Tag: 2014

  • Ed Davey – 2014 Speech at the Green Growth Summit II

    eddavey

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Davey, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on 3rd March 2014.

    Friends and colleagues, it’s a pleasure to be here today for this second Green Growth Summit.

    Let me start by saying thank you to all those who have helped bring us together today and to establish the Green Growth Platform: To the EU Corporate Leaders Group for organising this Summit and Green Growth Platform.

    To the businesses, trade associations, academics and international agencies who have put their time and effort into the two Advisory Councils set up following our first Summit last year.

    And we look forward to hearing your insights into how Europe’s decarbonisation can work for the climate and the economy, including energy intensive industries.

    Particular thanks goes to the OECD whose Deputy Director, Helen Mountford, we look forward to hearing from about their work on green growth and the links with our own. And to the IEA whose Executive Director, Maria van der Hoeven, we are delighted to have here to address the crucial questions on energy prices and competitiveness.

    Finally, I want to thank my friends in the Ministerial Green Growth Group for their enduring commitment to working together to explore, promote and pursue an ambitious and growth-enhancing EU low carbon agenda.

    In particular, I am delighted to be able to announce that the Green Growth Group, including UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, have today agreed to a joint statement calling for an agreement at the March European Council to the key elements of a 2030 energy and climate package including, a binding domestic EU greenhouse gas target for 2030 of at least 40% and a binding EU level renewables target of at least 27%, that will not be translated into binding national targets.

    This is a very important step forward, and a timely one.

    SETTING THE SCENE – ECONOMIC & STRATEGIC CHALLENGES

    Later this month, Europe’s national leaders will gather here in Brussels to seek to agree the EU’s 2030 energy and climate policy framework. The 2020 Framework has served us well.

    But when it comes to investment decisions on energy projects that will last into the middle of the century and beyond, 2020 is fast disappearing in the rear view mirror.

    The EU Emissions Trading System needs radical surgery to achieve all that it was put in place to do.

    And next year, in Paris, world leaders will meet to agree a global and comprehensive climate change agreement.

    But as we agree a 2030 framework, we must do so with our eyes open to the challenges ahead.

    First, Europe is still feeling the fallout of the most serious financial and economic crisis our continent has experienced since World War Two.

    After so much hard work to restore economic stability, securing the recovery remains a priority.

    So we have to make sure that the 2030 framework delivers our ambitious climate and energy goals in the most competitive and cost-effective way.

    Second, in recent years, European and North American energy prices have substantially diverged.

    European gas prices are around three times higher than in the US, while industrial electricity prices remain roughly twice as high.

    The IEA predicts that while this energy price gap should narrow, it is likely to remain significant for some time.

    For most businesses, energy represents a small fraction of their production costs; 3% for UK and German manufacturers on average.

    And European industry has many other areas of comparative international advantage, not least in energy efficiency.

    But for certain energy intensives operating in a highly competitive market, this price divergence represents a new structural competitiveness challenge.

    Against this economic backdrop, some argue that Europe cannot afford climate ambition, or that we should wait and see what others’ low carbon ambitions are first. I could not disagree more.

    As the latest IEA analysis sets out, the price discrepancy between Europe and the US is primarily driven by the US shale gas boom on the one hand, and Europe’s expensive fossil fuel import dependency on the other.

    So Europe could choose to abandon its entire low carbon agenda.

    But it would barely scratch the surface of the problems facing certain energy intensive industries.

    In fact, the Commission’s Impact Assessment found that a 40% domestic 2030 emissions target would only lower EU GDP by 0.15%.

    And a brand new study my Department commissioned from an independent French consultancy, copies of which are here today, support these findings. This is all in the context of projected EU GDP growth by 2030 of 25%.

    So the European problem for competitiveness, for Energy Intensive Industries, is not climate action.

    It is the US shale gas revolution – and we must respond to.

    Third, Europe is facing an unprecedented energy investment challenge.

    Europe needs trillions of Euros of investment over the foreseeable future to replace a fleet of ageing power stations, and to strengthen our energy infrastructure.

    This is about cold hard energy security, providing power for our businesses and homes, or put simply, just keeping the lights on.

    And finally, Europe’s indigenous fossil fuel resources are in decline and import dependency is rapidly growing.

    The IEA predicts that by 2035 we will need to import 90% of our oil needs and over 80% for gas.

    Our fossil fuel import bill consumes more of Europe’s GDP than any other developed or major emerging economy.

    And it is a major cause of Europe’s global trade deficit.

    With demand continuing to spiral in developing countries, fossil fuel import prices are likely to remain high and subject to supply shocks and price volatility.

    So our energy security is best served by minimising our exposure to the volatile global fossil fuel markets, enhancing our energy efficiency and maximising home-grown low carbon energy, as well as cleaner indigenous reserves, such as natural gas, to help ease the low carbon transition.

    HOW SHOULD EUROPE RESPOND?

    Europe’s response to these overlapping challenges needs to be smart and strategic.

    For my part, I would like to begin by outlining three key things things that I believe should be part of a smart and strategic 2030 package.

    And I very much look forward to hearing today from the Green Growth Advisory Councils and from you on how to solve some of these challenges, and to stealing the best ideas. First and foremost, Europe must give the commerical sector the long-term signals they need now to invest in our low carbon and energy infrastructure.

    This means agreeing an ambitious 2030 domestic greenhouse gas target of at least 40% in the first half of this year.

    Without early clarity over Europe’s 2030 climate ambitions, we risk delays to investments in essential energy projects, higher costs of investment capital and expensive carbon lock-in.

    And since the best competitiveness hedge is securing a global climate deal, Europe should commit to consider in early 2015 whether to raise its emissions target in the light of pledges from others and our 2 degrees climate objective.

    Second, we need to ensure that the 2030 package is cost-effective and cost-efficient.

    A cost-effective package means stepping up the integration and interconnection of European energy markets so countries can buy clean, competitive, low carbon electricity from wherever it is cheapest.

    So the 2030 package must be a vehicle for accelerating market integration and interconnection as a priority.

    Ensuring we have gas and electricity networks modern enough and integrated enough to prevent European energy supplies being put at risk.

    It also means urgently strengthening the ETS in order to drive down emissions and stimulate low carbon investments cost-effectively.

    The current draft ETS legislation, is a welcome basis for discussion.

    But we need to be bolder and move much faster to deliver the diversified, indiginous and lower carbon energy mix that we need – and at least cost.

    And IEA analysis shows that even a CO2 price of €20 per tonne would only represent a few percentage points on average industrial electricity prices – a minor impact compared to the price shock of shale.

    And third, as part of a wider industrial strategy for Europe, we must develop a energy and climate package for those energy intensives industries genuinely at risk of carbon leakage.

    This means providing support through the ETS and state aid framework to help them to compete during the low carbon transition. This support will need to be focused on those sectors at significant risk to ensure they get the level of protection they need.

    But in parallel, we must develop the incentives, financing and regulatory frameworks that deliver credible, cost-efficient decarbonisation pathways for these energy intensive sectors over the medium-term.

    Europe‘s paper and pulp industry, for instance, have done pioneering work to identify the breakthrough technologies that will deliver dramatic cuts in industrial energy usage by completely re-inventing their processes.

    Europe has to get behind these sorts of game changing innovations, learn from them and apply them across other industries

    CONCLUSION

    Colleagues, through an early, smart, cost-efficient and ambitious 2030 package, Europe can harness the links between competitiveness, security and climate change, and meet Europe’s objectives in all three.

    I very much look forward to working with you over the coming months under the Green Growth Platform, so we can develop and deliver an ambitious 2030 package that is good for the climate and the economy.

    Thank you.

  • Philip Dunne – 2014 Speech on Military Equipment

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Dunne, the Defence Minister, in Farnborough on 4th February 2014.

    Introduction

    Ladies and Gentlemen.

    It’s a great privilege to have been asked by General Gary (Coward) to give the keynote presentation here at the armoured vehicles conference.

    This year’s conference is particularly important because 2014 is the year in which NATO allies complete their withdrawal from combat operations in Afghanistan.

    I’ve seen it for myself.

    In early January I visited Afghanistan and was pleased to meet the Chief of Staff of the Afghan National Army, General Karimi, and many of his senior colleagues in the Ministry of Defence.

    His praise for the British military contribution to the improved security of his country and the sacrifices which have been made by UK and other coalition forces was most welcome.

    I am particularly honoured today, to have the opportunity to welcome General Karimi to this conference and to host your visit Sir.

    I would also like to pay my tribute to the growing strength and capability of the Afghan National Army and Security Forces, and the leading role the forces under your command, General, are taking and the sacrifices you are making in providing security to your own people.

    I have seen it; it is happening on a daily basis; and you are to be congratulated on building an increasingly effective defence force over a short period.

    While I was in your country I spent time with our forces, including the Defence Support Group readying vehicles for their return to the UK.

    And this afternoon I’m going down to Marchwood on the south coast to witness the end result of their work this month, one hundred and twenty eight vehicles returning from operations.

    The largest single consignment to date.

    New challenges, agile investment

    The withdrawal from active theatre after over a decade of continuous operations is welcome for our armed forces.

    But as one vista closes a new horizon opens up NATO allies returning from Afghanistan are having to scan that horizon and reset their armoured vehicle requirements.

    For a new era of contingent operations.

    Military operations in the future are likely to face threats from both ‘traditional’ enemies, using sophisticated armoured vehicles themselves as well as asymmetric threats from insurgents or from warring rival factions.

