’s future. By 2020, it’s estimated that there will be around £40 billion worth of renewable electricity projects in the UK. Yet only around 20% of the components needed to build our offshore wind farms are currently being sourced in the UK. Think of the opportunities for local jobs and growth, if – together – we could increase that figure. Siemens are already paving the way, with their £160 million planned investment in UK turbine manufacturing.

    The other major weakness of the past which needs addressing will be familiar to you – skills. We’re already doing a lot of work to increase the number and quality of apprenticeships available, by giving you greater input into these qualifications, and also to make it easier for you to recruit and train the young people you need for the future.

    And, recently, Vince announced his plans for a new network of National Colleges – centres of excellence dedicated to giving people the high-level technical skills required to work on huge projects like the development of High-Speed 2.

    We’re now consulting with you on the priority projects and skills gaps that you think these colleges should address. For instance, boosting the skills and training needed in the offshore wind industry will give people highly transferable skills which they can use not just in one sector but across our economy as a whole.

    These kinds of skills are highly transferable, giving people a greater shot not just at employment in one sector but also across our economy. And this could be another critical opportunity for businesses like yours to help develop Britain’s future workforce.

    Regional Growth Fund

    Finally, with public finances likely to remain tight in the next Parliament, we also need to look at where government can best focus its money to continue that rewiring of Britain’s economy.

    Gradually, we’re repairing the economic mess of the previous government – but it can’t be fixed overnight. Between 1998 and 2008, cities like Birmingham and Nottingham actually saw their private sector workforces shrink even in the boom years. This has left behind a profound imbalance in our regional economies – increasing their reliance on public sector employers for jobs.

    That’s why we established the Regional Growth Fund (RGF) to help kick-start private sector investment and jobs in areas like this. And, over the past 4 years, government has committed to invest £2.9 billion in over 400 projects focused on increasing business competitiveness across our regions. This includes companies in Merseyside like Glen Dimplex Appliances, where I visited recently, a manufacturer of cookers and ovens, which secured £3 million in RGF funding to expand their operations – creating 300 new jobs.

    And I’m pleased to announce that Round 6 of the RGF opens today, with over £200 million available. We’re encouraging bids directly from companies that require grants of more than £1 million, as well as from organisations like Chambers of Commerce, universities and others to help support SMEs who require funding of less than a million. So, if that’s you, please apply.

    Of course, there are some who complain that our RGF money isn’t getting spent fast enough. They’re comparing it to the days when the last government would just hand over money to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to spend as they saw fit. But we’ve changed that – we’ve put the businesses that secure this funding in the driving seat. They decide when this money is spent in line with the growth plans for their companies.

    And this is proving a powerful stimulus for business investment in those regions that need it. In total, for every £1 invested through the RGF, we’ve leveraged over £5 in extra private investment: creating and safeguarding over half a million jobs across the UK. This compares to the RDAs which only leveraged 65p for every £1 they spent.

    But, we’ve still got a way to go to clear up the damage done to our long-term competitiveness. That’s why I believe there’s such a strong case for extending the RGF beyond this parliament to 2020.

    Conclusion

    So, in conclusion, together, we’re building a better future for British manufacturing.

    We’re delivering results, but we mustn’t stop now.

    Together, we’ve got to ensure that the hard work of the last 4 years continues to pay off.

    And this is my commitment to you – that I will do everything I can to build a long term political consensus focused on helping your sectors thrive, your companies grow and securing a stronger economy for Britain’s future. Thank you.

  • Nick Clegg – 2014 Speech on International Development

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, on international development, made in Shoreditch, London on 28th May 2014.

    Development myths

    Stand on any British high street with a collecting tin and you’ll quickly lose count of all of the people willing to put their hand in their pocket for a good cause.

    When disaster strikes – the Pakistan floods, the humanitarian crisis in Syria – the British people are always among the first in the world to give what they can. And yet if you stopped those same people to ask them how much our government gives in foreign aid every year, you’d probably get a more distorted response.

