UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Greg Clark – 2012 Speech on the Financial Sector Restoring Trust

    gregclark

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Greg Clark, on 17th October 2012.

    Good afternoon,

    I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today about how banking and financial services can be restored in their reputation as an industry upon which Britain can depend and of which we will be proud.

    The financial services industry is of fundamental importance to this country, not only to people in this room and in the City of London, but to all of us in Britain.

    I’m thinking of the two million people in this country who are employed – directly or indirectly – by financial services.

    The ‘City of London’ is often seen as a piece of shorthand but more than two thirds of those people work not in the square mile, or even greater London, but in the rest of Britain. Over 200,000 jobs in the North West and in the Midlands, and over 150,000 in Scotland.

    The overwhelming majority of those members of staff are not the high rollers of popular imagination, but ordinary working people holding down respectable jobs on modest salaries in which they work hard to take care of their families.

    Furthermore, their effort pays a big chunk of the taxes that support our public services on which we all depend on. Even in the recession, some sources estimate that financial services contributed one pound out of every eight pounds of government revenue – that’s about £1,000 every year for every man, woman and child.

    Then there’s the value of the services provided directly by the industry: 50 million personal bank accounts, 11 million mortgages; hundreds of billions of pounds of loans to small and medium-sized businesses; UK financial managers are responsible for £3.2 trillion in financial assets.

    And it’s not just the provision of these services that is important – it is the efficiency and the inventiveness with which they are provided. A vigorous, competitive, well functioning financial sector keeps the costs of capital low – and that counts for a lot.  For instance, if mortgage rates are one per cent less than they otherwise would be, that saves homeowners about £12 billion a year.  And that’s to say nothing of the higher returns that come from getting money into the most productive assets.

    The financial services industry is Britain’s biggest exporter – generating, last year, a £37 billion surplus from overseas trade – a surplus comparable to that of Luxembourg, Switzerland and Germany combined, and providing us with the vital foreign exchange we need to import goods and services without borrowing more from the rest of the world than we already do.

    So when I say that the financial services industry matters, I mean that life would be unimaginable without it.

    The foundation of this industry – probably more than any other – is trust.

    Think about it this way: how many people in your life would you trust with all of your money?

    Not that many, I’m sure. And yet every day, tens of millions of us place our trust in a bunch of complete strangers, confident that they – or rather you – can be trusted with our financial security now and for the rest of our lives.

    That’s why there is – correctly and obviously – such an intense interest in what you are doing. It could hardly be otherwise: if there is a scintilla of doubt that the people trusted with our money may not be totally sound, the consequences are calamitous.

    That soundness is something we take for granted. But for most of human history – and still in many parts of the world – it is a rare and precious commodity.

    Building a reputation for trustworthiness was therefore instrumental in Britain’s success as a major trading nation.

    The goldsmiths who took over the nascent business of banking during the 17th Century were able to do only because the merchants who banked with them knew that their gold would be safe – safer, certainly, than it had been in Royal Mint when it was seized by Charles the First! Two centuries later, when their successors saw the opportunity to make the move from trade to the financing of trade, they knew that honesty was the bedrock on which their new business would be built.

    As the years went by, the importance of trust has grown further as the sums became larger and the leverage greater.

    One of my abiding memories from childhood was on a trip from Middlesbrough to London when I went to see the Stock Exchange. Looking down on the trading floor – this was before Big Bang – I was struck by the force of that great motto Dictum meum pactum – my word is my bond.

    Trust remains the essential condition for the functioning, let alone the prosperity, of the financial services industry today. Ordinary working people rely on you to help them negotiate every stage of their lives. Businesses depend on you for their very growth and survival.

    This is why the events of recent years – and recent months – have been so shocking and so corrosive.

    We all remember the scenes of 2007 when tens of thousands of people queued up outside the branches of Northern Rock, fearful that their bank could no longer be trusted with their money.

    And that was just a precursor to the worldwide financial crisis of 2008, when many of the world’s largest financial institutions teetered on the brink of collapse, forcing governments around the world to step in and bail them out.

    At a time like this – when the banks are still recovering, and the crisis in the Eurozone continues, the importance of trust is greater than ever.

    And yet we have had exposed the scandal of LIBOR in which people in positions of great trust attempted manipulate what The Economist called “the most important figure in finance”, in order to achieve personal or institutional gain.

    We have had small businesses conned by their banks – which they thought of as their longstanding partners and advisers- into buying products that were worthless to them but were a nice little earner for the wolves in shepherd’s clothing on the other side of the deal.

    We have seen the recklessness of reputable financial institutions operating products and in markets of such complexity that even those in charge didn’t understand them.

    Ordinary working people have been shocked to discover that they have been unwitting participants in these events – discovering, too late, that it was actually their own money in savings and taxes that had been put up for others to play with. When they read of bonuses that exceed in a year what they can earn in a whole lifetime, is it any wonder the mood is black?

    Of course, in this, United Kingdom financial services are not unique, or even the worst offenders. From the US subprime mortgage bubble, to the near collapse of Société Générale at the hands of a rogue trader, trust has been shattered around the world.

    But the fact that these scandals have happened in other jurisdictions is of absolutely no comfort.

    In a world where trust is in retreat, it is incumbent on this country to provide a haven of confidence and security. But this won’t happen unless we merit higher standards of trust than apply elsewhere. The reputation of the City of London is a precious national asset built up over centuries. We are the temporary stewards of its reputation, and we have a responsibility to hand that reputation on to future generations whole and intact.

    The overwhelming – and urgent – imperative, then, is to rebuild trust. Trust is not secured by any single contributory factor, but by the interaction of several, including effective regulation; meaningful sanctions; clarity of structures; well-aligned incentives between principal and agent and, most of all, an all-pervading culture of integrity.

    The system of regulation that we’ve had for the last decade was found wanting. It missed the risks to the financial system as a whole by concentrating on the individual sources of risk in isolation, and did that in a way that suborned flexible and intelligent monitoring to bureaucracy and form filling. It made the FSA responsible for delivering both prudential and conduct regulation, which require different approaches and skills.

    That is why the Financial Services Bill, currently before Parliament, establishes a new Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England to monitor overall risks in the financial system, identify bubbles as they develop, spot dangerous inter-connections and stop excessive levels of leverage before it is too late. And we are creating two separate organisations, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulatory Authority, with mandates clear as to their different tasks. In both cases, the regulators will be asked to exercise judgement and intelligence, rather than providing mere repositories of data.

    There has been some debate about whether one of the objectives of the new regulator should be the competitiveness of the financial services industry. Adair Turner has said that it is not the role of the regulator to be the cheerleader of the industry.

    I think that he is right. But that is not to say that the regulator does not have a role in competitiveness. In a world of diminished trust, a properly functioning, credible regulatory regime can be a source of competitive advantage.

    Second, sanctions. Most people expect things to work in a certain way. If someone breaks the law, they should be punished. When the crime is serious, they should be locked up. This should be as true for criminals who steal through financial manipulation as it is for those who break-and-enter. Indeed, just as sentences handed down to those who were convicted in last year’s riots reflected their contribution to the breakdown in the confidence and security enjoyed by ordinary working people, so must a similar premium apply to those crimes which destroy trust that so many people depend on.

    Third, simplicity. The right response to a complex world is not to multiply complications, but instead to seek to simplify. That injunction applies to directors and senior managers as it does to policy makers and regulators. If you don’t know what is going on in your bank, you should be bringing about changes in the scope and structure of your operations so that it is always within your grasp.

    The ring-fencing of banks’ retail from investment banking operations, as recommended by Sir John Vickers and his colleagues on the Independent Commission on Banking, will simplify banks’ structures and so make them easier to resolve without recourse to the taxpayer.

    Simplicity goes hand in hand with transparency. The more people who see and understand what is going on, the more they can have confidence that they are not being bilked. I see some positive steps here. I am pleased to say that the five largest UK banks have agreed to continue the voluntary disclosure of the pay of the top eight executives, in addition to the existing mandatory pay disclosures in respect of directors on the board, in advance of European legislation in the years ahead.

    Fourth, incentives. Reckless risk taking in banking – and mis-selling in wider financial services – have usually been associated with incentives for individuals which divorce them from the interests of the shareholders, consumer and taxpayers that they exist to serve. That’s why the Government has taken strong action to curb these practices. Under the FSA Code, up to 80% of bonuses must be deferred or paid in shares, thus limiting cash to 20% of the bonus.

    Martin Wheatley, the UK’s principal conduct regulator, has warned that at individual salesmen and women must never be remunerated in a way that is at odds with the interests of their customers. And to protect taxpayers, we have supported the FSA’s review of bankers’ bonus and dividend distribution plans to ensure that they are consistent with the required capital levels needed for them to be able to lend to families and business, and to protect taxpayers’ interests. I deeply regret the failure of industry leaders not to have acted earlier of their own accord on the matter, requiring the regulatory safeguards that I have described.

    The fifth, and, to my mind, the most important, contribution that can be made to the rebuilding of trust is cultural. The vast majority of the people working in financial services have taken pride in being part of an industry whose traditions are those of integrity, sobriety and responsibility. For most of our lives, to work in a bank – at whatever level, in whatever capacity – was to be marked out as someone of real standing in the community.

    It outrages me that the millions of people who have lived and breathed those values throughout long and devoted careers should have to endure the injustice of the damage to their reputation by being linked inadvertently to a reckless few.

    Earlier today, I announced to Parliament the Government’s response to Martin Wheatley’s review of LIBOR. He did an outstanding job and we support – and will immediately act on – every one of his recommendations. They are totally consistent with every element of the 5-pronged approach that I have set out to you this afternoon; including stronger and more explicit regulation; new criminal sanctions for abuse; a phasing out of many of the reference rates currently used to achieve a sharper focus on the more liquid sections of the LIBOR market; a removal of the potential for incentives to distort the behaviour of submitters and the creation of a new code of practice to which everyone involved must adhere.

    The Government will play its part to make the necessary regulatory changes in the Financial Services Bill and I expect all institutions involved to make swift and decisive progress towards fully implementing the Wheatley recommendations in a way that promotes business continuity and legal certainty.

    During the weeks ahead, a cross-party Parliamentary Commission, established under the chairmanship of Andrew Tyrie, will consider the question of standards in the banking industry. I look forward to hearing the recommendations of the Commission early next year.

    The leadership of this industry – which comes together in this Association – has the duty to set the tone from the top: to have, and to promote, a clear view of the ethos you collectively insist on, to challenge anyone who, by falling short of that, imperils the standing of the industry as a whole. The same is true of every individual firm that makes up the membership: every chairman, every chief executive, every board member has a responsibility to ensure that every employee – whatever their role – is in no doubt about the purposes of their bank in deserving the trust of their colleagues, customers, their shareholders and the general public. This is the moment for the leaders of this industry – many of them new – to place themselves at the vanguard of this movement for reform.

    I know that this has already influenced your discussions today – and Anthony Browne’s proposal of a Banking Standards Board is one suggestion to address the task ahead – although it could only work if it had teeth and credibility.

    There is, I am conscious, an irony that some of the discoveries that have undermined trust in financial services in this country have come to light because – however much they can be improved – our systems and institutions are more transparent than those in many other countries. But that is nothing to regret. Our international reputation for probity and strength brings with it a more exacting set of demands to justify the benefits that it brings.

    I am a friend of the financial services industry in this country – but a critical friend. In my view that is better than the only alternative – not the uncritical friend, but the hostile enemy.

    When I met Antony Jenkins, the new Chief Executive of Barclays, I asked him what, in his view, the purpose of Barclays Bank is. He replied that the Bank’s purpose is to make the lives of its customers easier. That seems to me to be the right direction.

    I will stretch every sinew to – with you – make certain that the people of this country have total confidence in the system of finance that serves them, employs them, supports them with taxes and is a source of pride and excellence the world over.

    Britain needs you to succeed, and I for one am determined that you will.

  • Louise Casey – 2014 Speech to Women’s Aid Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Louise Casey, the Director General of Troubled Families, on 5th March 2014.

    Good morning everybody. I’m very pleased to be with you today and honoured to have been asked to address you at this important event. Thank you Polly for inviting me.

    I head up the Troubled Families programme for government, a programme to turn around the lives of 120,000 families where kids aren’t going to school, where youth crime and anti-social behaviour are a problem and where parents are out of work.