    We don’t know today where those future flash points might be.

    We cannot assume we will be operating in another Basra or another Helmand against an insurgent threat.

    That’s why we’re investing in the UK now for the future.

    We’re investing in a range of capable vehicles that our army will need for that new world.

    We’re investing in our research effort.

    And we’re investing in our Reserves where we’re looking for an equally broad range of capabilities.

    But there’s another factor.

    If it is a new operational horizon it will also be one conditioned by the financial constraints that are a legacy of the economic crisis.

    An environment in which many nations are facing an economic squeeze including in France as we’ve just heard where defence budgets are having to take their share of that squeeze and expensive military procurement programmes are having to justify their worth in these straightened times for the public finances.

    So it’s doubly important that we make the best investment decisions that we can we must remain agile so that we can meet the needs of today as well as the long term.

    Agility represented by bringing UORs into core

    That’s why I was pleased at the end of last year to announce that almost every surviving protected mobility vehicle purchased with UOR funding would be transferred into our core programme.

    Around 400 Mastiffs, 125 Wolfhounds and 160 Ridgbacks are returning from theatre with 400 Jackals, 70 Coyotes, 325 Huskies and 60 Warthogs.

    A practical example of leveraging battle proven technology for the long term.

    And you may care to tune in to ‘Top Gear’ in the near future to see one of these vehicles on the road, I challenged James May to take a Foxhound up to its top speed.

    Those vehicles were part of a four year £300 million regeneration and support work package.

    What’s involved?

    Well, we’re doing things like bringing the vehicles up to the standards required for UK roads.

    And converting them into the different roles necessary for the needs of the army going forward a topic which will be explored more fully tomorrow by General Sir Peter Wall our Chief of the General Staff.

    Deliveries will begin this year to allow UK based units to start training on these vehicles.

    Colonel John Ogden, Commander of our Armour Centre, will be speaking about that also tomorrow

    Those deliveries will be good for the army.

    And they’ll be good for British industry too.

    But these converted vehicles are not just for today or next year.

    They will provide the adaptability and flexibility that the British army will need until the next generation of armoured utility vehicles are introduced.

    This is an example of agile investment writ large.

    Backing an agile research base

    Of course those UORs that played such a key role in keeping our troops one step ahead of the enemy were not just pulled off a shelf at will.

    They relied on an innovative and agile research and on that best in class partnership between UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) and industry.

    I’m immensely proud of what that partnership delivered for us in Afghanistan.

    For instance Morgan Advanced Materials Composites and Defence Systems from Coventry who developed techniques to enhance Mastiff’s survivability.

    The development of the high survivability Foxhound vehicle by General Dynamics Force Protection Europe and Ricardo, in the Team Ocelot consortium.

    And Amsafe from Bridport who developed innovative protection technologies against rocket propelled grenades, a system that is even now being installed on a number of vehicles in theatre and I understand, is exciting interest from several other nations.

    I take my hat off to the ingenuity and commitment of those from Industry who worked the long hours with colleagues in the defence laboratories to deliver these and many other vital enhancements.

    But UORs, critical though they were, are not the end of the story.

    We’re investing research effort now for the longer term.

    For example developing a generic armour mounting system which is all about creating a common interface between a vehicle and its armour.

    Similar to the situation in weapons where our standard GPMG fits on all our vehicles. In this way we avoid having a different weapon type for each vehicle and can benefit for instance from commonality in ammunition.

    And so, similarly, our aim is to develop armour that has wide applicability across a range of platforms.

    It’s about making fitting, repairing and upgrading so much easier.

    It’s about agile investment.

    And it’s something I’m particularly proud of and it is an area where we are keen for allies to become involved in taking it to the next level.

    My colleague Professor Bryn James will be saying more about that later today.

    An affordable core programme

    But this research effort is useful only in the context of a vibrant and affordable armoured vehicle programme.

    That’s what we’ve got.

    Thanks to the difficult decisions this government took in the [SDSR] in 2010 the army mounted equipment programme now stands at some £7.7 billion clearly spelt out for the next ten years.

    And we expect to issue the next iteration of the EP very shortly.

    So the incorporation of the Afghan UORs is certainly not the end of our investment in armoured vehicles capability!

    Far from it.

    Our 2010 SDSR confirmed the funding for a number of key armoured vehicle development and upgrade programmes which will support Army 2020.

    These programmes, taken together, are known as the ‘Mounted close combat capability change programme’.

    Investing now for the needs of tomorrow.

    These vehicles will need to be modern, integrated and interdependent both to overcome adversaries as well as keeping up with the capability developments of our allies.

    A demanding requirement.

    But these are exciting times to be in the armoured vehicle business.

    Look for instance at the Scout SV programme for a new ground armoured reconnaissance capability.

    Under prime contactor General Dynamics UK this programme has passed several of its key milestones including the preliminary design review and live blast trials. These achievements have confirmed that the design meets the army’s needs, especially the high levels of protection needed for future combat operations.

    The first production vehicles are expected to appear in a 2017 timeframe ready to start army user trials.

    And we are anticipating an in service date of 2020.

    Look also at the Warrior capability sustainment programme.

    Good progress has been made here as well and prime contractor Lockhead Martin UK is expecting to undertake reliability trials in 2016/17.

    These upgraded vehicles will be the cornerstone of the Armoured Infantry Brigade of the future.

    Look too at our utility vehicle project which we intend will start to replace our current, battle hardened protected mobility vehicles, those Mastiffs, Wolfhounds and all the rest, during the early part of the next decade.

    UK open for business

    Before I leave the equipment programme, Brigadier General Beaudouin from the French would not forgive me if I failed to mention the 40mm case telescoped ammunition programme and the VBCI which the Prime Minister announced last week the UK would be testing to see whether it is a capability which meets the British army’s requirements.

    Working with our French allies has lead to an efficient and cost effective solution for a common cannon for our Scout and Warrior programmes that I’ve just mentioned.

    It will give both our nations a class leading capability that will allow this class of platform to maintain its battle winning firepower for many years to come.

    I am particularly pleased with this project, as the Ministerial lead on the procurement aspects of our growing Anglo/French cooperation which formed a central part of the summit meeting between our Prime Minister and the President of France last Friday.

    A good example of the UK and its close partners benefiting from cutting edge technology and value for money.

    And a fine example of Great Britain being a great international partner and a great place to invest.

    Conclusion

    So in conclusion ladies and gentlemen.

    The UK’s armoured vehicle programme is in good shape.

    It’s a programme that balances the needs of today with those of tomorrow.

    And it’s a good time for industry to roll up its sleeves and invest.

    For an army increasingly based on contingency.

    And from the end of this year an army no longer on long standing operations.

    But it’s equally important to realise that those solutions must be cost effective.

    That’s my challenge to you.

    I know it’s possible.

    Just look at the superb response to UORs delivered by industry to recent theatres of operation.

    So do use the next couple of days to network, to make new contacts and be part of the next phase of the armoured vehicle story.

    Thank you.

  • Alan Duncan – 2014 Speech at Global Monitoring Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Duncan, the Minister of State for International Development, on 7th April 2014.

    I am delighted to be here today to support the UK launch of this year’s Education for All Global Monitoring Report. Its theme, Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality For All fits well with DFID’s education priorities. The report also rightly reminds us why investing in education is so important for any economy as a whole but also, and more importantly, why it matters for every individual.

    Behind this report is 1 simple stark truth. If all girls completed primary school in sub-Saharan Africa and South and West Asia, the number of girls getting married by the age of 15 would fall significantly. Education does indeed transform lives.

    In these brief remarks, I want to reflect on what the GMR tells us about DFID’s 3 education priorities, and then outline where more effort is needed to make better and faster progress. ‘Leaving no one behind’ is 1 of DFID’s priorities and this report presents impressive progress over the last 20 years on access to school. Globally there are 51 million more children in primary school today than there were in 1999, and 6 out of 10 countries have now achieved an equal number of girls and boys enrolled in primary school.

    These are signs of real improvement which is the result of significant domestic and international investment and effort. Good progress can be made when the world gets behind a simple and compelling message as it has done with the MDG focus on access to primary school.

    While we should recognise and celebrate this progress, we know that schooling does not always lead to learning. I don’t think any of us here would be satisfied with a primary school in which our children do not even learn to read and to count after four years in school. It’s the quality of learning achieved for every girl and boy, and not just the length of schooling, which makes education such a valuable investment.

    Yet one of the headline messages from this GMR is that there are an estimated 250 million children – that’s 1 in 3 – who are not learning basic reading and numeracy skills, even though at least half of them have spent those crucial four years in school. Global data on learning is currently patchy but this estimate is alarming.

    Improving learning is at the heart of DFID’s work on education. More recent work by the GMR team suggests that practical progress on actual learning is being made. A further 17 million children in sub-Saharan Africa are now learning the basics compared with the number just over 10 years ago.

    So improving learning and leaving no one behind: The third priority is the focus on girls. Educating girls improves their ability to choose when to get married and how many children they have, and it gives them greater control over their assets and income. Most importantly it gives them control over their own body. But despite progress, there are still over 60 countries which have not achieved gender parity in primary school.

    The UK government has committed to support up to 1 million marginalised girls through our Girls’ Education Challenge. DFID’s focus is on keeping girls in school, supporting them to learn, and ensuring their critical transition from primary to secondary school.

    The Prime Minister will be highlighting some of the specific challenges faced by girls, including early marriage, violence, and female genital mutilation, at a special event in July.

    So, looking to the future, what do we need to do to ensure we make better and faster progress beyond 2015?

