Tag: Gordon Brown

  • Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations

    Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in New York on 17 December 2004.

    I would like to start by saying how delighted I am to be here.

    To be introduced by Robert Rubin – held in respect and admired in every continent for your outstanding leadership during and since your successful time of office as Treasury Secretary.

    And to be invited here to make our case at the Council on Foreign Relations about the forthcoming British G8 presidency is both humbling and challenging.

    For this is the forum – set up to help rebuild the international order after world war one, central to the 1944 and 1945 conferences for building that order after world war two – where out of the seeding of new ideas, the discussion of international events, so much that has been so good for the world has been initiated.

    And at the heart of the internationalism advanced by the Council, just as it is at the heart of the close and historic links between our two countries, the UK and the US – are our shared values:

    • our shared passion for liberty and democracy;
    • our fundamental beliefs: in opportunity for all, the work ethic and enterprise;
    • and our commitment to being open, outward looking and engaged with the world – not least our shared convictions that economic expansion through trade and free markets is the key to growth and prosperity.

    And let me start by acknowledging the debt the world owes to the United States for your leadership not just in the world economy but in the fight against international terrorism. And coming to New York three years after September 11th I am once again deeply impressed by the resilience and bravery in the face of tragedy. Indeed, America has shown by the actions of all its people that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructible; while lives have been put at risk, the cause of liberty never dies; and while hearts may be broken, your faith in the future is unbreakable.

    And in Iraq, Afghanistan and round the world I can assure you that Tony Blair and I are determined that this alliance endures, prospers and advances from strength to strength.

    And when the transatlantic economic relationship between Europe and America now accounts for up to $2.5 trillions of commercial transactions each year, including $500 billions of foreign trade, and provides employment to over 12 million people on both sides of the Atlantic, we must do more to break down the tariff and non tariff, regulatory, competition and financial services barriers to greater trade and investment between our two continents. And I repeat my proposal – more relevant than ever – a proposal born out of my experience as a Finance Minister – that European countries like Britain and the US and the NAFTA countries should meet in a regular economic forum to examine shared economic challenges.

    But this morning I want to discuss with you how as the US Presidency of the G7 of 2004 evolves into the British Presidency of 2005 we can work together to fashion a global alliance for peace and prosperity that starts from the shared needs, common interests and linked destinies of developed and developing worlds working together.

    And I have a quite specific set of proposals: that as poor countries reform and agree to continue reform, the richest countries must ensure that all countries in desperate need of sustainable debt relief receive it; that we complete as a matter of urgency the first trade round the world has ever seen that sets out to rebalance the trading system to take account of the interests of the developing world; and most of all that we consider an innovative proposal to tackle HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, to give every child the chance of primary education and to double aid to halve poverty.

    Let me put my proposals in context:

    Just before the Iron Curtain descended over Europe in the late 1940s Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt came forward with bold proposals for a strengthened Atlantic Alliance and looked ahead to a new era and – in their day and for their times — built a new world order.

    In that remarkable decade, visionaries here in America and round the world created:

    • the United Nations;
    • the World Bank and International Monetary Fund;
    • and then in a remarkable act of generosity – through the Marshall Plan – America transferred 1 per cent of national income to the war ravaged economies of Europe, recognising that prosperity like peace was indivisible; that prosperity to be sustained had to be shared.

    And that vision led to not only a new military and political settlement but a call for a new economic and social order that tackled, in their words, ‘hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos’.

    Like these visionaries of the post war era, we are today dealing with military, security and strategic challenges in a number of critical countries to which we must respond at a security and military level comprehensively with clear and defiant resolution but as Marshall did, also at an economic, social and cultural level.

    Like our predecessors we are seeing the need for an offer to the least developed countries – the most recent being the Monterrey consensus and in the USA the Millennium Challenge Account – what Marshall argued for: ‘to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist’ – and that such an offer can only succeed if it goes beyond compensation for poverty to dealing with its underlying causes, beyond temporary relief to wholesale economic development.

    And like them we see that any future global economic and social order must be grounded in responsibilities as well as rights. So like theirs our proposals also call on the poorest countries to rise to the challenge. And thus our vision of the way forward – akin to the 1940s challenge to rich and poor countries alike – is that only by each meeting their obligations for change all can benefit.

    And we recognize the differences.

    We understand that when what happens to the poorest citizen in the poorest country can directly affect the richest citizen in the richest country, the security threat we face is not an Iron Curtain which separates East from West but a blanket of fear – permanent, guerrilla war fought not by conventional armies or nation states but by cliques and factions of whose suicide bombers it is often said they cannot easily be deterred, they need succeed only once and they do not have to win in order for us to lose. I am more confident that by military and security measures and also by the far sightedness of our economic and social vision we can separate those extremists from the peoples they seek to exploit.

    But we also recognize that while the Marshall Plan was constructed in a post-war world of distinct national economies in need of rebuilding, our job now, in a more interdependent world – the world of globalisation – is to help build for a wholly different environment of open not sheltered economies, international not national capital markets, and global not local competition —– and to do so in a way that recognizes that the foundations of prosperity – the rule of law, transparency and accountability – need to be built by support in aid not as compensation for poverty but as investment in the building on modern economies.

    The answer is not to imply you have to choose between engaging in the global economy and addressing poverty, as if men and women of compassion should reject globalisation.  The answer is to advance globalisation and justice together with new policies for a new era of engagement.

    Now exactly five years ago in New York and in a historic declaration every world leader, every international body, almost every single country signed up to a shared commitment to right the greatest wrongs of our time.

    The promise that by 2015 every child would be at school – the right to education so everyone can help themselves.

    The promise that by 2015 avoidable infant deaths would be prevented – the right to a healthy life so all have the opportunity to make the most of their abilities.

    The promise that by 2015 poverty would be halved – the right to prosper so each and every individual can fulfil their potential.

    But already, so close to the start of our journey, we can see that our destination risks becoming out of reach, receding into the distance.

    At best on present progress in Sub Saharan Africa:

    Primary education for all will be delivered not in 2015 but 2130 – that is 115 years too late

    The halving of poverty not by 2015 but 2150 – that is 135 years too late

    And elimination of avoidable infant deaths not by 2015 but by 2165 – that is 150 years too late

    The world will not wait 150 years for promises made to be honoured.

    Recall the past promises:

    • the promise in 1970 that all developed countries would set aside 0.7 per cent of their national income for development aid;
    • the promise of primary education for all made in 1980 in Jomtien (Thailand) and re-affirmed in 2000 in Dakar (Senegal);
    • the promises at the World Summit for social development in 1995 on eliminating poverty;

    promises which all have one thing in common – they have all been broken.

    Martin Luther King spoke of the American constitution as a promissory note.

    And yet – for black Americans – the promise of equality for all had not been redeemed.

    He said that the cheque offering justice had been returned with ‘insufficient funds’ written on it.

    And in this way he exposed on racial equality the gap between promises and reality.

    And so too the Millennium Development Goals – a commitment backed by a timetable – are now being downgraded from a pledge to just a possibility to just words.

    Yet another promissory note, yet another cheque returned marked ‘insufficient funds’

    Now since 2000 some progress has been made.

    $70 billion of unpayable debt is being written off.

    At the 2002 Monterrey Financing for Development conference, donor countries pledged an additional $16 billion a year for development aid from 2006.

    Under President Bush’s leadership the United States have promised $5 billion a year by 2006 through its Millennium Challenge Fund – increasing US foreign aid by 50 per cent – and $500 million to promote HIV/AIDS prevention and provide antiretroviral therapy — in total more than tripling US investment globally in tackling HIV/AIDS since 2001.

    And five countries including the UK have this year committed to a timetable for raising development aid to the UN target of 0.7 per cent of national income.

    In addition, in the past decade in developing countries, primary school enrolments have increased at twice the rate of the 1980s.