    How much we give

    The myths about Britain’s development commitments, peddled vigorously by aid sceptics, are sadly now rooted in many people’s imaginations. On average, the British public believe that around 20% of all the money the UK government spends in a year goes on foreign aid. In reality, we spend 0.7% of our nation’s income. That in itself is an historic achievement: we are now the first of the world’s wealthiest countries to meet this long-held promise.

    It is still a lot of money. But, to put it into some kind of perspective, it’s less than what we spend on takeaways every year.

    Where UK aid goes

    Then there are the claims that the bulk of this money is effectively stolen – lining the pockets of corrupt officials overseas. Again, not true. The UK government has some of the toughest procedures possible in place to ensure the money gets to the right people.

    Under this coalition, we assess UK development programmes every year to check their value for money. And every 2 years, we review our work with international partners like the World Bank. We check that our money is going to the right place. And when it isn’t, we shut programmes down. We also ask the Independent Commission for Aid Impact to take a tough look at DFID’s work, so Parliament – through the Commons International Development Committee – can ensure it meets the highest standards.

    And the public is now able to go online and check the purpose, scope and details of all DFID’s programmes via the Dev Tracker website. Here they can see exactly what DFID spends their money on, even the funds we invest via NGOs like Save the Children and CAFOD. And – despite what the sceptics say – it’s simply not the case that people’s taxes are frittered away, wasted on irrelevant projects or problems we cannot solve.

    Britain does a huge amount of good with this money; alleviating human suffering in some of the most dangerous and deprived parts of the world. When disasters strike like Super Typhoon Haiyan, we are always amongst the first on the scene and the most generous.

    We work with communities where people have virtually nothing and help them protect their children from diseases, their families from starvation and women and girls from violence and rape. We are working to end wars. We are helping millions of boys and girls to go to school so they can one day play their part in giving their nations a better future. We are helping to protect the planet from climate change – the greatest challenge of our time.

    The right thing to do; the smart thing to do

    And the things we do with this money are also clearly in Britain’s own interests too: making our people safer and more prosperous.

    When Pakistan can’t prevent young men getting radicalised and trained by militants within its borders, that can lead to terrorist attacks on our streets. When Somalia can’t tackle the problem of piracy, it disrupts the trade routes of UK businesses. When droughts destroy the crops of farmers in the developing world, global food prices spike and it hits the pockets of families here at home. And when countries like Brazil and others can’t put a stop to deforestation, it increases the chances of us and everyone else being hit by floods and extreme weather.

    So when the coalition said that we would not sacrifice aid spending as we dealt with the deficit to fix our economy; that we would not balance the books on the backs of the world’s poorest; that we would meet our commitments to spending 0.7% of our nation’s wealth on development come what may; we did so not only because it is the right thing for Britain to do, but also because it was the smart thing for Britain to do.

    Who we are

    So let the aid sceptics continue to campaign against these efforts. Their cynicism is, I believe, out of step with our national interest and with the compassion we feel as a country towards those who are suffering elsewhere. They might want to sneer at the generosity of the British people. I will be even more staunch in standing up for the UK’s development programmes.

    The help we provide is the hallmark of a Britain that is open, compassionate and engaged in the world – an expression of who we are. It must be defended with renewed energy and vigour against the forces of insularity and xenophobia which are now on the march.

    As of last year, we are spending 0.7%, and that is a huge achievement.

    The debate that matters now

    And beyond this issue of how much we spend, there’s arguably the more important question of what we spend the money on?

    In fact, for me, this is the debate that matters most. Not if we spend 0.7% on this, but where that money should go.

    The world is changing. It can no longer be carved up along the same old dividing lines: rich vs poor; north vs south; developed vs developing. Power has shifted with dizzying speed from west to east and from north to south. And the paradox is that some of the world’s fastest growing countries are now the most impoverished, the most unstable. In fact, 75% of the world’s poorest people now live in these so-called Middle Income Countries.

    These are the millions that still have to live on less than £1 a day – far less than the cost of our daily cup of coffee. And this reality – that most of these people now live in countries growing faster than our own – leads to legitimate questions about whether we should still be helping them.