    DFID has rightly defined economic development as a central pillar of its development strategy. We know that economic growth can help lift people out of poverty and we also know the importance of education to achieve this. Along with our support for quality basic education, DFID is stepping up its efforts to look at the transition from school to work, including targeted support to upper secondary, higher education and skills programmes.

    Improving learning and reaching the most marginalised children means working in difficult environments with new partners and targeting support to those who need it most.

    This is why DFID continues to prioritise support to conflict-affected countries and why we have recently made new commitments to reach some of the most marginalised groups, including those with disabilities, and those affected by the crisis in Syria.

    But to develop the right policies, to ensure that no one is left behind, that all girls and boys are learning when in school, and that we are training people for the right jobs that the country needs, we need to gather good data and analysis.

    The UK government is doing its part by investing in improved data and research. In Pakistan and East Africa, DFID is supporting household surveys which allow parents to provide immediate feedback on the quality of education their children are receiving. DFID is also working closely with the UK research community to look at how to improve the quality and effectiveness of teaching, in order to deliver faster progress.

    The analysis provided by the Global Monitoring Report is why it is such an important resource for the education community and why the UK government is proud to be one of its major supporters. Building on the achievements of this Report, we congratulate, and look forward to working with, the newly appointed Director, Dr Aaron Benavot, to ensure its continued success.

    With the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education coming up in June and the ongoing negotiations on a post-2015 development framework, this is an important year for education. Future generations depend on the decisions we make today. The Global Monitoring Report is an excellent resource to help us make the right decisions to ensure that everyone gets a chance to realise their potential.

    The success of the MDGs is down, in large part, to their simplicity. Plain, simple language and a compelling message on education is what is needed after 2015. The education community, above all others, should be setting the benchmark for this. I will be watching you.

    Thank you.

  • Stephen Crabb – 2014 Speech on Welfare Reform

    Stephen Crabb
    Stephen Crabb

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Crabb, the Welsh Office Minister, in Cardiff on 13th February 2014.

    Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak here today.

    This morning, more people in Wales have gone out to work than at any other time in our nation’s history.

    Economic inactivity in Wales today is at its lowest since records began, and both the overall rate of employment and the actual numbers of people in jobs are at a record high.

    But, ladies and gentlemen, the tragedy is this:

    ..that at the same time as a record number of people are out working today, there remain around 200,000 people here in Wales who have never worked a day in their lives.

    That’s a tragedy for each one of those individuals and it’s a tragedy for our nation.

    A small country like Wales needs to maximise every bit of skill and talent and potential that we have.

    And that’s why I am so passionate about welfare reform.

    Welfare reform is about saying that this waste of opportunity and potential is just not acceptable any longer;

    ..it’s about recognising and bridging the gulf that has been allowed to open up between those whose lives are dependent on benefits and those who are economically active;

    ..and it’s fundamentally about returning the welfare system to its true values and purpose: as both a tool of social protection and an enabler for those in poverty, where they can, to regain their economic independence.

    Our welfare reforms are about expanding opportunity and making a positive difference to real lives.

    And so there is nothing compassionate or progressive about ducking the challenge of welfare reform.

    The assault on welfare reform in Wales

    Yet, over the last three years, that is exactly what our critics in Wales have urged that we should do.

    There has been a ferocious assault against welfare reform within Wales, led by the Welsh Labour Party which has turned its face against welfare reform – a cause which Labour itself championed twenty years ago when so many of the problems of dependency and the decline of work incentives were first being highlighted.

    Instead Welsh Labour has led the calls for welfare reform to be resisted, abolished, watered down or delayed.

    And in the Welsh media there has been a voracious appetite for any story which casts welfare reform in a negative light. Since 2010 there have been more column inches devoted to criticising different aspects, any aspect, of welfare reform than almost any other political subject;

    ..and an escalating rhetoric of criticism which reached its peak a year ago when a Welsh Government Minister attacked the reforms as a “social atrocity” and accused UK Government of “stepping away from their responsibility to the most vulnerable in society”.

    Language like creates headlines in Wales and turns poverty into a political football, but it does nothing – nothing at all – to further the interests of the forgotten 200,000 people in our nation who have yet to work a day in their lives,

    ..and for the 92,000 children who are growing up in households where no-one works,

    ..and for those communities here in Wales where more than one third of the residents are claiming out-of-work benefits.

    The responsible position is not to urge less welfare reform in Wales,

    ..but to recognise that Wales needs welfare reform as much as anywhere else in the UK and to work to ensure that it bears the right fruit for Wales.

    Wales should be using this once-in-a-generation opportunity to break the cycle of dependency and revitalise those communities blighted by worklessness.

    Wales needs welfare reform.

    Welfare reform here to stay

    Regardless of the precise contours of the current devolution settlement, the truth is that Welsh Government has a shared interest in seeing the economic health of our nation improve, and that means a shared interest in seeing the cycles of poverty and dependency broken in Wales, and therefore they do have a shared responsibility to be a positive partner in welfare reform.

    Welfare reform must not be a blind-spot for Welsh Government.

    Because, make no mistake, welfare reform is here to stay.

    And just as the UK and Welsh Governments now work together far more effectively than ever before on strategic infrastructure investment, so I believe that the two governments will need to find ways of working together to see welfare reform achieve its ambitious aims here in Wales.

    I therefore very much welcome the new established working group that will meet for the first time today that brings together the Wales Office, Welsh Government and the Department for Work & Pensions to seek to resolve the difficulties around access to ESF-funded skills training in Wales which currently prevents unemployed people on the Work Programme in Wales getting the full range of support and training they need to improve their employability.

    As the Commons Welsh Affairs Select Committee said recently:

    The last thing we need.. is bureaucracy getting in the way of people simply being able to do what is most effective. The fact that different programmes are funded differently or run by different organisations should not.. create barriers at the point of delivery. The point is to get people in to work, for all the benefits that brings both to them and to the public purse.

    Local Government a key partner in welfare reform

    And local government, too, in so many ways the unsung hero of social policy in Britain, has a central role to play as welfare reform is rolled out.

    I have recently met with authorities from across Wales to discuss, in particular, the localised impacts of the changes to housing benefit, but also to hear the approaches being taken to wider welfare reform matters in Wales.

    Later today I will be visiting Caerphilly where the Borough Council has participated in one of the Universal Credit local pilot schemes, working alongside the Department of Work & Pensions, to explore how local expertise can support residents to claim Universal Credit, making sure they are aware of benefit changes and within full reach of assistance when they require it – practical assistance such as advice on debt and household finance.

    And no-one is blind to the challenges that lie ahead, but I have been impressed with the dedication and focus with which local authorities are approaching welfare reform.

    They understand the importance and significance of this agenda to Wales.

    I believe whichever Party – or parties – are in power in Westminster after 2015, there will be no turning back the clock or any return to the kind of welfare system which does not encourage hard work and which does not foster social mobility.

    Already as the first fruits of our changes are starting to appear – seen in the falling numbers of long-term unemployed and increasing numbers coming back into the labour market – I believe there is the opportunity to move away from the screeching rhetoric and to achieve consensus here in Wales on the broad direction of welfare reform.

    In the last three years we have only just begun to tackle the monumental challenge in front of us.

    Welfare reform will need to shape the strategies and business plans of every tier of Government – Local Government, Welsh Government and UK Government – for years to come.

    And if we get this right, with each layer of government working together effectively and with a shared ambition for welfare reform in Wales, then the impacts it will have on the economic and social landscape of our nation will be transformational.

    The principles which guide welfare reform

    And so I would like to set out this morning some of the key principles which are guiding our welfare reforms and which I think can provide the basis for that consensus in Wales:

    Moral duty to provide both a safety net and a pathway out of poverty

    Firstly, the starting point is a fundamental recognition that the state has a moral duty to provide a safety net for those facing poverty and hardship.

    We must not and will not walk away from the most vulnerable in society.

    Both compassion and self-interest point us towards providing real help to those in poverty. And there will always be a role for a strong safety net to protect those who face hardship from slipping further into poverty.

    And so Universal Credit will refocus that safety net to provide more support to those on the lowest incomes – 75% of those who gain from Universal Credit will be in the bottom 40% of income distribution.

    The introduction of Universal Credit will also significantly improve the take-up of unclaimed entitlements.

    And so around 200,000 households in Wales will actually have higher entitlements under Universal Credit – of £163 per month on average.

    Our responsibility to the poor also means providing support to those affected as we reshape the welfare system.

    We know that many households in Wales are affected by the current reforms, and this can be unsettling and disruptive for some, but we are committed to providing the necessary support to help those affected through the transition.

    This is why we have increased the amount of money available to local authorities in Wales to use for Discretionary Housing Payments for those tenants in social housing affected by the changes to housing benefit: £7.9 million in 2014/15.

    No-one is walking away from a duty towards the poor.

    But if this duty translates into rights on behalf of some to receive welfare payments then with those rights must surely come responsibilities.

    The great failing of the modern welfare state was the stripping away of these responsibilities which helped to foster inactivity and long-term dependency.

    Benefit payments alone do not provide a pathway out of poverty. That is why our welfare system should provide the full range of support, guidance and incentives that gives people the opportunity to improve their circumstances and return to the freedom of an independent life.

    Restoring the value of work, and increasing the incentive to work

    Secondly, the key to encouraging people to leave benefit dependency and return to the job market is to restore the value of work in society and that means changing the equation so that there is always a financial incentive to work compared to the alternative of benefits.