    The proportion of those aged over 15 who can read has risen from 67 per cent to 74 per cent.

    Life expectancy has increased by from 53 years to 59 years.

    And the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen by 10 per cent.

    But at the same time we face the challenge of a continent – Africa – where 30 countries still have an average life expectancy of less than 50.  Where 25 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS. Where in 24 countries one in every ten of children die before the age of one and the everyday story is of mothers struggling to save the life of their infant child and in doing so losing their own.  Where millions of children die unnecessarily each year.

    We cannot anymore blame these failures on a lack of science, medicine or knowledge. And we cannot blame our inaction on ideological division, that we have been frozen into action by a failure to agree. I cannot think of a time when there has been so much basic agreement between developed and developing counties on the role of markets and public investment; on the importance of trade, private investment and transparency in monetary and fiscal regimes — what you might call a new consensus.  Instead, what we need is greater political will.

    And the UK’s plan is this.  We need to make an offer as bold as the offer that was made in the Marshall Plan of the 1940s.  An offer that as developing countries pursue corruption-free policies for stability, implement their own poverty reduction plans and take forward the policies necessary to expand development, attract private investment, encourage entrepreneurship and reform trade at their own pace, the richest countries should offer:

    • to make a reality of our pledge to wipe out 100 per cent of debt that is unpayable;
    • to dismantle our trade barriers and finance, for the poorest countries, the building of capacity to trade and attract investment so they can take advantage of opportunities in our markets;
    • and to offer – in what Robert Rubin calls a ‘parallel agenda’ – the resources that are urgently needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals – an extra $50 billion a year.

    It is an offer made for security, economic and moral reasons.

    It is an offer that requires accountability and transparency from the poorest countries to justify development aid.

    It is an offer however whose generosity – an act of statesmanship – would illuminate the values we are defending and show the world that we, the richest countries are ready to march forward with the poorest countries under the banner of liberty, democracy and opportunity for all.

    And out of this I believe we could achieve not only a major assault on poverty in the poorest countries but pave the way, as the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods institutions did, for greater trade and higher and longer-term world economic growth benefiting us all.

    Let me outline the scale and significance of our proposals.

    Let us in 2005 make a historic offer that finally removes the burden of decades old debts that today prevent the poorest countries ever escaping poverty and leading their own economic development.

    In 1997 just one country was going to receive debt relief.

    Now 27 countries are benefiting with $70 billion of unpayable debt being written off.

    And it is because of debt relief in Uganda that 4 million more children now go to primary school.

    Because of debt relief in Tanzania that 31,000 new classrooms have been built, 18,000 new teachers recruited and the goal of primary education for all will be achieved by the end of 2005.

    Because of debt relief in Mozambique that half a million children are now being vaccinated against tetanus, whopping cough and diphtheria.
    And all achievements made without undermining creditor confidence.

    But when many developing countries are still choosing between servicing their debts and making the investments in health, education and infrastructure that would allow them to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, we have to recognise that while 100 per cent bilateral debt relief has wiped out half the debts of most poor countries, the process can only be completed – as US Treasury Secretary John Snow has suggested – with a bold act of offering 100 per cent multilateral debt relief, relief from the $80 billion of debt owed to the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank, up to 80 per cent of the historic debt of some of the poorest countries.

    And instead of running down the resources the international financial institutions have available for development, I suggest that IMF debt write-off be financed by using IMF gold and that donor countries make a unique declaration that they will, on this occasion, repatriate their share of World Bank and African Development Bank debts owed by eligible developing countries. And to lead the process we the UK are prepared to assume responsibility for 10 per cent of all debts owed to the World Bank and the African Development Bank.

    But debt merely deals with the burdens of the past. It is not enough to break the vicious circle of debt, poverty and under-development, we must also build a virtuous circle of private investment, open trade and economic development.

    Less than 5 per cent of total flows of foreign direct investment go to the least developed countries – and only 1 per cent to the whole of Africa. Domestically generated savings and investment barely match foreign capital inflows – and the savings that do exist often leave the country in capital flight.  That is why country-owned poverty reduction strategies are rightly focusing on creating the right domestic conditions for private investment and commerce with the IMF, World Bank and nations like ours providing direct support to help create a stable economic environment, an educated and healthy workforce, improved infrastructure, encouragement for entrepreneurship, well functioning capital markets and sound legal processes that strengthen property rights and deter corruption.   We know now that who holds the raw materials is less important than who has the skills.  As President Bush has said:  ‘Africa is a continent that has got vast potential, and the United States wants to help the people of Africa realise that potential’.

    All of us here know that no country has moved from poverty to prosperity by cutting itself off from the international economy and without increasing its investment and trade.  We also know that reducing tariffs and achieving the ambitious pro-poor trade agreement promised at Doha could boost the world’s yearly income by over $500 billion.  And while developing countries could gain the most, all countries and regions stand to benefit.

    So 2005 must become the year when through the world trade talks, we release the poorest countries from unfair trade barriers.  But my proposals involve not just removing the barriers but a more positive encouragement of private investment and trade.

    First, it is time for the richest countries to agree to open our markets, remove trade-distorting subsidies and in particular, do more to tackle the scandal and waste of the European Common Agricultural Policy, showing we believe in free and fair trade.

    Second, it is time to move beyond the old consensus of the 1980s and recognise that while bringing down unjust tariffs and barriers can make a difference, developing countries must also be able to carefully design and sequence trade reform into their own poverty reduction strategies.

    And third, it is not enough to say ‘you’re on your own, simply compete’ we have to say ‘we will help you build the capacity you need to trade’ – not just opening the door but helping developing countries gain the strength to cross the threshold.  We have to recognise that they will need additional resources from the richest countries both to create the physical infrastructure and human capital to take advantage of trading opportunities – and to prevent their most vulnerable people from falling further into poverty.

    It is this last offer that could in my view unlock the stalled world trade talks and as we progress together – America and Europe – towards the next meeting in December 2005 in Hong Kong we must drive forward this agenda.

    But any discussion of debt relief and encouragement for trade leads to the third great challenge of 2005: that progress on debt relief and capacity building for trade side by side with Rubin’s ‘parallel agenda’ of investment in education, health and anti poverty programmes must also involve new resources – not aid as compensation for being poor but aid as investment in the future potential of the developing world, tackling the underlying causes of under-development.

    Making better use of existing aid – reordering priorities, untying aid and pooling funds internationally to release additional funds for the poorest countries – is essential to achieve both value for money and the improved outcomes we seek.

    But the brutal fact is that while ten years ago aid to Africa was $33 per person per year, today it is just $27

    All the public spending on education in Sub-Saharan Africa taken together is still, per pupil, under $50 a year, less than one dollar per week.

    And compared to $2000 a year in America, Sub-Saharan Africa still devotes only $12 per person per year to health – and only $3 per person per year comes from aid.

    So the fact is that as the problems of disease and poverty have grown, financial support has been reduced.  And the scale of the resources needed immediately to tackle disease, illiteracy and global poverty, far less to meet the ambitious Millennium Development Goals to which we are pledged, is far beyond what traditional funding can offer.

    That is why the UK Government as part of the financing package to reach the Millennium Development Goals has put forward its proposal for stable, predictable, long-term funds frontloaded to tackle today’s problems of poverty, disease and illiteracy through a new global finance facility.

    The International Finance Facility is in the tradition of the Marshall Plan.

    And it is modelled on the founding principles of the World Bank where nations provided resources to an international institution that then borrowed on the international capital markets.

    But it is a temporary facility to meet the needs of development from now to 2015.

    Let me explain how the IFF will work.

    The IFF will be founded upon the additional $16 billion a year already pledged from the richest countries like ourselves at Monterrey.

    Donors will make this additional funding a long-term pledge – over 30 years.