    Before taking on this role, I did other jobs on victims, crime, anti-social behaviour and homelessness for governments of different persuasions.

    Some of you will know me from the voluntary sector and I have had a long association with Women’s Aid and others from the sector represented in the room today.

    I know times are hard, austerity measures are tough and I can see that many colleagues out there are struggling.

    I know that you are doing very difficult jobs in difficult circumstances and so I hope you’ll take what I have to say today as an important recognition of the work you do day in day out.

    I’m glad that you’ve given me the chance to share with you some reflections, having spent 2 years in this job listening to troubled families from cities to shires and to the workers who help them change.

    It would be true to say that I rarely have a conversation with troubled families where domestic violence does not feature.

    Most troubled families I meet, yes, they are families where no one is working, where children don’t go to school, where there is anti-social behaviour and crime.

    They are also, in many cases, families where parents themselves grew up with violence, families where mothers have fled violence only to end up with another controlling man.

    Whether domestic violence is the cause or the symptom, what I have learnt from listening to them is that:

    – their problems are multiple

    – their problems layer one on top of the other

    – and their problems are intergenerational

    When I listen to troubled families, they nearly all talk about:

    – a history of physical violence and sexual abuse, often going back generations

    – the involvement of the care system in the lives of both parents and their children

    – parents starting to have children very young and being unable to deal with them

    – those parents in violent relationships

    – and the children going on to have behavioural problems

    – leading to exclusion from school, anti-social behaviour, crime and worklessness

    These are families on the edge in every way – on the edge of eviction, on the edge of custody, on the edge of care.

    What shocks me more than their problems in a way is the normalisation of those problems – the matter of fact way they accept what has happened and is happening to them, because it is ‘normal’ in their experience, it was ‘normal’ when they were growing up.

    A few months back, I met a woman called Linda, 28 years old, 3 children from 3 different fathers.

    Her 14 year old girl out of school, committing crime, hanging around with older men who did not see her as a child.

    Her 13 year old sister not in school enough and too much at home or on the street and following in the footsteps of her sister.

    Finally, Linda had brought an 8 year old into this world with another man and endured 8 years of violence at his hands, witnessed by that 8 year old child and the 2 teenage girls.

    Linda had been caught for shoplifting and other thieving and was under a probation order. Family intervention got involved when she stopped turning up to see her probation officer.

    When I met her, I asked her how she ended up there and she told me she’d experienced violence and abuse throughout her childhood. She had her first child at 14, a series of violent partners, she got addicted to drugs.

    Taking Linda, a woman who has lived a life of abuse, who is from a family of abusers and simply categorising her as a shoplifter and dealing with her shoplifting would not get us anywhere.

    Helping her deal with domestic violence was central to her recovery. Now, the violent man is out of her life, she’s off drugs and all 3 kids are back in school.

    Last week, we sent out a survey to all 152 local authority troubled families coordinators asking them about domestic violence.

    Within hours, I had responses from 55 councils – that shows me for a start, it’s a big issue for them.

    By the end of the week over 100 of the 152 had replied. Every single one of them said that they use domestic violence as a local criteria for including families in the troubled families programme.

    In this survey, we also asked about the levels of domestic violence in the families being worked with in the troubled families programme.

    Four in 10 said that domestic violence is an issue in more than half of their cases. For some it’s a problem in more than 3 quarters of the families they work with.

    So, in turning around the lives of 22,000 families which colleagues in local areas have done so far, we have learnt a lot through this process, that these families are best helped with family intervention, but as part of that, the domestic violence must be dealt with.

    Can I explain quickly what I mean by family intervention. It is:

    – a dedicated worker dedicated to the family – someone who the family knows by name and who is alongside them helping them to change; not making an assessment, going away and sending them a letter 6 weeks later

    – that dedicated worker needs an assertive and challenging approach – they don’t go away when the door is closed in their face or back off when a family won’t engage

    – that dedicated, assertive worker needs to look at what’s really happening for the family as a whole – but in situations where there is violence or coercive control, looking at what’s happening for the family as a whole may mean actually helping to get him out of the house or rescuing her to a place of safety

    – the worker gives practical hands-on support – so in 1 family I met the breakthrough with the mother came when the worker sorted out beds for the kids and a skip for all the rubbish in the garden, which included all the internal doors in the house

    The mother then told her that the reason the doors were all off their hinges and dumped in the garden was because the kids had asked for them to be taken off. Although the man was now gone, following years of violence in the house, they were terrified of what went on behind closed doors.

    And the mother was overwhelmed. You could classify this as a domestic violence case mental health case, you could classify it as an anti-social behaviour case, you could classify it as a rent arrears case.

    But it was a troubled families case, where the mum and the family were living with a legacy of domestic violence and the bridge-building with that woman started with a practical solution and a skip.

    And finally for family intervention to work, other agencies need to agree to the plan for the family – specialist workers may need to be called in at the right time, but essentially, the mantra is 1 family, 1 plan, 1 worker.

    What is clear when talking to families and to workers is that 5 factors of family intervention I’ve just described are underpinned and made possible by the relationship built by the worker with the family.

    This is something you may see and do in your day to day work.

    Good workers start not with a long list of agencies’ requirements but by finding out where the family want to start.

    They are curious about their lives, their past, their interactions with each other.

    It’s striking that families often say, ‘nobody had ever asked me that before’.

    Nobody had asked the right question before that meant the mother opened up about the abuse in her past.

    Nobody had ever elicited before the level of the violence from her current partner.

    Good workers go into people’s homes and uncover what’s really going on.

    We know that when troubled families cases are referred, they are not always referred because of domestic violence. We find that out once the worker has gone in. It is only by working with the family that we find out is really happening.

    Violence has not been reported and the signs of violence have not been put together: the police callouts logged as non-crime; the child out of school because they don’t want to leave their mother; the regular visits to GP complaining of unspecified problems, or repeat sleeping pill prescriptions, anti-depressants, or hair falling out.

    As one troubled families co-ordinator said that while more than 3 quarters of their cases involved domestic violence they rarely know about it until after they’ve started work with the family – they uncover it once they’re in the home.

    Sometimes that’s because data isn’t shared. Sometimes that’s because women keep violence a secret, for fear of losing their children; or because when they did make a disclosure, the right help wasn’t there.

    Sometimes that’s because the consequences of facing up to a violent relationship – leaving with all that this entails – are just too much.

    Problems with money, problems with housing, problems having to uproot your kids. As one local coordinator of domestic violence services said to me the other day, ‘the thing is, there can be so much to lose when they leave’.

    And they’re afraid. They’re afraid if they stay and they’re afraid if you go. The fear is overwhelming.

    That’s where the right intervention from the right person at the right time comes in.

    So one worker talked to me about a family where she only ever saw the mum. ‘Where’s their dad?’ she asked. ‘Oh, he’s upstairs, he doesn’t come down in the day’. And yet it was obvious he was a controlling influence in the house – the kids were told they’d be sent up to see him if they misbehaved. There was a sense of fear.

    It is not that family intervention workers are ‘jacks of all trades’, they are masters of one – the relationship.

    Good workers are both kind and tough.

    I’m always struck when I meet these families that so many, if not all, of the influences in their lives are negative – they are so isolated.

    The relationship with the worker is not a friendship; it is more like a life buoy in a storm, until they can be pulled to a place of safety and away from a place of danger.

    And that’s what a refuge is too of course. It’s not just commissioning bricks and mortar. It is more than a roof over someone’s head.

    Maslow’s hierarchy of need shows us that basic needs for food, shelter and safety must be met first, then we can hope to improve someone’s self-esteem and relationships with others.

    The key therefore to all of this is the relationship, the human interaction.

    It is not when someone is told they must change, but when someone comes along with the skill to make them feel they want to change.

    I don’t want to make this sound easy – none of this is easy.

    Not for the mother, not for the families, not for the system.

    Nearly 2 years ago, I met a young woman who I’ll call Carly. Carly had been with a violent partner for years. He had actually been imprisoned for violence towards her in the past, but she hadn’t left him. They had a 6 year old child together and she was expecting a second child.

    Both her 6 year old and unborn child were on the child protection register.

    I’m quoting now from the worker who first came into Carly’s life at this low point. She said:

    Carly bore the whole responsibility for the relationship and the protection of the children absolutely fell to Carly.

    She was told what she needed to do but not how to and she was left to do it all. It was Carly who had to keep him away when he came out of prison, it was Carly this and Carly that and it was about making sure it was achievable because you know, it’s one thing saying you must not allow him into your property, but if he wants to come to that property and put a brick through your window he is going to come and do that.

    There was a day when they were doing activities with the child and Carly had a black eye and when asked what happened, she said she fell or something and I just went over and said, ‘you’re lying’.

    I said I can go and find out whether you’re lying because you must either have been to hospital or the police were called. And because by that time we had a relationship, I could challenge her. And then we talked about what her options were.

    And we said we’re not leaving you to the wolves, we aren’t leaving you.

    So for Carly, having that worker alongside her, knowing she wasn’t going to be ‘left to the wolves’, gave her the courage to leave that violent man, the strength to stay away for good and the determination to be a good mother to her children.

    A year after I first met Carly, I went back to see her again. She looked like a different woman. Her children were off child protection, they were thriving and she was thinking about her future in a different way – she actually joked with me that she wanted to become a family intervention worker, so important had that relationship been to her.

    But it wasn’t easy, not for Carly and not for the worker.

    I’m quoting again from Carly’s worker:

    It is uncomfortable stuff we do – we have to put ourselves in an uncomfortable situation because that’s what we’re asking of the families.

    People working with these families may well be working in an ‘uncomfortable’ space. It’s not always a cosy, comfortable relationship. There has to be challenge as well as support.

    Serious case review after serious case review talks about a lack of challenge by professionals. It is not easy to ask the most uncomfortable questions or think the unthinkable. It wasn’t easy for Carly’s worker to say to her, ‘Look, I know you’re lying’.

    We have to ask ourselves does this parent have the capability, the capacity and the willingness to change?

    This isn’t easy for the system, but we’ve got to be tough where people won’t change. There’s a balancing act between the rights of the child and the rights of the woman and to be frank, taking entrenched positions doesn’t help.

    And within that, we must acknowledge that domestic violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women.

    We all know the statistics – women make up 89% of those who are repeat victims of violence. Two women die every week at the hands of their male partners or ex partners.

    So when I talk about violence in the wider context of the family, in no way do I want to divert attention from that reality. I’m not suggesting domestic violence affects everyone equally, regardless of gender.

    But what we are seeing in these families are the consequences of violence being left to fester:

    – the transmission of violence from one generation to the next

    – the effects on children as they grow up

    – and violence becoming the normal way of life

    In one case I know of, Debbie was the victim of domestic violence, and her children had witnessed their father abusing her. He had also lent her out to other men for sex.

    When the family intervention worker asked her about the past, Debbie said that growing up her partner had watched his step-father battering his mother, his mother was violent to her children and his brother remembers ‘battering a lad with a wooden handle’ at primary school; another brother had tried to strangle him.

    I’m not making excuses for this man’s violent behaviour – I’m trying to illustrate that violence is intergenerational and its destruction can spread throughout the family.

    It often doesn’t take long for the pattern of violence to start repeating itself. If nobody works with the mother to build her resilience, it may not be long before another controlling or violent man is in her life.

    If nobody works with the children to help them deal with what they’ve witnessed or been subjected to, by the time they move from primary to secondary school they are replicating the violence or doing it even younger to their brothers and sisters.

    If nobody works with the father, then he’ll continue to go on to do it others – not necessarily a subject for today, but one that we must come back to.

    We have to get to kids younger and we have to do something to change these families who are being destroyed by violence.

    That might start with empowering the woman, giving her the support she needs to end the violent relationship. But our response can’t end there – the children who have witnessed that violence deserve more.

    One very experienced worker put it like this, and again, I’m quoting:

    The number of children that I see who have reached the age of 14, 15 and it’s not ADHD, we’ve assessed that, there might be a social/emotional behaviour statement around the SEN side of it, but there’s not a learning disability or he’s not autistic.

    What this child is exhibiting are all the classic signs of post traumatic stress, because the houses that they’ve been living in have been like war zones.