    That is why, as a Government, we have introduced a cap on benefits so that no household can receive more in welfare payments than the average working family earns through employment.

    In Britain, we are already seeing thousands of those whose benefits have been capped returning to the labour market and taking up jobs.

    Furthermore, the introduction of Universal Credit will improve work incentives as financial support will be reduced at a steady rate, taking actual earnings into account at the time they are received. If a claimant is working part time, they may continue to receive some payment. If their hours then increase, their Universal Credit payment will reduce, but they will keep more of their earnings and will always be financially better off in work.

    The intention is that any work pays, in particular, low-hours work.

    Reducing the complexity of the current system and removing the distinction between in-work and out-of-work support, will make clear the potential gains to work and reduce the risks associated with moves into employment.

    At the same time we are helping to put money back into the pockets of working people by raising the Income Tax Personal Allowance to £10,000.

    This will benefit 1.2 million workers in Wales and take 130,000 out of income tax altogether – many of whom are on the lowest wages.

    Taken together with a strong minimum wage, which we want to see increased significantly, these measures represent a very powerful set of tools to draw people back into the workforce by changing the financial incentives to work.

    I happen to believe that there are very, very few people who do not to work.

    As people we are hard-wired to be productive and make an economic and social contribution.

    But the previous welfare system far too often allowed those instincts to become blunted, and the drive to provide for oneself became weakened in a society where work didn’t always pay.

    Work shapes us as people, it provides security for our families and it inspires our children to follow in our footsteps – and it is right that work should be at the heart of our efforts to tackle poverty.

    – A benefits system which reflects the realities of modern labour market

    Thirdly, it is imperative that our benefits system is reshaped to reflect the realities of the modern labour market.

    We need a system that can respond to the modern and flexible labour market where an increasing number of people are, by choice or necessity, working part-time or in multiple low-hours jobs.

    The previous welfare system shut out those who wanted to return to work by presenting a seemingly binary choice between full-time work and unemployment.

    For many of the longest term unemployed, facing difficult barriers to work, returning straight back to full-time employment will present a huge and in some cases impossible challenge.

    We need a welfare system that encourages and supports them in taking their first steps back into work and building up their hours as they acquire confidence and skills.

    That is why Universal Credit is a dynamic system which is designed to be flexible to cope with the transition back into full-time work. It gives job-seekers the flexibility to take on part-time, short-term or alternative work patterns, depending on what is appropriate for their individual needs.

    Moving the welfare system to reflect more the realities of the modern labour market also means changing the nature of the interaction between the claimant and the advisers who will support that person as they receive benefits. Claimants now receive a more targeted and individualised service than ever before.

    I have seen firsthand some of the remarkable changes that have taken place in the design and approach within JobCentre Plus in Wales to reflect this. Walking into JobCentre Plus in Newport city centre, for example, you will see a busy open-plan dynamic working environment where not only the staff are busy at work but claimants too, working on job searches, skills workshops, CV writing; and that’s exactly as it should be. Claimants working hard to find work.

    And thanks to these changes and the digital revolution that we are bringing to the benefits system, claimants will no longer be the passive recipients of handouts, but will be firmly in the driving seat, taking control of their own prospects.

    – welfare reform is about bridging the gulf that has allowed to emerge between those dependent on benefits and those in work

    The previous system fostered and allowed a gulf to open up between those who are dependent on benefits and those who are in work – where people who have become dependent on benefits no longer have to live with the same range of practical life choices that people in work do. For those who have been dependent on benefits the longest, that gulf is a very wide one indeed.

    And so the fourth principle I would highlight is the need to ensure there is no gap between the choices that those in work have to make and those that made by people receiving benefits – and in so doing we are restoring fairness back to the benefits system.

    Practical choices, for example, over what type and size of property they will find affordable:

    The changes to housing benefit for social tenants, bringing it into line with Labour’s changes to housing benefit for tenants of private landlords, means that all tenants on benefits will now have to make the same types of decisions as people in work have to about what size property is right for them at this point in their lives.

    Other basic practical life issues involve managing money on a daily, weekly and monthly basis – including the timely payment of rent.

    People in work have to do this. How on earth did we arrive at a system of housing benefit that removes much of that basis financial housekeeping from people on benefits and so deskill them further?

    And so, in the face of all the criticism we have seen from housing associations in Wales and others, I absolutely defend the principle of Universal Credit being paid to the recipient and not direct to landlords.

    Yes, we need to build in safeguards – and we are – and yes we need to ensure that those with specific and challenging circumstances and conditions still have the option of having their housing related benefit paid straight to their landlord.

    But the starting point must be an expectation that the majority of people on benefits can, and should be expected to, manage their own household finances.

    Wales a beacon of social mobility

    I am incredibly fortunate as a Wales Office Minister that I am able to get and about meeting many of the people at the cutting edge of welfare reform in Wales –

    – the superb teams of advisers in JobCentre Plus in places like Newport and Aberdare;

    – the innovative teams delivering the Work Programme in places like the old Burberry factory in Treorchy,

    – and inspirational an historic organisations like the Merthyr Tydfil Institute for the Blind which is delivering the Workstep programme to people with a whole range of disabilities.

    And people here will tell you there are no magic wands or silver bullets when it comes to tackling worklessness in some of our most deprived communities.

    And no-one is pretending there are.

    But you will also hear very few people running to the barricades to defend a welfare system which too often locked in that worklessness and created dependency.

    My own approach to welfare reform is also shaped by the experience of seeing a single mother raise three boys in council housing in West Wales thirty years ago:

    – absolutely dependent on the welfare system, and the kindness and generosity of others, to keep her family’s heads above water; having to make all those horrible decisions about what food and clothing was affordable;

    – thankful for good quality free school meals and a good local bus service for days out on the Pembrokeshire coast.

    But those circumstances were not fixed; and, initially, taking advantage of the rule that allowed her to work a few hours each week without the benefits being withdrawn, she got a small job filing at a local office. Gradually she increased her hours even to the point eventually when her benefit was being withdrawn pound per pound, but her skills and self-confidence were improving all the time.

    Eventually, when her sons were in their teens, she was able to get a full-time job, and move off benefits completely. Shortly after, she was able to afford driving lessons and buy her first car which expanded her work options even more.

    Things were still very tight, but how far she had come on that journey from personal crisis and breakdown to economic independence!

    And it should be a central feature of our welfare state that this type of journey – that my own mother made – should be encouraged and incentivised as far as possible.

    And that is exactly what our welfare reforms seek to achieve.

    One of the great strengths of Welsh society in the past was the belief – written deep in the hearts of so many men and women – that hard work and education was the route out of poverty.

    And so Wales became a beacon of social mobility.

    The welfare system we are reforming has too often acted as a brake on that social mobility, not providing a pathway out of poverty.

    Our shared vision, whether as politicians or practitioners, must surely be for Wales to become once again that beacon of social mobility:

    – a place where it does not matter what street you grew up in, whether in social housing or private;

    – where it does not matter what school you went to;

    – or who your father or mother were, or what jobs they may or may not have done;

    – a place where hard work, education and a strong community provide pathways of opportunity so that everyone can achieve their potential to the best of their ability.

    And this is why welfare reform is much, much bigger than just a financial or economic issue.

    It’s actually about what kind of society we want to live in; and our children after us.

    And it’s why I am determined that our nation of Wales should see the full benefits of welfare reform in the months and years ahead.

    Wales needs welfare reform.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2014 Speech on Higher Education

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland on 29th January 2014.

    Thank you Charlie for that introduction, and for handing me the task of keeping our audience invigorated immediately after lunch.

    I am delighted to be able to join you today to speak about what is, by any measure, a Scottish success story.

    In Scottish higher education, we have a sector that enjoys an international reputation for excellence. A sector that punches above its weight on research.

    And a sector that is currently teaching record numbers of students.

    Earlier this month, figures published by the Higher Education Statistics Authority showed that in 2012/13 the number of qualifiers in Scotland was up.

    The proportion of students obtaining a first or second class degree is higher in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. And we have a higher proportion of women qualifying in science and technology.

    The future

    But it is to the future that we must look – a bright future if our current world rankings are anything to go by.

    Five Scottish Universities rank in the latest top 200. The UK as a whole excels in academic excellence.

    We are ranked second only to the United States. in terms of world-class research.

    The UK’s share of the world’s top 1 per cent most cited publications is on an upward trend.

    And in 2013 the UK was ranked third in the world for innovation in the Global Innovation Index.

    UK-wide research

    There are many reasons for this success – but one that is absolutely fundamental is the highly integrated research environment in which our universities and higher education institutions can operate.

    This integration ensures a coherent and strategic approach to research activity in a common research area.

    It allows funding, ideas and people to flow unhindered across the UK in pursuit of research excellence.

    And that is of benefit to us all. A benefit that comes from being part of a United Kingdom.

    And that is where I want to focus my comments today.

    For too long there has been the simplistic assumption of devolved and reserved.

    Devolved – for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government alone. Reserved for the UK Parliament and UK Government.

    But the reality is much more complex than that.

    Whilst policy responsibility resides either north or south of the border, we all continue to work within a shared common framework.

    And perhaps nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than higher education and research.

    Last year I published a paper in our Scotland analysis series with the Minister for Universities and Science, that examined the contribution Scotland makes to our UK-wide research framework, and the benefits that Scotland gets as a result.

    As part of the UK we are able to share the costs and risks of research, funding it from a large and diverse tax base to make research more affordable.