    And using these binding donor commitments as security, the IFF will leverage in additional money from the international capital markets to raise the amount of development aid for the years to 2015 by $50 billion a year – which will be repaid during the second half of the life of the facility through donor commitments

    Let us be clear the IFF is a temporary facility that involves no new bureaucracy.  The IFF would disburse development aid through grants and work through existing channels for delivering aid – indeed, current US commitments to the Millennium Challenge Account, for example, could be scaled up by the IFF structure before being disbursed in exactly the same way as planned today by the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

    And I believe the IFF has the following advantages – it allows us to tackle the causes of under-development not the symptoms; it allows us to ensure predictable funding where first aid is not at the expense of long term investment; and it allows us to frontload the flow of resources required to meet the Millennium Goals.

    First, the IFF would provide a predictable flow of aid to developing countries so they no longer have to suffer from an up to 40 per cent variance in the amount of aid they receive from year to year which itself prevents them from investing efficiently in health and education systems for the long term and tackling the causes of poverty rather than just the symptoms.

    Too often in the last 50 years we have seen development funding as short term charity aid, charity for being poor, instead of for a higher and more substantial purpose – long term investment tied to tackling the underlying roots of poverty and promoting sustainable growth.  That is why the development funding I propose today through the IFF is specifically designed to generate the public investment needed to create the best environment to boost private investment and trade by increasing funds for health and education – not typically areas in which private capital flows but areas in which public investment is necessary to create an environment in which private commerce can flourish.

    Second, the IFF would create the scale of funding necessary to invest simultaneously across sectors – in education and health, trade capacity and economic development – so that instead of having to choose between urgent emergency disaster relief and long term investment the impact of extra resources in one area reinforces what is being done in others and has a lasting effect.

    For the fact is that no one area can be seen in isolation from another:

    • every year of additional schooling that a mother has reduces her child’s chances of dying by up to 10 per cent so if we cannot invest in education we cannot succeed in tackling diseases like HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria;
    • teachers in dozens of countries are dying of HIV/AIDS faster than they can be trained so if we cannot tackle ill-health we cannot solve our problems in education;
    • 90 per cent of diarrhoeal disease is caused by poor water so if we cannot invest in sanitation we cannot succeed in public health;
    • investment in transport and telecommunications are essential if developing countries are to reap the benefits of access to our markets so if we cannot invest in infrastructure we cannot succeed in stimulating economic development;
    • and because every dollar no longer required in repayment to meet the burden of unpayable debt can be money spent on education and health, if we cannot continue to secure debt relief we cannot succeed in education and health.

    So to rise to the scale of the challenge we need a financing vehicle through which we make possible the funds for – and then the realisation of our goals for – education, health, AIDS, economic development, debt relief and trade, all together at the same time.

    Third, the IFF is designed to be a fiscally neutral means of scaling up development aid between now and 2015, bringing forward in time the value of the commitments already made at the Monterrey conference and enabling us to frontload aid so a critical mass can be deployed as investment now over the next few years when it will have the most impact in achieving the Millennium Goals.

    We know that by spending now in many areas we can not only save lives earlier but also reduce costs for the longer term.

    Take HIV/AIDS for example – which will be a priority of the international finance facility.

    Research shows that for every year we bring forward the discovery of an AIDS vaccine we could save 2 million lives that would otherwise be lost. So if we increased investment in AIDS research now and used it to find a vaccine – and then eventually to finance a jointly agreed advance purchase scheme to make the vaccine accessible to Africa at an affordable price – then we can not only save lives earlier but also reduce the costs of treating those with HIV/AIDS in the medium and longer term by up to $2 billion a year.

    I also see an enormous opportunity for pushing forward the initiative to create a worldwide infrastructure – or platform – for sharing and coordinating research in AIDS, and then for encouraging the development of viable drugs. But it is generally recognised that the sums of money required involve at least a doubling of research money for AIDS.

    The generation that – by their generosity and far sightedness – advanced a cure to prevent HIV/AIDS would truly merit the title ‘the greatest generation’.

    In the last 50 years the Marshall Plan’s European model could not be applied wholesale to developing countries because in many poor countries neither the economic foundations nor the necessary open, transparent and accountable systems for managing the public sector were properly in place to absorb aid and prevent corruption and waste.   And the proposal I am making today will work only if we see development assistance in this light:  with the multi-national pooling of budgets and the proper monitoring of their use to achieve the greatest cost effectiveness of new aid; untying aid so maximising its efficiency in diminishing poverty; more effective in-country use of funds to help countries invest and compete; and development funding focused on results and based on developing countries pursuing agreed goals for social and economic development including tackling corruption.

    And let me give an illustration of what – because of the IFF model – could already possible.

    The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) – which is funded by the Gates Foundation and governments and has immunised over the last five years not a few children but a total of 50 million children round the world – is interested in applying the principles of the IFF to the immunisation sector – donors making long term commitments that can be securitised in order to frontload the funding available to prevent disease.

    If, by these means – through the pilot we are developing with them – GAVI could increase the funding for its immunisation programme by an additional $4 billion over ten years, then it would be possible that their work could save the lives between now and 2015 of an additional 5 million people.

    So in one fund, with one initiative, we can glimpse the possibilities open to us if we act together.  If we could make the same offer for health, for schools, for debt, for the capacity to trade, for research and advance purchasing of drugs to cure malaria and HIV/AIDS, think of the changed world and the changed view of the developed countries in the developing countries.

    Marshall’s Plan in the 1940s was investment for a purpose – for a Europe rebuilt.  He summoned forth a new alliance for prosperity between rich and poor countries that, for his time, played a vital part in winning the peace.

    So today – summoning up the spirit of Marshall – the new offer I suggest for developing countries is aid as public investment for a purpose, so that they can play their part in a stable, peaceful world.

    And by each meeting their obligations for change all can benefit.

    First, the obligations on developing countries: to end corruption, put in place stable economic policies, encourage private investment, meet their commitment to community ownership of their poverty reduction strategies and ensure resources go to fighting poverty.

    Second, the obligations on business to engage with the development challenge and not to walk away, becoming long term partners in growth and development.

    Third, the obligations on international institutions – to reform systems to ensure greater transparency and openness, and to focus on priorities that meet the international development targets.

    Fourth, the obligations on the richest nations to the poorest of the world – to curb our protectionism, to fulfil our commitments and to help release the potential of the developing world through a substantial and decisive transfer of resources. Not aid that entrenches dependency but investment that empowers self sufficiency – investment money that is, in the truest sense of the word, freeing the poorest countries to find their way forward.

    Here in the Council on Foreign Relations you have for over almost a century addressed the great challenges of our times.

    Your origins were the search for a new post First World War world order – and your contribution was to demand security with justice.

    Then in the 1940s you planned and discussed the policies that led to the Bretton Woods conference and the Marshall Plan – and your contribution was to demand far sighted acts of statesmanship.

    Now here in New York and after September 11th, President Bush, your Government, your armed forces and your people have led a great and global effort worthy of America’s history and its ideals: working together with steadfast resolve both to win the war against terrorism and to make an offer to developing countries that rises to the health, education, poverty and economic challenges all have to meet.

    The words of one great poet sum up what we must now do:

    “The future has many names
    For the weak it is unattainable
    For the fearful it is unknown
    For the bold it is opportunity”

    Let it be our generation that shows those who suffer in the bleakest places of the world that we can light a candle of hope which, radiating outwards, can cut through the darkness and shame of injustice and emblazon across the world – for all people everywhere to see and believe – a message of confidence and faith in the future.

    Let it be our generation that – with practical and bold resolution – takes up the challenge and discharges our duty to remove the scar of poverty and hopelessness from the world’s soul.

  • Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech on Making Globalisation Work for All

    Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech on Making Globalisation Work for All

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 16 February 2004.