    So I’m glad that local authorities are already using the local criteria to help those suffering from domestic violence through the Troubled families programme.

    Last summer, the government announced an expansion to our troubled families programme, seeking to extend help to a further 400,000 families from next year

    We know that domestic violence will be an issue in many of these families and therefore it will become a focus of the extended scheme.

    It is human interactions that are at the core of this.

    It is the behaviour of human beings that dictates what it feels like for a neighbour to live in a community, for a woman to live in a relationship, for a child to live in a family.

    Many of you, of course, are dealing with wider issues around domestic violence, but for me, the troubled families programme is about changing the most difficult families.

    If we continue spending all the resources we have been on the highest need families we will never have enough money for all the others out there who we also want to help.

    I say to you today, please support this programme because we have got a once in a generation opportunity to break the cycle.

    But it’s not without its challenges and one of those is the challenge of early intervention.

    Together we need to work out how we how we share data in the right way that helps women who present at their GPs suffering the signs of domestic violence, but do that in a safe and secure way.

    Together we need to work out how we get to those 6 year old boys already hitting out at school and the solution doesn’t lie in a prescription for Ritalin.

    Together we need to work out, how we get perpetrator programmes that work, how we track violent men once the woman’s left or got him out of the house to stop him starting again with another woman, in front of another 3 children.

    I know none of this is easy. Many of us in this room have been working in these sectors for years.

    There are a lot of people out there who think that we can’t change these families. Who think it’s just not possible.

    And could live with a country where the kids in the families never go to school, their parents never get a job and their lives are never improved.

    Well I don’t agree with that. I hope that you don’t either.

    So whether it’s colleagues from the domestic violence sector in the room today, those from the children’s sector, those from local government charged with delivering our own troubled families programme,

    We must stand together to tackle intergenerational disadvantage, abuse and violence.

    I’ll do whatever I can to support you in what you’re doing to help stop violence and abuse.

    And I hope you’ll support me in trying to help the most vulnerable and troubled families.

    And together we can give the children in these families chance of hope for the future.

  • Menzies Campbell – 2006 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Menzies Campbell, at the 2006 Liberal Democrat Spring Conference on 5th March 2006.

    Well I’m delighted to be here.

    For those of you don’t expect me to be here too long, I have a worrying statistic for you.

    The previous Ming dynasty lasted for 276 years.

    I want to begin by acknowledging Chris Huhne and Simon Hughes, and particularly their generosity since the announcement of the result last Thursday.

    Innovative thinkers, gifted communicators and tenacious campaigners – and that was just when they were having a go at me.

    God help the opposition.

    They are formidable opponents, tremendous allies and it’s great to have them on our team.

    To the members of the party, I want to say thank you for giving me this chance to serve.

    I want to celebrate the enormous contribution of my predecessor, Charles Kennedy.

    Under his leadership the Liberal Democrats have become a much more powerful political force.

    With more votes and more seats at Westminster.

    Ever-greater influence in Brussels.

    Running more major cities than ever before.

    Charles has been the most successful leader in the liberal tradition since Lloyd George.

    And why? Because this party is serious about politics and serious about government.

    We’ve shown how well we can perform in local government, from parish councils to great cities.

    We’ve shown how we influence legislation in Europe and in the House of Lords.

    We’ve shown we are the driving force in Scottish Government and in Welsh politics too.

    And now my task – our task – is clear.

    It is to lead this party from protest, into power.

    A few short weeks ago every London-based commentator wrote us off.

    But the political obituary writers were rudely interrupted.

    By the very people the political establishment often forgets – the voters.

    Willie Rennie’s spectacular triumph in Dunfermline and West Fife has shown us the way.

    All the big guns came to Dunfermline. Brown, Salmond, Cameron.

    “Dave” came up for a day trip.

    But in his first electoral test, he didn’t just lose his tie – he lost his shirt.

    Gordon Brown masterminded the whole Labour campaign.

    He smiled, and showed us his lighter side.

    But for all the smiles, the voters said thanks, but no thanks.

    It’s ironic.

    David Cameron and Gordon Brown.

    One desperate to be Tony Blair.

    The other desperate not to be Tony Blair.

    Me, I’m just happy to be myself.

    We’ve had enough of Blairism.

    The country is crying out for a principled liberal democratic alternative.

    A principled liberal alternative has never been more needed than when there are people being abused and held without trial at Guantanamo Bay.

    The Prime Minister calls it “an anomaly”.

    Let me address him directly; Prime Minister, this is not an anomaly…

    This is an outrage.

    But under this government, the “anomalies” are becoming the norm.

    Schemes to keep citizens under house arrest,

    Identity cards.

    A Labour party member – a Labour party member – Walter Wolfgang arrested as a terror suspect for daring to heckle at the Labour Party Conference, taken into custody for shouting ‘Rubbish’ at the Foreign Secretary.

    I hope they don’t introduce that in the House of Commons – otherwise I will be joining him.

    And members of the public like Maya Evans arrested outside Downing Street just for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq.

    Who knows what this government would have done with Siegfried Sassoon, or Wilfred Owen, if it had been in office during the First World War.

    Once Westminster was the cradle of democracy.

    Under this government it is becoming the graveyard of democracy.

    And I’m not just talking about terror.

    Look at every department of state and I will show you bureaucracy and regulation, an ever-greater threat to enterprise, diversity and freedom.

    Our alternative is clear:

    – a greener, fairer, decentralised and democratic Britain

    – a Britain at peace with itself at home and admired abroad.

    So what of David Cameron and his Conservative alternative?

    Well if you know your Scottish history, you’ll know that down the centuries the Campbells have always got the better of the Camerons.

    And now Mr Cameron tells us he’s a liberal.

    Some liberal.

    This is the David Cameron who has told his Euro MPs to abandon the mainstream and join the extremists.

    This is the David Cameron who was Michael Howard’s ideas man? The man in the shadows on Black Wednesday and the author of the Tory manifesto of 2005 – the most reactionary, unpleasant, right-wing manifesto of modern times.

    And this is the David Cameron who supported the Iraq war and has just sent William Hague off to Washington to restore links with the hard right of George W Bush’s Republican Party.

    Forget neo-cons. This is a real con.

    During the leadership election, there were fewer differences between the three of us than there are between David Cameron on Tuesdays and David Cameron on Wednesdays.

    But he’s right in one respect. He knows that this country is turning to liberalism. And that’s why he’s been trying to steal our clothes.

    But the voters know better. Why go for an imitation when you can vote Liberal Democrat and get the real thing?

    And what about the oldest double act in town? Tony and Gordon.

    Remember 1997? So much promise and so many promises. Things can only get better.

    Better? Who would have thought the heirs of John Smith’s devolution would have created the most over-centralised country in the Western world?

    Who would have thought the guardians of Robin Cook’s ethical foreign policy would have become the standard-bearers for an illegal war in Iraq?

    Who would have thought the opponents of apartheid would become the apologists for rendition?

    After that, things can only get better.

    As for Labour’s record on civil liberties, it’s quite simply a disgrace. This government never tires of invoking terrorism and security threats to justify illiberal laws. No-one denies the reality of the threats we face, at home or abroad.

    But the legislation proposed by the Government would not have prevented the tragic loss of life we saw in London last year.

    Identity cards would not have helped.

    Nor would locking up British citizens for 90 days without trial.

    The right to due process and freedom from summary arrest are part of this country’s  proud traditions.

    Indeed they are revered throughout the world.

    We support practical measures that can defeat the spectre of terrorism – not the erosion of this country’s values. We should be relentless in the pursuit of those who perpetrate terrorist acts and unswerving in our commitment to uphold justice. That’s why we’ve argued if this Government wants real justice it should allow telephone intercepts to be used as evidence in court, as in every other Western nation.

    In the leadership campaign I talked of the need to wage war on poverty. Labour’s record on social justice is a sorry one. Where you are from, what your parents did, the school you went to: these determine your success in life more than ever today.

    Shelter estimates that one in twelve children is likely to develop asthma, TB or bronchitis because of poor housing.

    Yes, you heard that right – one in twelve children.

    Over a million children live in slums in this country.

    A Britain which tolerates this is not a liberal Britain.

    One of the biggest scars on our society is child poverty. It is worse today than when I grew up in Glasgow.

    A Britain which tolerates this is not a liberal Britain.

    I want the Liberal Democrats to be the party of opportunity, aspiration and ambition.

    Labour has promised welfare reform, but failed to deliver.

    Our party has a proud record of reform – yes and delivery too.

    People saw the difference when Lloyd George ushered in the state pension 100 years ago, and when Beveridge built the welfare state forty years later. Today it again falls to the Liberal Democrats to reshape our welfare system, to build a society secure against poverty, and create a system founded on opportunity and responsibility with incentives to work and to save.

    Over last the eight weeks, people asked me what my leadership would mean.

    Those commentators who said I would simply tread water for a while are in for a rude shock.

    I joined the Liberals because I wanted to challenge the settled orthodoxies of British politics. I still do. I intend to lead a party willing to think anew. A party willing to develop fresh ideas. A party drawing on enduring Liberal Democrat principles but ready to apply them in a rapidly changing world.

    That need for fresh thinking is even more acute today.

    Look around you.

    The pace of social, economic and environmental change is without precedent. Consolidation and caution will not be an adequate response, either for our country or for our party. Liberal Democracy cannot be a struggle between those who wish to modernise and those who do not. To be a Liberal Democrat is to be a moderniser.

    You showed courage and willingness to think anew yesterday, when you backed Norman Lamb’s proposals to give our Post Offices a future. Take that policy and sell it on the doorstep to the British people in these critical May local government elections.

    I am determined that under my leadership the Liberal Democrats will be at the cutting edge of debate and new thinking. Our policies must address the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Over the next 6 months, and before we meet again in Brighton, I intend to set out in more detail key challenges and policy directions on the major issues of British politics: the economy, the environment, welfare reform, better government, education and skills, crime and social policy.

    Our policies need to be thoroughly tested. They will be subject to new levels of aggressive scrutiny.  Labour and the Conservatives realise we are their principal opponent in all parts of the country. They will turn their guns on us. And we must be ready.

    As Richard Kemp said yesterday, opposing is not enough; our policies have to be fit for government. And that means when we campaign for greater localism we must be clear what we mean.

    All three main parties now speak the language of localism. We have New Labour’s double speak about “double devolution”. And we have David Cameron’s miraculous conversion to decentralisation. But in my experience the voters have long memories.

    They remember the sustained attacks on local government by the Conservatives and Labour. They know that only Liberal Democrats are credible when we advocate the reduction of excessive Whitehall power. But there’s more work for us to do.

    Our public services today are not accountable to the local people they serve. And I agree with the conclusions of the Power Inquiry. Last week it said that we need a shift away from the executive back to Parliament, and from central to local government.

    It is absurd that if a hospital operation goes wrong the first democratically elected person in the chain of responsibility is the Secretary of State for Health. But we need to explain in clear terms how localised school and health systems would work. We need to explain how we would move from central targets to local accountability.

    We need to explain how we would maintain national standards, while creating a climate that would allow local diversity to flourish.

    Let us be clear – localism necessarily means that things will be done differently in different places. Policies that work for the people of Harrogate may not work for the people of Haringey. That is acceptable if in each area there is full democratic decision making, accountable to local people, and free from interference by Whitehall.

    On taxation, too, we need to think afresh. The Tax Commission was established by Charles Kennedy to do precisely that. Too much attention has focused on our manifesto policy for a new higher rate of income tax on earnings over £100,000 a year.

    We should avoid becoming fixated on one tax rate. You cannot create a valid tax policy based on a single tax rate any more than you can have a valid defence policy based on a single weapons system. Nor can you create a fairer society without a fairer tax system.

    Here are my three principles for a new, fairer tax regime.

    First, the tax burden must be lighter for those on lowest incomes.

    Second, the tax system must provide incentives to companies and individuals to behave in a way that sustains our environment.

    Third, the system must be simple – it must support enterprise and must not stifle it.

    Fairer taxation will build an economy that’s more efficient and a society that is more just. We’re not going to spend more, when we can spend more wisely.

    I see no case for an increase in the overall tax burden in the present economic cycle. And if we are looking for areas to save money let me suggest some – the Child Trust Fund, identity cards – even the Department of Trade and Industry.