    As we set out in that paper, in 2010 the UK Government allocated £1.9 billion for science and research capital for the period 2011-15.

    And since then we’ve allocated an additional £1.5 billion funding for science and innovation capital.

    Research councils

    We’ve got a network of seven Research Councils operating across the UK providing a clear strategic overview of all research disciplines.

    This network minimises duplication and overlap in institutions maximizing our ability to make new and innovative discoveries, and to go on to turn these discoveries into the next miracle cures of the future.

    A shared set of policy guidelines, rules and regulatory arrangements provide a consistent grounding for research excellence and a shared framework on which research collaborations can be built.

    And it’s not just at home that we invest.

    Through our Embassies and consulates we have a Science and Innovation network in 29 different countries to help extend the reach of the UK’s research base.

    Here in Scotland we’ve grasped the nettle to make the most of this UK-network.

    In 2012-13, Scotland secured £257 million of research grant funding from the UK Research Councils.

    This amounts to 13% of the funding available, all for a country which has 8.4% of the UK population.

    Higher Education Research and Development figures for 2011 show that Scottish Higher Education Institute spent £953 million. This is the equivalent to approximately £180 per head of population in Scotland compared with £112 across the UK as a whole.

    The point that I make is that we don’t get access to this despite being part of the UK, we get it because we are part of the UK.

    So the questions we need to ask ourselves are:

    How would an independent Scottish state maintain the level of research quality excellence currently enjoyed by Scottish Higher Education Institutions as part of the UK?

    AND what evidence is there that independence would improve the performance of our institutions?

    It’s not just me asking these questions….

    We’ve seen academics specialising in subjects as diverse as bacteriology to space engineering, veterinary science to the food industry, highlighting the risks.

    What the white paper says

    Of course the Nationalists would have you believe that all would be well in the event of independence – in this and every other walk of life.

    But merely asserting it is not enough. Evidence is required to back up their case.

    And when getting involved in the world of academia, evidence is not a nice to have, it’s a prerequisite.

    And yet, of course, it was evidence that the White Paper lacked.

    We were promised a blueprint for independence, but we didn’t get it.

    Instead we got a set of assertions and grand statements: ‘there will be major direct gains in an independent Scotland for Scotland’s universities.’

    What we didn’t get was any explanation of how we might achieve these gains.

    Instead all we got was a list of the things we have right now in our higher education institutions as part of the UK.

    I don’t disagree with what the paper says about positive student surveys. As a graduate of a Scottish University with a sixteen year old son currently contemplating his own possible applications to them, I celebrate that.

    I don’t disagree with student mobility initiatives such as Erasmus and Fulbright – I wholeheartedly support them.

    Nor do I challenge the fact that this sector helps to drive the Scottish economy and the importance of maintaining a strong research base to ensure that it keeps on doing just that.

    But the point is, all of these things are happening already; as part of a constitutional setup that delivers to the people of Scotland the best of both worlds.

    All the Scottish Government did in their White Paper was to draw attention to everything that is already good about higher education in Scotland.

    At the same time they failed to examine what we stand to lose by breaking up the UK-wide networks that we have.

    According to the Scottish Government we’ll have a common research area between an independent Scotland and the continuing UK.

    Sounds a lot like what we have right now doesn’t it?

    Except of course for one vital distinction. National Governments fund national research.

    There is no international precedent for sharing or replicating a system on the scale of the current UK funding streams across international borders.

    Independence would mean creating a new separate Scottish state; and at the same time creating a new international border with England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the continuing UK.

    You have to ask yourselves why would a state that we had just chosen to leave, want to carry on sharing institutions, funding, expertise in the same way that we do now because we are part of it?

    Some of them have talked about the ‘international trend’ in research for collaboration between countries.

    Let’s take a look at an example.

    NordForsk is an organisation under the Nordic Council of Ministers that provides funding for Nordic research cooperation, as well as offering advice and input on Nordic research policy.

    So far, so good.

    But the bit the Scottish Government are less quick to highlight is that in 2011 the fund amounted to around £13 million – compared to the £307 million secured by Scottish institutions alone from UK-wide Research Councils in 2012-13.

    We have excellent academic links with countries across the globe – of course we do.

    No-one is suggesting that there would not be collaboration between scientists and researchers in a separate Scotland and their colleagues on the other side of an international border.

    But the reality is simple.

    Divergence in research frameworks could make the flow of funding, people and knowledge harder.

    Domestic collaborations would become international collaborations and would carry larger risks.

    An independent Scottish state might wish to share arrangements and facilities but we do not share our Research Council funding – or have a common research framework, the very life-blood of research and innovation in the UK – with other states.

    Why should we in Scotland expect to be treated differently?

    Common research

    The White Paper states that the Scottish Government would seek to continue the current arrangements for a common research area.

    Much as they seem to seek a common currency area; common border area; common regulations for business.

    I have said elsewhere that while the Scottish Government want people to believe they have a vision, in fact what they proffer is a mirage.

    And like all mirages, the closer you get, the less real it becomes.

    In research – as in so many other areas – there can be no guarantees.

    If we vote in September to create a new separate state, we also vote to leave the United Kingdom.

    Becoming a new state means setting up new institutions. And it means leaving the institutions we have in the UK, like the UK Research Councils.

    The Scottish Government cannot assert that shared arrangements will be secured. This will all be subject to negotiations.

    And as anyone knows who’s ever taken part in negotiations, to get a deal you have to give as well as take.

    On top of this – we know they want to do a deal that sees them keep all the bits they like from being part of the UK, whilst giving up the bits they don’t, at break-neck speed. Something has to give.

    But it would seem that the Nationalists want to rely on goodwill and generosity from the continuing UK.

    They want agreement to share institutions from the UK family that we would have just walked out of.

    A family to which we had decided to stop making our contributions.

    But at the same time there’s no offer of goodwill the other way.

    Take the situation of students from the continuing UK paying fees in an independent Scotland.

    The White Paper states the Scottish Government remains committed to free tuition in Scotland.

    At question 240 they recognise that students from any EU member state have, and I quote ‘the same rights of access to education as home students. This means EU applicants for entry are considered on the same academic basis as home students and pay the same. This will remain the case with independence.’

    And yet the answer to the question will students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland still be charged is a simple ‘yes’.

    Mike Russell has nothing to offer the higher education sector in his vision of independence.

    Assertions

    His White Paper is full of assertions and makes promises he cannot deliver.

    That is precisely why he has chosen to distract attention with a synthetic spat around immigration with accusations of xenophobia.

    It is the oldest trick in the book that when you have nothing of substance to say you seek to create heat as a substitute for light.

    The UK Government has of course taken its own tough decisions on fees in England, and we know well that this is not easy.

    But those decisions – like all decisions in government – must be taken in light of affordability, legality and non-discrimination.

    Devolution has allowed the Scottish Government to make its own funding decisions within a member state. But as part of the EU an independent Scotland would have to abide by the law and not discriminate against another country.

    Let’s just think about this for a second.

    We’ve got a Scottish Government here claiming on the one hand that it could charge students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland…

    …Whilst on the other hand admitting that if an independent Scotland were a member of the EU it would have to offer free tuition to students from every other EU member state.

    What does it say about the good faith that the Scottish Government would go into negotiations with those representing the continuing UK we had just left?

    I can see the script now: “We’d like to share the UK pound with you , and we’d still like to have access to the Bank of England – but as for your young people; they will have to pay fees whilst young people from France, Spain and Italy can get into our universities for free.

    And can we have a common research area too, please?”

    I don’t know about you, but I’m not convinced this is the greatest opening line for a set of negotiations of the sort the Scottish Government envisage with the continuing UK.

    Not to mention the fact that it would be illegal under EU law.

    First we saw a group of academics query the proposal saying it would run into ‘significant problems with EU law’.

    Academics including Professor Hugh Pennington and Professor Peter Holmes.

    We were told that there was legal advice. We’ve heard that before of course.

    And just as with the legal advice the Scottish Government claimed to have on automatic EU membership, when people like the former Director of Universities Scotland, David Caldwell ask to see it, it goes strangely quiet.

    The professor of European Union law at the University of Edinburgh has said that the Scottish Government would face an ‘extremely steep uphill battle’ to convince the EU that charging students from the continuing UK would be legal.

    And Paul Beaumont, Professor of European Union and Private International Law at the University of Aberdeen has said there’s a ‘substantial hole’ in the Scottish Government’s plans for funding higher education in Scotland.

    But it’s not just academics within Scotland who have voiced concerns.

    The spokesman for the European Commissioner for education has confirmed that ‘unequal treatment based on nationality is regarded as discrimination and is prohibited by article 18 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU…’

    The former European Commissioner for Education Jan Fiegel put it even more simply:

    ‘this would be illegal. This would be a breach of the Treaty.’

    So now we have a Scottish Government planning to speed through its accession process for the EU

    …securing all the favourable terms that the UK has built up over years and decades’ worth of negotiation

    …whilst publicly stating that they immediately intend to breach the terms of EU membership which prohibit discrimination between states.

    Again, if this weren’t so serious it would be laughable.

    International stage

    But this is how the Scottish Government would seek to represent Scotland on the international stage – and to think that Mike Russell has the temerity to accuse me of xenophobia.

    A state that chooses to pick and choose from the rule book to suit its own ends.

    That wants to rely on some kind of ‘social union’ and ‘great friendship’ to get good terms from those that it walks out on, but is unwilling to offer any goodwill in return.

    I said at the beginning that higher education and research is an excellent example of how being a part of the UK delivers the best of both worlds.