    On behalf of Hilary Benn – our International Development Secretary – and myself I want to welcome all of you – to a special conference:

    • whose inspiration has been the churches and faith groups of our country;
    • whose strength comes from the presence and support here today of such a wide range of people – leaders from NGOs, faith groups, the academic world and ambassadors and members of governments – all with your own record of service to the community and the world

    And I want to welcome all of you to this conference which is a call to action;

    A call to action born out of our shared anger at the plight of many millions of people around the world who live on the knife’s edge of bare existence;

    A call to action which is driven forward:

    • by our shared belief that there is a way to eliminate poverty and despair;
    • by our shared conviction that the barrier is not technology, money or geography but willpower and courage;
    • and by our shared urgency that now is the time to act and that what we can achieve this year and next year working together is far greater than what we can ever achieve acting alone.

    And let me add my special thanks not just to Lord Carey and Lord Griffiths who have organised this event – men whose faith has led them to devote so much of their life’s work to the service of the international community; but to President Lula and Bono who will, from their own perspectives, join our discussions today; to the Archbishop of Tanzania who has joined us from Africa and whose work we all applaud; and let me specially thank on your behalf Jim Wolfensohn – a tower of strength in the international community, a man honoured and respected in not just one continent but every continent, an inspirational presence for all those who seek to build a better world.

    But most of all let me pay tribute to everyone present here today from faith groups and NGOs, not just for what has been achieved but for what you aspire to achieve.

    You form a unique coalition for justice – for the relief of global poverty, for the defeat of agricultural protectionism, for transparency and an end to corruption, for education and health not just as a privilege of some of the world’s citizens but a right for all and most recently together and in unison you successfully raised the standard for debt relief and changed the way world leaders acted.

    And yours is a coalition whose voices rose to a resounding chorus – that echoed outwards to the world from Birmingham, then from Cologne, then from Okinawa – a clarion call to action speaking not for yourselves alone but for the hopes of the whole world.

    This coalition, now with its global reach, that has become living proof that we are not powerless but together have power – part of a network of mutuality bound together, all of us, citizens and nations, rich and poor, in one moral universe strong enough to change the world.

    And I know these achievements do not make you want to relax or rest but make you want to spur each other onwards to deeper and greater effort.

    And the urgency of my remarks to you today is that the next year – as we move to 2005 – will be a test of the might of our resolve to progress towards our goals.

    2005 is a crucial, defining year; a year of challenge but also a year of opportunity.

    Five years before, in an historic declaration – in perhaps the most significant international commitment of recent decades – every world leader, every major international body, almost every single country, signed up to the historic shared task of meeting over fifteen years eight Millennium Development Goals – an extraordinary plan to definitively right some of the great wrongs of our time.  At the heart of which is a clear commitment to ensuring education for every child, the elimination of avoidable infant and maternal deaths, and the halving of poverty.

    Next year, 2005, is the first date that the first target comes due.

    But we know already that the first target to be set and to be met – the 2005 target that ensures for girls the same opportunities in primary and secondary education as boys – is going to be missed. Not only are the vast majority – 60 per cent of developing countries – unlikely to meet the target but most of these are, on present trends, unlikely to achieve this gender equality for girls even by 2015.  This is not good enough – this is not the promise that we made.

    Take education.  Yes, in the past decade, primary enrolments have increased at twice the rate of the 1980s.  But consider the 115 million children – 80 million boys and girls in Africa and south and west Asia – who did not go to school this Monday morning.

    To reach our education goals requires 80 million new primary school places in Africa alone over the coming decade and at the current rate of progress more than 70 countries will fail to achieve universal primary education by our target date, and in sub-Saharan Africa we will not achieve what we committed to by 2015 until at the earliest 2129.  This is not good enough – the promise we made was for 2015 not 2129.

    Take health, Just as the numbers of illiterate have halved in the last 40 years so too life expectancy in developing countries has increased in the last forty years by 20 years.  And to date with nearly 5 billion dollars pledged to the global health fund some poor countries have shown we can stem the spread of HIV/AIDS and half TB deaths.  But because inexpensive cures are not funded, 2 million die unnecessarily each year from tuberculosis, 1 million die painfully from malaria – curable diseases – 40 million are suffering from HIV/AIDS, and, tragically, on current forecasts sub Saharan Africa will achieve our target for reducing child mortality not by 2015 but by 2165.   This is not good enough – the promise we made was for 2015 not 2165.

    And let us be clear: it is not that the knowledge to avoid these infant deaths does not exist; it is not that the drugs to avoid infant deaths do not exist; it is not that the expertise does not exist; it is not that the means to achieve our goals do not exist.  It is that the political will does not exist. In the nineteenth century you could say that it was inadequate science, technology and knowledge that prevented us saving lives. Now, with the science, technology and knowledge available, we must face the truth that the real barrier is indifference.

    So the Millennium target for a two thirds reduction in child deaths – that can most easily be met because there are available medicines and cures – is not being met and will not be met simply because the world doesn’t care enough.  And today and every day 30,000 infant lives are being lost. This is not good enough – the obligation we promised to honour for sub-Saharan Africa was not for 2165 but for 2015.

    And take our Millennium global poverty target. Although the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen by 10 per cent in the last ten years, there are one billion people still living on less than $1 a day.  And without greatly increased growth, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and the transition economies of Europe and Central Asia will all fail to see the halving of their poverty by 2015.  Our best estimate is that it will not be achieved in sub Saharan Africa for more than a hundred years. This is not good enough – the dream we dreamed was not for 2147 but for 2015.

    Too often our world has set targets like our Millennium Development Goals and failed to meet them so that a global target is only a measure of how far we have failed not succeeded.

    Too often we have set goals, reset them, and recalibrated them again so that all we end up doing is mitigating the extent to which we have failed.

    And if we, knowing what we have to do, fail to act now, we will not only fail the poor this time but they will never believe our promises again.

    Let us be clear: the world did not come together in New York in 2000, come together in Doha in 2001 and come together in Johannesburg and Monterrey in 2002 to make promises and then walk by on the other side when we see them broken.

    So when the need is pressing, when it is our generation that has made historic commitments, the simple questions that, to use the words of an American President, we must ask are:

    If not now – when?
    If not us, who?
    If not together, how?

    Not left to some other time and some other people but now and us, working together.

    And there is another imperative – why we are not only challenged to act now but inspired to act now

    2005 is also the 20th anniversary of Live Aid – that extraordinary moment when everyone in the world realised here was an issue that wasn’t just a matter of opinion. And I want to pay tribute to the man with us today who not only led Live Aid but has continued through thick and thin, year in year out for twenty years, campaigning for justice in Africa: Bob Geldof.

    Live Aid was about a self evident truth that we cannot be this rich and see people that poor.

    That we cannot sit and watch people starving to death on TV right in front of our eyes.

    A survey out only last week stated that the majority of young people growing from youth to adulthood in these years agree that Live Aid was the single most memorable moment in their lives.

    Yet twenty years on the great divide between rich and poor countries has grown, is growing and will continue to grow.   And in Ethiopia – which Hilary Benn will talk about in more detail later today – spending on health is still no more than $2 a year per person.

    And if we are to put ourselves on track again to meet the Millennium Development Goals, we have to rouse the conscience of the world anew, each of us playing our part.

    And I propose we all – all of us who believe that globalisation must also mean justice on a global scale – commit ourselves to a specific course of action, and then each of us as partners – government, business, NGOs and faith groups, international institutions – agree to work together to make the radical changes required. And as Tony Blair has said: for the sake of Africa and the poorest countries we will make our 2005 G8 presidency a ‘Development Presidency’.

    Put simply, our proposal is that in return for developing countries developing their own country owned, community owned poverty reduction plans to expand their own development, investment and trade, and eliminate corruption:

    • we, the richest countries, commit the $10 billion needed each year for education for all
    • we, the richest countries, release at least $10 billion for tackling Aids, TB, and malaria
    • we finance sustainable debt relief
    • we finance, for the poorest countries, the building of capacity to trade
    • and that we do so by increasing development aid, on the road to 0.7 per cent of GDP, and by, immediately, creating an International Finance Facility that, by leveraging in an additional $50 billion each year until 2015, brings forward the development aid and investment that is essential to meet the Millennium Goals.