    And there is another area where we must embrace reform – and that is Europe. I am a passionate European, and always have been; Europe as the guarantor of our peace and prosperity.

    But the old ways of the European Union are no longer working. The European Union is now become much larger and more diverse. It is intolerable that decisions that affect the lives of every one of us are taken by Ministers meeting in secret. The veil must be cast aside. True friends of the European Union are true friends of its reform.

    When we see the return of old-fashioned protectionism at the heart of Europe, we must be the liberal voice for free, fair and open trade without which the EU will not survive. I want to see the nations of Europe open to each other, yes…  and open to the products of the poorest countries in the world too.

    Our party has always fought economic nationalism – and must now do so again in Washington, Paris and Brussels.

    To maintain our credibility, as the only truly liberal force in British politics, will also require changes in the way we organise ourselves.

    We have just had the most successful general election for over eighty years. We must build on that success – as we become more successful, so too we must become more professional. We must now modernise our organisation to sustain our growing presence throughout the country.

    I’m going to ask a team of our leading campaigners to draw on the latest techniques to make sure we maintain our lead as the most innovative campaigning party in British politics. Raising money, selecting and training candidates and agents, building and maintaining local parties, involving and including our members, communicating through a 24-hour media are all areas where we need new ideas.

    I will reform the way we support women and ethnic minority candidates. I am going to set up a special trust fund to provide them with financial support. I am going to ask every single Parliamentarian to mentor a woman and ethnic minority candidates – to give them the support and skills they need to get and elected. How can we represent this country if we are not representative of this country?

    We now have a wealth of youthful talent in our party. For the brightest and best of this generation are Liberal Democrats. Our new frontbench team will be more than a match for the Conservatives and Labour Party.

    I will draw on the many strands of our liberal democracy – social, economic, personal and political – to mark out distinctive territory in British politics. There is no conflict between economic and social liberalism. You cannot deliver social justice without economic success – and discipline.

    We can build a fairer Britain, not the means-tested, target driven, over-centralised country run by Labour today.

    Our unity must not come at the price of clarity. We must be clear and consistent in all that we say and do. We are moving out of the comfort zone of opposition politics. We must make three-party politics a credible reality.

    Under New Labour, politics has become managerial, not inspirational. The Conservatives have taken the same course, shunning conviction and desperate only to emulate a value-free Downing Street.

    Britain does not need a third managerial party. It needs a distinctive liberal democratic party. I will lead this party with a clear vision of Liberal Democracy.

    To empower people, and not the state; to promote social mobility; to nurture the aspirations of all individuals; to shape events in the wider world; to cherish our shared environment; to defend the cause of liberty, and to promote the radical reform of Britain’s tired political system – and that means fair votes for Westminster.

    To be the leader of the Liberal Democrats is to be the trustee of a great party, with so much to be proud of – but with so many dazzling achievements still to come.

    Let us pledge today that where we see unfairness we will challenge it; where we see injustice we will attack it; and where we see prejudice we will confront it.

    Together we must campaign as never before. Together we must become the rallying point for a new liberal democratic Britain. Together we will win.

  • Menzies Campbell – 1987 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech by Menzies Campbell in the House of Commons on 13th July 1987.

    I hope that it will not be thought presumptious or unduly prococious of the part of a maiden speaker to offer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my congratulations on your new appointment. May I express the wish of those on the Liberal Benches that you enjoy your appointment and occupy the Chair for a long time to come.

    I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me to make a maiden speech in this House. I do so attended with all the apprehensions to which maiden speakers are traditionally subject. In the spirit of that tradition, I wish to begin by referring to my predecessor, Barry Henderson.

    Barry Henderson served the constituency of Fife, North-East sincerely and conscientiously during the time he was its Member of Parliament. To me he was a courteous opponent, and he was gracious and generous in defeat. However, none of those qualities, admirable in themselves, was sufficient protection against the condemnation by the electors of Fife, North-East of the party of which he was such a loyal supporter. Some of the condemnation was especially reserved for the community charge, or the poll tax as it is colloquially described north of the border.

    I trust that we on the Liberal Benches may be forgiven some small self-indulgence from the realisation that the constituency that returned Mr. Asquith for so many years has once more returned a Liberal Member of Parliament.

    The House will be aware that within my constituency lies Scotland’s oldest university, founded in 1411. That university has a long noble tradition of scholarship in the arts and sciences, in teaching and research. The maintenance of that tradition is becoming increasingly difficult in the present climate. Research, in particular, is an issue of considerable controversy within that university. It is universally recognised within the academic community that research for its intrinsic merit is an essential feature of a vigorous and healthy university. It must surely be accepted that scholarship should not lightly be sacrificed to commercialism. However, that is an inevitable consequence of Government policies towards universities.

    Since 1980, St. Andrew’s university has suffered a cut of 21 per cent. in real terms in University Grants Committee funding. It has survived only by the skilful management of its investments and by a robust programme of recruiting foreign students who pay full fees. Obviously, that programme has been acompanied by a reduction in opportunity for students from the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may not be long before that institution is staring deficit in the face. One may think that that is hardly conducive to the role that is required of it during the last part of the 20th century.

    This debate is concerned with local government finance. Anyone who listens to those who are involved in local government on a day-to-day basis will readily accept that many of the difficulties that local government faces arise from the continuing reduction in central Government’s support for local government. In Fife, North-East, for example, if the housing support grant stood today at the same level as in 1979, the rents for council houses would be £6 per week less. Until that reduction in central Government support is halted, the pressure on local authorities will continue to be acute and damaging. To suggest, as appears to have been suggested in the House a few moments ago, that the community charge will bring a solution to the many problems of local government financing seems to ignore the fact that the community charge, of itself, will create its own difficulties.

    Of course, it is accepted that rates are universally discredited, although from time to time one feels that, as a means of raising local taxation, rates still enjoy some support from Labour Members. The replacement of one regressive tax by another is no solution. The community charge, or the poll tax, must be regressive and unfair; otherwise there would not be any need for rebates. If it were essentially a fair charge, there would not be any necessity to make allowances for those whose personal circumstances were such as to make them unable to pay. A tax that will benefit mostly those who earn over £350 per week is self-evidently unfair.

    We argue, as we have argued for a long time, that the only fair system of raising local taxation is by a local income tax based on the ability to pay. If ability to pay is recognised as the proper measure for raising taxation on a national, United Kingdom-wide basis, why is it denied that the same basis should be applied to local taxation?

    If the Government were to undertake to restore the level of central Government support to what it was in 1979 and to introduce a local income tax along the lines that we have argued, real progress could be made in the financing of local government. I look for that, but so far I have been disappointed.

  • Lynne Featherstone – 2014 Speech on Clean Energy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lynne Featherstone, the Development Minister, at the Royal Society in London on 1st May 2014.

    Thank you all for coming today.

    It’s fitting that we are here at the Royal Society today, because science and technology have crucial roles to play in understanding and addressing the impacts of traditional cooking on people and the environment.

    Improving access to clean energy for girls and women is one of my top priorities.

    At the Sustainable Energy for All Advisory Board meeting in New York last November, I launched a campaign on improving access to Clean Energy for Girls and Women and also agreed to serve on the Leadership Council of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. The campaign highlights the economic, health and safety benefits that clean energy access can bring women in particular – allowing them to study at night, have better medical care, earn more and feel safer on the streets at night. Without action to support clean and efficient cooking, the aspirations of economic empowerment and the entitlement to safety and health, cannot be met for girls and women across the world.   If girls and women are collecting firewood, they are not learning or earning, and so can’t meet their own potential or their families’. We also know that as women gather firewood, they can be at risk of attack. Most shockingly, and the clearest signal of the need for decisive action, is the new World Health Organisation estimate – which Maria has just confirmed – that over 4 million deaths in 2012 were attributable to Household Air Pollution.

    This increase, as we have heard, is due to a better understanding of the wide range of health issues that result from household air pollution – including cardiovascular impacts. And although many more men are affected by this issue than originally thought – household air pollution is still the second biggest cause of female mortality in the developing world, after childbirth.

    4.3 million is a very large number, and combined with the 2.6 billion people still relying on firewood, charcoal and coal for their cooking every day – we are talking about a public health crisis that is part of daily life across the developing world.

    It’s a sobering thought; millions of people are dying from pollution in their own kitchens, in the heart of their own homes.

    And so, it’s very important that today’s conference is a turning point, bringing together the latest evidence and providing the springboard for collective and effective action.

    Working together is critical.

    Consider Malaria – another endemic health problem, but one where international action, co-ordination and private sector engagement is saving lives. This shows what can be achieved. We need to emulate this success in the clean cooking sector, so that deaths from household air pollution stop rising and start falling.

    To make headway, and to achieve the Alliance’s target of clean cookstoves adopted in 100 million households by 2020, we need to learn from what has worked.     The success of the mobile phone market and the rapidly growing solar lighting sector has shown that market-based solutions can reach the poorest of consumers. Entrepreneurs are waking up to the potential of an enormous market of buyers keen for stoves that reduce the amount of money they spend on fuel and time they spend cooking.

    Last year I visited CleanStar Mozambique, a British firm which has built a business selling clean-burning ethanol fuel produced by local farmers to customers in Maputo. The difference this makes to the lives of women cooking on liquid fuel for the first time is tangible. I met a woman whose health improved so radically that she could let her daughter go to school, instead of needing her to cook for the family at home.

    Working with the World Bank and donors like Denmark and Norway, we are supporting clean energy entrepreneurs through the Climate Innovation Centres. These centres offer training and seed capital to clean energy and adaptation enterprises. Centres are already open and operating in Kenya and Ethiopia – while more are in the pipeline.    There is also now a substantial body of experience on the policies and incentives which can accelerate market shifts. We have seen a plethora of creative approaches emerge.

    In Ethiopia we are working with the Energising Development programme to pilot the first Results-Based Financing Facility for clean cookstoves. We hope that approaches like this can help incentivise market-driven scale up, which reaches the poorest consumers.

    But with the Sustainable Energy for All goal of universal access to energy by 2030 – and so many people still cooking on solid fuels, we need to pick up the pace.     This afternoon you will be hearing about DFID-commissioned analysis into how we can change cooking behaviour for the better. This kind of thinking is essential to inform the scaled-up approaches needed to transform cooking markets. And I know Radha will set out her vision in a few moments for how we get to clean cookstoves in more than 100 million households by 2020.

    As we increase our efforts, it is vital we make sure our support is effective.

    Transparent performance standards and testing facilities for cookstoves are essential. I will commit the UK today to follow up on the cookstove standards work which the Alliance is convening with UK help. We need to establish a minimum threshold for the stoves we support, to make sure they are effective, safe and sufficiently reduce smoke.

    What counts after all, is that these stoves make a real difference. Families need to see a new stove is worth their investment, not only saving them money and time but also improving their health.     The problem is clear, the solutions are within reach and you are all working tirelessly to ensure that they are devised to the best standards. But there is one more point to consider.

    I trust that you all feel as strongly as me about taking on this crisis as previous cohorts of experts and campaigners have done with other global health issues. But to do this we must look beyond ourselves and spread the word. Your expertise needs the support of the wider world – of the public and politicians. So, whilst wishing you a successful and productive afternoon, if you take nothing else away from today, pass on the message, spill some ink.

    Gathered today are participants from many sectors, including health, climate, energy, business and many more. It is in our hands to find solutions – and to make the home not a place of danger and ill-health, but of safety and empowerment.

    Thank you.

  • Lynne Featherstone – 2014 Speech on South Sudan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lynne Featherstone, the Minister for Development, in Oslo on 20th May 2014.

    I would like to thank Norway and OCHA for hosting and organising this meeting at this critical time for South Sudan. My thanks to the Chairs, Foreign Minister Borge Bende and Baroness Amos.

    I am deeply saddened to be here today. In 2012, I made my first overseas visit as a Minister for International Development to South Sudan. The young country, born out of a proud dream and a lifetime’s struggle, faced enormous challenges.

    But there was a sense of possibility; a sense that South Sudan could invest in its people, generate opportunities, move forward with hope. I visited a training centre for young people and talked to a group of girls about their hopes and expectations – their desire to complete school and improve their lives.

    How far we are from that sense of hope today…

    Half of the population of South Sudan, are in need of humanitarian assistance.