    Nigeria

    Nigeria is a good case in point. Right now, everyone is agreed that the world should help bring back the school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. Yet that hasn’t stopped some aid sceptics commenting that, once the girls are found, the UK – as a major development donor to Nigeria and the only country working on development projects in the north of the country – should just get out. They point to Nigeria’s rising GDP, its vast oil reserves, investment in satellite technology and the fact it’s now Africa’s richest country as proof that it should sort out its own problems.

    Yet beyond these economic statistics, there’s a more complex human reality. A lack of governance, a lack of investment and a lack of capacity means that Nigeria isn’t making as much of its natural resources as it could. And, every day, a rising population, growing poverty and the increasing threat of crime and violence means that Nigeria is simply running to catch up. 1 in 10 of the world’s poor now live in Nigeria. 1 in 6 of the world’s children not in school are in Nigeria. The situation is particularly bleak in the north, where living conditions are as tough as in any warzone. Targeted attacks by Boko Haram on vaccination centres threaten a polio epidemic across the region. And just last week, the country was hit by a wave of bombing attacks.

    What Nigeria shows us is that you can’t judge a country’s progress by its economic statistics alone. Every one of these countries experiencing rapid growth, and undergoing huge change, is on a journey, taking them from poverty to prosperity.

    The UK’s development programmes are designed to help them complete that journey. Everything DFID does is to ensure that, in the end, they don’t need us anymore – that they can be independent of outside help. Of course, countries like Nigeria are ultimately responsible for providing for their own people. But everything in our history tells us that, if we walk away from a country too early – midway through that journey – things just get worse.

    A tailored approach to development in a more complex world

    That’s why I don’t believe it is right that we just arbitrarily cut off our help when a country hits a certain GDP target. We need to look at this on a country by country basis: delivering a more tailored approach to development in a more complex world. That means we need to know exactly where these countries are located along that long journey. And, for me, this is a job for the whole global community, working with the World Bank, OECD and others.

    Organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are also critical to this work. For example, in 2011, working with the Gates Foundation, we were able to leverage extra funds that will enable GAVI to vaccinate nearly 250 million children, saving around 4 million lives by 2015.

    Working with other organisations allows us to take a collective view on the form of aid and assistance most appropriate to a country’s development, for instance when to move from conventional aid to providing more of what’s known as technical assistance to a country.

    That means ensuring they have strong political, economic and social institutions and practices to support their continued growth. More accountable, effective and transparent parliaments and public sector organisations; a free press; the rule of law; better education and human rights protections – these are the best tools people have to guarantee power is spread from governments and elites right out across society.

    So right now, for example, teams of UK tax experts – set up by Danny Alexander – are working in countries like Afghanistan and Tanzania: using HMRC expertise to train government officials to collect the taxes due from businesses and wealthy individuals within their borders.

    3 years ago, I launched our £355 million Girls Education Challenge, which is working to help a million girls in the toughest circumstances across the world, by 2016, improve their lives by getting into school. And Lynne Featherstone is looking at how we can do the same to help children with disabilities around the world who are excluded from school.

    While Ed Davey at the Department of Energy and Climate Change is leading on work – through the International Climate Fund and other programmes – to help millions of people in developing countries prevent and adapt to the growing risks of climate change.

    And in all of this, of course, we need to be clear to these countries that, as we help them, we expect them to respect the rights of their own people. That’s why the human rights’ protections set out in our partnership agreements with them are so important. They should know that the help we give depends on them doing what is right and fair for all their citizens.

    Female genital mutilation (FGM)

    And that includes protecting those who are most at risk. That’s why we’ve fought so hard for strong action from the UK government, and others, on female genital mutilation or cutting. This is one of the most extreme manifestations of gender-based violence there is, but for most of its 4,000 year history no-one even talked about it.

    Now, finally, thanks to the committed work of campaigners like Nimko Ali and Leyla Hussain and my Lib Dem colleague Lynne Featherstone that taboo is finally being broken. This practice is being brought out of the shadows.

    It’s already illegal here in the UK and in many countries around the world. Yet, despite this, millions of girls around the world are still at risk of FGM – a staggering 3 million girls in Africa alone.