    The richest countries making a commitment to provide long-term, predictable and effective aid as investment to the countries that need it most and promising every developing country that is prepared to make the reforms necessary that they will not be denied the resources for their own country owned, community owned programmes to tackle illiteracy, disease and destitution

    While the scale of the new deal we propose between developed countries and developing countries is massive, the demand we make is not unprecedented.

    Let us remember that to finance the development of a ravaged post war Europe, the richest country in the world – the USA – agreed in the historic Marshall Plan of 1948 to transfer one per cent of their national income each and every year for four years – a transfer in total of the equivalent in today’s money of $75 billion a year

    This Marshall Plan was a transfer of resources in what was more than an act of charity: it was a frank recognition that – as we say today of the relationship between developed and developing countries – prosperity like peace is indivisible and prosperity to be sustained must be shared.

    In setting out his objectives at Harvard University in 1948 Marshall articulated then the greater unifying vision that can inspire us still today of a global fight against, as he said, ‘hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos’ that would secure not merely ‘a working economy throughout the world’ but ‘permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist’.

    And although today’s global new deal would be constructed in new times, it is rooted in the Marshall Plan’s enduring values.

    Like these visionaries we understand that there are global concerns – including terror – to which together we must respond with unified resolution.

    Like our predecessors we see the need for a comprehensive plan that can only succeed if it goes beyond temporary relief to wholesale economic development.

    Like them we see the need for a new global economic and social order grounded in both rights and responsibilities. And so like theirs our proposals ask the poorest countries also to rise to the challenge.

    If anything, however, the scale and the global breadth of the challenge is more urgent and pressing today. Even more so than in Marshall’s era national safety and global reconstruction are inextricably linked. And even more so than in Marshall’s time our interdependence means – as September 11th proved so tragically – that what happens to the poorest citizen in the poorest country can directly affect the richest citizen in the richest country – making the case for visionary action stronger now than it was 50 years ago.

    And our vision of the way forward – akin to Marshall’s challenge to rich and poor countries alike – is that by each meeting their obligations for change all countries can benefit and the Millennium Goals can be achieved.

    For the richest countries: it will mean new responsibilities – to open our markets and to curb protectionism and to transfer resources – but also new opportunities – increased trade and a globalisation that also means both security and justice on a global scale.

    For the poorest countries: new responsibilities – to pursue transparent, corruption-free policies for stability and a properly sequenced opening up of investment, trade and economic growth – and new opportunities – with the capacity for increased growth and trade and a transfer of resources from rich to poor to tackle long standing problems of ill-health, illiteracy, poverty and underdevelopment

    Now it is tempting for each of us with our own special interests to campaign single-mindedly on the causes where, through our expertise or experience, we can make most impact. And I applaud and support those here who have made it their special cause – in many cases life’s work – to be crusaders on AIDS, on schooling, on health, on debt, on trade. For it is only by your single-minded focus and often self-sacrifice that inch-by-inch progress is being made.

    But my purpose in speaking today is to lead a discussion on how each of us, building on the individual causes we cherish, can not only make progress for our direct concerns and causes but also how together we can grow into a global force for change.

    I want to suggest that to rise to the scale of the challenge all of us need something akin to what I regard as the most stable and predictable financing vehicle through which we make possible the funds for – and then the realisation of our goals for – education, health, aids, economic development, debt relief and trade.

    For none of our demands can be seen in isolation from each other.

    • Teachers in dozens of countries are dying of HIV/AIDS faster than they can be trained so if we cannot tackle ill health we cannot solve our problems in education.
    • Just as the biggest reason African teenage girls drop out of school is that there are no sanitation facilities at their schools. Just as 90 per cent of diarrhoeal disease is caused by poor water.  So if we cannot invest in infrastructure and economic development we cannot succeed in public health and education.
    • Every year of additional schooling that a mother has reduces her child’s chances of dying by up to 10 per cent. So if we cannot invest in education we cannot succeed in health.
    • And as everyone here knows every dollar no longer required in repayment to meet the burden of unpayable debt is – and has been – money spent on education and health. So if we cannot continue to secure debt relief we cannot succeed in education and health.

    So if we are to make progress in meeting the Millennium Development Goals, more funding for health cannot be at the expense of education, more funding for education cannot be at the expense of infrastructure. And more money for education and health cannot be at the expense of more writing-off of debt.  And we know also that without economic development – and that means investment and trade – there can be no sustainable exit from poverty.  So if we are to make progress in meeting our Millennium Development Goals we must also make sure that developing countries have not just the access to trade but, by funding investment in infrastructure and skills, the capacity they need to trade.

    In this way we show that when we campaign on education we must also demand healthcare; when we demand aid we must also work for economic development; when we campaign for trade we must argue for aid with the answer on financing these initiatives pointing in one and the same direction: a facility that can raise the level of resources invested in education, health and economic development and do so together. Indeed we will advance towards the Millennium Development Goals together as a global force or not at all.

    So support for the International Finance Facility does not mean subordinating your objectives as crusaders for a cause. Instead support for the IFF is to recognise that each of us can realise our specific objectives only if there is a sustainable financial vehicle to underpin them.

    Let me talk about economic development and in particular trade first.

    Less than 5 per cent of total flows of Foreign Direct Investment go to the least developed countries. Domestically generated savings and investment barely match foreign capital inflows – and the savings that do exist often leave the country in capital flight.  That is why country-owned Poverty Reduction Strategies must focus on creating the right domestic conditions for investment and commerce – with the IMF, World Bank and countries like us providing direct support to help create a stable economic environment, improved infrastructure, and sound legal processes that strengthen property rights and deter corruption.

    All of us here know that no country has moved from poverty to prosperity by cutting itself off from the international economy and without increasing its investment and trade.  We know that by reducing tariffs in both developed and developing countries and achieving the pro-poor agreement promised at Doha, gains for developing countries can rise to $350 billion with 140 million lifted out of poverty.  Twice as many people lifted out of poverty than the whole of the population of the UK.

    Our aim must be to break the trade deadlock, push forward the development objectives of Doha and both open our markets to developing countries now and remove trade-distorting subsidies.

    Because three quarters of the world’s poor live in rural areas, because 96 per cent of the world’s farmers live in developing countries, our agricultural protectionism costs developing countries $20 billion a year directly, up to $100 billion indirectly – twice the amount of development aid they receive.

    And let me say: when 900 million farmers in poor countries struggle to survive each day on less than $1 while rich countries spend $900 million each day subsidising agriculture – more on agricultural subsidies than the total income of sub-Saharan Africa – Margaret Beckett, Patricia Hewitt and I are convinced we must do more – for world trade and for developing countries – to urgently tackle the waste of the Common Agricultural Policy, the scandal of agricultural protectionism around the world.

    The way forward is both for developed countries to commit to tackling this scandal of agricultural protectionism and – because we know from a World Bank study that twenty four of the poorest countries cannot benefit from access to trade without the capacity to trade – also to provide support, including finance, to developing countries so that they can sequence their development – building, with investment in infrastructure, education and development generally, the capacity they need to trade.

    So we, supporters of free trade, agree that we must do more than simply say: “You’re on your own  – simply compete”, we must promise that as we open the door countries will have the strength to walk through it

    And this can work only if we simultaneously tackle debt – and illiteracy, disease and under-development.

    I know that:

    • while 27 countries have been freed from the burden of unpayable debt;
    • while 70 billion dollars is being written off;
    • while debt payments are down from an average of nearly 30 per cent of national income to 11 per cent, with 65 per cent of their income now going to health and education

    We can do more – not least for countries facing sharp falls in the price of key export commodities and higher net debt: export ratios which, amongst other things, prevent an exit from unsustainable debt.   And so, according to the World Bank, for half the HIPC countries there is a risk there will not be a sustainable exit from debt.

