UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2012

  • Margaret Curran – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margaret Curran, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, to the Labour Party conference on 2nd October 2012.

    Conference, I want to tell you about Scotland.

    I want to tell you about a country of just 5 million that has the passion and pride of a place with millions more.

    A country that contains in its history the beginnings of the enlightenment and the engine room of an empire.

    And where people today are forging a future that relies as much on the digital economy as it does on heavy industry.

    Conference this is my country – and because of the Union it is your country too.

    But, Conference, too many want to leave the story there.

    They’re happy to celebrate these glories, but they’re not prepared to see the realities that, today, too many people across Scotland face.

    Because how could a nation that gave the world the steam engine, the telephone and penicillin be expected to watch as the ingenuity of young Scots goes unrealised with one in four heading from the school gate to the dole queue?

    How can a country whose education system was the envy of the world be expected to stay silent when 10,000 of our sons and daughters languish on college waiting lists?

    And how can a people whose sense of solidarity was so deep that closing a yard meant much more than the loss of a workplace be expected to watch again as their communities are ravaged by recession?

    Let me tell you Conference – we can’t stand for it and we won’t.

    Scots are trapped between two Governments that have their priorities all wrong.

    And by the day, the similarities between them are growing.

    What’s the solution to every economic problem?

    A cut in the taxes paid by their people and an assault on the services used by our people.

    So when George Osborne suggests lowering corporation tax to 22 per cent, Alex Salmond goes further and says bring it down to 20.

    While Osborne makes nurses and care workers and classroom assistants pay for a crisis not of their making, Salmond joins in and cuts 30,000 jobs from Scotland’s public sector.

    And when the coalition cuts and Scots are at the sharp end, where is the Secretary of State for Scotland?

    Conference, Michael Moore is nowhere to be seen.

    Take it from me, it’s a difficult job to Shadow the Scottish Secretary when he’s barely casting a shadow on Government himself.

    But I’ll tell you the one place you can find him. Day after day, night after night, he’s there in the voting lobbies with the Tories.

    Regardless of the consequences.

    A double dip recession.

    Tax credits cut.

    Long term unemployment at a 16 year high.

    Parents relying on food banks to feed their families.

    Taking from pensioners to provide to millionaires.

    All his Government’s choices.

    All his shared responsibility.

    Conference, Scotland could and should be better than this.

    We have a life sciences industry that employs over 32,000 people.

    Creative industries that contribute £3 billion to our prosperity.

    And close to a fifth of our nation’s economy relies on our energy sector.

    Our people have so much to give, but still too many just don’t get that opportunity to get on, to do well and to flourish.

    And as the world changes around us,

    As the weight of the global economy moves to the world’s South and East,

    As technology opens up new fronts in our search for prosperity and opportunity,

    Scots realise that we can’t look to the solutions of the past to make us strong in the future.

    Our response has to be rooted in the reality of the world around us, a world that is more interconnected and interdependent than ever before.

    We cannot afford to listen to those who say that the answer to Scotland’s problems is to build a wall around ourselves.

    So, the strength to overcome the challenges of our time comes from binding together, not breaking apart.

    And that is as true of the challenges we face as a nation as it is of those we face in our families, our towns or our cities.

    And, Conference, this is what separates us from the Tories and the SNP.

    That whether we’re talking about improving our schools, raising our living standards, or deciding how we govern ourselves we are led by one simple truth: “That by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.”

    This isn’t just a slogan written on our membership cards but a truth written on our hearts.

    We believe it, we live by it and if we are honoured with the confidence of the Scottish people at the next election we intend to govern by it.

    Conference, with Ed Miliband as our Leader, we have a vision for a new economy, a new politics and a new society.

    And in Johann Lamont, as we saw last week, we have a Scottish Leader who is unafraid to tell the hard truths or face the big issues.

    And thanks to that great top team, we’re off our knees and winning again, across Scotland.

    Winning people’s confidence.

    Winning the trust of business, our vibrant third sector and our community groups.

    Winning the elections which give us the chance to put our principles into action.

    We’ve got a long way to go yet, but conference, if you want to know why all the campaigning and hard work and long nights and tough fights are worth it – just remember how you felt when you heard the magic words:

    GLASGOW.

    LABOUR HOLD.

    We know that when we fight, we win. And we are in the fight of our lives. Because in 2014, Scotland faces a decision about whether to break up Britain.

    A decision with consequences not only for every Scot but every person across these islands.

    And in the years that follow we will have to fight again, when we face UK and Scottish General Elections.

    On the one side two parties that play the politics of division.

    And on the other a Labour Party that sees the strength in all of us to work together and succeed.

    A Labour Party that isn’t satisfied with what Scotland is today, but obsessed with what Scots could be tomorrow.

    A Labour Party with the ideas, imagination and strength to rebuild Scotland and rebuild Britain.

    And a Party which believes the Scots’ ideals of solidarity and social justice speak to concerns which are so great, so urgent, so universal, that we should never allow them to stop at our border, but send them onwards and outwards, to inspire not just the rest of Britain, but the rest of the world.

  • Greg Clark – 2012 Speech on City Deals

    gregclark

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Greg Clark, on 29th October 2012 in London at the City Deals Wave Two Launch.

    I would first like to thank the Centre for Cities for hosting today’s event.  I can think of no better organisation to help us announce the Government’s plan for unlocking the economic potential of UK cities. Like me, the Centre for Cities is committed to decentralisation, ensuring that cities are given the opportunity to develop bespoke solutions to local economic issues. As the Centre’s Chief Executive, Alexandra Jones, has said previously, the introduction of City Deals represents “the biggest shift in central and local government relations for decades.”

    Today the Government is launching the second wave of City Deals. Building on the success of Wave One we are inviting a further twenty cities to bid for a City Deal. But before I go into the detail of today’s announcement I’d like to reflect on the success of Wave One, the principles behind Wave Two and the process I am launching today.

    It would be fair to say that people were at first sceptical about City Deals. In fact, the motto of the Royal Society, in whose magnificent hall we stand today, ‘Nullius in verba’, which roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’, pretty much summed up people’s reaction when we launched Wave One ten months ago. And yet now Wave One has exceeded all expectations.

    I think the figures speak for themselves. The deals agreed earlier this year will create up to 175,000 jobs and 37,000 new apprenticeships.  But what has been achieved is about more than simply numbers. It is about no less than a transformed relationship between national and local government, in which cities, not just Whitehall, have the right of incentive over new policy.

    I am delighted these deals have been agreed and I am committed to ensuring they are implemented with vigour.

    Why City Deals?

    To prosper, and for people to realise their ambitions, we need to grow. We need the right macroeconomic environment – a sound economy with low interest rates – and the right microeconomic conditions – competitive taxes, labour laws that are flexible and workforces that have the right skills.

    But, or course, growth doesn’t take place in the abstract , at a national level. It happens in particular places, where new businesses locate and take on people, or existing businesses expand and increase their sales. Our cities have a particularly important place in this. In fact, I believe that the drive for growth – for Britain’s economic future – needs to be most energetic in our cities.

    There’s a good reason for that. As the Harvard economist, Ed Glaeser, has recently argued “cities are our greatest invention”. They lower transport costs, help us share knowledge and spark innovation. As the world becomes ever more complex, the role of cities in bringing people together and facilitating collaboration will become increasingly important. Cities are the building blocks of the global economy.

    Cities are where things happen. 74% of Britain’s population lives in a city or its surrounding area. And they account for 78% of all jobs. Take the 20 urban areas assembled here today for the second wave of City Deals. Their assets include 2 of the top 10 universities in the world, one of the largest concentrations of oil and gas and process and marine engineering industries in Europe, and the heart of Europe’s automotive industry, including its most productive plant. In short, the cities represented here today can count on global assets and huge growth potential.

    And yet too many of our cities haven’t done as well as those in other countries. Even in the supposed boom decade leading up to 2008, the number of private sector jobs in Nottingham and Birmingham actually fell.

    In England, Bristol is the only one of the eight largest cities outside London that has a GDP per head above the national average – while in Germany, every single one of the eight biggest cities outside Berlin has better than average GDP per head. In other words, German cities are the engines of national growth, generating wealth and prosperity, pulling the rest of the country behind them. Most of England’s big cities have not been doing the same – yet.

    So that is why this Government introduced City Deals.  For our economy to operate at its potential our cities must achieve their potential.

    So now to extend them

    If the Government had decided to stop, having done deals with only the biggest cities, then I believe we would be failing in our task of putting urban policy at the heart of our economic growth agenda. Instead, we are pushing forward by opening up discussions on a second wave of City Deals, potentially benefiting more than 7million people, and signalling this Government’s desire to promote growth across the country.

    First the next biggest urban areas:

    • The Black Country
    • Bournemouth and Poole
    • Brighton and Hove
    • Coventry and Warwickshire
    • Hull and The Humber
    • Leicester and Leicestershire
    • Plymouth
    • Preston and Lancashire
    • Reading
    • Southampton and Portsmouth
    • Southend
    • Stoke and Staffordshire
    • Sunderland and the North East
    • The Tees Valley

    Just think of their strengths. Plymouth; home to the largest naval base in Western Europe and one of the largest marine and maritime clusters in England. Sunderland; home to Nissan’s super-productive car plant. Coventry; home to Jaguar’s corporate and research headquarters. The Tees Valley; the UK’s fourth largest port, with strengths in petrochemicals, steel and process industries.

    We are also extending city deals to fast growing cities. The Centre for Cities, in its Private Sector Cities report in 2010, said some of England’s cities “have been creating thousands of new jobs in the private sector, but need to be expanded further to help businesses and workers take advantage of the opportunities being generated.”

    So, in addition to our biggest cities, we are extending an invitation to some of our fastest growing cities.

    • Cambridge
    • Milton Keynes
    • Norwich
    • Ipswich
    • Oxford
    • Swindon and Wiltshire

    Wave Two won’t be identical to Wave One. Each city and their Local Enterprise Partnership will be invited to put forward a proposal that addresses a significant local economic issue requiring a transformative response. The big challenge here will be identifying and prioritising a specific local challenge that needs to be addressed and coming up with a tailored plan to deal with it. Every place is different. Unique, in fact. So come forward to us with a proposal that reflects that uniqueness – that takes a new direction at solving a problem that is holding back your area.

    We also want to ensure that cities have a suite of powers that give them the flexibility to respond to local challenges as they arise. Bespoke arrangements will, therefore, be complemented by a ‘core package’, consisting of measures that will devolve significant powers and functions to all cities that go on to negotiate a deal with Government. This will capitalise on the progress we have made so far, demonstrating our commitment to the devolution of powers from central to local government, if local areas are willing to offer significant reform in return.

    Another difference is that there is now a competitive element. We are inviting 20 cities to put forward an initial proposal. We will use this to assess your appetite to do a deal; and that you are thinking boldly about how you might unlock growth in your city.

    We are therefore having a three month period to determine which cities are ready to proceed. Selected cities will then go forward to work with us to develop and negotiate proposals over the following months.