    A thriving network of universities that are delivering opportunities for all, regardless of social background, to improve life chances and enabling students to go on to contribute to the common good.

    Graduates – doctors, teachers, scientists amongst them – all delivering benefits to society.

    Whilst at the same time we are part of a UK-wide research network supported by a diverse and strong economy.

    A network that provides the funding to allow our doctors and scientists go on to be the very best of their professions, exploring and making new discoveries that benefit us all.

    The best way to ensure that our sector can continue to perform as it does is to reject independence and stay with a system of higher education that draws on the best of both worlds.

    And if you cherish our system of higher education as I do

    …if you are proud of the amount of highly rated research that is being undertaken here as I am

    …and if like me, you believe in investing in our young people so that they can to make the most of what we have on offer…

    You will make the positive choice for Scotland and for higher education, and vote to stay a part of our UK family.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2014 Speech in Brussels

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in Brussels on 20th January 2014.

    The most important political debate of my life-time – indeed of most Scots’ lifetime – is taking place now. In just 8 months Scots will have the opportunity to cast their vote on the future of our country in a referendum on Scottish independence.

    We will take the most fundamental collective decision that a nation can ever be asked to take: Whether we stay part of the United Kingdom family or go it alone. That is Scotland’s choice.

    There are many questions to ask and answers to give on the impact of such a permanent and irreversible step. It is by no means a new debate but it is one that still manages to throw up fresh issues and uncertainties.

    You won’t be surprised to hear that I’m very clear on my view: Scotland is better off within our United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom is better off with Scotland as part of it.

    But this isn’t a decision that will only impact on our day-to-day lives within Scotland and the UK. It’s a decision that will affect our relationships with people and countries around the world.

    Today I am going to set out why that would be and why I believe that it is in all of our interests that it should not happen.

    I want to show how Scotland has flourished and achieved within the United Kingdom and because of the United Kingdom – not in spite of it. I also want to show how Scotland can continue to contribute to and benefit from our United Kingdom family. And why that contribution is important to all of us who live there and to our friends and partners here in Europe and across the globe.

    Setting the scene

    But first, let me recap on how we got here. The Scottish National Party’s outright win in the May 2011 election to the devolved Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh meant that Scotland had its first single-party majority devolved government since the Parliament was established in 1999.

    The SNP entered that election campaign with a manifesto pledge to hold an independence referendum and succeeded in electing more than enough Members of the Scottish Parliament to set the legislative agenda.

    What it did not have, however, was the legal power to hold that referendum. In the settlement which established the Scottish Parliament in 1999, the responsibility and power over all aspects of the constitution was retained by the UK Parliament at Westminster.

    Whatever the legalities of the situation the politics was quite clear so the UK government took steps to ensure that rather than just talking about a referendum, there could actually be one.

    For the Scottish Parliament to have acted alone would have been to act outside the law. And as every government knows: the rule of law is a fundamental first principle of government. You abandon it at your peril.

    So Scotland’s two governments agreed a framework for a legal, fair and decisive referendum in Scotland. A framework that ensured the decision on Scotland’s future could be taken by people in Scotland. Reaching an agreement on the process was a big moment in 2012.

    But now we are in an even more vital phase of this debate – discussing the substance, not just the process. What choice should Scots make?

    I do not believe in Scotland remaining part of the UK because of dogma, ideology or nostalgia, but because of what the UK means in the here and now and what it can deliver in the future.

    For too long successive Governments have allowed to go unspoken the contribution that Scotland makes to the UK – and we’ve been equally silent on the benefits that Scotland gets from being part of it.

    We all put something in and we all get something out: the UK – like the European Union – is greater than the sum of its parts.

    2013 was the year when the UK started putting the record straight.

    EU in the context of the debate:

    We embarked on an analysis programme examining the facts, reviewing the evidence and making the case for Scotland as part of the UK in a series of detailed papers.

    Last Friday we published the ninth paper in this series – our first in 2014. This examined the benefits for Scotland of being part of the UK in the EU and on the international stage.

    These issues are not esoteric. They matter for very practical reasons.

    Ours is an age where people derive real benefit from increased cooperation and being part of a global society. Where the logical direction of travel is to break down barriers and work together rather than to erect them and create difference. Scots, like all Europeans, gain from our status as European citizens.

    Membership creates employment, growth and prosperity across the UK thanks to the EU-wide single market. 1 in every 10 jobs in the UK is linked to the EU single market and nearly half of British trade, worth around £500 billion, is with other EU member states. 40% of cars and other vehicles built in the UK are sold in the EU. And 86% of British meat exports go to the EU

    Being part of the EU also helps to open up new markets for UK businesses around the world. The EU has trade agreements with over 50 countries including emerging countries such as Turkey, South Korea, Mexico and South Africa.

    And the EU is currently in negotiations for a free trade agreement with the US which is worth a potential £10 billion to the UK economy.

    Economic benefits

    These economic benefits cannot be underplayed. But all of us here today know that the EU offers our citizens more than an economic union.

    EU cooperation is crucial for tackling cross-border security threats to the UK such as terrorism, drug smuggling and money laundering. The European Arrest Warrant is a crucial mechanism for combating cross-border crime.

    Since 2009 it has been used in the UK to extradite over 4000 criminal suspects.

    The EU also plays a crucial role in tackling climate change, increasing energy security and creating the low carbon economy we need for our future. A united ‘Team EU’ approach was critical in establishing the Kyoto Protocol and the Durban agreement.

    And of course being part of the EU increases our individual opportunities: 2.2 million Britons live in other EU countries, working, studying or enjoying retirement.

    More than half of all UK nationals have a European Health Insurance Card which allows us to receive free or reduced cost healthcare when visiting another member state, benefiting the 24 million of us who holiday in EU countries each year.

    Of course, both the EU and the UK have been built over time and on the basis of shared interests and outlook.

    The UK family sits within the European family and each has its own set of values and institutions that have put down roots. Most British citizens feel pride in the National Health Service that we built together. In the BBC whose reputation for broadcasting excellence is understood at home and overseas.

    And in the sporting success we have enjoyed not least in the 2012 London Olympics where athletes from every part of the UK trained together, competed together and won together.

    As European citizens we can all take pride in an unprecedented Common Market that creates jobs and has made untold millions of goods accessible to our citizens.

    As a lawyer who is passionate about human rights I cherish a European justice system that protects civil liberties and has exalted human rights through the ECHR.

    And a set of institutions that has brought democratic accountability across a continent in a way that would have been unimaginable just a few short decades ago.

    Benefits of UK terms of membership

    But as part the UK Scots benefit still further from being one of the largest member states in the EU. We are able to use our UK influence to deliver on subjects that are of direct interest and importance to people and businesses in Scotland.

    We have secured ‘Hague Preferences’ allowing Scottish fishermen to benefit from higher quota shares. In the face of fierce opposition we secured protection for Scottish salmon from unfair trade from imported Norwegian salmon.

    And in negotiations on the EU’s Third Energy Package we secured a special provision for energy companies based in Scotland to enable them to comply with European legislation without needing to sell off parts of their business.

    We also benefitted from the flexibility that the European family has shown to our specific asks and needs. The United Kingdom was able to negotiate a permanent exemption from the euro.

    We have also maintained our own common travel arrangements with an opt-out from Schengen. And then of course there’s the UK’s budget rebate. As one of the largest net contributors to the EU budget, the UK has negotiated a refund on a proportion of its contributions.

    All three are at risk for Scotland if we leave the UK.

    An independent Scottish state would have no share of the UK’s rebate from the EU, nor be likely to secure an abatement of its own.

    The analysis we published last Friday shows that without its own budgetary correction even under the most optimistic scenarios Scotland’s net contribution would be at least 2.2 billion Euros higher during the current budgetary period than it would have been as part of the UK. That’s an extra 840 Euros per household in Scotland.

    Scotland gets to share in these benefits with people across the UK because we are part of the United Kingdom. If we choose to become a new separate state, we choose to leave the United Kingdom.

    And in doing so we would need to become a member of the EU in our own right.

    Law not politics

    That is not a question of politics – that is a question of law. We set out the clear, legal position in the first of our analysis papers.

    The EU is a treaty-based organisation and the UK – not Scotland – is the contracting party to the Treaties of the EU.

    In the event of independence, the remainder of the UK – England, Wales and Northern Ireland – would be the same state as the existing UK, with the same international rights and obligations.

    Its EU membership would continue on existing terms. The Scottish Government used to deny this of course.

    They used to assert that an independent Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU. And they used to say they had legal advice to back them up.

    But eventually – the truth was forced out of them (only after spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money I might add) There was no legal advice. There is no automatic entry.

    The Scottish Government now grudgingly accept that negotiations would be required for EU membership. But I’m afraid they still fail to tell Scots the reality about that process.

    Rather than applying in the same way that every other new member has under Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union – seeking the unanimous support of the European Council; having membership approved through an Accession Treaty; and having the application ratified with the constitutional requirement of each existing member State – we are told by the Scottish Government in their White Paper that Scotland could become a new member of the EU by the ‘back door’.

    The so-called “Article 48 route” is held up by the Scottish Government as the super highway to EU membership. The fast track not only into the EU but also exactly the same rights and responsibilities that we currently enjoy as part of the UK. But in reality this is a dead-end.

    Article 48 has never been used to expand membership of the EU. There is no way round the law.

    A new state must apply, it would be no different for an independent Scotland.