    Indeed, debt to export ratios in Ethiopia which should have fallen to 150 per cent could be as high as 220 per cent, in Rwanda 210 per cent, in Gambia 186, in Chad 181, in Niger 175, in Malawi 172 per cent.  What’s more 11 countries have yet to qualify including Liberia, Somalia and Sudan who have debts nearing $20 billion in total.

    So I know that when we receive the results of the World Bank-IMF study on sustainability we will have to provide more – either through topping up generally, or by specific country by country initiatives.  What is also clear is that if debt is to be kept sustainable in the future, we will need to provide more aid in the form of grants. So that both to go further with debt relief and to ensure a sustainable position for the countries most at risk, we need a facility that can both help debt reduction and fund with grants education, health and poverty reduction.

    It is precisely because we know that education is the very best anti-poverty strategy, the best economic development programme, that the UK will, over ten years, spend £1 billion on educational aid — alongside the World Bank’s excellent education Fast Track Initiative.  Yet while all the public spending on sub-Saharan African education taken together is, per pupil, is still less than $40 a year, less than one dollar per week, it is estimated that, overall, education needs, annually, $10 billion – predictable regular financing that no one aid budget, and no one nation, can achieve on its own.

    And even when facing the biggest public health challenge that Bono and others have so eloquently exposed, sub-Saharan Africa devotes only $12 per person per year to public health, in Ethiopia just $2 per person, compared to $2,000 in America.

    Making better use of existing aid – reordering priorities, untying aid and pooling funds internationally to release additional funds for the poorest countries – is essential to achieve both value for money and the improved outcomes we seek, but in addition to these reforms, I ask this conference to recognise that aid to Africa which was $33 per person ten years ago is just $20 per person now, that the scale of the resources to tackle AIDS, illiteracy and poverty is indeed in excess of what traditional funding can offer and I therefore I ask all governments both to  move towards our agreed target of 0.7 per cent  and to, immediately, look seriously at our proposal for the International Finance Facility.

    The IFF is founded upon long-term, binding donor commitments from the richest countries. It builds upon the additional $16 billion already pledged at Monterrey. And it leverages in additional money from the international capital markets to raise the amount of development aid for the years to 2015 from $50 billion a year to $100 billion per year. $50 billion that will allow us to attack the root causes of poverty not just the symptoms, and to meet the Millennium Development Goals

    So the practical benefits of the IFF are:

    • We could write off more debt and because it will enable us to give grants, ensure a sustainable exit from debt;
    • On health, we could meet our global of cutting infant mortality and maternal mortality and eliminating malaria and TB;
    • On the AIDS crisis, which Bono has spoken about far more eloquently than I, we could make available treatments and contribute to the search for a vaccine that might permanently end its scourge;
    • On education, we could make primary schooling for all not just a distant dream but a practical reality;
    • On trade, because we recognise that to benefit from access to our markets, the poorest countries need investments in infrastructure, education, health and economic development, the IFF could provide the support necessary.

    Let us continue to work with you to examine the Tobin Tax; the Soros proposal for Special Drawing Rights; other forms of revenue raising on a worldwide basis. But each one of these proposals will come down to one simple question; is there sufficient will in the richest countries to agree these profound changes?

    I believe that the advantage of the International Finance Facility I have described is not just that is a better means of providing the necessary resources immediately and thus far faster than other initiatives, but also that unlike other measures like taxes – where all countries must impose it or it can work for none – the IFF can proceed even if some fail to participate.

    I thank the growing number of countries who have indicated support for the IFF, in the G7 and elsewhere. Francis Mer the Finance Minister of France and I will hold, in Paris in April, a conference on the IFF, which 60 countries will attend, and the IMF and World Bank will discuss the conclusions of their report on it later this year.

    And let me give an example of what we can do today and now.

    The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation is working well saving lives by distributing vaccines and treatments for AIDS, TB and malaria and achieving value for money.

    So far – just after 3 years – and with limited resources – GAVI’s immunisation work in developing countries has saved the lives of half a million people.

    I am pleased to say that GAVI is interested in applying the International Finance Facility’s principles to the next stage of its work – donors making long term commitments that can be securitised in order to frontload the funding available to tackle disease.

    The UK and French government have indicated that they stand ready to work with other donors on innovative ways to raise the additional resources needed for GAVI and for tackling HIV/AIDS.

    For our part we are prepared to commit additional long term funding.

    If, by these means, GAVI could increase its current budget from $270 million a year to $400 million a year – or over five years an extra two thirds of a billion dollars – it would be possible that their work could save the lives of an additional 2 million people a year.

    GAVI could purchase new combination vaccines more quickly which would bring down the price and save the lives of an additional 1 million children each year.

    And GAVI could fully fund its measles programme – saving up to half a million lives each year.

    So in one fund, with one initiative, we can glimpse the possibilities open to us if we act together.  If we could do the same for health, for schools, for debt, for the capacity to trade, think of the better world we can achieve.

    2015 is the fixed point on our horizon – seemingly distant but closer than we think.  But it is actually 2005 – as close as can be – that will determine whether we are likely to make the rest of the journey.

    If we let things slip, the Millennium Goals will become just another dream we once had, and we will indeed be sitting back on our sofas and switching on our TVs and – I am afraid – watching people die on our screens for the rest of our lives.  We will be generation that betrayed its own heart.

    Last year – 2003 – the world trade talks stalled and we took a step back from 2002.  Let us make next year different.

    I appeal to business – whom I thank for their attendance today: to engage with the development challenge – participating in a dialogue that I am confident will lead eventually to a richer world

    And I appeal to NGOs and faith groups: to hold us accountable, to be the conscience of the world, to be the voice that guides us at this crucial crossroads, to work together with no one ever subordinating their own objectives but recognising that each of our objectives can be better realised if we can agree the financing to underpin them.

    In 2015 we cannot look back and say:
    “It was not us who acted, it had to be left to the next generation”
    “It was not now, but some other distant time in the future”

    That is not good enough.

    When the need is urgent and our responsibilities clear; and even when the path ahead difficult hard and long, let us not lose hope but have the courage in our shared resolve to find the will to act. And let us say to each other in the words of Isaiah  “though you were wearied by the length of your way, you did not say it was hopeless – you found new life in your strength”.

    The strength together to fight poverty, remove destitution, end illiteracy, cure disease.

    The challenge for our time and for our generation. And let us achieve it together.

  • Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations Annual Conference

    Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations Annual Conference

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 18 February 2004.

    CIVIC RENEWAL IN BRITAIN

    Let me start by thanking you and the organisations you represent – not just for your kind invitation to speak to you at this annual meeting of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations this morning, but to thank you for the work you do, the service you give, the dedication you show, the energy you bring and the extraordinarily breadth and depth of what you undertake. From mentoring to Sure Start, from preventing teenage suicide to helping a new generation of old people, from rehabilitating offenders to inspiring the New Deal – service which makes you uniquely both a safety net where others fail and a growing third sector of our economy valued for your ingenuity and independence.

    And, as new figures show, with more voluntary organisations at work for our communities today than ever before – more than 150,000 registered charities, 200,000 non-charitable voluntary and community organisations, around 400,000 in total, one for every hundred of the adult population – Britain has an estimated 16 million people who do some kind of voluntary work – and in 2001 39 per cent of adults gave of their time to help others at least once in the year.