    Cities will need to make a case for new investment and powers, with a clear evidence base and a strong economic rationale. You will need to show how new flexibilities will benefit local people. And you will need to demonstrate how you would manage budgets, and hold yourselves accountable to residents. Every deal is a two-way trade. We expect you to be ambitious in your asks of Government, but you should expect the Government to be equally demanding in return. There must be significant benefits and credible commitments for both parties.

    You will, of course, shortly receive detailed guidance on the process but the priorities for me are:

    One.  Governance. I have already covered this, but you must demonstrate strong and collaborative governance across your economic area. We have already encouraged local leaders to think and work together in ways that reflect their true economic geography. We want to see this approach continuing so that the decisions necessary for the growth of the area as a whole can be taken quickly and effectively.

    Two.  Doing more with less. The Government is looking for proposals that can create new jobs and growth and that will drive better outcomes with the same, or fewer resources. If you can demonstrate to us that you can achieve better outcomes with the same or fewer resources why would we not say yes?

    Three.  Your ability to harness significantly greater private sector input, expertise and resources.  Where urban policy does not involve the private sector it is much more likely to fail.  So ensure that your LEPs are at the heart of your proposals, make sure you test your ideas with local business leaders and above all demonstrate to us how your proposals can unlock private sector investment. We know that the public sector resources are limited so we need to make sure those that we do invest get as much leverage as possible.

    Four.  I want you to be under no illusions, this will be a tough negotiation with difficult decisions required along the way.  We therefore need to know that you are as committed as we are. Your ability to demonstrate your readiness to put resources into delivering the deal and your willingness to take on risk is crucial to you moving forward.

    Five. Propositions should address a clearly defined economic problem. My advice would be to not come back to us with a shopping list of projects that you have dusted off the shelf.  Instead, take the time to have another look at your evidence, focus in on a particular economic problem and start to think about what you, by working across your functional economic area and with specific empowerment from central government could achieve. Your proposed solutions should be of significant scale and cannot be achieved through existing mechanisms.  They should also demonstrate how they will support the government’s objectives of reducing regulation, create well functioning markets and promote an enabling environment for business and boost private sector growth and investment.

    A hundred years ago there was no question that the future of every one of our great cities was driven by the initiative of the leaders and people of those cities. Yet during the last century, year by year, the power has ebbed away from the City Hall to Whitehall.

    I am determined that this Government will turn that tide and once again restore initiative, power and – through that- prosperity to our cities, and through them, to our country.

  • 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.

  • Chuka Umunna – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chuka Umunna, the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, to the 2012 Labour Party conference.

    Conference, my late father arrived in this country in the mid-1960s from Nigeria. It was the Labour Party that insisted he – and others like him – should be able to pursue their aspirations and dreams free from prejudice.

    My mother, who comes from an altogether different background, benefited from the right to equal pay at work after she graduated in the 1970s, again, thanks to this Labour Party.

    You see, this party has given me, my family – all of our families – so much. That is why we all join the Labour Party – to put something back.

    And I never forget that those who founded our party in every sense of these words: built Britain.

    They built the mills, the factories, the railways and the roads.

    They built our hospitals, our homes and our schools.

    They made our success as a country possible.

    That is why we – Labour – have always insisted that those who put in the hard work should be able to share in the fruits of our success.

    It is why we – Labour – have always insisted people should have the right to fair and decent treatment at work.

    Fair opportunity, shared responsibility, wealth creation for the good of all – it’s in our DNA.

    So, more than a million new businesses created during our 13 years in government.

    And when we left office:

    –    rated 4th in the world for ease of doing business;

    –    the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship in the OECD.

    That is a record to be proud of.

    And I follow in the footsteps of John Denham – big shoes to fill. Thank you, John, for all the advice and support you have given me.

    I want to pay tribute too to our fantastic Shadow Business team for all their hard work:

    –    listening to business up and down the country;

    –    setting the agenda;

    –    exposing the failings of the Tory-led Government.

    When this Government took over in May 2010, they embarked on an irresponsible experiment with people’s livelihoods.

    If you took a risk, set up your own business, they pulled the rug from under you, with confidence nose-diving as a result of their spending review.

    Fifty businesses a day are going bust under this government – dreams crushed, boarded up.

    And because it is our businesses which create jobs, it is little wonder that as firms have gone under unemployment has soared beyond 2.5 million people.

    In my constituency, long term youth unemployment has more than tripled in the last year.

    That is the price of their failed experiment.

    And let us be clear: David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osborne, and Vince Cable.

    You are all in this together.

    Co-authors of a failed economic plan. The longest double dip recession since the War.

    It is not like they have not been warned by Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves.

    But they refuse to listen.

    Directionless and divided, we have seen chaos heaped upon confusion.

    Delays in delivery summed up by their flagship Regional Growth Fund.

    The uncertainty they have caused is holding back investment – from defence to renewables, higher education to energy.

    Our business leaders and our trade unions are united in telling them we need a proper plan for growth. But out-of-touch Ministers rubbish them and accuse them of being whingers.

    It’s the same old Tories playing the same old tunes:

    –    they insult the British people by claiming the economy is being held back by your rights at work;

    –    they say working people are lazy;

    –    business leaders aren’t doing enough;

    –    and those just doing their jobs are plebs.

    Everyone is to blame but them.

    And, as ever, what is their great solution? A large dose of rampant free market liberalism – deregulate everything, stand aside, and let the market rip.

    But if we learned anything from the 2008/09 crash, it is that that approach is wrong.

    It won’t solve the problems in our economy, and it won’t address the challenges we face.

    Under successive governments growth became concentrated in too few sectors, and in too few regions.

    Though productivity rapidly rose during our period in office, rewards were not evenly spread.

    And under Labour, strong growth meant employment reached record levels. But still too many people remained distant from the job market, or in insecure employment.

    We are determined to learn from this.

    Meanwhile, technology is transforming our world and opening up new markets to our businesses.

    The rise of those new markets around the world is increasing competition, but it is creating new opportunities on a breathtaking scale too.

    We have got to respond to the new landscape and ensure that everyone benefits.

    Yes, markets have been the greatest engines of innovation and prosperity the world has ever known.

    But we know that, left to their own devices, markets cannot meet these challenges. But nor can governments.

    This Government seeks to divide our society – public from private, trade union member from non trade union member, the many from the few.

    But here’s the thing. Everyone has a contribution to make to the next chapter of our national story:

    –    active government;

    –    businesses and entrepreneurs;

    –    our trade unions;

    –    assertive consumers;

    –    our universities and our colleges;

    –    our cities, towns and our regions.

    All working together in partnership to create wealth and build a better future.

    That is why we have been arguing for an active industrial strategy – it is at the heart of the more responsible capitalism Ed Miliband talks about.

    We need it to fashion a new economy:

    –    An economy competing on quality, creating good jobs – not an insecure economy, competing mostly on low wages;

    –    An economy that rewards those that work hard and create sustainable value – not those just out to make a fast buck;

    –    An economy offering the opportunities and training not just for young people who want to work in banking, media or law, but also prestigious vocational routes for those eager to become engineers, digital programmers, or advanced manufacturers.

    Conference, once more, we must rebuild Britain:

    –    Backing British business with a modern industrial strategy, as governments all around the world back their own;

    –    Buying from British business, as governments across Europe and around the world buy from their own;

    –    Investing in business with a proper British Investment Bank, like every other country in the G8.

    This will mean being willing to challenge the way that government itself works with business.

    That is why I have asked Lord Adonis to lead a team of business leaders and former Ministers to produce a blueprint to transform the Business Department into the most effective department for enterprise in the world.

    Conference, week in week out, I meet businesses and listen to their concerns.

    They don’t tell me they want us to step aside.

    They tell me they want us to step up, to help them grow and prosper.

    We are the only party in this country able to do this because each of us believes that we stand and fall together.

    We believe that by the strength of our common endeavour – with our families, our communities, our businesses and our trade unions – we achieve more together than we achieve alone.

    That is what our Party is about.

    That is what we do.

    By continuing to win back the support of the British people, in line with this Party’s great traditions, we will rebuild Britain once more.

    Thank you.

  • Chuka Umunna – 2012 Speech to UCATT Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chuka Umunna to the UCATT Conference in Scarborough, Yorkshire, on 28th May 2012.

    Conference, thank you so very much for inviting me here to speak to you today.

    Before I begin my remarks, let me say thank you to each and every one of you for the support this union gave me in the lead up to the 2010 General Election – I would not be standing here as a Member of Parliament, let alone the Shadow Business Secretary, without yours and others’ help.

    I pay tribute to the stewardship of your acting General Secretary, George Guy, and now your General Secretary, Steve Murphy, for guiding UCATT towards a bright future. And I must also pay a huge tribute to the contribution made over many years by your President, John Thompson.

    And let me also say how proud I am to be able to say that this Union is headquartered in the centre of the universe which is my constituency.

    For this is a union whose forebears, dating back to the British Industrial Revolution, in every sense of these words, built Britain.

    They built the mills and the factories, the canals and the railways, the highways and the byways.

    They built the houses the British people have lived in and much more besides.

    And, given the hazards of the trade, let us not forget the thousands of construction workers who lost their lives in so doing. Construction today might be safer than before, but it is still one of the most dangerous occupations.

    Carrying on your proud tradition, and in spite of the dangers, members of this union continue to build the homes we live in, the offices and plants we work in, the infrastructure we need, and the public spaces we share.

    I was at the Olympic Park just last week, and what an incredible achievement that is. It is a true testament to our construction workers: built on time, built on budget, and without a single death. Or look at the example of Terminal 5 at Heathrow: built on time, built on budget, and safely with a directly employed workforce. Client, contractor and trade union working productively together in the interests of us all.

    You provide the physical foundations upon which our growth, our prosperity, our success, is built. As a country, as a society, as a people – we owe a debt of gratitude to you.

    So make no mistake: I wear my association with this union as a badge of honour.

    And let me be clear: in our Party – from our Leader, Ed Miliband, to our local Labour Party members here in Scarborough – we all wear our links to the trade union movement with pride. We may not always agree. But we are all part of the same family.

    My late father arrived in this country after a very long journey on a boat from Nigeria in the mid 1960s. He was terribly sea sick for most of it, and afraid because he couldn’t swim. So he was glad when he finally made it in one piece to Liverpool Docks. He came to make his way in the world, get on, find his fortune. But, like every other black person living in the Britain of the 1960s, he faced discrimination.

    As a self made man and entrepreneur it surprises people when I say Harold Wilson was his hero. I am not surprised at all. It was the trade union movement, with a Labour Party in Government and a Labour Prime Minister, that led the charge for the equalities legislation which was enacted in the 60s and 70s. It was you who insisted employers be legally obliged to afford my father the same treatment as others.

    Of course, he wasn’t the only one who benefitted. My Mum, my sister and my aunties – all the female members of all our families: they benefitted too from the right to equal pay, maternity rights and the other social reforms we, working together, introduced over the years.

    So we have all seen what a Labour Party – working with and as part of a wider labour movement – can do for the hard working majority in this country.

    Our duty as a movement – in the interests of all, to build that better Britain – is immensely important. To protect hard working people, the mainstream majority. It goes to the very essence of what we are all about.

    You understand that more than most, in the risks you take doing your jobs. Hundreds of people have died on site over the last decade, thousands have been injured or developed work-related health problems, so UCATT’s voice is vital in making construction sites safer and better.