    Right now, the first thing many of them know about this threat is when one day, terrified, they’re physically held down and harmed. And what follows is a lifetime of excruciating pain and trauma, serious health issues and, more often than not, dangerous complications in childbirth.

    But, together, working across nations and creeds, I really believe we can end FGM within a generation. I believe we can protect and empower these girls. And I want to pay tribute here to Lynne for her tireless work – from Burkina Faso to Kenya, around the United Kingdom and inside government – to increase the public’s understanding of this unnecessary, harmful practice and promote the voices of FGM survivors worldwide.

    Last year, Lynne announced a £35 million DFID programme to end FGM worldwide within a generation. And, building on this work, this summer, the UK is holding a major international summit to take our campaign around the world and also address the problem of child and forced marriage too.

    But it’s no good doing great things abroad, if we don’t also take a long hard look at what’s happening here as well. This isn’t just some mysterious ritual that only happens in far-off places. Shockingly, each year, more than 20,000 British girls are at risk of FGM too. Just imagine, that’s roughly the equivalent of all the pupils in 20 UK secondary schools.

    There are already some brilliant young activists like Fahma Mohamed talking about these issues to young people, to parents and to communities and governments across the world and they deserve our unswerving support.

    Working with partners

    Like many of you in this room, they’re blazing a trail; they’re telling us what needs to be done. And I want them to know that we will act. Many of them are using the power of the internet – publishing blogs, producing videos and organising Twitter campaigns – to get their message out there. And, again and again, activists are showing us how much more we can achieve by harnessing these technologies.

    This is why our work with organisations like the Omidyar Network is so important. Over the last 2 years, together, with the Network’s support, we’ve been able to kick start tech-projects that can empower people across the globe. This includes:

    – tech-solutions to help citizens in Uganda and Kenya highlight government corruption and fight for redress

    – women and young people in Liberia reporting sexual abuse and influencing future legislation to protect them

    – new mothers in Nigeria giving feedback on the care they’ve received to improve services

    Giving these people a voice and a chance of a better life where they didn’t have one before.

    And, finally, this reinforces how much more we can achieve together – we can’t do any of this in isolation. By working with other countries, NGOs, foundations, businesses and multilateral institutions like the EU, we can extend our reach to the remotest villages, the toughest terrain and the people who are hardest to reach.

    Take just a handful of projects represented here today – in Uganda, we’re providing clean water and better sanitation with Water Aid. We’re helping fight for women’s rights in Afghanistan with Amnesty. In East Africa, we’re helping to improve children’s health with UNICEF and so on.

    And, as part of the European Union, the world’s largest development assistance donor, the UK’s voice is louder and influence stronger in countries where human rights violations and environmental abuse are taking place.

    This is why I’m so committed to multilateralism – because it’s plainly in our own national interest. Moving forward, I’m keen that the EU develops closer partnerships with other organisations like the African Union and new emerging leaders in development like Brazil.

    Conclusion

    So, in conclusion, In the last 2 decades, we’ve seen the greatest progress in human history to lift people out of poverty. But the job’s not done. And no matter what the aid sceptics say there really is no ‘them and us’ – climate change, terrorism, better health and the need for growth and jobs matter to all of us. Rich or poor, north or south, developed or developing, we all simply want a better future and a chance to get on.

    For me, nothing perhaps exemplifies that more than the story of 2 young girls I met – 1 in a school in Tower Hamlets and 1 in a school in Addis Adaba. When I asked each of these girls what they wanted to be when they grew up, despite all of the differences and distances between them, both answered, “I want to be Prime Minister one day” (They didn’t say Deputy PM).

    These young girls, and millions like them, deserve the chance to achieve their dreams.

    That’s the reality that makes you do the work you do. It’s the ambition that drives Britain’s commitment to development.

    And it’s why I will always fight for the same things abroad as we do at home: stronger economies and fairer societies for all.

  • Nick Clegg – 2014 Speech to the Scottish Chamber of Commerce

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, to the Scottish Chamber of Commerce on 19th May 2014.