    1.3 million people have fled their homes – 300,000 to neighbouring countries. There have been 5 months of egregious human rights violations. South Sudan is now, as a result, a country tottering on the brink of famine.

    These dire circumstances cannot – must not – continue.

    The agreement signed by President Kiir and Dr Machar on 9 May – a commitment to a ceasefire, political talks and unfettered humanitarian access – offers a way out. Commitments must result in tangible changes and improvements throughout South Sudan. A rekindling of hope will then be possible.

    I applaud the work that IGAD has done to mediate the negotiations.

    South Sudan must grasp this opportunity to move forward rather than backwards: towards development rather than destruction.

    We all need to be clear. The responsibility for the well-being of the people of South Sudan sits with the leaders of South Sudan. The road to a lasting peace will require difficult decisions.

    Leaders will be judged by history, and by the people of South Sudan, on the basis of the steps that they take to bring an end to the suffering that has been caused by this crisis.

    As a first step, this time, the ceasefire needs to endure. And immediate practical steps need to be taken to increase the speed at which aid reaches the people.

    Clearance through customs for humanitarian goods should only take a few days rather than almost a month. Their movement within South Sudan, whether by road or river barge, should also be facilitated and not obstructed as it has been too often over the last months.

    There should be an end to the looting of emergency relief supplies and respect for the safety and security of humanitarian assets and staff. Respect for International Humanitarian Law and protection – especially for women and girls – is also a critical responsibility of all leaders and their followers.

    Both sides need to ensure that there are no repeats of the horrendous human rights abuses that have been reported in Juba, Bor and Bentiu, and that those responsible face justice, not impunity. And I hope that the government will quickly set out its credible response to the UNMISS human rights report, including the proposal to establish a hybrid court.

    Through these difficult times the UK has stayed true in our commitment to the people of South Sudan. We have refocused our support to increase our emphasis on humanitarian assistance, while maintaining core development programming on health, education and food security.

    I call upon the government of South Sudan to increase the investment of its own resources in health, education and food security as part of its response to the looming crisis.

    Since the start of the crisis we have allocated almost £21 million to help meet humanitarian needs within the country and an additional £13 million to support refugees in the region.

    I want to acknowledge our partners and the excellent work that has been done by the Humanitarian Coordinator, the UN Country Team, UNMISS, the ICRC and international and national NGOs that are helping to support the people of South Sudan in their hour of need.

    I also want to acknowledge the generosity and safe haven shown by governments in the region to refugees from South Sudan arriving in their countries.

    But more resources are needed to scale up the response both inside the country and for refugees.

    Today I am able to announce a new commitment of £60 million, equivalent to around $100m, for the response within South Sudan.

    We will help to strengthen front line delivery, including protection for women and girls, through the UN and NGOs with particular attention on hard to reach areas. We will support the key pipelines, including through a £16m contribution to the World Food Programme. We will help to ensure that help reaches those in need through an investment in shared logistics.

    In conclusion, I would like to return to my conversation with the young girls in Juba in 2012.

    To me those girls – from across the country – represent the hope and future of South Sudan.

    Some shy. Some confident. But all supportive of each other. And all proud of the investment they were making in their own development.

    Girls like those are the future of South Sudan and they deserve better.

  • Lynne Featherstone – 2014 Speech at Education World Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lynne Featherstone, the International Development Minister, at the Education World Forum in London on 21st January 2014.

    Distinguished guests.

    The focus of this year’s conference – planning for the decade beyond 2015 – is a top priority for the UK’s Department for International Development. Global poverty reduction is what drives the work in my department and we’re really involved in the discussions on a global development framework to succeed the existing Millennium Development Goals. In the post-2015 framework, we want to see a set of compelling goals and targets that will catalyse the action needed to eradicate poverty within a generation.

    The next set of goals must also go beyond the MDGs and include accountable and effective institutions that avert the risk of conflict, provide a stable and peaceful environment for business to thrive, and ensure that all people have a voice in the decisions that affect them. We know education is fundamental to development: it underpins economic growth and more democratic and open institutions, it has transformative effects on the lives of girls and women and it enables people to live the life they choose. Today, I want to tell you what DFID is doing on each of the conference themes – measurement, reach and enterprise – to ensure education is a catalyst for development.

    Let me start with Reach. As a global community, great progress has been made at getting more children in school across the developing world. Out of school children have fallen from 105 million in 1999 to 57 million today. However just getting children into school isn’t enough. At least 250 million children cannot read or count, even after spending 4 years in school. DFID is committed to reaching all children with quality education as we approach 2015 and beyond.

    I’m passionate about our work to support people with disabilities. We know that data on excluded groups is difficult to pin down but according to some estimates, children with disabilities comprise nearly one-third of all out of school children. Of those in school, it’s estimated that 15% to 20% will have some kind of special educational need. The UK works to ensure that all children are able to complete a full cycle of quality education, and that includes children with disabilities.

    I’ve recently announced 2 initial commitments to step up our support. First to ensure all construction, directly funded by DFID, is fully accessible. And second, to work with partners to improve data on children with disabilities and special educational needs. Echoing the report of the High Level Panel on post 2015, we should not consider targets met unless they are met for all social groups, including those with disabilities. Every country, including my own, must work hard to ensure that no one is left behind.

    There are still 31 million girls of primary school age who have never been to school and the majority of these come from the most disadvantaged communities. Getting girls in school and learning is both right and a smart investment for development. An extra year of primary schooling for girls can increase their wages by up to 20%, most of which is likely to be reinvested in her family and community.

    In 2011, the UK established the Girls’ Education Challenge, the world’s largest global fund dedicated to girls’ education. This will reach up to 1 million of the worlds’ poorest girls to ensure that they receive a quality education to transform their future. It’s an exciting initiative and has been enthusiastically received by NGOs, charities and the private sector. The GEC’s programmes in Afghanistan, for example, are helping the Afghan government to rebuild its education system, continue its drive to enrol girls, and improve education quality.

    So with the private sector’s strategic involvement in the Girls’ Education Challenge, let me turn now to the theme of enterprise. For countries to grow out of low income status they need to address existing skills’ deficits, and make the most of their current growth potential. Skills, acquired at every level of education, play a critical role in a country’s economic and social development.

    When I have asked young people in the countries I have visited with DFID, what they tell me they most want on completing their studies is a good job. So we need to ensure that young people are learning job-relevant skills and have access to information on work experience and internships. We need to nurture the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.

    Education systems are not always very good at shaping today’s workforce, let alone the workforce of tomorrow, or making sure that the hardest to reach groups can progress through the system. That is why DFID is currently considering how best to invest and support important work in this area.

    Getting it right on skills is also important for business and enterprise to flourish. Companies need people with both specialist technical skills, and transferable skills like problem solving, that can be applied practically in a job. Higher education is the route by which technical skills in areas like engineering, agriculture, science, health and finance are acquired, and the sector is very weak in many countries. Failing to address this, equitably, puts a break on human potential as well as stalling an economy’s growth.

    Technology can play a big role in this – both in teaching and learning, and shaping the jobs of the future. We are already seeing evidence for this, but I am sure there is more to come. I think for all of us it is hard to predict what those future developments might be – but my interest is in making sure that the bright thinkers are incentivised to look at the developing world, as much as they currently look at the developed.

    Now to the final theme. Measurement. Without good measurement, good data, we are unlikely to develop the right policies to ensure that no one is left behind, to ensure that all girls and boys are learning when in school and to know how many engineers need training to drive a growing manufacturing sector.

    Improving data and measurement is a big challenge for the post-2015 development framework which is why the High Level Panel report called for a data revolution. Improved data on education will help countries and their partners to respond more effectively to the global learning crisis.

    As the leading bilateral donor in basic education, part of DFID’s response is to step up our efforts to support and strengthen data collection and data use in countries where we work. In parallel we have developed partnerships with the UNESCO Institute of Statistics, the PISA for Development pilot, and UNESCO’s Global Monitoring Report to help drive global education data improvements in the run up to to 2015.

    We need to act quickly to ensure learning can be tracked post-2015. UNESCO has a crucial role to play if we are to deliver options on learning targets and their measurement in the next 6 months. DFID has been part of the work of the Learning Metrics Task Force which is an initiative looking to catalyse and support this process under a UN-lead.

    Ultimately, the goal of this work is to better enable Ministries of Education and other policymakers to not only track how they are doing, but also to target policy changes that improve the learning experiences of all children and youth.

    Finally, DFID is a firm believer that our investments should be based on a strong evidence base. This is why I am pleased to announce to you all today that we are launching 2 major education research programmes through our Research and Evidence Division.

    The first of these programmes, in collaboration with our partners such as the World Bank, UNICEF and Children’s Investment Fund Foundation will focus on system level reform. Unblocking parts of the system that aren’t working offers huge potential to ensure government education budgets go further. The second programme, a partnership with the UK Economic and Social Research Council, will focus on improving teaching performance.

    We will deliver these programmes in partnership with our country governments and I am delighted to be meeting with several of the delegations to discuss our collaborations in education. We need to share the lessons from our programmes, policy reforms and innovations and use this evidence to understand what works to deliver an ambitious post-2015 agenda.

    The combination of research, evaluation and high quality programmes will help ensure all children – whichever country they are from, whatever their background – have the chance to fulfil their potential as productive citizens of the future. That is our mission, and I wish you all the best in your debates and deliberations over the coming 2 days.

    Thank you.

  • Lynne Featherstone – 2013 Speech on HIV

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lynne Featherstone on 28th November 2013.

    Introduction

    I’d like to start by thanking the All Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS, and STOPAIDS for hosting this event and for inviting me to come and speak once again. I’d also like to thank our speakers so far; Dr Loures for your interesting overview of achievements and challenges, and Emma; thanks to you for reminding us all why we are here with your insightful and moving description of what it is to live with HIV.

    This weekend sees the 25th World AIDS Day, so today we come together to show our support for people living with HIV and to commemorate the estimated 36 million who have tragically lost their lives to the virus.

    The UK’s Contribution

    Today I would like to reflect on the UK’s contribution to the HIV response, and invite you to join us in celebrating achievements so far also readying ourselves for the work that remains.

    This Summer I visited the Dedza region of Malawi to see for myself the opportunities and challenges that we face in the HIV response. I was able to visit the region’s main hospital where, thanks to DFID support, HIV testing and counselling, and prevention of mother to child transmission services are being offered.

    I also met the Umodzi support group; an inspiring network of people living with HIV who meet to support each other and provide HIV education activities in surrounding villages. One lady told me how the group has not only managed to reduce stigma within the community, but has shown its members that ‘there is still a life to live’. Involving communities and people living with HIV in our work is central in addressing stigma and structural barriers.

    This year has included an important process of reflection on our HIV portfolio at DFID. With contributions and support from many of you here we have conducted an internal review of our 2011 HIV position paper and I am delighted to be launching the review here today.

    HIV Position Paper Review

    So what did the review highlight?

    Two years on from the HIV Position Paper, DFID is making good progress against its expected results. Treatment related commitments have already been achieved, and the remaining targets set out in the HIV position paper are on track to be met by 2015.

    Shift in Funding: Bilateral to Multilateral

    Over the last two years we have been sharpening our focus. As the 2011 position paper predicted, the balance between multilateral and bilateral funding has shifted. This review demonstrates how we have focused our bilateral efforts to fewer countries where the need is greatest. We now have some exciting new programmes in Southern Africa, the region hardest hit by the epidemic. Given the urgent need to reduce new infections we have prioritised the critical prevention gaps.

    Civil society have been, and remain, an essential partner for DFID in addressing these gaps.

    We are also proud to be supporting key multilateral organisations to ramp up their efforts in the global HIV response. I hope you will all join us in celebrating the recent commitment of up to £1 billion to the Global Fund replenishment, and agree that it will go a long way in reaching many more countries at a much greater scale than the UK alone could help. This support depends on others joining us in ensuring the Fund meets its target of $15 billion and our contribution is 10% of the total replenishment; by doing this we hope to see a still greater total replenishment.

    In addition, I am delighted to announce today we will be increasing our annual core contribution to UNAIDS by 50% to £15 million in 2013/14 and 2014/15. That’s an extra £5 million per year to support its critical role in co-ordinating the world’s response to HIV and AIDS.