    The overwhelming majority of businesses understand the importance of health and safety. I visited the Siemens’ factory in Newcastle the other week that builds huge wind turbines. They left me in no doubt how seriously they take their responsibilities. Regrettably others do not. You see, it is easy for the Tories and people on the right condemn health and safety regulations. But it is not their lives at risk.

    This duty to protect extends far beyond health and safety. We are seeing a sustained attack on the rights of people at work from this Government.

    They have already made it harder to claim unfair dismissal. They are now considering giving small firms the right to fire you at will. Or – as their consultation document puts it – to dismiss “where no fault was identified on the part of the employee”.

    Firing at will is one of the recommendations of the dreadful report on employment law commissioned by the Prime Minister from millionaire Tory donor, Adrian Beecroft. This is a shocking proposal. But it is not the only extreme proposal in his report.

    You may remember the tragic deaths of 23 Chinese cockle pickers in Morecambe Bay in 2004. The following year Labour set up the Gang Masters Licensing Authority to prevent the exploitation of workers in the agriculture and shellfish gathering industries. The Authority does incredibly important work – indeed we want to see its scope extended to the construction industry. We were right to set it up. Adrian Beecroft proposes its abolition. He is wrong.

    And there is more. In 1994, two Black hotel waitresses were made to serve drinks during a performance by the notorious comedian, Bernard Manning. They were subjected to racially and sexually abusive remarks by Manning and took their employers to a tribunal. They won. No one should have to put up with this kind of abuse at work. Labour legislated to put this protection on a firm footing, and to cover all grounds of unlawful discrimination. Adrian Beecroft says the Government should repeal this law. Again, he is wrong.

    I have a question for the Prime Minister: given all this, how on earth can you call the Beecroft document, “a good report” as he did last Wednesday? Ed Miliband was right: we are seeing the true colours of the “nasty party” once more.

    Cameron responded by seeking to frame this as a union issue. It just shows how out of touch he and his Government have become. The proposal to fire people at will would affect over 3.5 million employees working in the private sector, the vast majority of whom are not members of a union. If you have millions of pounds in the bank – like those who can afford to have dinner with the Prime Minister – it is unlikely to trouble you.

    But this is not an issue of left versus right. It is an issue of right versus wrong. Calling the Beecroft Report “a good report” is wrong.

    Sadly, the Prime Minister’s rhetoric does not surprise me. At a time of national crisis, when he could be drawing us together, he has sought to divide and rule. We saw it over the dispute on public sector pensions last year. We saw it during the fuel tanker drivers dispute this year. We saw it at Prime Minster’s Questions last week. Ministers seeking to divide public from private, trade union member from non trade union member – sowing the seeds of division instead of building consensus.

    Yet here’s the thing: it is interesting, that when Cabinet Minister Francis Maude was fanning the flames of discord and compromising public safety with his talk of jerry-cans in the garage, it was an ex- fireman and former member of the Fire Brigades Union, Mike Penning, the Transport Minister, who they wheeled out to try and calm the panic they had created.

    Their backbenchers are even worse. Government backbenchers sought to mount a direct attack on this and other trade unions, targeting the day-to-day support trade union reps give to staff at work. Labour MPs roundly defeated the Bill and saw off this attack. To his credit, so did one Conservative MP, Robert Halfon.

    Robert wrote a pamphlet in March entitled “Stop the Union Bashing”. Much as it pains me, Robert points out in his pamphlet that almost a third of trade union members in this country are thought to be Conservative voters. It is they who the Tories are attacking. The Prime Minister, his Ministers and his backbenchers attacks on you are not only wrong. It is bad politics too.

    It is important to protect hard won gains, and it is right to protest against a government attacking the rights of working people. But we must be clear why, in addition to this, people also join trade unions: to get on, to achieve, to provide. The voice of protest is important, especially with this Government at this time. But the voice of progress must be heard as loudly too.

    Our trade unions are powerful forces behind our economic success. Each and every one of you – directly and indirectly – are wealth creators for this country. So we have got to get this message through better, to change public perceptions of our movement. It is hard in the face of a hostile media. But try we must.

    We must be shouting your success from the rooftops in helping business to succeed, in helping people to get on, to meet their aspirations. Like GM’s recent announcement that it will build a new generation of Astra cars at Ellesmere Port – I went on television to say this was a shining example of trade unions as a force for economic progress for our country, working in partnership with management and the government. Just like the Olympics. Just like Terminal 5.

    As we try to forge a different path for Britain’s future – that is better for business and better for working people – we need you to be part of shaping that vision: through your actions, and the good you represent, writing UCATT – and the wider union movement – into the next pages of our national story. That is our ambition, and I want it to be yours.

    A trade union of wealth creators; a movement that has and will continue to speak for the hardworking majority in Britain.

    Of course, attacking working people distracts from the real reasons why wealth creation has proved so difficult this last two years: the economic incompetence of this Government.

    We said if they cut too far and too fast, in blind pursuit of austerity for ideological reasons, they would choke off the recovery.

    They were fond of referring to “Labour’s mess” but the facts tell a different story. Following the global financial crash of 2008/9 we took action to prevent a recession becoming a depression. In so doing, the country incurred debts which had to be dealt with. Alistair Darling set us on a course to halve the deficit in 4 years at a speed and pace that the economy could cope with, allowing it to grow.

    When we left office in May 2010 the economy was growing, unemployment was falling and the recovery was settling in. Because of growth, the deficit was falling, with borrowing £20 billion lower than forecast in the last year of government.

    George Osborne’s Comprehensive Spending Review – based on an ideological fixation with hacking chunks from the public sector and strongly supported by Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats – precipitated a huge dive in business and consumer confidence.

    Slower growth and higher unemployment means that the Government is borrowing £150 billion more than planned to pay for its economic failure. The wrong choices by this Government today – of tax cuts for millionaires and austerity for the rest – are prolonging the pain of a stalled economy, and focusing the burden on those least able to bear it.

    Your sector, construction, could be leading the recovery. Instead it is being held back by the lack of demand in the economy and a lack of confidence in the future. Last week we saw that our economy had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in the first 3 months of this year, not 0.2 per cent as previously thought. And the figures showed that your sector – construction – had shrunk by 4.8 per cent on the previous quarter. Plan A has taken our economy back into recession – a recession made in Downing Street.

    It is time for Plan B: Labour’s five point plan for jobs and growth. By bringing forward infrastructure investment, such as school buildings, by building 25,000 more affordable homes, cutting VAT on home improvements, by giving a national insurance break to small firms taking on new workers, it would revive the construction industry and get the economy moving again. Through growth as well as fiscal discipline it would bring the nation’s finances back into balance.

    With this Government’s incompetence there are big reasons to worry today. But there are also reasons for hope about tomorrow. I am optimistic about our national future. I look at the rise of the fast emerging Southern and Eastern economies and I know we will have to raise our game to compete. But I also know we can.

    And I see huge opportunities too. Within the next two decades, the size of the global middle class will almost triple in size to 5 billion people. That’s a whole lot of new demand we can be meeting if we start to prepare our economy now. We need to be clear about where we can compete. We need to develop our people and the other things we need to succeed. And we need to ensure that everyone can be a part of this success. It is what Ed Miliband has talked about: the need for a more responsible and productive capitalism, that is investing for the long term not the fast buck; that is competing on high value not low cost; that views people as assets to be nurtured, not costs to be cut.

    Business has responsibilities, but government does too. It is wrong that this Government is prepared to stand by while rogue businesses exploit loopholes in the law to evade justice when their malpractice leads to deaths at work. My parliamentary colleague and proud UCATT member Luciana Berger introduced a Bill to Parliament earlier this year to stop this. When workers are injured or killed at work, employers must be held accountable. They should not be able to get out of an investigation by claiming bankruptcy. The Bill would have stopped this but it didn’t pass. So I give this commitment today: the next Labour Government will act to prevent this abuse. It puts the lives of workers at risk. It is irresponsible. It is wrong. We will stop it.

    Let me conclude by saying this: we need to get growth going today, and reform our economy so that it works for all. That must be our priority.

    Our economic destinies are all intertwined – so we all have a role to play in shaping our national future.

    Our movement is nothing if not confident and ambitious for what we can all achieve working together.

    So I look forward to working closely with this union – with its wonderful history with a great future ahead of it – to build Britain once more.

    Thank you.

  • Chuka Umunna – 2012 Speech to Hub Westminster

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chuka Umunna, the Shadow Business Secretary, to Hub Westminster on 26th June 2012.

    Thank you for that introduction, and thank you for inviting me to speak this evening.

    I cannot think of a better group of people to discuss this with than all of you gathered here today: restless people, not satisfied with the world as it is; innovators determined to find new gaps in old markets and to create ideas for new markets.

    Our economy and society needs more people like you. More people starting up businesses, building businesses, and – hopefully – succeeding in business. You are engines of growth for an economy that has stalled but a country which has huge potential.

    What I intend to do is to first reflect on entrepreneurship, then consider how it can power social mobility, before setting out our ongoing work to help entrepreneurs to set up and grow businesses. What I do not cover in my remarks, I am mo re than happy to pick up on in the Q&A afterwards.

    Now, before coming here, some of you may have wondered what on earth is this grandson of a High Court Judge, a private school educated, former City lawyer doing coming here to talk to you about social mobility and entrepreneurship? Well, the legal tradition in my family sits on my mother’s side and I am incredibly proud of it. But it is my late father, a self made man, who makes me so passionate about the transformative power of entrepreneurship.

    My father arrived here after a very long journey on a boat from Nigeria in the mid 1960s. When he arrived at Liverpool Docks he had a suitcase and no money. A random stranger lent him the cash to pay for his train fare to London where he was due to take up lodgings with friends.

    Once settled in London, he did various jobs. He washed plates in kitchens and he washed limousine cars too. Washing cars was handy because, once he had finished each job, he could sit and study in the warmth and luxury of the limo until its owner arrived to pick it up. He was studying to acquire his business and accountancy qualifications at the time.

    Within 15 years he worked his way up from arriving with nothing to running a very successful import and export business doing trade between Europe and West Africa, selling all manner of goods until his death. Sadly, he passed away when I was quite young so I never got to hear the full story from him. But his example continues to inspire me.

    My father’s story was particular to him. But in many ways his was an archetypal story common to many immigrant families the length and breadth of Britain. Let us not forget: the Britain of the 1960s – despite the free love, the hippies and the rest – was not the tolerant Britain we live in today. His generation created – through commerce – opportunities that no one else would offer them.

    So my family’s story informs my outlook; so too does my London constituency which takes in Streatham and parts of Balham, Brixton, Clapham and Tulse Hill. There I see a vibrant culture of business that must be supported. But it was something more serious that really got me thinking.

    I am Chair of the London Gangs Forum which works to reduce gang activity across London. Gang culture has taken hold of a substantial minority of our young people in London. My borough, Lambeth, is one of the most acutely affected areas.

    Gangs have been responsible for numerous killings with innocent bystanders being seriously injured in the cross fire between rival groups. The most shocking incident of late was the shooting of 5 year old Thusha Kamaleswaran in her family’s newsagent in Stockwell last year.