    This is not to say a new Scottish state could not or would not become an EU Member State. But before the Scottish Government start excitedly quoting me on that, let me remind them that membership – and critically, the terms of membership – would have to be negotiated with 28 Member States.

    This isn’t just our view. It’s the view of the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission.

    It’s a view expressed by some of those Member States that an independent Scotland would have to negotiate with including the Spanish Prime Minister.

    And it’s the view of expert lawyers like Jean-Claude Piris, the former director general of the EU Council’s legal service who has said “it would not be legally correct to try to use article 48”. The Scottish Government ‘vision’ of independent Scotland in EU is a mirage

    But it’s not just the question of process that’s at stake here. It’s the substance too.

    And here we’ve seen yet more rocking from front-foot to back from the Nationalists when it comes to the heart of this debate.

    Earlier in Alex Salmond’s leadership, Independence in Europe was the slogan for the Scottish National Party. And there was bullish rhetoric about a separate Scottish state, in Europe, punching above its weight.

    On fishing for example – a subject of the greatest importance to my own constituents in Orkney and Shetland – the Nationalists used to assert that a better deal would come the way of a separate Scotland.

    But now that the words require substance, the picture that Nationalists paint is not clear but blurred and patchy.

    I have said elsewhere that while the Scottish Government want people to believe that they have a vision, in fact what they proffer is a mirage. Like all mirages, the closer you get, the less real it becomes.

    Nowhere is this more true than on their position on EU membership. Their recent White Paper on independence demonstrates this perfectly.

    There is a cursory mention of the implications of independence for Scotland’s fishing industry.

    There is no mention of how an independent Scotland would avoid the recent cut to structural funds that has been shared throughout the UK. And despite their robotic assertions there is no explanation of how Scottish farmers could expect to do better under independence.

    Uncertainty

    In applying for separate membership, as a new state, there would of course be considerable uncertainty. This of course explains the curious mix of assertion and omission that stake out the SNP’s position.

    But let’s just think this through.

    Why would all 28 member states agree to reopen the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy to suit a new member with a small population and specific demands?

    Why would they agree to revise the structural funds formula so that their money is redirected to Scotland to compensate for the loss that comes with leaving the UK?

    And why would other member states that have had to phase in Common Agricultural Policy receipts over 10 years agree to an independent Scotland automatically receiving payments from day one?

    Not just that – but according to the Scottish Government – reopening the CAP deal and agreeing to give Scottish farmers increased payments too.

    That would mean newly joined countries like Croatia accepting to a deal that was never offered to them or their farmers.

    And on the Scottish Government’s timetable this would require all 28 Member States to rip up the hard-fought EU budget ceilings agreed to 2020 and reduce their share of the budget in order to give Scotland more money.

    Now that’s all before we even get to why those member states that have been required to join the euro and Schengen as a condition of membership – or that would like a rebate but have none – would now make special provision so that Scotland could have what they could not?

    All of these things that the Nationalists say they would want for Scotland in the EU: The exemption from the euro and Schengen, the retention of the rebate – reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

    All of which as part of the UK, Scotland already has today, or is better placed to achieve them in the future.

    Leaving the UK means leaving the EU, then trying to fight your way back in seeking the same terms from a weaker position. This runs against Scotland’s interests.

    And we can’t afford to forget that the Scottish Government are seeking to rush all of this through in a flash. They have made clear that, in the event of a yes vote this September, they would declare independence in March 2016 – just eighteen months later.

    But they have also said that they intend to settle the terms of EU membership – and gain unanimous agreement from all 28 member states – in that timeframe.

    This would be a negotiation of record-breaking speed to obtain extraordinary terms.

    Little wonder that experts like Professor Adam Tomkins – Chair of Public Law at Glasgow University and David Crawley – a former representative of the Scottish Government in Brussels – have said that such a timetable is simply not realistic.

    Of course, in any negotiation, the more you give up, the more likely you are to reach a speedy conclusion. Equally the more emphasis you put on a deadline, the less leverage you have over the deal.

    European leaders will be aware of this; Alex Salmond should be too.

    The eighteen month timetable he proposes to place both on himself and the rest of the EU is a negotiating position of extraordinary weakness.

    One man’s obsession to deliver independence not just to a specific timetable, but to a specific day of the week…would not just undermine Alex Salmond’s hand in negotiations, but Scotland’s future in Europe.

    Instead of showing he has Scotland’s interests at heart, this obsession with a date rather than the deal reveals just how much of a vanity project this really is.

    Of course the reality is that the terms of membership could not be known until such a time as they were agreed.

    But the Scottish Government is morally bound to set out in detail what terms of membership they would seek and we are all entitled to assess just how likely this is to happen.

    That clarity of terms is being denied by a party whose head is buried in the sand – and that hopes that other European leaders’ are likewise. The terms that they seek are by turns unclear and unrealistic.

    The process they propose is flawed in legal terms and destined to fail in the cold hard light of political reality.

    Tactics

    Let no-one think that the Scottish Government has a vision for its membership of Europe. As in all areas it has tactics.

    Not tactics to secure a good deal for Scotland. Just tactics to minimize the risks and uncertainties of independence in the eyes of Scots. Not just about the EU – Scotland’s place in the world is stronger as part of the UK

    I’ve focused my remarks on Europe – but we all need to remember that this is not just a question of EU membership. The UK is at the heart of all the world’s most influential organisations.

    We use our diplomatic global network to help others and to represent Scotland worldwide, promoting the interests of businesses based in Scotland and looking after Scots who get into difficulty overseas.

    The Scottish Government claims that Scotland holds international priorities and values that are distinct from the rest of the UK – this is simply not true.

    The UK has played a leading role in strengthening the rule of law, supporting democracy and protecting human rights around the world.

    Scotland – as part of the UK – was one of the founding members of the United Nations. We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council helping to take decisions on major foreign policy and defence issues.

    Together, we can make a bigger impact on global poverty. Pooling our resources, we have grown our aid budget and become the second largest donor nation in the world today.

    Put simply – as a United Kingdom, in Europe – we achieve more now, and will continue to do so in the future, if we stay together.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2014 Speech on Scottish Independence

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish Secretary, at Stirling University on 13th January 2014.

    It is a real pleasure to be with you all here in Stirling University today to talk about Scotland’s future.

    On 18th September this year we will take the most fundamental collective decision that a nation can ever be asked to take. This is a once in a generation decision:

    We have just over eight months to decide whether we stay in the United Kingdom family or go it alone. Eight months to choose between remaining part of this four-nation partnership that we have built together or to break away and to start from scratch. That is our choice.

    That time will fly by – but I’m determined to the make the most of every minute. Why?

    Quite simply because I believe in Scotland within the United Kingdom.

    I believe in the contribution we’ve made over the last 300 years along with our friends and families across England, Wales and Northern Ireland: our common effort to create and share something bigger and that serves us all well.

    I believe in the benefits we get from being part of this larger shared community.

    I believe this because I can see the evidence around me – at home in Orkney, here in Stirling, in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle, right throughout the United Kingdom.

    Greater than the sum of its parts

    We all put something in and we are all getting something out: the UK is greater than the sum of its parts.

    Right now Scotland sees the benefit of this long shared history. Right now, we get the benefits from natural resources like North Sea oil – but we are able to manage the volatility in production and price as part of a much larger and diverse economy made up of 60 million individuals rather than just five.

    Our economy comprises four and a half million companies rather than 320,000 – a market with no boundaries, no borders, no customs – but with a stable UK currency that is respected and envied across the world; a single financial system, and a single body of rules and regulations.

    Because we share in these benefits, Scotland is best placed to succeed. We are the wealthiest area of the UK outside London and South East, and we have achieved that as part of the UK. And right now, all of this supports jobs here in Scotland.

    Jobs in industries as diverse as oil and gas, defence, food and drink and the new and emerging creative industries of the future.

    Let us not forget we get more back than we put in. Public spending in Scotland is currently 10% higher than the UK average.

    Yes, there are national differences across the UK – we are not a monolithic culture, thank goodness. That’s true of our economy and our society.

    One of things of which I am most proud in the UK is that we’re able to absorb, to protect and to cherish differences: differences of culture, religion, accent, origin and much, much more.

    But let no-one underestimate what we share together and how that helps us succeed together.

    Of course, our commitment to the UK family is not just about the facts and figures. It’s also about the values and ambitions we share.

    The hands that built the United Kingdom have created things of enormous value. They strike a chord of pride within us and remind us all of what we can achieve together.

    Institutions

    Together, we built a National Health Service.

    When William Beveridge identified the five “Giant Evils” facing post-war Britain – squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease – these evils blighted every nation of our United Kingdom.

    And when the UK Parliament established the NHS, it did so to fight those evils within the entirety of our borders. We faced the same problems, we felt the same outrage and we together we found the same solution.

    Today, people across the UK family take enormous pride in a National Health Service, providing comprehensive health services, free at the point of use for all UK citizens wherever they fall ill within our United Kingdom.

    Together, we built the BBC – three letters that stand for excellence in broadcasting at home and around the world.

    They invoke quality, depth and impartiality. It is the product of our shared wish for a national broadcaster that can educate, entertain and inform.

    It is funded by a flat licence fee that guarantees access to programming that is both UK wide and nation and region specific. It serves local communities with a local presence in places like my own communities in Orkney and Shetland. It provides national reporting and entertainment across the nation. Around the world people look to the world service as a source of truth and impartiality.

    It is unrivalled, unparalleled, and irreplaceable.

    Together, we have built a formidable sporting culture too. In so many sports, the nations of our UK family have different traditions, different strengths and different teams.