    These contributions secure the UK’s place as a leader in the HIV response and demonstrates our commitment in providing a considerable share of total global resources to universal access to HIV prevention, treatment care and support.

    Areas of Focus Going Forward

    The review paper highlights three areas of particular focus for DFID going forward: being a voice for key affected populations; renewing efforts on reaching women and girls affected by HIV; and the integration of the HIV-response within wider health system strengthening and other development priorities. This includes tackling the structural issues that are driving the epidemic.

    Key Affected Populations

    In countries with generalised epidemics, HIV prevalence is consistently higher among key affected populations: men who have sex with men, sex workers, transgender people, prisoners, and people who inject drugs. Over the years, DFID has spearheaded support to HIV programmes for key populations. They have been and will remain a policy priority for us. We will use DFID’s influence with multilaterals to be a voice for key populations and to push for leadership and investments. We will focus on evidence-based combination prevention services, such as condoms, HIV testing and counselling, and comprehensive harm reduction services. Of particular importance is supporting initiatives to reduce stigma and discrimination. Our ultimate vision for key populations is for their human rights and health to be recognised, respected, and responded to by their governments. The UK is proud to be a founding supporter of the Robert Carr Civil Society Networks Fund, through which we support these particularly vulnerable groups.

    Valuable lessons have been learnt from the Fund’s first year and we are excited that this World AIDS day will see the second round of grant announcements by the Fund.

    Increased Focus on Women and Girls

    Putting women and girls at the centre of the HIV response is a second area of focus. Gender equality and women and girls’ empowerment lies at the heart of DFID’s development agenda and we know that women and girls bear a disproportionate share of the HIV burden. Yet globally the pace of decline in new HIV infections among women and girls has slowed.

    Since 2011, each of our bilateral programmes has seen a greater focus on HIV prevention that addresses the needs of women and girls.

    We are supporting research to improve outcomes for women and girls, including the development of female initiated HIV prevention technologies, and into how gender inequality drives epidemics, with a particular focus on improving what works for adolescent girls in Southern Africa.

    We know that in a crisis girls and women are more vulnerable to rape and transactional sex. The highest maternal mortality and worst reproductive health is in countries experiencing crisis. Contraception, prevention and treatment of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and safe abortion are life-saving services, yet they are often ignored in humanitarian responses. That is why DFID is currently developing a new programme on sexual and reproductive health in emergency response and recovery. This will include services to reduce the transmission of HIV.

    Integration within wider health system

    Thirdly. We know that, for the response to be lasting, we must integrate HIV within other sectors and find concrete solutions to sustainable financing. We recognise that a strong health system is an important way to improve the reach, efficiency, and resilience of services. By integrating HIV services within TB services, sexual and reproductive health services, and the wider health system, people living with and affected by HIV, including children and people with disabilities, are treated holistically and not just as a series of health problems.

    Addressing gender inequality, stigma, discrimination and legal barriers which prevent many people from accessing the prevention, treatment and care they need is an important step in this regard.

    Conclusion: Leaving no-one behind

    This review has given us the opportunity to highlight areas where DFID can add value, and where we need to work with partners to make progress. We will take forward the many lessons we have learnt so far from the HIV response, and from your valued contributions. We at DFID will strive to ensure that MDG 6 is not left unfulfilled. We remain firmly committed to the goal of universal access and the targets set out in the 2011 UN Political Declaration. Increasing both our funding and policy focus to where it is most needed, while addressing stigma and structural barriers can help to ensure that no one is left behind and getting to zero becomes a reality.

    Thank you.

  • Lord Falconer – 2007 Speech on Judicial Diversity

    charliefalconer

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, on 1st February 2007 at the offices of Wragge & Co in Birmingham.

    Diversity and quality go together. The wider the pool from which lawyers emerge and judges are selected the higher the quality of the legal profession and the bench. We need to increase diversity in our profession and on the bench to maintain our strength. Because it is fair, and because it increases confidence in our justice system.

    Bold statements. But unless bold statements are backed with decisive action on diversity we will not make genuine progress.

    I’d like to do three things this afternoon; firstly, demonstrate why I believe improving the diversity of the judiciary is vital for delivering effective justice; secondly, illustrate that action on diversity is required across the legal profession, from attracting a broader group into the law, to promoting and developing opportunities for existing lawyers and judges currently in the system, and that this action needs to go further and faster than it is currently; and thirdly and finally, to look at some of the barriers to judicial office and some of the specific measures my department will be taking to ensure the high quality of our judiciary is maintained.

    I believe that we are at an important point in the history and the development of our justice system. Increasing the ethnic and gender diversity of the legal profession and the judiciary is an enormously important step in the wider reform of our justice system. We need to continue to attract talent, in individuals of the highest calibre in terms of intellect, and probity.

    I find it exasperating when I hear people express fears that increasing the pool from which our judges are drawn will somehow dilute its quality. As if the only people capable of holding judicial office are drawn from a narrow pre-existing group. That we have still too few women judges, or those from different backgrounds is a measure of how much we still have to do. A system that only selects judges from certain backgrounds misses out on a whole pool of people who have the necessary talent and skills in abundance. There should only be one common denominator when it comes to appointing people to judicial office – merit.

    The importance of a more diverse profession is enormous. Lawyers serve communities whether that community is the City of London or the homeless of Leeds, or the small businesses of Bradford and Birmingham. They need to reflect those communities. Just as the legal profession does – so must the judiciary. Yet personal qualities of intellect, professionalism and probity are not enough. In a modern reflective system of justice, judges have a characteristic of equal importance – and that is understanding. Understanding of communities, of the people and the problems. Understanding, that in part, will come through more people from different ethnic groups, more people from wider social backgrounds, and more women entering the judiciary.

    Courts have to be demonstrably independent and of the highest quality. But they also need to be able to demonstrate that they understand, in a profound way, the problems with which they are dealing. The Commercial Court in London is successful because the commercial community are impressed by the extent to which it understands the issues with which it deals. The Justice Centre in Liverpool succeeds for precisely the same reason.

    The delivery of effective justice depends on a diverse judiciary. Increased diversity will lead to greater judicial understanding of the issues that communities face, day-in-day-out. The wider the diversity of the judiciary the wider the perspective from which decisions are made.

    We should be enormously proud of our judiciary. It consistently displays the highest standards of probity and professionalism in dispensing justice. They are unquestionably of the highest quality and understanding. They are unmatched, I believe, in the world. But to retain that high standing the pool from which they are drawn must widen. Quality will only be maintained if we have diversity. Diversity based solely on merit.

    There is an immense amount of talent out there that remains untapped, because of lack of awareness of the judiciary, or indeed simply the sense that ‘judges aren’t people like me’. We must overcome these barriers if we are to narrow the gap between those doing the judging and those being judged; this is not diversity for the sake of targets, or quotas or for diversity’s sake, it is indeed essential if we are to have a judiciary and a justice system of continued quality and one that inspires public confidence.

    But the arguments for diversity need to move on. Our efforts should not be spent winning the case for diversity, but in making it a reality, by going further than we have gone to date. We need to recognise it is a long term issue. But we also need to identify areas where we can make progress in the shorter and medium term. We are making progress in terms of gender and ethnic diversity. Year on year the statistics are pointing in the right direction. In1999 only 24% of judicial appointments to courts and tribunals were women. By September 2005 this had increased to 46%. Positive trends; with the total number of female judges in courts rising from 14-18% in the last 5 years alone. More and more women are applying for and taking up judicial office, and I hope that increasing the profile of women in the judiciary, promoting more flexible working arrangements, and highlighting the new open, transparent selection procedure will encourage more women to consider a career on the bench.

    A similar picture emerges with those from ethnic minority backgrounds with the percentage of appointments to courts and tribunals increasing from 5% to 17% in that same period. While the percentage of judges in courts from ethnic minority backgrounds has doubled since 2001 to nearly 4% by April last year.

    While this is progress, it is not yet of the rate or amplitude that I would like to see. Public confidence in the justice system will grow when people start to see more women judges and more judges from ethnic minorities in the court room. In terms of ability, in terms of increasing public confidence, in terms of improving the connection with communities, in terms of making decision from a broader perspective – improving gender and ethnic diversity is a necessity.

    Separate from judicial diversity, the legal profession also needs to attract men and women from a wider range of backgrounds to the law as a career. Initiatives such as Pathways to Law, a partnership between the College of Law and the Sutton Trust, to encourage young people from non-privileged backgrounds into the law should be commended. I am sure that this scheme and others like it will be wholeheartedly supported by the legal profession. Not only for the economic benefits of drawing a bigger and better pool into law as a career, but for the undoubted benefits that it will have, in time, on the makeup of our judiciary. The Sutton Trust believes that we need to take proactive steps to widen the basis of the profession. Holding career days, offering work placements, giving advice on applying to law courses, mentoring through school and university – all simple steps. But what the Pathways initiative shows, is that they work. As with women, as with minority ethnic individuals – unless we take steps to widen the educational funnel through which people become lawyers we are missing out on quality. We need to connect to people who are more than bright enough for a career in the law – we need to connect with them and to help them through the process.

    The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 rightly transferred responsibility for judicial appointments from the person of the Lord Chancellor to an independent body. The JAC is entirely independent, and while my recent predecessors and I appointed judges scrupulously on merit, the introduction of an independent commission should encourage applications by bringing transparency to the selection process, and by allowing the hitherto closed process to become more open. The JAC has a statutory duty to encourage diversity in the pool of candidates. I know they are committed to making this real. That deeply held commitment needs to be demonstrated by all of us; from law firms to the Lord Chancellor. The creation of the JAC is an important milestone. Improvements to the application and selection processes are already being made to make the process more user friendly much less off-putting. The JAC running and promoting a transparent and manifestly independent application and selection process will encourage more people to apply. It is a significant step. And it represents an important opportunity to change the climate; to provide much needed momentum.

    But the promotion of diversity needs to occur at every key point of the cycle. True, we need to attract a more diverse group into the law as a profession. But I do not accept that we need to wait to see the benefits of these longer term strategies before we start to see real, meaningful improvements in judicial diversity today.

    I am delighted that Wragge and co has hosted this event today as a small measure of your commitment to promoting diversity in your own firm, the wider legal profession and now the Judiciary. I hope that many more firms will follow the active lead set by Wragge and co.

    There are currently deserving barristers, there are currently deserving solicitors – who are simply not considering a career as a judge. There are immediate steps that we can and must take to attract qualified individuals to apply to the bench. Essential to improving quality in diversity is to gain an understanding of the genuine barriers, real or perceived that exist to judicial office.

    Research into these barriers, conducted by my department, has thrown up some interesting results. Many interviewed cited nothing more substantial than a lack of awareness or knowledge of the types of post available, or of the application process or eligibility requirements. Others perceived the judiciary to be an isolated career choice, and feared giving up the more sociable aspects of their current career. Long hours and inflexible working patterns were a disincentive for some. What I found most encouraging about these findings was that there was no sense of a great cultural antipathy towards a career in the judiciary. Rather many concerns were either borne out of the lack of sufficient information to make an informed decision or were around work/life issues that we are committed to resolving.

    The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Bill currently before Parliament includes clauses to extend eligibility for judicial office. Post qualification experience rather than rights of audience will be at the heart of the new eligibility criteria. By removing the emphasis on rights of audience I hope this will encourage more solicitors to apply for judicial office. In addition the changes will also allow for Legal Executives, Patent Agents and Trademark Attorneys, with the appropriate experience, to apply for certain judicial posts. This will widen the pool of potential applicants even further, and recognises that not only solicitors and barristers have the appropriate skills and experience to become judges of the highest calibre.

    In September 2006 I announced my intention that former Judges should be able to return to practice as solicitors and barristers. I remain committed to this idea, not as has been suggested, because I want to encourage existing judicial office holders to leave the judiciary. This is about encouraging more applicants. There is evidence to suggest that prohibition on return to practice is a significant psychological barrier for many potential candidates. In particular solicitors and barristers can be deterred by the realisation that taking up a salaried judicial post would close off future career options.