    Make no mistake: at the heart of these gangs activities are criminality and very serious violence. Each of them lays claim to certain ‘territories’ in Lambeth – in particular in and around our social housing estates. As a community we send a clear message: what the gangs do is completely unacceptable, we will root it out and ensure the strong arm of the law is brought down to bear on the perpetrators. That is exactly what happened with those found responsible for the shooting of Thusha – members of a notorious local gang, who were jailed for life in March.

    But if one studies what Lambeth’s gangs do in more detail, it is both shocking and frustrating. They put a lot of effort into building up their gang’s brand. Most are involved with the sale of drugs; but some have branched out into more legitimate activities around fashion and music. You can find music videos they produce to promote their activities on YouTube. BBC Radio 4’s Today programme did a series of reports on this a couple of weeks ago featuring Lambeth’s gangs.

    This brand building is alarming because it helps the gangs to be more notorious and glamorises what they do – it is one of the reasons myself and other Labour parliamentary colleagues, Heidi Alexander and Karen Buck in particular, have argued that stronger powers are needed to ensure the gangs’ YouTube videos are taken down.

    What frustrates me is this: many of these young people are using skills that – if channelled in the right way – could provide them with an alternative route to success. And yet, in Lambeth, too much of this entrepreneurial instinct is being channelled into totally the wrong thing. Just imagine what our young gang members could achieve if their energies were redirected. Their entrepreneurial zeal, used in a legitimate business setting, could provide them with a ladder up, just as it did for my father. Instead, as things stand, many of them will likely end up in jail with blood on their hands unless we change things.

    I spent an evening talking to young people in a youth club in my constituency about this speech last week. A large number of the young people attending that particular club are affiliated to and/or are involved in the gangs which operate in my area. We talked about why young people were choosing to do the wrong kind of business through gangs. One young constituent said simply that illegitimate business was “an easier and faster way to make money”, to “get rich quick”.

    When I dug behind this rather glib explanation, my young constituents explained that pursuing gang related business was viewed as a strategy for getting out and getting on. Gang members “have goals”, said one young man, “they do bad to do good”. What he meant was that gang members sought to make money first through illegitimate means, with a view to building up enough finance to run a legitimate business later. The other young people present shared his analysis.

    I am sure that many in this room have struggled to access finance to start and grow their business, and will have considered peer to peer lending or maybe finding an angel investor for it. Well, among this group in my constituency there was a perception that profits from illegal commerce were the most viable solution for them.

    Of course the reasons why young people get involved in gangs are complex and varied. But what is clear is that the entrepreneurial spirit is strong in them, albeit misdirected. We must make legitimate business a more feasible avenue through which they can realise their dreams even when all else may have failed them.

    Reflecting on my father’s experience and the entrepreneurial impulse of our young peo ple, I am convinced that Labour must view entrepreneurship as central to our approach to increasing social mobility.

    Social mobility is of course very much in keeping with what Labour is all about. We exist as a movement and as a political party to help more people succeed in life – or, as we put it in our constitution, to secure “the means for each of us to realise our true potential”. Like all the best entrepreneurs, ours is an ambitious mission: putting power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many. And, yes, this can sometimes be threatening to the established market players – those who have the power and wealth, and want to hoard it. So be it.

    At root it is about helping people to get on in life regardless of where they are from, able to pursue the life they choose and value. It is about making a person’s destiny less dependent on the circumstances of their birth.

    Some people view social mobility as a relative concept, meaning that for every person moving up the ladder there must be an equal and opposite reaction of others moving down. But extending opportunity need not be a zero sum game. Removing the ceiling on success that too many experience is to the collective benefit of us all.

    And in an interdependent world individual success can strengthen our common bonds, just as strong common bonds can enrich the soil from which individual success grows. Hillary Clinton is fond of quoting the Nigerian proverb which says it takes a whole village to raise a child. I say it takes a similarly strong culture to raise an entrepreneur. Just ask those who have spent time in Silicon Valley about the strong culture there – of hope, possibility and forgiveness, where failure is seen as part of the learning process.

    In government, Labour did a lot to fracture the link between a person’s history and their destiny: from Sure Start and unprecedented investment in early years education, to improvements in educational attainment across the board; from the educational maintenance allowance, to the expansion of higher education. These are things we can be proud of.

    We narrowed the gap in attainment between pupils from more and less advantaged backgrounds – for example, the percentage of those on free school meals gaining five grade A*-C GCSEs rose faster than for those not on free school meals. And there is some evidence that we had begun to weaken the link between family background and educational attainment: research from the University of Bristol suggests family background had less influence on GCSE results for those taking them in 2006, compared to those taking O-levels in 1986. But, despite this, the link remains strong and it is clear there is a long way to go.

    However, it seems unlikely that this progress will be sustained if this Government – which has already cut the educational maintenance allowance – also follows through on its plans to return us to a two-tier education system where kids are divided into winners and losers at age 14.

    And even where it appears that progress has been made, it takes a long time to quantify. A key indicator for measuring social mobility is earnings. I’m told that the erratic earnings of you entrepreneurs makes it much more tricky to keep track of your earnings than those in employment, meaning you are often excluded from the data. But that’s for another day. Whether a wage earner or an entrepreneur, there is a long time lag until these data are available. For example, the very first kids who benefitted from Sure Start are still only just teenagers today but the benefits they will derive will be long lasting if the US Head Start programme is used as a guide.

    The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility recently set out its excellent “7 key truths about social mobility”. They highlighted the critical importance of early years in developing learning skills and laying the foundations for per sonal resilience and future emotional wellbeing; the impact of high quality teaching and out-of-school programmes; how these feed through into university admissions, the main determinant of later opportunities; as well as pointing out that while early pathways are often highly predictive, they are not determinative, something that policy makers should not forget.

    So I do not want to decry the investment in the early years, or to undermine the focus on educational attainment, access to universities, and access to the professions – the last point particularly brought to public attention through the excellent and persuasive work of Alan Milburn more recently. All this remains incredibly important. They are issues I am passionate about and, in the case of universities, form a major part of my brief as Shadow Secretary of State.

    But – as Ed Miliband recently pointed out – social mobility shouldn’t just be about changing the odds of people making it to university, as if only one kind of pathway to success matters. We have to improve opportunities for everyone, including those who don’t make it to university. That means ensuring vocational education is seen as just as much of a gold standard as academic education – and that there are good opportunities to switch between the two.

    What I wanted to do today, by highlighting the role of enterprise, is to ensure we place the role of entrepreneurship and business policy at the heart of this debate. Increasing social mobility cannot just be a matter for education, at whatever age. It must be a whole government activity. We must harness the power of business to change lives, releasing the entrepreneurial spirit wherever it resides, to open up new routes through which people can shape their own destinies just as my father did.

    Entrepreneurship has a key role to play here because running your own business, research suggests, can sometimes offer a better route for weakening the link between where you come from and where you end up, than being in paid employment.

    I have been particularly taken with the work of Ingrid Schoon and Kathryn Duckworth at the Institute of Education in this respect. They compared levels of social mobility between those who are employed and those who are self-employed. Their findings suggest that self-employment offers a more likely route to social mobility than paid employment – so one has a better chance of getting on by going into business.

    And entrepreneurial success is at the core of Labour’s vision for the dynamic, future economy we need, and at the core of our vision for the dynamic, fair, opportunity s ociety we want to see.

    It is central to the better and more productive capitalism Ed Miliband and I have been arguing for – innovative businesses, focused on long-term value creation not short term profit extraction.

    It is a vision rooted in our history. We have always stood for increasing autonomy in life and dignity in work as the world of work has evolved and changed. So what are we doing in this area?

    We set up our Small Business Taskforce early last year, now led by Bill Thomas, to advise on what we should be advocating to help people start up and grow businesses. Before coming here I tweeted a link on twitter to the Taskforce’s interim report – produced by the late, great entrepreneur Nigel Doughty – for those who have yet to read it. Its next report will be published later this year.

    We set up NG:Next Generation, our vibrant entrepreneurs’ network, towards the end of last year to ensure our party is connected into the entrepreneur community and to provide a vehicle through which entrepreneurs can connect with each other. The network’s next event takes place here this evening just as soon as the Q&A session is done.

    Labour’s shadow education team, led by my good friend Stephen Twigg – with whom my team is working closely – is looking at the role schools can play in fostering the next generation of entrepreneurs. It is why, for example, we are supporting the campaign by the CBI and others that speaking, presentation and communications skills should be a priority in all state schools following the excellent example of Paddington Academy, as they are in many private schools.

    And I am pleased to say that, before being elected, every member of our shadow business team in the House of Commons had either set up and run their own business, or – like myself – professionally advised many entrepreneurs who have done so. So when our manifesto comes, I can confidently say it will be informed by practical experience, as well as our beliefs and values.

    In closing, I want to quickly say something about the business environment.

    These are difficult times for business. Our economy is in a recession of the Government’s own making. The outlook is uncertain. The full impact of the troubles in the Eurozone have yet to feed through. All the while, the Government continues to fail to show the leadership needed at home, it has failed to show the leadership needed abroad, and it has failed to take the action necessary to guide our economy back to growth. In short, they risk creating a lost generation of businesses and business opportunities.

    That said, I remain optimistic about our national future in the longer term. Looking around the world at the rise of the emerging economies I know we will have to raise our game to compete but I am determined that we will do it. There are, after all, huge opportunities out there.

    In the US there is a national story in which the lone entrepreneur plays the lead role, pursuing the American dream. The evidence for this kind of story today may be weak, given that social mobility in the US is as low as anywhere. We all know that in an unequal society it is simply harder to move up the ladder. But there is no doubting the rhetorical strength of their national story, with its unashamed veneration of individual success.

    To succeed in the future we must write the next chapter of our own national story – with aspiration at its heart, entrepreneurship as its state of mind, and community as its end. It must encourage your restlessness and inspire my young constituents. That way, together, we will create a better future for all in Britain.

  • Chuka Umunna – 2012 Speech to the High Pay Commission

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chuka Umunna to the High Pay Commission and IPPR on 12th January 2012.

    Thank you for that introduction Michael and to the ICAEW for hosting this event.

    And thank you too to the High Pay Commission and the Institute of Public Policy Research for inviting me to speak.

    All three organisations have made major contributions to informing and stimulating the national debate on this issue which has dominated the news agenda since the year started, the High Pay Commission in particular.

    The headlines and clipped news reports do not do justice to this issue so today my aim is:

    – to explain why excessive pay and rewards for failure matter from the point of view of our businesses, those who own them and society at large; and,

    – to get to the heart of the problem and outline the solutions as we see them in Her Majesty’s Opposition.

    The economy is the issue of this parliament not simply because of the lack of growth and the highest rate of unemployment for 17 years which people are experiencing in the here and now. But also because of the long term structural trends in an economy which has failed to deliver incomes to keep pace with rising living costs, a pattern repeated in other developed economies.

    What do I mean by this? Not enough of the reward from rising productivity has found its way into the wage packets of average earners with the result that middle income earners have actually seen their wages stagnate from 2003, whilst high earners have seen their wages soar. Consequently many people have come to feel that, in the good times the economy did not really work for them, while in the bad times they were being made to carry much of the risk.