    I want to thank the Scottish Chambers of Commerce for hosting today’s event. As businesses, you rely on the Chambers’ advice and expertise to help you succeed. And you’re relying on that same support as you sort fact from fiction in the current Scottish Independence debate.

    So I want to reassure you that I’m not here to drown you in further statistics or reel off a long list of statistical claims and counter claims about the independence debate.

    But I am here as someone who is proudly British, as well as English, and leads a party with strong Scottish roots and a clear positive vision for Scotland’s future in the UK.

    And today I want to set out why I believe that our nations will always be stronger together than apart in an increasingly uncertain, fluid and interconnected world

    This is an argument of the head and the heart – a positive case built on a great shared past, and the potential of a great shared future.

    Firstly, it recognises that the UK’s success isn’t just some lucky accident, but a direct result of the close political, economic and social ties that bind us – pulling us together as families, workmates, colleagues and partners.

    And, secondly, it argues for what more we could achieve in the future.

    Over the last three centuries, we’ve worked together, lived together and faced the world together.

    We’ve created some of the most respected and enduring institutions in the world – our welfare state, the Royal Society and the Edinburgh Festival.

    And whether it’s Adam Smith laying the foundations of our modern economy…

    …Our lawyers leading on the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…

    …Our scientists working together to discover life-saving drugs like penicillin…

    …Or even Sir Chris Hoy racing around the velodrome at London 2012.

    …again and again, we’ve blazed a trail.

    We’ve extended our nations’ reach and influence far beyond our borders and shores.

    As part of a single domestic market with its view fixed resolutely outward, British products – Scottish products – have unparalleled market access, with an embassy and consular network that can promote them around the world.

    But Britain abroad is not just about selling things.

    It’s about using our size and scale as a force for good – as a strong voice in the EU, UN Security Council, NATO and G7.

    That includes the UK taking a lead in global development, doing what we can as a country to help others – peacekeeping in Bosnia, humanitarian help in the Philippines and working in Nigeria, to help them bring back the kidnapped school girls.

    Today’s UK offers Scots a platform from which to achieve success and export the best of our common values around the world.

    And the reality is that our ability to do that isn’t undermined by our differences, but strengthened by them.

    It gives us a richness and diversity that, down the years, has fed into our culture, language, history, sport and national traditions.

    It’s created an incredibly powerful sense of community across the UK that means when we’re in trouble or face big challenges we stand together.

    So whether that’s caring for our ageing population or stepping in to help those struggling to get back on their feet again, we have the resources to support them.

    Organised Crime. Terrorism. None of us are insulated against these problems now. And together, we can better protect our citizens – with cross-border police operations and the work of our intelligence services

    And, as part of the UK, when we’re hit with a once-in-a generation shock to our economy, with our financial sector in freefall, we know that our shoulders are broad enough.

    We saw that six years ago. And, together, we’ve rebuilt the UK economy on the foundations of our strong, stable currency union, shared regulatory and fiscal systems and collective financial clout to boost the UK’s competiveness.

    Above all else, this is a shared recovery driven by our shared strengths – in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

    That includes helping our financial sector to recover and grow. In the last four years, we’ve made the UK one of the most competitive places for asset management in the world, an industry in which Scottish firms lead.

    We’ve invested in the UK’s energy sector, whether that’s basing our UK Green Investment Bank here in Edinburgh, supporting major renewable projects in the Outer Moray Firth or Grimsby; or securing a strong future for our oil and gas industries.

    And we’re helping the UK’s other major industries, like the Scotch whisky industry access new markets and drive growth – with targeted measures such as the spirit duty freeze in this year’s budget.

    In all of this, we’re doing what we can to back businesses large and small – helping smaller employers meet the costs of employment by introducing a £2,000 NI tax cut, or access the finance they need by setting up the British Business Bank.

    And together our economy is turning a corner.

    We’re growing faster than any other G7 country – with seven straight quarters of growth in Scotland.

    We’ve cut the deficit by a third, with it forecast to be reduced by a half by 2014-15

    There are now more people in work than ever before. And last year, the UK was the top destination for foreign direct investment in Europe – with Scotland attracting its highest level of foreign investment for 15 years.