    Return to practice proposals, with the necessary safeguards, is about increasing the attractiveness of judicial appointment to a wider pool. It recognises that the job market has changed. Flexibility and choice have become hallmarks of our successful economy and employment market. While taking up judicial office is a very special position requiring commitment and dedication, I believe we have to move with the times and give Judges the option of having more flexibility in their career, as is the case with other professions. I remain unconvinced by the argument that permitting return to practice will lead to the risk of bias, real or perceived. The position of fee paid Judges- part time judges who continue to work as solicitors and barristers tends to show that this is not so.

    For those who have participated in the scheme, salaried part time working enables a balance to be struck between one’s professional life, one’s family commitments and one’s other interests. The scheme has proved enormously attractive for many, with around 90 salaried part-time judges. We have had the first 9 salaried part time circuit judges, experienced judges who have embraced a new way of working, and by April this year they will have been joined by several others. Salaried part-time judges are also sitting on both District Judges benches, in the Appeal Service, the Employment Tribunal Service, the Lands Tribunal, and the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. A number of whom have gone on to sit full time. As well as attracting people to the bench as a career; we need to explore ways of keeping them there. And the introduction of more flexible working arrangements will be essential in maintaining the judiciary as an attractive and viable career choice.

    And of course one of the reasons I am here at Wragge and co today, is to reiterate my commitment to finding ways of promoting judicial service in our courts and tribunals to solicitors. There is a profound sense of preaching to the converted this afternoon – I am delighted that so many of you are here and expressing an interest in judicial office. I wish you every success.

    Solicitors are still under-represented in the judiciary – with a significant gap in numbers between those who are eligible and those who apply. Solicitors also tend to apply for the more junior posts. We need to understand what the barriers are – and we need to overcome them. Lack of awareness about requirements for judicial office isn’t good enough. I want to dispel the myth that the Bar is the only career route to judicial office. In conjunction with the Law Society we recently sent letters to every solicitor in the country who has recently become eligible for judicial service. And so far, we have signed up 7 major firms, including our hosts, to a 5 point action plan to promote diversity and judicial service. 7 large firms represents progress, but once again not at the pace or depth I wish to see.

    I was particularly pleased to see Lawrence Collins, now Lord Justice Collins appointed to the Court of Appeal not long ago. As a solicitor, he demonstrates that professional background need not be a barrier to taking high judicial office. I am delighted that he is here today, and I urge you all to make the most of his not inconsiderable talent and experience. I hope that he will become an inspiration for many more solicitors in the future.

    Judicial diversity is not tokenism and political correctness. It is not just a numbers game. I want to see a judiciary that has more understanding and engagement with the communities it serves. In no sense is this a slight on the thoroughly able, skilled and connected judiciary that currently provide such marvellous service to their communities. Rather it is a reflection on the future direction of the justice system. As we evolve as a society – so must our systems, structures and institutions adapt; the justice system and the judiciary are no different from any other public service in this regard.

    I want to see the level of community engagement enhanced. I want to see more judges out and about in their local communities, speaking to local people, understanding local concerns, to be more responsive to their local environments.

    The public are increasingly demanding more from their public services, increasingly expecting more from lawyers and judges. Community justice pilots in Liverpool and Salford represent a new way of doing justice. A way of making sure that the courts and the wider justice system are connected to the communities that they are there to support. It is a successful model that I want to see in practice right across England and Wales within the next two years. What the examples of Salford and Liverpool show, is that a visible, credible accessible judge is vital in strengthening links between the courts and the local community. Better connections leads to increased confidence in the work of the court – and what the pilots have demonstrated is that, in turn, greater confidence in the effective delivery of justice can empower communities to play an ever increasing role.

    Judicial diversity isn’t a choice. Unless the profession widens the base from which it is drawn it will be missing out on quality. Unless the profession becomes more representative of the communities it serves there will be gaps in public confidence. Justice is rooted in confidence – confidence is rooted in diversity. When I see the statistics on diversity I do find it concerning – we still don’t have enough women, we still don’t have enough people from ethnic minority groups, or from less privileged backgrounds. But what gives me hope is that these issues are being raised now. What gives me encouragement is that many in the legal profession recognise that they have a responsibility to encourage people from a wider background to consider and pursue a career in the law. What gives me encouragement is that an independent JAC will encourage a more diverse pool of applicants from which to draw the judiciary. What gives me encouragement is that increasingly, through the roll out of community justice, judges will be making ever stronger links with their communities.

    Now is the time we must press for change – not to fix something that is broken but to secure the continued high quality of the judiciary. The measure of success for any diversity strategy should not be statistics – it should be confident communities and effective justice. Thank you.

  • Lord Falconer – 2007 Speech on Human Rights

    charliefalconer

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Falconer on 23rd March 2007 at Bangor University. The speech was made at the Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest Memorial Lecture.

    Noswaith dda or good evening.

    It is for me a real honour to be here to-night.

    My week has been a north Wales week. I do not mean by that that I was topped for speeding.

    On Wednesday I gave, in London, the Williams of Mostyn memorial lecture.

    Gareth was, as you will all know, born in a taxi travelling between Prestatyn and Rhyl. Or that is what he told me. He never let on whether his mother was leaving the hospital in despair, or did not get there in time.

    Gareth was a great lawyer, a great leader of the lords and an immensely brave and effective Attorney General.

    Arriving here last night I passed the spot where he was born. How much we have lost by his all too early passing.

    I have spent the day in North Wales. I started the building work at the new Carnarfon criminal justice centre. I opened the new witness suite at Llandudno magistrates court . I saw the work going on to increase the size of offices, in Mold combined court.

    And I heard how so many more cases than before from Wales are now tried in Wales.

    Justice is strong and growing here in Wales.

    It is a real pleasure and an appropriate end to my visit to be invited to give the Lord Morris Memorial lecture here tonight in Bangor.

    Lord Morris, rightly, is recognised as being one of the breed of Law Lords who fully encapsulated the qualities for which our judiciary are renowned. He was a judge of thirty years standing. He moved rapidly through the ranks and, as a Law Lord, presided over a significant number of cases which were not only influential in the development of our law then, but remain so now. I need only give one example; the Home Office v Dorset Yacht. A case that is familiar to all law students, young and indeed old. His judgment remains influential even today in defining the duty of care for public bodies and officials.

    He was a great man, who served his country not only on the bench, but also in defence of its freedom during the First World War. That desire to serve and protect our nation’s liberty is a trait which was seen throughout his time on the Bench. He was, it has been written, ‘vigilant in protecting the freedom of the individual when threatened by the executive.’

    And it is this trait which I think makes the topic of my lecture tonight entirely appropriate. And one, I believe that both Lord Morris and Lord Mostyn, would have welcomed.

    What I want to speak about this evening is human rights. I believe that the Human Rights Act which this government put on to the statute book in 1998 is, and will be seen as, one of the great legal, social and constitutional reforms not just of this government but of all of the post-war governments in the United Kingdom. It will be, I believe, a ratchet reform: one which it will not be possible to turn back – an embedded element of our legal and constitutional framework.

    But I accept that there have been at times problems with the way the legislation has been operationally interpreted, and arguments and controversy about what effect it has had on our law. That’s why I have been campaigning for it, arguing its merits in speeches and interventions in Parliament, up and down the country, and in visits I have made ranging from Australia to America. I want to continue that argument today.

    So what I want to argue tonight is:

    – that human rights and our human rights legislation is vitally important to this country now, and that the legislation is important not just for the few, but for the many

    – that in looking and continuing to look at the effects and impact of the legislation on our laws and our practices, our conclusion, based on the evidence we have so far, is that the legislation has neither caused a crisis in our courts nor changed the nature of our law

    – that, far from that effect, the legislation has in fact had a profound effect on policy and decision making throughout the State

    – and that as a result, the Human Rights Act guarantees protection not just for minorities, but for everyone: that human rights are mainstream, not marginal

    Firstly, then, the value of human rights. Human Rights are for everyone. They apply to everyone. They can be relied on by everyone. They are secured and guaranteed by the State, for all. Regardless of age, race, sex or religion they are a constant on which we can all rely. They both protect us from an overmighty state. They also require the state to provide proper protection for each one of us from crime, from having our privacy infringed, and for the protection of all of our human rights.

    Human Rights are a necessary and vital part of our democracy, and they are for us all.

    They have been guaranteed by the state, for each one of us, since the Human Rights Act came into force in 2000. It was a significant day for us as citizens and for us as a nation, as the clarion call to ‘Bring our rights home’ was answered. Our citizens now can enforce their Rights and claim their remedies in British courts in front of British judges, as a direct result of the Act obviating the need for the UK citizen to go to Strasbourg. It has meant rights can be vindicated much more quickly and much more easily.

    As I shall explain later the knowledge that infringements can be enforced so much more quickly has had an effect much more profound than the effect on the comparatively small number of litigants who have been saved the air-fare to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. For the policy makers awareness that maybe in a number of years, if the European Court of Human Rights can get through its backlog, and its complicated procedures it might determine that a provision or a decision offends the convention, is not a real or significant pressure in the making of decisions. The fact you might be breaking English law is a profound pressure on the way policy-makes frame legislation.

    Secondly, the impact of human rights. Last year I commissioned a review of the Human Rights Act. To see, six years on, how it was working.

    Prior to the introduction of the Act there had been many soothsayers who prophesied the Act would change our law unrecognisably, and for the worse. They said it would cause a constitutional crisis and grid-lock in the courts. They were wrong.

    Firstly: there has been no constitutional crisis.

    The Act has made clear that Parliamentary Sovereignty remains. The Act, I believe, purposefully and skilfully maximises the protection of human rights without trespassing on parliamentary sovereignty. Judges have shown considerable restraint in ensuring their role does not become politicised. And power rightly remains in Westminster, with the legislature and the executive.

    Secondly: it has not led to gridlock in the courts.

    Doomsday predictions of the courts facing gridlock, being swamped and overwhelmed by the constant taking of human rights points , and the legal system grinding to a halt, have as might be expected turned out to be hopelessly wrong. The system has worked well. The courts have not ground to a halt. The judges have been sensible robust and unintimadated by the change in the law.

    They have strike the right balance, using the Act when appropriate, not being afraid to disregard it when it is not apposite or necessary. They have been robust, and they have been fair. Many cases which sought to suggest Human Rights arguments have rightly been dismissed as misconceived or irrelevant to the case. The judiciary I believe have used considerable wisdom to ensure that the Human Rights Act is and remains a much valued piece of legislation.

    Thirdly: building on this the Act has allowed renewed dialogue with the European Court of Human Rights.

    Not only have British citizens been able to enforce their rights in British courts in front of British judges, but British judges have been able to add to, and aid European human rights jurisprudence. One example will suffice. In Z v UK in 2001, the ECHR refused to follow one of its earlier judgements, Osman v UK, because of the discussion relating to Osman that the House of Lords had undertaken in Barratt v LB Enfield earlier that year. Through increased dialogue human rights jurisprudence has noticeably improved. It has also allowed the UK to be able to assert itself squarely into the debate internationally about Human Rights. Being able as we now are as a country to point to effective and comprehensive Human Rights legislation enhances our credibility as we seek to promote it internationally.

    The impact of the HRA on the courts has been overwhelmingly positive because it has made a tangible a difference to individuals who have had their rights violated by the State. It has given them effective and speedy redress. It has given them meaningful protection. It is no good to speak of one’s commitment to HR if one does not give those whose rights are infringed, a remedy.

    Yet there has been little impact on our law, because I believe many of these rights were already reflected within our law. A culture which the Act has sought to build on. Whilst our current rights have been supported and strengthened by its presence, the Act has in practice had very little discernible effect on existing law. It has been raised in a number of decisions right across a huge range of issues but it has not caused outcomes which are unexpected or which would not have been achieved under existing law. It has enhanced our law by providing remedies and clarity. But as the report found it has not caused the law books to be rewritten. The European Convention on Human Rights was written in large measure by English lawyers who underlined English principles.

    Yet, as I indicated earlier, the Act has had a far greater, a far more profound effect on society outside of the court. The Act has not been just about what goes on in the courtroom, it has been about what goes on outside, in wider society.

    Before turning to that reality, it is also true to say that the Act has provided the opportunity for the promotion of a number of myths – myths which, if we do not counter them properly, are damaging – damaging to the legislation, and so damaging to the protection the legislation offers our people. Part of my job is to counter those myths – and to take every opportunity to do so.