    So it is time for some hard reflection on the nature and direction of our economy and the changes we need to make:

    – changes to get growth going again in the short term, which is why we have put forward an immediate stimulus package in the form of our 5 point plan for growth and jobs;

    – changes to ensure that future prosperity benefits everyone;

    – changes to ensure we can pay our way in the world and take full advantage of the new opportunities that new markets bring – which is why we need to build a New Economy based on a reformed capitalism.

    The FT have just started a series of articles under the title Capitalism in Crisis. I wouldn’t go as far as those dangerous lefties. Capitalism has been and remains a powerful engine of human progress. But in recent speeches and, again, over the weekend I argued that what we need is a New Economy based on a better, more responsible and more productive capitalism than our current national variety.

    That New Economy must be built on a partnership between productive business and active government: the entrepreneurial impulse in us all encouraged and supported; closed circles broken up and opened to everyone. And, as Ed Miliband said in his speech on Tuesday, we must think how we build a New Economy that delivers fairness for Britain at a time when there is less money to spend.

    In many ways, the issues around executive pay are a good place to start. Excessive pay and rewards for failure are symptomatic of what is wrong with the way our economy has been operating over the last 30 years – of how wealth is created, how opportunities are shared, how success is rewarded, and how power is exercised in our companies. It is something Ed Miliband has been talking about for many, many months now.

    There are some who say it is no business of government – no business of politicians – to be commenting on these matters. We have no right to interfere in the affairs of privately owned companies is their refrain. I could not disagree more strongly with that statement.

    At the heart of my politics is the belief that we are all mutually dependent. This notion is deeply embedded in the values of the Labour Party. Better together. Stronger together.

    So to argue that politicians and society at large, should not take an interest in these matters, is to feed the idea that society is here and business is over in the corner there which is dangerous.

    Why? Because business and society are not separate islands – they are mutually dependent. Business needs a strong society, providing it with human resource, talent and custom. A strong society needs everything that productive business can offer: the jobs, the growth, the innovation, the opportunities, the wealth creating potential. That is why we should take an interest in the pay issue.

    And while it is right that those who work hard, generate wealth and create jobs for our country are rewarded, where failure is rewarded or people award themselves huge pay rises that bear no relation to performance or what their companies can bear, trust is severely undermined. As Ken Costa, the former Chair of Lazard International said last October:

    “Put bluntly, ultimately businesses cannot work, banks cannot lend, economies cannot function and societies cannot flourish without mutual trust and respect, or without fundamental honesty and integrity.”

    That is why the contributions that the ICEAW have made are so welcome – you are the important keepers of the accountancy flame, your mission to ensure that “people can do business with confidence”. And here you are helping to ensure that people can have confidence in business. That has to be right.

    As Sir Roger Carr, the current Chair of the CBI, said on taking up his post last year, business needs to show that it is “a force for good.” This is why it was so ridiculous for the Prime Minister and others to infer or suggest that Ed Miliband was being anti-business for raising these issues in his Labour Party conference speech last year – it is very much in the interests of business to resolve these problems and it is rather ironic that the PM is now talking about the need for reform in much the same terms as Ed.

    The discussion should start by asking what we pay people for? We pay people to do a job and, where they do so successfully, people do not object to them enjoying the fruits of their success. As for bonuses – my colleague the former Chancellor Alistair Darling put it well last Sunday when he said a bonus is surely “something special, something unusual, something that you give for that little bit extra, not a matter of routine and entitlement.”

    Having a skill that is in short supply but high demand is likely to be well rewarded in the marketplace. And as the size of some markets has increased – to become continental and in some cases genuinely global – so have rewards to those at the top have risen.

    Of course it is not easy to chart a successful course for a major corporation, where the contours of the market place can change rapidly, where new competitors are around every corner, and where new technologies can make an entire business model obsolete overnight. It takes special skill and extraordinary commitment. So no one is against success that rewards this merit and application. Success should be rewarded.

    But increasingly, what we have seen is something else. Reward that is not linked to success or performance: a self-perpetuating spiral of remuneration for those in the golden circle. Handsome rewards for failure. Rewards that seem quite unbelievable to the vast majority of people in this country; rewards from another planet.

    And while there are more egregious examples that have gained notoriety, this is not about individuals. The growing gap between increases in pay and increases in company performance is systemic. In the last decade the value of FTSE 350 companies increased by eight per cent, while the average total earning of executives in those companies increased by one hundred and eight per cent.

    As rewards at the top have become disproportionate to company performance, so rewards for executives have become disconnected from the rest of the workforce. They are no longer just the best paid employees. Increasingly, they are becoming a class apart.

    And let us be absolutely clear who we are talking about – we are not talking about the budding entrepreneur, the small business owner struggling in tough times; this does not apply across all business. We are talking about the relatively small number of people running our largest businesses and working in our more prominent financial institutions. We are talking about FTSE 100 bosses who were paid 14 times the median pay of a worker in 1980, and who are now paid 75 times the median pay of a worker.

    I should also point out that this is not a recent phenomenon, but a trend over the last three decades. In the three decades to 1979, executive pay grew 0.8% on average. In the last ten years, growth in the pay of FTSE 100 executives has been closer to 20% a year. It has now reached a point where, as Richard Lambert, former Director General of the CBI said last November, it is “damaging the interests of British business in political, economic and reputational terms”.

    Why is this ballooning pay such a problem? For three reasons: it is a bad for the companies themselves; it is bad for our economy overall; and, yes, it is bad for our society.

    For the companies themselves, the issue is a classic problem of agency.

    Since the 1980s there was a move to create an entrepreneurial culture amongst executives at the top of our large corporations but it didn’t quite work. I’ll explain why.

    The owners of the company – the shareholders – entrust executives with substantial powers to make far reaching decisions about the running of the company. Oversight is difficult, because those involved in the day to day management have plenty of discretion and a large information advantage. How can shareholders ensure their agents, the directors – the executive directors in particular – act consistently in those shareholders best interests? The solution was to try to align the incentives – through bonuses, shares, share options, incentive plans and the like, using different mechanisms and over different time frames.

    But the fact is that it is hard to create a true entrepreneurial culture among executives at the top of a large corporation. Upside incentives can be made similar, but the structure of downside risk is completely different for an entrepreneur who has everything on the line. Entrepreneurs have most of their own money on the line when they make decisions; executive directors of large companies do not.

    The result has been that the value of incentive packages for executives has risen out of all proportion to improvements in company performance. If it ever worked, it seems that there are now declining returns. In the first decade of this century FTSE 350 firms increased their pre-tax profits by 50% and their earnings per share by 73%, while year end share prices fell by 5%. Over the same period, bonuses for executives in these companies have risen by 187%, long term incentive plans by 254%. This demonstrates what psychologists have already found – that the relationship between financial incentives and performance is far from simple, and is not even reliably positive.

    At the same time, the heavy focus on the alignment of high powered incentives risks crowding out other, more rounded but equally powerful intrinsic motivations of executives that are just as relevant to the company’s success – the satisfaction of doing a good job, the pride in leading and growing a great company, of winning in the market place, of having the respect of peers, of creating a legacy of sustained and sustainable success.

    We are not opposed to performance related pay but it does make you wonder: if a company is so concerned that an executive paid only their salary won’t be motivated to work hard in the best interests of the company, then maybe they have the wrong person in the job?

    At its worst you end up with perverse incentive structures which encourage the wrong kind of decision making, as the failures in many financial institutions in the wake of the 2008/9 financial crash so clearly illustrated.

    And this approach to executive reward creates negative consequences in other parts of the business. Overemphasising the importance of the contribution of those of those at the top can undermine the motivations of others in the business. As the High Pay Commission has shown, there is a growing body of research that confirms that just as relative rewards matter as a basis for social comparison among executives, so they matter to other employees too. They matter for employee engagement, and their sense of identification with company goals. Feelings of unfairness in pay reduce the willingness to cooperate, can reduce effort and weaken commitment. Unsurprisingly, greater pay inequality in a firm has been found to be associated with lower firm performance.

    So excessive pay and rewards for failure are undoubtedly bad for business.

    The second reason this is a problem is because it is bad for our economy. I’ve lost count of the number of companies I’ve visited who say to me that they can’t find the engineering graduates they need to hire. Where are they? Lets face it – many of them are following the money. In the decade to 2007, 60% of the increase in the income share of the top 10 per cent went to finance workers. This talent drain, with rewards disproportionate to success, has distorted the market and makes the challenge of rebalancing the economy – by region as well as by sector – so much harder.

    Likewise, entrepreneurs, those running our small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, providing approximately two thirds of private sector jobs and almost half of private sector turnover. We need people to take risks and set up these businesses – why would they do so if they can earn excessive wealth in the boardroom and the City?

    And the third reason this matters is because it is bad for our society. Executive pay has helped promote inequality and there is a huge body of research to show that this has a detrimental impact on society. At this juncture many people refer to the “Spirit Level”, the book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

    Today, I’ll refer you to comments of the former Chief Economist at the IMF, Raghuram Rajan – the IMF is of course George Osborne’s institution of choice when it comes to quoting people! He has argued that high levels of inequality contributed to the financial crisis. In his recent book, Fault Lines, Rajan explains how high levels of wage inflation at the top and wage stagnation for the rest of the population led to a growth in easy credit.

    So I have talked about what we pay people for, how a small group are being paid far in excess of what they deserve, and the adverse impact this is having on our businesses, our economy and our society. What would we – the Opposition – do to change all this?

    The High Pay Commission has put forward a tranche of recommendations to increase transparency, accountability and fairness. The recommendations enjoy support in the business community and are in line with measures implemented in the U.S., Germany and other countries to address these issues. We support them too.

    In the main, the Commission suggests seeking to effect the changes through the UK Corporate Governance Code in the first instance, followed by legislation if the amendments to the Code do not bring about the change needed. This is the right approach. Legislation should be the last resort, used only if there is not sufficient compliance with the Code within a reasonable period of time.

    On the proposals themselves: first, transparency – over the level of reward and over the approval of reward packages. In trying to align executive incentives, reward packages have become increasingly complex, making it difficult for shareholders to understand exactly what is being paid.

    This problem is intensifying. Increasing numbers of directors are being rewarded through ever more complex service agreements. Individual reward packages are more generous and ‘performance’ targets seem to be getting easier to hit.

    To enhance transparency, the High Pay Commission recommends that:

    – Executive pay should comprise a basic salary, with only one additional performance related element where necessary;

    – The publication of pay packages of the ten highest paid employees outside the boardroom; and,

    – The reporting of pay packages in a standardised form, including a single figure showing total remuneration.

    We endorse these proposals. They will give shareholders access to simple, standardised information on which they can make reasoned judgements. While we wait and wait for this Conservative led-government to match words with deeds, there is no reason why business cannot begin taking action now.

    In addition, the Commission proposes that investment and pension fund managers be required to disclose how they vote on all issues, including on remuneration. This transparency would allow pensioners and investors to see where their monies are being used to finance big pay deals. It is their money, after all.

    This increase in transparency would also increase accountability, and is just one of a number of changes needed to do so.