    But while we maintain a strong pride in our teams for football, rugby and so much more we also maintain an enormous pride in the sporting clout that we represent together.

    Whether that’s the British Lions, or next month’s Winter Olympics, or of course, our astonishing achievements in the London 2012 Olympic Games.

    At those Games, the UK won 29 gold medals. And over the Games, as the tally went higher, so did our collective sense of national pride.

    Chris Hoy, Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray, Mo Farah, Katherine Granger. Those outstanding athletes weren’t cheered on by parts of the UK, but by all of us.

    They were our representatives. They worked together, they competed together – many had trained together at facilities across the UK. Their success fed our pride.

    The NHS, the BBC, our sporting events, teams and heroes. These are just a few of the things that bind together our family in pride and endeavour.

    Shared values

    Shared values, shared effort, shared achievements. Why should we now break these things up? As separate states must.

    When we have achieved so much through our common values and labour, wouldn’t we go on to achieve so much more?

    The challenges we face today may be different but they are every bit as demanding as those we faced in the past.

    Together, we can afford the subsidies that will bring about a renewables revolution in this country. Cutting carbon emissions, tackling climate change, strengthening the green economy. Together, we can make a bigger impact on global poverty.

    Pooling our resources, we have grown our aid budget and become the second largest donor nation in the world today. Together, we can rebalance our economy and become more prosperous.

    Growing faster than any other G7 country, becoming the largest EU economy within perhaps just twenty years, providing the financial security that safeguards our banks and secures our currency.

    The motivation to prevent climate change, to protect the most vulnerable and to build a strong prosperous and sustainable economy. These values are common across the United Kingdom.

    And by staying together, we can build on those values to create a strong and secure future. Why should we now break these things up?

    2013 – the year of evidence

    I don’t believe in the UK family because of dogma, ideology or nostalgia but because of what the UK means to us in the here and now and what it can deliver for us all in the future.

    For too long we have allowed to go unspoken the contribution that Scotland makes to the UK – and we have been equally silent on the benefits that we get from being part of it.

    2013 was the year when the UK Government started putting the record straight.

    We embarked on an analysis programme examining the facts, reviewing the evidence and making the case for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom in a series of detailed papers.

    Soon we will publish our first paper of the new year. It will examine the benefits for Scotland of being part of the UK in the EU and on the international stage.

    The UK is at the heart of all of the world’s most influential organisations. As part of the UK we are one of the founding members of the United Nations and have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council – helping to take decisions on major foreign policy and defence issues.

    As part of the UK we can use our influence to help others – whether to give our home-grown businesses access to new export markets through our highly-developed embassy network; or providing support and assistance to other countries in times of crisis.

    Our paper will set out the facts about Scotland’s contribution and the benefits we get from being part of this world-leading partnership. We’re talking about a complex, detailed piece of analytical work.

    That’s because what we have in the UK is a product of years, of decades worth of cooperation and negotiation – both within the UK and with our neighbours.

    Academics, businesses and legal experts here in Scotland have read – and contributed to – the papers we’ve published to date.

    Facts and evidence

    They support the facts and the evidence we have presented.

    You’ll find no grandiose flights of fancy here – only the very facts of our United Kingdom:

    – our banks are safer

    – we have greater financial protection for savers and pensioners

    – greater levels of competition delivering cheaper mortgages and insurance for families and businesses

    – we invest in research, infrastructure and industry to remain at the forefront of new technological developments

    – we have a single labour market which allows people to move freely within the UK for jobs

    – we use our international influence to make a positive difference

    The list can – and does – go on.

    Together these facts to make a positive case for Scotland in the United Kingdom. And throughout the remainder of this year we’re going to keep making that case.

    But you don’t just have to accept the facts we’ve published, just take a look at some of the other contributions we’ve had so recently in this debate:

    We have heard the supermarkets talk about the benefit of being part of a single large economy where food and drink costs us, the consumers, the same regardless of the costs of production and distribution.

    We’ve heard the CBI – the organisation that speaks on behalf of business – say that the nations of the UK are stronger together and that Scotland’s business and economic interests will be best served by remaining part of the UK family

    We’ve seen the body that represents accountants in Scotland continue to ask questions about the Scottish Government’s proposals for pensions – questions that remain after the White Paper’s publication

    And we’ve heard legal experts describe independence as ‘a road to nowhere’

    It’s no surprise that the Scottish Government argue against all the evidence and the facts that we’ve presented – but their eagerness to shout down the experts from the worlds of business, academia and the law is worrying and regrettable. Other side of the argument – not being honest

    I don’t argue with the right of those on the other side of this debate to feel the way they do about the future of our country.

    But I do feel very strongly that those who want to break up our United Kingdom have a duty to listen to the experts and to make an evidence-based case of their own.

    It is not good enough to adopt the politics of ‘he who shouts loudest’. It’s not good enough to say, when challenged, “just because I say so”.

    For most of 2013 the Scottish Government told us in response to almost every question put to them: ‘wait for the White paper’; ‘the answer will be in the White paper’. But what we got in November was heavy on rhetoric and light on answers. It was a wish list without a price list.

    Promises

    On the one hand we got a set of promises that the Scottish Government can’t deliver.

    No matter what they say, it is not for the Scottish Government to dictate what deal a separate Scotland could negotiate with the rest of the UK.

    As Scots we all have to ask ourselves if we choose to leave the UK, why would those we’ve walked out on want to continue to share the things we have at the moment precisely because we part of the UK?

    If we stop contributing to the UK, why would we keep getting the benefits from being part of it?

    And that’s before we even start to think about the negotiations that would be required with all 28 EU member states, bilateral relations with countries around the world and international organisations.

    Yet on the other hand we saw the Scottish Government promising things post-independence that they could be delivering today.

    The Scottish Government chose to put the spotlight on childcare in their White Paper – something that it is within their power to do right now.

    Last week they finally acknowledged the folly of this approach and came forward with proposals to start the catch-up with childcare provision in the rest of the United Kingdom. In so doing they made the case for what we have – not for what they want.

    The Nationalists like to assert that they have a vision for an independent Scotland and that their White Paper is its articulation.It is not. This is not a vision; it is a mirage.

    Like all mirages, the closer you get the less real it becomes.There is no coherence whatsoever in this nationalist document – or any other – about the kind of country Scotland would be if we were to leave the UK family.

    This is not surprising. The Scottish Government has long been skittish and evasive about the model for an independent Scotland.

    They proffer whatever fits for any given audience at any given time. Then switch it for something else when the moment suits.

    Back in 2007 we were told that Scotland would be the free market Celtic Lion. Roaring to the sound of banking deregulation, and echoing across the arc of prosperity to Iceland and Ireland.

    By 2011 the tune had changed. Now we would be a Scandinavian-style social democracy. With social services and public spending priorities that looked east, not west.

    The White Paper couldn’t decide which way to jump.

    A promise to cut some taxes, and freeze others, clumsily grafted on to expensive commitments on nationalisation, public spending and a lower retirement age. All based on a single, solitary page of numbers and the wilful omission of data from 2008 – the inconvenient year of the financial crash.

    In every sense, it simply does not add up. Even in the best of times, no-one can have a low-tax economy paying for Scandinavian levels of social provision. If they could, Scandinavia – and others – would have done it.

    Lack of vision

    To say that they will do so with the backdrop of an ageing population and reduced oil and gas revenues, only adds insult to injury. There is no vision, just 670 pages of words.

    All things to all people, big on rhetoric, low on facts, it offers no true picture of what kind of country Scotland would really become.

    What currency would we use? What terms of EU membership could we hope to achieve? How much would independence cost and just how would it be paid for?

    It is for the Scottish Government to present a full, true and costed vision of what independence would mean. If they refuse to do that, what are people being asked to vote for?

    Positive case

    In 2014 my job – and the job of all those who believe in the United Kingdom – is to make the strong positive case for the UK and to make it loudly and proudly.

    We can do that confidently, because our case is supported by the experts. The substance of the argument is on our side and it has gone without meaningful challenge by our opponents.

    Now our job is to make sure that every voter is aware of these facts before they enter the polling station.

    Because ultimately this isn’t a debate that will rest on the production of papers by Governments, however learned and substantial they may be.

    This is a debate that must take place in the pub and in the bank – at the school gates and on the factory floor – our universities and in our supermarkets. This must be a debate in which we are all involved.

    We cannot leave this to someone else and hope they get it right for us. We must not let anyone tell us what we can and cannot think or say.

    In this debate, everyone’s voice matters. We all get one vote.

    The future of our country really is in our hands and we must take it, grasp it and decide for ourselves.

    So my hope for 2014 is this: in September I hope that all of us who can vote, do vote.

    And I am confident that people right across Scotland will make the positive choice and vote no. The positive choice to stay part of the United Kingdom family. The positive for a bright Scottish future as part of the United Kingdom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – their problems are multiple

    – their problems layer one on top of the other

    – and their problems are intergenerational

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

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

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

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

    – those parents in violent relationships

    – and the children going on to have behavioural problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Good workers are both kind and tough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I’m quoting again from Carly’s worker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – the transmission of violence from one generation to the next

    – the effects on children as they grow up

    – and violence becoming the normal way of life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Lynne Featherstone – 2014 Speech on Clean Energy

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

    Thank you all for coming today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Working together is critical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you.

  • Lynne Featherstone – 2014 Speech on South Sudan

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

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

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

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

    How far we are from that sense of hope today…

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

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

    These dire circumstances cannot – must not – continue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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