    The day to day operation of the human rights act is something that rarely, if ever, is covered in the media. Given the nature of the coverage around human rights one would be forgiven for assuming that human rights are purely for minority groups, for defendants, for foreigners, for criminals, for chancers.

    It is no surprise that in some parts of our community this view of human rights has taken hold. Just consider a selection of headlines of the past two years; “Traitor wins Human Rights Payout”, “Ordinary Britons deserve human rights too”, “human rights, social wrongs”, “Terrorists’ Charter”. Such headlines are as damaging as they are misconceived.

    In this view human rights are other people’s rights – they are rights which I will never need, and therefore they are for other people, who always on this analysis misuse them.

    There are a number of issues at play here.

    Firstly, media coverage tends to be dominated by a number of myths and misunderstandings, and by grey areas where matters of principle are at stake as much as matters of the law. I do not intend to go into this point in great detail, as I have discussed these at length elsewhere, but I think it important to raise them by way of illustration. Three brief examples.

    Take the infamous Kentucky Fried Chicken episode. It is widely believed and widely reported that a man in Gloucestershire, while evading capture by the police holed up on the roof of a house whereupon he demanded drink, cigarettes, and food – Kentucky Fried Chicken, apparently – from the police who were pursuing him.

    A spokeswoman on behalf of the police is reported as saying, and I quote “although he’s a nuisance, we still have to look after his wellbeing and human rights”.

    Two points here. Firstly, it is utter nonsense that his human rights entitled him to KFC on the roof. This was a purely operational matter for the police to decide, whether or not providing him with food would bring about a peaceful and swift resolution to the stand-off. Secondly, and significantly, the incident was reported as the man receiving food because of his human rights.

    Second example, Dennis Neilsen. In 2001 it was widely reported Nielsen, a multiple murderer, was able to obtain hard-core pornography while in prison by citing the Human Rights Act. This is entirely untrue. He did apply for a judicial review of the Prison Governor’s decision to deny him access to hard-core porn – but that was refused at the permission stage, and again when he renewed the application. The Human Rights Act categorically did not lead to his being supplied porn. The second half of this story- perhaps unsurprisingly was not covered by the press.

    The third example is more complex, and demonstrates a case which is in a grey area. In 2000, a group of nine Afghan nationals hijacked a plane and forced it to land at Stansted. They claimed that they were escaping a violent, oppressive regime which they feared would shortly assassinate them because of their political affiliations. They were charged in Britain with hijacking, and after a hung jury which could not agree on whether they had a defence of duress, they were convicted on a retrial. After they had spent years in jail throughout this process their conviction was quashed when the Court of Appeal held the judge had misdirected the jury by failing to leave the issue of duress to them and then because the judge considered a fear of political assassination in the future was insufficiently targeted to constitute the defence of duress. They were released. They sought asylum. They were refused because of the hijacking. But the tribunal which considered their case held that they were at risk of political assassination by the Taliban even though the Taliban were no longer the government, if they were returned to Afghanistan. The consequence was as a result of the Chahal case in the European Court of Human Rights they could not be deported. The Government accepted that they could not deport. They refused to give the hijackers exceptional leave to remain, which would have been the norm. Instead they sought to create a new category of “permission to stay”. The difference between leave to remain and permission to stay was that the hijackers could not work in this country. The court held that the state could not invent a new category without primary legislation.

    This case caused an uproar – with the media invective directed at the Human Rights Act which they interpreted as a licence for hijackers and terrorists. Why should they be allowed to stay? Why should they be free to potentially pose a threat to the public? Why are they being rewarded for a very serious crime? What will stop others like them? Why should their human rights outweigh mine? All legitimate questions. But none of them have simplistic answers.

    Speaking for myself, I believe the question is, do we want to be living in a society where we send people back to certain torture or death when they do not pose a threat in this community? I do not believe that we do. Human rights are the values we live by – and we must be true to them as a society. We must practice what we preach – even when that means taking difficult decisions, unpopular decisions, decisions on the margins.

    What these three illustrations show is the nature of the human rights stories that tend to get in the papers – either myths, like the KFC example where human rights never even come into it, or partial reporting, when the outcome is conveniently forgotten, or the grey areas, the issues on the margins – like the Afghan hijackers.

    A common denominator though is that whenever human rights hit the headlines they seem to be concerning minority. Regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of the reporting we rarely see human rights in any other light.

    We don’t hear about human rights operating for the benefit of the mainstream of society, or indeed operating in the mainstream of society; we only hear about it at the margins; when it is misapplied, when the State is challenged in the courts, or in the grey areas where decisions are seen as going against the grain of popular opinion.

    But the reality of human rights, and the Human Rights Act is that it protects each of us every day without attracting comment, notice or attention. The Human Rights Act impacts on all our lives in many unseen ways.

    The third principal point I want to argue tonight is the effect of the legislation on policy – on areas where decisions about our protections, about our freedoms, about ensuring our dignity are made every day.

    It is perhaps shown at its clearest by the example of the elderly couple who despite being married for over 30 years, were separated and moved to different care homes because it was considered too expensive to let them live together. But it was the Human Rights Act that ensured they were brought back together, and cared for in the same home. Without recourse to the Act they would have had no way of getting the local authority to act. But because of the Act they were able to enforce their rights.

    The local authority failed in its duty to consider the human rights of that elderly couple when it made its decision. The Act put upon them a duty to ensure the couple’s rights were upheld. In every decision, whether operational or policy. And the Act has ensured that decisions like that one shouldn’t happen again. It forces local authorities and public bureaucracies to focus on the interests of the people they serve.

    Local authorities up and down the country makes hundreds of decision every day which affect everybodys’ rights. Not just about the elderly, the vulnerable, the marginalised. But about everybody. They make decisions that impact on our dignity, that ensure we are treated equally and fairly. That ensure that our floor of rights, minimum standards as defined by the Human Rights Act are taken into consideration.

    Making decisions, developing policy and delivering legislation can have a huge effect on our day to day lives. The Act recognises that, and that is where the Acts huge benefit for us all can be seen. It is in the day to day that the Act has its greatest effect for all of us.

    The Act creates a number of positive obligations, which are responsible for this profoundly welcome effect.

    1- Firstly, the Government is required to make a statement of compatibility with the Human Rights Act about all legislation going through Parliament

    2- Secondly, the Act places an obligation on all public bodies to not breach the Act in developing policy

    3- Thirdly, Human Rights obligations should be met in all decisions made by public bodies.

    Legislation and s19

    Turning firstly to legislation and declarations of compatibility. Since the Human Rights Act came into force in 2000 all Bills and subordinate legislation coming before Parliament must be “human rights proofed”. There are now statutory requirements under Section 19 of the Act for a Minister to make a statement to the effect that either; “the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights” or that although the Minister “is unable to make a statement of compatibility the Government wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”.

    This is an important step. It means that human rights considerations are at the heart now of how laws are made. They are not an afterthought, nor an add on. Human rights proofing is not simply an exercise to be carried out after the legislation has been passed. Questions of proportionality and the identification of issues and options that produce the least interference with human rights are now embedded in the very process of law making.

    Since 2000 therefore, human rights have become an integral and statutory consideration of all legislation. Every law passed since then will have been human rights proofed. The effect of this measure has been to force policy makers to consider human rights in the development of that policy.

    The Human Rights Act leads to better laws, by ensuring that the needs of all members of the United Kingdom’s increasingly diverse population are appropriately considered.

    Policy making

    This has had a very beneficial affect on policy making. The immediacy of the Human Rights Act, enforceable in British courts, before British judges, not requiring time consuming and expensive recourse to Strasbourg – has had a positive impact on public authorities. That the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority to behave in a way incompatible with human rights has placed an onus on them to think more broadly about the impact of their policies.

    Policy making has also responded to case law which has contained human rights principles. Where existing policies are found to be in breach of Human Right principles in the courts, mechanisms exist by which government can respond and amend policy so that breaches do not continue to occur. This brings benefits not only for the citizen, in the fact that unlawful violations of their rights are stopped. But also for the government because policies that are infringing on citizens rights can be quickly rectified. Ensuring proper protection for society is provided, and minimising the amount of resources being swallowed by being taken to court for breaches.

    Decision making

    Perhaps the greatest impact, as I suggested briefly above, has been the impact of the Act on the decision making process of public bodies. The positive onus to consider rights before acting is a significant one. It prompts the decision maker to think first, to consider what the effect of the decision might be. On individuals and on society. Just as in the case of the elderly couple who were initially separated. Or the case of the elderly patient who was left on the toilet for long periods of time because staff were too busy to move her or the members of an old peoples home who were fed breakfast whilst they were sitting on a commode. The Human Rights Act should force such decisions to never be countenanced. By promoting dignity, and increasing awareness of fundamental human rights the Act encourages decision makers to protect rights. It promotes protection through pre-emption. Not as an after thought to be enforced later in the courts, or when the damage has been done, but right from the off.

    Protection through prevention. Protection that has far greater meaning.

    The HRA defines a floor of rights which inform the decision maker. Setting out minimum standards of treatment, of care, of action by which we all expect to be treated. Through more human rights friendly legislation and policy – government and public authorities are daily acting to the benefit of wider society – in the interest of all our rights. Rarely is this seen, rarely is this acknowledged – but it is there providing protection to each and every one of us.

    The positive obligations of the Human Rights Act has brought benefits for all of us. Legislation and policies take account of our rights from the very beginning of any thought processes. Ensuring they are compatible, trying to improve protection rather than erode it. And responding quickly to challenges to existing practice and legislation, ensuring violations do not continue to occur. Importantly the positive obligation also enshrines the duty of protection in operational decision making. Promoting consideration of the rights of the individuals and of society before decisions are taken provides far more meaningful protection. And is of enormous benefit. Far better t o prevent the violation than merely give redress afterwards. The positive obligations laid out in the Act provide protection that is for everyone.

    And my fourth principal point is the legislation’s guarantee of state protection for all. The Human Rights Act has had a far more a profound effect on our society than perhaps has been realised by society. Its effect has been far more beneficial than the occasional court case. Or the isolated right upheld. It has moved rights into the mainstream. It has changed the focus of rights to be for the mainstream. Not for others. Not just for the terrorist, or criminals or chancers, but for the majority. For the ordinary decent hard working man and women, young and old. It is not a terrorist’s charter, nor is it accurately represented in the media. It is society’s charter. It has a defining effect on the state and the relationship between the state and every individual

    The Human Rights Act has brought rights home. It has made rights real in our British Courts. It has enshrined meaningful and real protection. For everyone.

    And it has done so not just through the courts but through embedding a culture where people’s dignity is respected throughout the State, at national and local level.

    It is an effective mechanism, which promotes consideration of rights at every step of development of policy, legislation and decision making. It ensures proper consideration is given to the relationship with citizen. And that the wider interests of society are fully considered. Without the Act, it is hard to see how such guarantees could be given.

    That I can say so boldly that the Act gives guarantees is because the Act also provides a mechanism by which rights that the State fails to protect can be enforced. Ensuring policy and legislation that are in breach can be re-considered. And decisions which violate the rights of the citizen can be questioned, remedies provided and steps taken to ensure that there is no further violation. All of this protection comes because of the Act, not in spite of it.

    As I have sought to set out in my remarks, the guarantee given by the HRA is both hidden and visible – it can be held up, pointed to, and importantly relied upon when the interests of the individual are violated. Yet for all the confidence that its visibility can provide, its invisibility can achieve great effect. Day by day, being used as a tool by public bodies in policy and decision making to inform and frame decisions. To ensure that the rights of each one of us are at the forefront of all decisions

    The Human Rights Act brings rights into the mainstream. It is for the majority. Sometimes that produces hard results. The Afghan Hijackers is such a case. But that does not mean we should give up on protection, or turn our back on guaranteeing society’s rights. Thomas Paine, the great advocate of the rights of man got it right I think when he said:

    ‘He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from repression’

    The Human Rights Act brings the protection of rights to the forefront of modern society. And it places the onus squarely on the Sate to protect them for everyone. There is no guarantee unless they are for everyone.

    That is a duty that this Government is proud to bear. And which it is determined to fulfil. The HRA is an effect mechanism by which all of our rights can be protected, and be guaranteed. They are for everyone and we must make sure they continue to be so.

    Thank you.