    To examine the dynamics of a remuneration committee is to observe a case study of what happens when responsibility is diffused, backgrounds of participants are homogenous, and loyalties can overlap. Participants are drawn mostly from a narrow class of, mostly male, current or former executives. The voice of employees is silent and shareholders vote in an advisory capacity on remuneration reports after the event. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to detect a problem with this old way of doing business.

    The way non-executive directors are appointed and the backgrounds from which they are drawn – they are often ex-executives themselves – is not conducive to the appointment of people who are prepared to shake it up and introduce new ways of thinking. That is why we endorse the Commission’s recommendations to have employee representation on remuneration committees and to open up the recruitment of non-execs to a wider pool.

    But I want to look at where we should go further. In the UK, the nomination committee of the Board – which is responsible for hunting out people to serve on boards – is made up of other Board members. Candidates are nominated by those Board members at the company’s AGM and, in most cases, are elected as a matter of course.

    We should consider moving towards a system which other countries have adopted where the nomination committee is not composed of board members but is composed of the four or five biggest shareholders in the company along with the non-executive chair of the board – that same committee, composed of shareholders, also recommends the structure and amount of remuneration. This would create far stronger lines of accountability to those who ultimately own the business and would promote the shareholder activism and engagement which is key.

    In addition the role of remuneration consultants must be looked at, as the Commission says in its report. In his 2006 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Warren Buffet referred to a remuneration consultancy called “Ratchet, Ratchet and Bingo”; “The name may be phony,” he said, “but the action it conveys is not”, highlighting his view that such consultancies inflate executive pay. There are widespread concerns that these consultancies are ratcheting up pay here too.

    Indeed, it is my view that, unchecked, their effect could be similar to that of unscrupulous football players’ agents – inflating salaries sometimes way beyond talent or contribution and often working against the long term interests of the companies themselves.

    Part of the problem is that – in their advisory role to remuneration committees – the consultants owe their duties to the Board and not to shareholders. This needs to be looked at, along with the risk of conflict where consultants are advising both executive management and non-executive directors on remuneration. That is why it is right that companies should publish the extent of their use of remuneration consultants.

    I am aware of the voluntary guidelines to prevent remuneration consultants cross-selling services but, given the risk of conflict, consideration should be given to taking a more strict approach. Lawyers giving legal advice in the same context are not subject to some voluntary code but to binding rules that prevent the provision of advice where there is a potential for conflict of interests, unless strong, viable and properly policed Chinese Walls are erected. Why should the same not apply here?

    Finally, on fairness, the disconnection of executive reward from the pay of other employees is at the heart of loss of trust. This needs to be rebuilt. That is why we endorse the Commission’s call for companies to publish the ratios between the highest paid employees and the median.

    It is also another reason for having an employee on the remuneration committee of the Board, something the Prime Minister has failed to commit to implement – as Ed said on Tuesday, it would mean top executives would have to look an ordinary member of staff in the eye before they award these pay packages.

    To continue to inform this important debate, we endorse the High Pay Commission’s call for a permanent body to monitor high pay, along the lines of the Low Pay Commission Labour established.

    All of these measures are designed to empower shareholders – to give them the tools to be able to take action, and to increase the accountability of directors to them.

    David Cameron has sought to do this by making shareholder votes on remuneration binding. We will examine this proposal when Vince Cable, my opposite number, provides further detail later this month.

    However, there are a number of problems with what he has suggested. First, it is backward looking. As CBI Head John Cridland has said, this would be like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

    Secondly, there are large practical difficulties with the proposal as its retrospective impact would create legal problems in trying to unpick contracts already agreed – I say this from my own experience, having practiced as a specialist employment law solicitor for the best part of a decade.

    And thirdly, without a matching requirement of transparency – the provision of clear and simple information – shareholders may not be any the wiser about what they are voting on, and may even be less inclined to vote.

    So it is not enough for David Cameron to say he wants shareholders to be given a vote on these issues. We have seen and heard this kind of thing from him before – talking a good game but fiddling at the margins.

    I believe in shareholders’ democracy but democracy is about more than voting. If we are to empower shareholders, they need information provided through greater transparency of boardroom pay – as well as the means to mobilise and become more active in the running of their companies.

    And this takes us to the heart of the issue – the need to encourage greater activism amongst shareholders. We cannot ignore the long term trends that are working against this. Since the early 1990s, foreign ownership of total UK equity has increased from less than 15% to around 40% in 2008. The average length of time investors hold their shares has fallen from 5 years in the 1960s to less than 8 months by 2007, with an enormous increase in high frequency trading.

    These trends make it harder, but all is not lost – there are grounds for optimism. Voting by shareholders in FTSE 350 companies has now risen to a respectable 68%. There is clearly an appetite for more shareholder power and we have to nurture the use of it. It can be built upon by putting more – and more effective – tools in the hands of shareholders in the way I have described.

    And all this needs to be underpinned by a renewed and explicit focus on relative reward based on merit – the fairness that inspires employee loyalty to a company, and the fairness that renews public trust in business.

    The current business environment is as tough as it has ever been. Labour has set out a plan for jobs and growth to get the economy moving again, get people back into work, and to reduce the deficit.

    But we also must address the underlying challenges in our economy that have persisted over many years, and which the financial crisis brought in to sharp relief. Excessive executive pay is one of them.

    That is why I am glad that this debate is going on and proud of the role that Ed has played in leading it. Let’s make it count. Let us begin preparing the ground for the better days that lie ahead. Let us build a better economy for Britain.

    Thank you.

  • Alex Neil – 2012 Speech to SNP Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alex Neil at the 2012 SNP Party Conference on 21st October 2012.

    Just two of her achievements have been keeping the Accident and Emergency Departments at Ayr and Monklands open; and introducing free prescriptions for everybody in Scotland.

    These two measures alone have already alleviated unnecessary suffering for thousands of people and saved an unquantifiable number of lives in Scotland.

    Nicola, on behalf of the people of Scotland we say to you thank you for all you have done for the NHS in Scotland.

    My job now is to build on Nicola’s success and ensure the NHS in Scotland is one our children and grandchildren will be proud of.

    That means total rejection of the privatisation agenda pursued by both Labour and the Tories south of the border.

    It means maintaining our commitment to free personal and nursing care for the elderly and frail.

    Unlike Johann Lamont I don’t believe that free personal care is about getting “something for nothing”.

    Johann, do you not realise the elderly and frail people who get free personal care have worked for it, they’ve paid for it through a lifetime of paying taxes and national insurance contributions. And they deserve the best care money can buy.

    Labour also wants to end free prescriptions for all, claiming we can’t afford them. Rubbish.

    Under the SNP, free prescriptions will be a permanent feature of our NHS and are here to stay. Unlike Labour we understand the language of priorities. And a health service free at he point of use is a TOP Priority

    Unlike our opponents we have a vision for the NHS in Scotland.

    By 2020 we intend that everyone in Scotland is able to live longer and healthier lives at home, or in a homely setting.

    We intend building a health system where we have integrated health and social care, a focus on prevention, anticipation and self-management.

    When hospital treatment is required, and cannot be provided in a community setting, care will be provided to the highest standards of quality and safety, with the individual at the centre of all decisions.

    The NHS in Scotland faces three major challenges:

    Firstly an ageing population means an increasing demand on the health service.That’s why our top priority is the integration of adult health and social care.

    It is totally unacceptable when an elderly person or a disabled person suffers because of a bureaucratic battle between a local authority and the local health board.

    We are determined to put an end to such nonsense and ensure that everybody gets the quality of both health and social care they need when they need it.

    The second major challenge is from the consequences of poverty and deprivation, which the Labour/Tory welfare changes and benefit cuts will make much worse. It’s projected that the actions of the UK Government could mean that over 50,000 additional children would be in relative poverty by 2020. We must do all we can to stop that from happening.

    That is why we are doing so much to increase the social wage in Scotland, so that our poorest people get the help they need.

    The third big challenge arise from the Westminster cuts.

    That’s why we’ve made our money go further by re-investing every penny of the three quarters of a billion pounds already saved from improved efficiencies made by the NHS into improving quality and frontline services in the NHS.

    And conference, today I can announce a new initiative to further drive efficiencies to release cash for frontline services for years to come.

    We are investing £24 million in the ‘NHS Scotland Carbon Reduction Programme’ which through a number of energy saving schemes will reduce energy costs for Scottish health facilities by £4 million per year.

    £4 million per year that will be reinvested in provision of patient care.

    The new 3 year programme also has the added benefit of reducing carbon emissions in hospitals and other healthcare facilities.

    Friends, research shows that the single biggest contributor to improving the health of a nation is to have as many people in good, well paid jobs as possible.

    That’s why Jobs and Growth are at the heart of all we do. Not only are jobs and growth good for the economy, they are essential to improving the health of our country.

    But delegates, no matter how much we do with our existing limited power and resources to create jobs and improve public services we will be able to do far, far more with a YES vote in 2014.

    For example, we will have a benefits system that genuinely helps people into work rather than drive them further into poverty; we will have a fair tax system that places the heaviest burden on the broadest shoulders.

    But as well as spelling the positive case for a YES vote over the next two years we have to explode the myths being perpetrated by the “Better Together No” campaign.

    The No campaign claims that the UK has been a raving success:

    Tell that to every family who have lost a young son or husband or brother because of the illegal war in Iraq

    Tell that to the young men who have been serving in Afghanistan without the proper equipment to keep them safe and protected – many being the same young brave men who on their return from Afghanistan are now being rewarded with a P45.

    The UK hasn’t been a raving success for them.

    It hasn’t been a success for the two and a half million unemployed people in the UK.

    Or the millions of children, disabled and elderly people living in dire poverty in the UK.

    What they promise is “Better Together”. What they mean is:

    “Poorer Together”

    “More People Being Forced To Rely On Food Parcels Together”

    “Unemployed Together”

    “More Debt Together”

    “More Unwanted Wars Together”

    Delegates they must think our heads button up the back.

    As the SNP Government has proved we have achieved much more over the last five years than Westminster did over the previous fifty years of London rule over Scotland.

    The only way Scotland will be “Better Together” is by being an Independent nation:

    – If people want jobs only Independence can deliver

    – If they want an end to austerity only Independence can achieve it

    – If they want rid of nuclear weapons that can only happen in an independent Scotland

    While the Scottish people see the SNP Government as a model of competence, they also know that this lot in London couldn’t run a whelk stall never mind a nation.

    Delegates the choice facing the Scottish people is clear in 2014. Turn backwards and undo all the progress our nation has made in the last five years with a No vote or leap forward to a better future for us, our children and our grandchildren by voting YES. Yes to Independence.

  • Eric Pickles – 2012 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    ericpickles

    The below speech was made by the Secretary of State for Communities, Eric Pickles, in October 2012.

    After two and a half years in Coalition, it still seems strange to be working with our yellow chums in government.

    I sit next to Vince Cable in Cabinet.

    He’s not as cheerful as he seems on telly.

    But I wasn’t always a Conservative.

    I was born into a Labour family.

    My great-grandfather was one of the founding members of the local Independent Labour Party.

    As a 14 year old, my birthday present was a book by Leon Trotsky.