    And in the coming days and months, you have two big decisions to make about whether Scotland builds on that recovery or goes it alone.

    The first is your vote in the Euro-elections. For which our standard bearer is your MEP George Lyon. The second is, of course, a Yes or No to Scottish Independence.

    Some would argue that these two events are incomparable. The Euros happen every five years, while the vote to decide Scotland’s constitutional future is a once-in-a-generation decision.

    But both come down to choosing the kinds of nations we want to live in.

    On the one side you have those whose first impulse is to talk up difference, create division, pretending we live in a world where states can still thrive when they stand alone.

    On the other, you have those of us who believe that the challenges of a global world are best met by removing barriers, embracing diversity and seeking common solutions.

    The reality is we live in a world where our greatest challenges have little respect for borders: climate change, terrorism, organised crime…

    …where power is shifting from West to East.

    … where our fates are increasingly tied – and decisions taken in Washington, Beijing, Moscow and indeed Kiev all impact us here at home…

    …and where your biggest competitors are just as likely to be found half way across the globe as in the next town.

    No one knows that more than you.

    Every year, Scottish businesses export £11.6 billion of goods and services to the EU and nearly £14 billion to the rest of the world – selling £750 million worth of whisky to the US, more than £7.5 billion of manufactured goods to EU countries and nearly £8 billion of services globally.

    In the UK, Scotland is part of the one of the largest, most influential member states in the EU, whose weight has been deployed to the benefit of our financial services industry, our oil and gas interests and our fisheries fleet.

    And your MEP George Lyon has been an outstandingly powerful advocate for Scotland – leading reforms on the budget and farming, making the case for Scotland in Britain and Britain in Europe.

    Of course the EU is not perfect. Which system of government ever is?

    But, as a progressive and a reformer, I believe that, where a system is flawed, our best and only response must be to come together and fix it, not cry foul, say it’s all too difficult, or worse still use it as an alibi to get out.

    And where there are common problems, we should search for common solutions – in the UK and in the EU.

    Because, whatever way you look at it, for our jobs, influence, safety and the environment, the UK is infinitely better off IN the EU than OUT.

    Over 3 million British jobs are linked to the EU. It’s the world’s biggest borderless market place, made up of more than 500 million people with a combined GDP of nearly £10 trillion. And just under half of all the UK’s trade is with the rest of EU.

    If we’re IN, together we can build on that – securing new EU Free Trade Deals with the US and Japan.

    If we’re IN, we can deliver the reforms we want – making the EU more streamlined, more accountable and more focused on competition and growth.

    And, whatever their obvious differences, both the SNP and UKIP share a willingness to put Scotland’s position in the EU at risk.

    The SNP denies it, while UKIP campaigns on it.

    Both are making a gamble that people throughout the UK cannot afford.

    So you should know – all of Scotland should know – that saying no to leaving the UK and the EU does not mean no to more change.

    Over the past four years, I’m proud of the contribution that the Liberal Democrats have made to this country.

    We’ve cut the income tax bill for over two million low and middle-income Scots.

    We’ve taken the lowest paid out of income tax altogether.

    We’ve re-established the link between pensions and earnings so that older people get the support they deserve.

    But one of our proudest achievements is Scotland specific.

    The 2012 Scotland Act constitutes the single largest transfer of financial powers from London to Scotland since the UK’s creation.

    Many of those powers have already gone live, with borrowing powers to be introduced in 2015. And a Scottish income tax rate set by the Scottish Parliament from 2016.

    Liberal Democrats were clear in the coalition negotiations that this Act was necessary to strengthen the devolution settlement – giving people in Scotland more say over domestic affairs while remaining part of a strong and successful UK.

    But the story of devolution – the journey to home rule – is not yet complete.

    We believe we can empower the Scottish Parliament and strengthen its accountability even further.

    In the event of a No vote this September, all three pro-UK parties have pledged to deliver more powers.

    The Prime Minister has started to talk about the Conservatives’ proposals.

    Labour published theirs some months back.

    And the Liberal Democrats put our plan out there more than eighteen months ago.

    All three parties are clear in their commitment.