    And over the last decade, from a time when you were much smaller, when there was no compact, when your professionalism was not properly recognised as it should be, we have witnessed what I believe – and what I hope the new Charity Bill will reflect – is your transformation as a third sector ready to rival market and state, with a quiet revolution in how voluntary action and charitable work serves the community:

    • New ways of working – using I.T, the internet, digital television and mobile phone technology to gather information and communicate with the people who need help and support the most;
    • New entrepreneurship – earning more money to support what you do from selling goods and services – as highlighted in your report published today;
    • New partnerships – for the first time you have led in the design of a major new government programme – Futurebuilders – working with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, to create a fund that I hope will prove far more challenging, more exciting and more fulfilling.

    And I praise you for your new ways of achieving enduring aims – serving the people of our country.

    And at the heart of all these changes has been the NCVO – and I thank you and your Chief Executive, office-bearers and staff.

    You are a constant in a world of change.  And yet a force at all times for new ideas.

    So my theme today is that of new challenges, new responses – civic renewal flourishing in a changing Britain.

    I know that a recent survey suggested the amount of time spent in Britain on unpaid activities fell from 2.3 billion hours in 1995 to 1.6 billion hours five years later – a drop of more than 30 per cent.  So some suggested we have a caring deficit.

    But in fact when a recent Mori poll showed that 59 per cent of 15 to 24 year olds want to know more about how to get involved in their communities. I believe we have a goodwill mountain just waiting to be tapped.

    I want today to set out why I believe in the independence and strength of a thriving voluntary and community sector in Britain both now and in the future – a strength and independence that we all should and do value. And in setting out my views I want to discuss with you how for the future we can help strengthen that independence and vitality by complementing the measures we are taking and will continue to take to incentivise the giving of money with measures to incentivise the giving of time.

    And I want to consult with you on proposals that both the Home Secretary – David Blunkett – and I feel strongly about:

    • First, how we can do more to make possible the giving of time by volunteers – in particular, by consulting with you on national framework of community service for young people to deliver a step change in the participation of young people in volunteering activity;
    • Second, how we can help young and older people fulfil their potential by expanding and extending the scope of mentoring – where there is both great need because we are a more atomised society and great potential because it is a relatively underdeveloped area – using modern means of communication to provide access to help, advice, information and guidance;
    • And thirdly, we want to suggest how business as well as individuals can be more involved in volunteering and mentoring activity.

    But before I set out these proposals I want to explain why David Blunkett and I place such importance on the existence of a thriving voluntary and community sector.

    Now,  the community I grew up – even though it was one made famous as the birthplace of the theorist of the free market Adam Smith – revolved not around only around the home but the church, the youth club, the rugby team, the local tennis club, the scouts and boys brigades, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the St Johns and St Andrews Ambulance Society…community not in any sense as some forced coming together, some sentimental togetherness for the sake of appearances, but out of a largely unquestioned conviction that we could learn from each other and call on each other in times of need, that we owed obligations to each other because our neighbours were part also of what we all were:  the idea of neighbourliness woven into the way we led our lives.

    And while some people say you have only yourself or your family, I saw every day how individuals were encouraged and strengthened, made to feel they belonged and in turn contributed as part of a intricate local network of trust, recognition and obligation encompassing family, friends, school, church, hundreds of local associations and voluntary organisations.

    And while it is easy to romanticise about a Britain now gone, I believe that there is indeed a golden thread which runs through British history not just of the individual standing firm against tyranny but also of common endeavour in villages, towns and cities – men and women with shared needs and common purposes, united by a strong sense of duty and a stronger sense of fair play.

    And their efforts together produced not just a rich tradition of voluntary organisations, local democracy and civic life but also a uniquely British settlement that, from generation to generation, has balanced the rights and responsibilities of individuals, communities and state.

    The British way has always been much more than self interested individualism.  And this was always recognised, even by those philosophers associated with free market ideas like Adam Smith and Samuel Smiles.   They knew that prosperity and improvement must be founded on something more and something greater than harsh organised selfishness: instead a sense of social obligation – often infused with religious values – and a broad moral commitment to civic improvement.

    And while it is true that voluntary organisations have risen and fallen over time, it is also true that, in our own time, new organisations from playgroups and mothers and toddlers groups to pensioners or third age groups and the hospice movement have grown to become vital threads in our national fabric.

    And this is my idea of Britain today ….not the individual on his or her own living in isolation sufficient unto himself but the individual at home and at ease in society. And in this vision of society there is a sense of belonging that expands outwards as we grow from family to friends and neighbourhood; a sense of belonging that then ripples outwards again from work, school, church and community and eventually outwards to far beyond our home town and region to define our nation and country as a society.

    Britain – because there is such a thing as society – as a community of communities. Tens of thousands of local neighbourhood civic associations, unions, charities, voluntary organisations.  Each one unique and each one very special, not inward looking or exclusive. A Britain energised by a million centres of neighbourliness and compassion that together embody that very British idea – civic society.

    It is an idea that best defines a Britain that has always rejected absolutism and crude selfish individualism and always wanted to expand that space between state and markets.

    But it is not a sentimental attempt to hark back to the past nor a rejection of modernity but its practical fulfilment – a Britain where social change redefines community but does not abolish community.

    And it is an idea that Rabbi Jonathan Sacks captures best and most eloquently when he talks of British society, not in terms of a contract between people that defines our rights but a British covenant that sets out the shared values which can inspire us to neighbourliness and service to others.

    And today civic society finds its greatest embodiment in the strength of your voluntary organisations – a genuine third sector established not for self or for profit but for mutual aid and, most often, to provide help and support for those in need.

    We know from the theory and evidence on what is called “social capital” that societies with strong voluntary sectors and civic society institutions have lower crime, greater social cohesion and better performing economies than those without. But we in government should be honest and humble, recognising that even as you play a vital role in delivering services because you are better than anyone at doing so, it is your independence that is the source of your strength. And let me explain why not just you but I, from not just history but every day, on-the-ground experience of living in Britain, believe that to be the case.

    For it is true that the uniqueness of voluntary and community organisations has not always been recognised by government.  In the past let us be honest that some on the left wrongly saw the voluntary sector as a threat to the things that they believed only government should be doing; while others on the right misused the goodwill of a caring voluntary sector as an excuse to relieve government of its proper responsibilities.

    Both, failing to recognise the uniqueness and richness of the third sector, had it completely wrong. And yet unfortunately as the political battle swung back and forth, voluntary organisations were too often caught in the middle.

    I hope the political establishment has learnt from these mistakes, from the conflicts and sterile battles for territory of the past.  The voluntary sector must never be seen as a cut-price alternative to statutory provision, never seen as a way of ducking the responsibilities of families or society.  Nor should it be seen as a second class alternative to state provision.  For it is now recognised that even when the public interest is established it is often better for it not to be guaranteed by a public sector organisation but by those, quite simply, who on the ground can advance the public interest better.  That is why today – with for example Sure Start – local voluntary organisations with their unique local knowledge not only provide the service but run many of the projects.

    And governments should have the humility to recognise that voluntary organisations can provide solutions that governments cannot offer.  That instead of – if I might put it this way – the man from Whitehall always knowing best, it is the woman from the WRVS or sure start or community service volunteers or any of the NCVO organisations that knows better.  And it is because your independence as a voluntary sector is the essence of your existence, the reason you can serve, the explanation of why you can be so innovative, that you can make the difference that others cannot.

    So I believe, with you, that the great strength of voluntary action – and why we should value your independence – is your capacity for the individual and unique rather than the impersonal or standardised approach.  Your emphasis on the individual need, aspiration and potential – and on a one to one, person to person approach, on being at the front line.  As has so often been said, you do not rebuild communities from the top down.  You can only rebuild one family, one street, one neighbourhood at a time.  Or as faith based organisations, who are so important, often put it  – one soul at a time. As one Jewish saying puts it:  “if you have saved one life, you are saving the world”.

    And voluntary action, while often conducted through national organisations is, characteristically, local; volunteers and local community workers, working on the ground, at the coal face, at the heart of local communities, far better positioned than ever a government official could be, both to see a problem and to define effective action.  It is about being there.