    Aptly, ‘the Revolution Betrayed’.

    Not exactly Harry Potter.

    Trotsky rightly warned of the oppressive bureaucracy of the Soviets.

    But it was the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia that made me join the Conservative Party as a protest.

    Gradually I became a Conservative.

    A Tory that has a burning dislike of oppressive state bureaucracy.

    A Tory that knows that prosperity and fairness is best delivered through freedom.

    Now, I came from a humble background.

    And I am proud to be both a Member of Parliament and a member of David Cameron’s Cabinet.

    It was the Conservative Party that helped me get where I am today.

    And now, I want others to have a chance in life.

    There is nothing more fundamental than supporting home ownership.

    We have reinvigorated the Right to Buy, reversing Labour’s savage cuts.

    We are offering families up to seventy-five thousand pounds discount to buy their home…

    …Using the money from additional sales to build more affordable homes.

    The Right to Buy gives something back to families who worked hard, pay their rent and play by the rules.

    Across the country, Margaret Thatcher’s Right to Buy has given people a sense of pride and ownership in where they live.

    Sadly, many Labour councils are keeping their tenants in the dark about these new extended rights.

    Their council leaders have pledged to fight tooth and nail against the Right to Buy.

    A right can only be exercised if you know about it.

    So I can pledge my department will be talking direct to tenants to inform them of their Right to Buy.

    It’s a great policy to campaign on for May’s local elections.

    We should tell every tenant in every council estate – that we’re on their side.

    We are also tackling a great injustice – discrimination against our Armed Forces.

    Precisely because they have served overseas – servicemen and women don’t have a ‘local connection’ under housing rules.

    Amazingly foreign migrants have been given greater priority on housing waiting lists than those who fought for Queen and Country.

    So we have changed the rules to give Armed Forces first priority for our first-time buyer and shared ownership schemes.

    And we have given councils new freedoms to allocate social housing to those who have worked hard and given something back to society…

    …from the Armed Forces to community volunteers.

    And can you believe it?

    Some Labour councils are turning their back on our Armed Forces.

    Why?

    Because there could be some “equality issues” – well,

    I don’t mind discriminating in favour of our military heroes.

    Conference,

    I believe in lower taxes.

    Whereas Labour doubled council tax.

    We have worked with councils to freeze it for the last two years.

    And this year, we are again offering additional funding to help councils freeze their bills.

    And we’ve scrapped Labour’s plans for an expensive and intrusive council tax revaluation, and Labour’s plans for new taxes on your home improvements.

    We want to make it easier for families to improve their home and build a new conservatory.

    Labour want to tax it!

    We have also cut business rates for small firms, doubling their rate relief.

    Bit by bit, we are pulling back the burden of regulation imposed by Labour.

    Clamping down on loony health and safety,

    Stopping the gold-plating of Euro Directives and equality rules,

    Opening up more government contracts to small and medium firms.

    And we have scrapped Whitehall rules which forced up parking charges and made it impossible to park in town centres.

    Now, councils need to do their bit to help.

    And to encourage that, we are giving councils a financial stake in their high street.

    From April, councils will keep more of the money they raise in business rates.

    No longer will it all be snatched back by Whitehall.

    So councils will have a direct interest and motivation to see their local economy grow and develop.

    Conservative councils, I know, will seize this opportunity.

    They will reward enterprise and hard work.

    By cutting waste and bureaucracy, we’ve been able to cut council tax and business rates, and still pay off Labour’s deficit.

    I’m doing my bit in Whitehall.

    My department is reducing its running costs by five hundred and seventy million pounds.

    Yet despite the fact that Labour were planning big cuts in local government budgets, Labour have opposed every single saving we’ve made.

    All they offer is more borrowing and more taxes.

    They are simply not credible.

    I believe that more joint working, cutting fraud, clamping down on senior pay, greater transparency, and better procurement will help deliver sensible savings in council budgets, and protect frontline services.

    We practice what we preach.

    We’ve published every single item spent on the Government’s corporate credit cards, reducing our card spending by three quarters.

    It has exposed astonishing waste by Labour – wining, dining and jollies at your expense.

    Conference,

    Whereas arrogant Labour Ministers had a party at your expense, I’m proud of what this Government has done to support people’s street parties.

    The Royal Wedding, the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympics were great occasions of the nation coming together.

    This Government has backed British values,

    having pride in our nation and our flags,

    supporting our united identity and our common English language.

    We have stood up for the role of Christianity and faith in public life.

    And protected councils’ right to hold prayers at meetings, if they wish.

    Upholding values of tolerance and freedom of religion.

    They’re not human rights.

    They’re British rights.

    Rights that existed long before European Judges came into existence.

    And, at the same time, we will confront and challenge the minority of extremists who spread hate and division.

    We are stronger as a nation when we stand together.

    And – what a great thing it is – that kids in Birmingham, across colours and creeds, have been waving the Union flag this summer for British champions like Mo Farah.

    Born overseas, but now proud to be British.

    We Brits are increasingly proud to fly flags as an expression of our local and national identities.

    Now, flying a flag should be a pleasure, not a chore.

    Brussels has been trying to make it compulsory for public buildings to fly the EU flag all year round.

    Bless them – they thought it was a good idea.

    We have successfully fought off this ludicrous policy.

    We’ll fly flags – but of our own choosing.

    So I’ve cut the rules which has held back flag-flying of Britain’s local and military flags.

    Such as the great flag of Yorkshire and its White Rose.

    Now, I’m proud to have been born and bred in Yorkshire, but Essex is my home now.

    I have been transformed from a Yorkshire TYKE to an Essex TOWIE.

    My constituency is the location of the television programme The Only Way Is Essex.

    It’s fun TV and we all enjoy it.

    But there is another Essex Value that runs deep in the DNA of our Party:

    – if you work hard, you can go far.

    It’s a message well understood by Margaret Thatcher, John Major and by David Cameron.

    And it’s this:

    It doesn’t matter where you’re from, it’s where you’re going that counts.

    As Conservatives, we are at our best when we back that aspiration.

    We should reject the voices of the left who want to sneer at success, kick enterprise and punish the rewards that go with hard work.

    There are, of course, some families in our society who are caught in a culture of welfare dependency, criminality and low self-esteem.

    They have been let down.

    A cosy centre-left consensus saw this as ‘too difficult’ to tackle.

    They just kept paying the benefit and abandoned people in sink estates.

    We saw it during last year’s riots – opportunistic thugs – a Gucci generation looting flat-screen tellies and trendy trainers.

    And we see it with a generation who want nothing other than the next benefit cheque, and don’t care about their kids’ future.

    That is why we have launched a Troubled Families initiative – to tackle this head on.

    We are bringing all the different public agencies together.

    Dedicated workers to intervene and turn these families’ lives around.

    It’s not about social workers feeling their pain or respecting their “lifestyle choices”, it’s about tough love – very tough love.

    It’s not acceptable for parents to blow their benefits on booze or drugs.

    Or allow their kids to skip school and drift into crime.

    So we will work with families to provide the guidance and supervision that kids need.

    Every council has signed up to a scheme.

    By the end of the year, we have committed to be actively working with over forty-thousand families across England.

    By the end of this Parliament, we aim to have turned around one-hundred-and-twenty thousand troubled families.

    It won’t be easy.

    But we will help improve the lives of the most vulnerable, neglected and exploited in society.

    Conference,

    Just as we want to change things, we also want to protect the good things – especially the environment.

    So we’ve introduced a new protection for valuable green spaces and have given councils new powers to stop unwanted garden grabbing.

    Now, there’s been a lot of press speculation in recent weeks on the Green Belt.

    Protecting the character of the countryside is stamped deep into the heart of Conservativism.

    And I want to be absolutely clear – the Green Belt plays a vital role in stopping urban sprawl – and we will protect it.

    To maintain those environmental safeguards, we have to be tough on those who break them.

    We are helping councils tackle the rogue landlords who build “beds in sheds” – which house and exploit illegal immigrants.

    We have outlawed squatting in people’s homes. Invade someone’s house and you now go to jail.

    We’ve handed councils the powers to close down the protestors’ shanty towns that blighted the likes of Parliament Square and St Paul’s.

    Now, long-drawn out cases like Dale Farm have brought the legal system into disrepute.

    You know the story: in breach of planning law, travellers move in over a bank holiday weekend, and it takes years for councils to remove them.

    A small minority exploit Labour’s human rights and equality rules and have cost taxpayers millions of pounds.

    Such episodes give the whole travelling community a bad name and fuels community tensions.

    So I can announce today new powers for councils to literally stop those caravans in their tracks.

    New instant Stop Notices will allow councils to issue unlimited fines for those who ignore planning rules and defy the law.

    We will stand by those who play by the rules, and use the full force of the law against those who break them.

    Conference chums,

    In my Ministerial office, I’ve placed reminders of what it means to be a Conservative.

    A bust of Disraeli.

    A poster of the great Winston.

    A momento of the magnificent Margaret.

    But over my left shoulder is a photograph that often catches the eye of visitors.

    Ché Guevara.

    The Cuban Revolutionary.

    Smoking a very large Havana cigar.

    It’s there to remind me: that without constant vigilance – the cigar-chomping Commies will take over.

    Well, that isn’t going to happen on my watch.

    After more than two years in government, I’ve learnt that cigar-chomping Commies come in many guises.

    We may be in Coalition, but we are doing sound Conservative things, and we should be proud of what we’re doing.

    Proud of taking on the vested interests of oppressive bureaucracy,

    Proud of cutting back waste to pay off Labour’s overdraft,

    Proud of rewarding those who work hard,

    And proud to be at the front of a revolution.

    A very Conservative revolution that will allow Britain to deliver.

    Thank you.

  • Leanne Wood – 2012 Speech to Plaid Cymru Conference

    Below is the text of a speech made by the leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood, on the 14th September 2012 at the Plaid Cymru Conference.

    Conference,

    It’s an honour to stand here today and address you in my first Leader’s speech to our Annual Conference.

    It is, of course, an opportunity to present myself to a new audience.

    What you hear and what you see is what you get with me.

    No varnish, no veneer. Just Wood!

    I promise that is the last Wood joke I will make until I can address you all as the first Plaid Cymru First Minister!

    Those of you in the hall, of course, know the kind of leader you elected.

    Someone not afraid to speak her mind.  Someone who puts principle at the core of her politics.

    There are times when that isn’t easy. Times even when it’s maybe not to our advantage in the short-run.

    But in the long-run of political life– and politics is a marathon, never a sprint – I’ll tell you this – people have seen through politicians that say one thing, and do another – who promise the earth, and leave nothing but the bitter taste of disappointment in their wake.

    People are thirsting for something new, and I’m determined that is what we are going to give them.

    I’ve always said I wanted to do politics a little differently, and for me our conference is a space for the leader, not just to speak, but also to listen.

    – and I’d like to thank you so much for the words of advice and encouragement you have sent to me over the last few months.

    We have four exciting years ahead of us.

    And it is my aim to cross the finishing line in 2016 as the winner – leading Plaid, the Government of Wales.

    We have got to get over that finishing line together – I’m going to need each and every one you to roll up your sleeves and commit to the hard work necessary to build the organisation and the momentum we will need to get over that line as winners.