    More powers will come.

    But it is no surprise that my party was first out the blocks or that we will act as the guarantors for a far-reaching deal.

    Devolution is in our instincts – just as it is in the interests of the people in Scotland.

    Liberal Democrats worked with Labour and those outside politics in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, where we pushed for greater powers than many wanted to give.

    And we won the argument.

    We worked again with Labour plus the Conservatives and others on the Calman Commission, again with the most radical proposals of the Scottish parties, reaching an agreement that we enacted in government.

    And so, for the next real transfer of powers, it is natural that our ideas should come first, that we should be bold, and that we will play a central role in delivering for Scotland.

    The proposals published by Ming Campbell’s Home Rule Commission are radical and far-reaching.

    And when the next phase of devolution is shaped after September’s vote they will form the basis of our contribution to that discussion.

    We want to see a more powerful Scottish Parliament, whose actions are more accountable to the people who elect it.

    That means raising more of the money it spends on the priorities that it has chosen.

    The 2012 Scotland Act will mean that from 2016 the Scottish Parliament will raise about 30% of the money it spends.

    Under our proposals we raise that level up to over 50%.

    Income tax paid on earnings by Scottish taxpayers should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

    With the rates and bands determined here in Scotland.

    So should capital gains tax.

    And inheritance tax too.

    Why should these be the reserve of the UK Parliament only?

    If people in Scotland want to further cut the income tax burden on middle-income earners that should be a choice for them.

    If they want to raise it in order to take less from lower earners, again they should be free to do so.

    If they elect a Parliament whose wish is to cut or increase capital gains tax, inheritance tax, or spending on schools and hospitals – well, so be it.

    Let these debates come out of the shadows.

    That is what democracy is about.

    Taking decisions and the responsibility that goes with them.

    Scotland should be able to innovate and change within the UK in line with its own opportunities and challenges, and that is what our proposals allow.

    And let me say this to you.

    More powers can be good for business – with great fiscal powers comes greater fiscal responsibility.

    A Scottish Parliament that raises far more of the money it spends will bear the consequences of the decisions it takes – for taxpayers and those who use Scotland’s public services.

    And a Scottish Parliament with tax and spend powers is a chance for you to make your voice heard and shape decisions that work for Scottish business and jobs.

    On corporation tax for example.

    It makes little sense to devolve this tax per se and spark a race to the bottom on either side of the border.

    Not least when we’re already cutting UK-wide corporation tax to the lowest level in the G7.

    But we can devolve the revenue it raises.

    So if in future Scotland raises more corporation tax than the rest of the UK, Scotland should benefit from that extra spending.

    That doesn’t mean taking any more from current businesses.

    It means an incentive for the Scottish Parliament to create a more business-friendly environment.

    Set these opportunities against the backdrop of a single UK market with a single regulatory system, and what you have is stronger democracy, increased accountability and incentives for business success.

    Of course our proposals are not the final word.

    The settlement on further powers will need to be negotiated.

    Between the three pro-UK parties of course.

    And with the SNP, if – for the first time – they were willing to be part of the devolution conversation too.

    Currently, the SNP are unwilling to admit that the nature of this debate has fundamentally changed. Further powers for Scotland HAVE been delivered in this parliament and, if Scotland remains in the UK, they WILL be delivered in the next.

    The SNP are pouring scorn over the proposals I and others are making for further devolution, but by doing so they are living in the past.

    We’d like them to be part of the changing conversation over Scotland’s future’

    And we want those outside politics who also have a major stake in Scotland’s future to be involved too.

    Business must be at that table – contributing to this work, influencing its outcome, getting it right.

    So, the choice is yours

    …Between a Britain that is open or closed…

    …A United Kingdom or Independent Scotland…

    …Working together or going our separate ways.

    Yet, in a world where more and more of our ambitions and issues are bound up together nationally and internationally, I don’t believe it’s in our interest to sever those ties which have served us so well, for so long.

    That’s why I hope you vote No in September. It’s the positive choice for our positive future together.

    And it’s why I will continue to argue passionately that all our interests are best served by being in the UK, in Europe and working together.