    The world champion cyclists speeding through this mid-Wales town today are in the race to win! Not to do well. To win. And Plaid Cymru wishes good luck to them all.

    Wales now needs more than ever a government that thinks ahead and plans to protect all those people who are at risk of sinking beneath this terrible tide of austerity – wave after wave of cuts in jobs, cuts in benefits, cuts in services, in pay and in real income.

    Wales now needs a government that takes responsibility – that tries to solve the problems not just blame others…

    What does that mean?

    It means a government that protects Welsh pensioners from cuts in council tax benefit by doing a deal with local government – like the one reached in Scotland – rather than simply acting as the Tories’ henchmen.

    A government that makes sure it gets the budget for Remploy factories devolved to Wales before the factories are closed down.

    We need a government that will ease the burden on that mother who has too much week left at the end of the money.

    She needs a Welsh government that makes sure her kids are fed and well-educated, that makes sure her family are warm enough in the winter, one that will legislate to make sure the loan sharks get off her back – that’s what she needs.

    And we need her to know that it’s a Plaid Cymru government that will deliver it.

    As a party we have four years of hard work ahead of us.

    Like all those Olympian and Paralympians, the prize we seek for Wales won’t be won in the final two weeks of the race itself. It will be won in all those months and years of door-knocking in all weathers, tweeting all hours, in the million conversations we need to have to win the trust of a nation.

    So we’ve come to Brecon, the town where two rivers meet – the Usk and the Honddu, is a fitting meeting place for this party, where two rivers of thought also mingle.

    Two tributaries of the great Welsh radical tradition: the green of Welsh nationalism, green because of our love for our native land, but green too for the love of a planet we share; and the red of socialism, red like our blood to symbolize our common humanity.

    If we add the white of peace, we get the red, white and green – three colours united under one banner. The colours of our country.

    Geology bequeathed Wales with mineral riches that should have been a blessing but for too many turned out to be a curse.

    We cannot make the same mistake again.

    We have learned from our history.

    Our national, natural resources are our inheritance, ours to harness for the benefit of the people of Wales.

    The green economy can be a motor for our economic progress, powering our second industrial revolution. It already employs over 40,000 people, more than financial services and telecommunications combined.

    And we can be innovators too. A Cardiff-based company is the first in the world to use a process similar to photosynthesis in its patented solar film. It is also the first in the world to use 100% renewable energy to produce renewable technology. Now that’s what I call sustainability!

    But as the Welsh Government’s own Sustainability commissioner, Peter Davies, has argued we are not realising our full potential.

    Opportunities are being wasted.

    So what will we do?

    One of the first acts of a Plaid Cymru government will be to establish our own national powerhouse, a Glas Cymru for green energy, investing in national infrastructure from tidal energy to community-owned wind and hydro power, focused on our own energy needs and yes, where appropriate, exporting this valuable commodity but, and here’s the difference, repatriating the profits and reinvesting them for the benefit of all the people of Wales.

    Not like before.

    Over the years, people have sacrificed so much, like the miners who lost their lives this time last year in the tragedy at the Gleision mine in the Swansea valley. For many those images unfolding in front of us on the rolling news media stoked deep memories and emotions for those old enough to remember a time when peoples’ lives were littered with such cruel events. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those whose lives were so tragically cut short.

    As Gwyn Alf Williams once said, we as a nation have been around for a millennium and a half, it’s about time we had the keys to our own front door.

    It’s time, as [one of Plaid’s founders and economist] DJ Davies said, for us to cultivate our own garden.

    We must now take control of our economic destiny.

    We must take responsibility for where we are going. And what better way than to seed and support our own homegrown businesses.

    Locally owned, family owned, co-operatively owned, community- owned – these are the businesses we want to see become the bedrock of our economy.

    Here in rural Wales I am very much mindful of the crisis in Welsh agriculture, particularly in the dairy industry. It’s a crisis that has driven people to the edge of desperation. Many Welsh farmers were on the brink of going under with the milk price dispute earlier this summer. But this crisis which strikes to the very heart of our local food system has the potential to hurt us all in the long-run. We need more people producing food not fewer – we must be helping not hindering what is by definition this most essential of all industries.

    2013 across the world will be a year of a global food crisis. Extremes of temperatures and drought in places as far apart as the American Mid-West, the Russian Steppes and the Australian Outback will mean food shortages on an unprecedented scale. Already corn prices have risen by 25% worldwide and are set to rise higher. In parts of Africa and Asia this may trigger famine and social upheaval on a vast scale.

    We are fortunate to live in a green, fertile, wind-and-rain-swept land. You can tell it’s summer in Wales – the rain is warmer. But we should never take that for granted. Being at the end of a long and distant food chain or relying on oil imports to power our cars or heat our homes is neither sustainable nor ecologically resilient in the long run.

    We have the capacity to be energy independent.  We have the capacity to be self-sufficient in water – if Westminster allows us – and we can be food-secure, producing more of our food locally for local consumption.

    An early action of a Plaid Cymru Government would be to set ambitious but achievable targets to get us powering our cars and our futures renewably, weaning ourselves off our addiction to oil. After all it was Wales that gave the world the fuel cell; let’s now show them how to use it.

    You know it’s important in politics as in life to get the right perspective. We may see Wales as a small country, standing on the Brecon Beacons it’s not smallness we see. Behind you stretch the southern seaboard and the valleys. Look north and west and there you’ll see the low green hills of the uplands, and beyond them the mountains of the north. Look at that landscape and reject any doubts you may have. This small nation has it within vast reservoirs of potential.

    We have and we can achieve the greatest of things. But first comes those two critical ingredients:  hard work and self-belief.

    Nowhere has this been more evident than in the Olympics this year. Wales achieved its highest ever tally of golds in the Olympic and Paralympic games. In the two games,  we won more medals per head than any other nation in Europe.

    Glasgow 2014 here we come!

    There we’ll have Welsh athletes in a Welsh team, representing Wales. They will focus all their energy on winning for Wales. And we will do the same.

    Their success has allowed us some small distraction from what continue to be very difficult times.

    To us in Plaid Cymru, it was obvious from the start that the Westminster Coalition’s strategy was never going to work.

    Wales needs jobs. It’s as simple as that. And there’s plenty of work that needs doing. Like Roosevelt and his economic plans in the United States of the ’30s, Wales needs a new New Deal. A green New Deal – aiming to provide skill, work, hope and opportunity for a new generation who have a right to believe that life can be better.

    The policies being pursued by the UK Government in Wales have taken a crisis and turned it into a disaster.

    And we know all too well who has been hurt the most by austerity.

    Look at the victims of welfare reform to see who is paying.

    So let’s be clear. Austerity has nothing to do with economics; it has everything to do with politics. The recession has given this Government a golden opportunity to attack the Welfare State and those who rely on it…and attack they have.

    Where is the opposition? Who is defending the unemployed from these savage attacks? From what I can see, the official opposition offers Austerity Lite. Hardly surprising after Labour gave us light-touch regulation, the Private Finance Initiative and regional pay. Their latest idea is pre-distribution, which is short-hand for undoing the mistakes that Labour made while in Government.

    Plaid Cymru’s economic commission has laid bare the extent of the challenge we face.

    Everywhere we look we see the symptoms of our predicament.

    Wales has the highest brain drain of all the nations of Britain. Almost 40% of the graduates of universities in Wales have left Wales within six months of graduating – that compares with just 6% in England and 7% in Northern Ireland. They leave – and still leave disproportionately for London – because the opportunities simply aren’t here.

    It’s important to remember, and continue to instil in young people the importance of education. Throughout our recent history, those who went before us understood education’s value, especially as a route out of poverty. ‘The miners gave us libraries’ the Manics said, My mother encouraged me – well, nagged would be another word for it –  to work hard in school by holding up her hands to me after another shift at the factory, asking me if I wanted my hands to be red-raw like hers.  When I think of the fate of this country, I often think of her message to me written in the lines of those outstretched hands.

    That was 25 years ago – in the 80s – at a time every bit as challenging as this. Then we in Wales were creating new businesses at the same rate as the rest of the United Kingdom. Now we generate less than two thirds the number of new businesses per person than the rest of the UK. The situation is even worse when it comes to inward investment.

    In the early 90s Wales, with just 5% of the population, was securing one in every five of all foreign investment projects into the UK. Now we’re managing less than 2%, one tenth of what we managed twenty years ago – and Mrs Romney’s Welsh cakes are doing a better selling job for Wales abroad than anything done by this Welsh Government.

    How did that happen?

    It is plain to see that the Welsh economy is seriously under-performing. Our economic under-development is the single biggest hurdle to our progress as a nation. It condemns us to dependence on a Government in Westminster, of whichever hue, that will never have Wales’ interests as its over-riding priority.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. Our decline, our poverty, is not, and never has been, inevitable.

    It is for all these reasons that we have declared raising Welsh economic performance to a level equal to the rest of the UK the over-riding priority of this party for the decade to come.

    To get there we need to use all the skills at our disposal – public, private and voluntary. In a small nation we cannot hide away in our sectoral silos. We have to work together.

    Our Economic Commission is looking at a comprehensive strategy. But I have asked the Commission specifically to look at three sets of measures that a Plaid Cymru Government could implement:

    Firstly, establishing a new mutual, Innovation and Enterprise Wales – I.E. Wales – IE drosGymru – bringing together the best of the skills of the public and private sectors – to push forward a Welsh New Deal.  It was D.J. Davies in the 30s that first called for a development authority for Wales.  It’s time again to reinvigorate, regenerate and recreate a new catalyst for creativity in a form fit for the Wales of the 21st century.

    Secondly, if the London-based banks won’t lend to Welsh businesses, then we need to create our own financial system, so that more of the money made in Wales stays in Wales. Channel Four has its Bank of Dave – let’s have our Bank of Dai!

    Let’s free Finance Wales to become a real development bank, create a wholesale bank for the social enterprise sector, build up a network of business credit unions, and turn the existing patchwork of community lenders into a national savings super-mutual.

    Public sector pension funds in Wales have billions in assets, six billion in total, hardly any of which is invested in Wales. Surely we can do better.  As part of our further recommendations to the Silk Commission we will seek the power to offer tax breaks – similar to those currently available in Canada – to those pension funds prepared to invest in their own communities. Investing 2 or 3% of our own workers assets in Wales would help transform the Welsh economy while representing no risk at all to the future returns to scheme members.

    That’s a flavour of some of what we can and will do in Government. We can do great things.

    With hard work. And self-belief.

    At Westminster our team led by Elfyn will continue to offer up alternatives to the UK government’s strategy.

    And believe me, I will do the same when I meet the new Welsh Secretary.

    But the sad truth is that Plan B may be a long time coming.

    Government after Government in Westminster believed there was only one game in town, one industry in one City, and that industry was the City and the City was London. And now that industry has been found wanting and so the cupboard is bare.

    There is no point looking to London for our salvation. Changing the head of UK Plc will make as much difference to Wales as changing the head of Barclays has done for the culture of the City of London. Personalities come and go in London’s corridors of power but the policies and priorities and the problems for Wales persist.