    John Dilulio – former head of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives – quotes a conversation between Eugene Rivers, a minister in Boston, worried about his hold on a new generation of young people and a local youth who has not only become a drug dealer but has a greater hold now over the young people.  “Why did we lose you?” asks the minister to the drug dealer.  “Why are we losing other kids now?” to which the drug dealer replies:    “I’m there, you’re not.  When the kids go to school, I’m there, you’re not.  When the boy goes for a loaf of bread … Or just someone older to talk to or feel safe and strong around, I’m there, you’re not.  I’m there, you’re not…”

    In the face of drugs, crime, vandalism, social breakdown, voluntary and community organisations – there on the ground, one to one, person to person – really do matter and make the difference that others cannot.

    And so too does the second great strength of voluntary action – and why David Blunkett and I are putting forward the proposals we do today – your freedom to innovate. Long before government took notice, voluntary organisations saw wrongs that had to be righted. Indeed, it is because you innovate that societies most often change. And – often more so than the state – voluntary organisations can be flexible, can pilot, can experiment, can try things out, and can more easily move on.

    And just as you did in the past with, for example, the settlement movement or the new campaigning organisations which sprung up in the 1960s, today you are pioneering in new directions:  from the hospice movement to anti-AIDS campaigns, from environmental groups to the Playgroup movement, from advocates for disabled people to the global coalition against the debt burden of developing countries.

    Volunteering

    Now, since 1997 – and working with David Blunkett and others – I have tried to encourage the giving of money:

    • The more simplified Gift Aid scheme which makes it easier to give;
    • Improving Payroll Giving by removing the limit on donations, introducing and then extending the ten per cent Government supplement and promoting the scheme to employers – which has led to a near trebling of Payroll Giving in the last four years;
    • Putting in place new tax incentives to encourage charitable foundations, which are common in the USA, to establish themselves here;
    • And with the changes in what qualifies for tax relief for individual and corporate giving, incentives are now worth £2.2 billion a year — and I encourage any charity here today who does not ask its members to “Gift Aid” their donations to do so to get the additional benefits.

    I will not ignore your representations on incentives for giving money – and indeed I know you will continue to make them to me – but now is the moment also to do more to encourage the giving of time – for we all know that we need, in this generation, to encourage young volunteers, new volunteers, new kinds of volunteers and in doing so to create new volunteering opportunities, and together encourage networks that match those who can give help to those who need help.

    Again we have tried to work with you on key initiatives, not trying to set the direction but enabling you, often with seed-corn finance, to build the infrastructure of caring you need:

    • The internet-based database – www.do-it.org.uk – providing individuals with free and direct access to volunteering opportunities throughout Britain;
    • Timebank – which since its launch in 2000 has matched over 50,000 people to volunteering opportunities in their local communities;
    • Community service volunteers – with more than 40 years experience in providing high quality volunteering opportunities;
    • And Millennium Volunteers – which to date has signed up 120,000 young people.

    So a lot has been done.

    But we also know that many still don’t know how to volunteer, where to go, who to ask for help.

    Many don’t understand that you can give some of your time without giving all of your time.

    And many – particularly young people – find formal volunteering complicated and confusing.

    And so I believe we must look at new and innovative ways of helping. In the US some firms give their employees a week off for voluntary work. In other places, the expenses of volunteers are paid, and in some places the tax system works to make things easier.  But often it is not about financial incentives to volunteer, but about making the connections so that those who need help can link up with those who want to help.

    And I can tell you today that the Home Secretary, the Culture Secretary, the Education Secretary and I will report in the Budget on what more we can do to help all those prepared to undertake some sort of voluntary activity.

    And we want to examine with you – as the Scottish Executive has been doing – how we can do more to encourage a call to service among young people.

    In the 1960s in America, President Kennedy instigated the Peace Corps – asking young American men and women to volunteer overseas to, in the President’s words, further the cause of “world peace and human progress”.  And President Clinton and then President Bush have fostered sister programmes – Americorps and Freedom Corps – to enable young people to serve their country at home.   And I can tell you that such is the success of Americorps that more young people have joined it in just ten years than have joined the Peace Corps in its full 40-year history.

    And, with Home Office Minister Fiona McTaggart, I met with the heads of Freedom Corps and young people involved in Americorps last week to hear how young people engaged in national community service in America are working across racial and regional lines to build a stronger national community: and they have constructed tens of thousands of homes, immunised hundreds of thousands of children against disease, and taught millions to read – finding the skills and experience they gain from their service invaluable for themselves and their future employability.

    And I was struck not only by the enthusiasm shown by the young people for the whole range of volunteering opportunities they were involved in but by their belief that if it is to become the norm rather than the exception for all young people to give up their time to help in their communities or abroad. We have to make the volunteering opportunities on offer both interesting and exciting – and we need to make access to them easier.

    David Blunkett and I believe that the same call to service should be issued to all young people in Britain.

    In the Budget last year David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and I announced a pilot for England where, for school-leavers who cannot afford to do so from their own funds, we sponsor a Gap Year – a year of service in their own communities.   And the first 60 volunteers started on the programme in September.

    Now we want to examine with you and with young people themselves whether we can, through making it a national priority, engage a new generation of young people in serving their communities – and provide nationally and locally the means by which they find it easy to participate. And I would like to invite all the organisations represented here today – individually and through the NCVO – to work with government on how best we can do more.

    The advantages for young people are clear – to develop their personal skills, discover new communities, become more active citizens.  The benefits to our country are clear too: to expand volunteering, to create a culture of service and to support worthwhile community activity. And as in America there could be help with basic living expenses and help for university, college or business start ups to follow.

    We know that the best way to do this is by working with the organisations – many of you here today – that are already doing this sort of work successfully and by listening to young people.  And building on our pilots – and learning from experiences in the us and elsewhere – the Government wants to explore, in direct partnership with the you, the voluntary and community sector and with young people themselves – how we can do more.

    Mentoring

    Second, I turn to initiatives to encourage mentoring.

    The central element of mentoring is a long-term, personal, one-to-one relationship in which, over time, the experience and knowledge of one person helps another to learn and to grow.

    It is an approach that is being adopted everywhere from schools to the career service to the workplace, and for everyone from looked-after children, to new entrepreneurs, to the long-term unemployed, and from gifted children to under-achievers.

    You might say mentoring is about befriending; about people helping people and people needing people to make the most of themselves and be all they can be – bridging the gap between what they are and what they have it in themselves to become.  Giving advice and help on everything from school courses to careers in music or businesses to very personal advice on growing up. And while adult mentors are most common, a young person will often benefit from having another young person as a mentor, especially one who shares similar life experiences. And that young person often will go on to mentor someone else.  It is a rare form of volunteering – one that generates its own recruits.

    In one programme for young people at risk in the United States, those befriended or mentored were 46 per cent less likely than others to use drugs and 27 per cent less likely to use alcohol.  They were also less likely to get into fights or to be truant from school. On a smaller scale, we are seeing similar encouraging results in Britain:  “chance UK” a child mentoring scheme, has found that three quarters of mothers interviewed saw positive changes in their child’s behaviour; four out of five regarded their child’s mentor as a good influence; and over two thirds reported benefits for their own relationship with their child.

    For the one third of schools still with no mentoring, new programmes are being sponsored by both the Home Office and the Department for Education.

    We have introduced mentoring fund grants to help mentoring organisations expand their activities into communities that are not yet being reached.

    And mentoring is also an important component in the Connexions service – the new careers and guidance service for 13 to 19 year olds – with young people acting as peer mentors and role models for other young people.

    But there is much room for growth, much more to be done.

    I wonder, for instance, whether – whilst taking consideration of child safety issues – we could not explore more innovative ways of recruiting people to be mentors and of course helping people in need of help.

    Just look at the success, for example, of the big websites such as ebay, Friends Reunited (with 8.5 million members alone), u.date – using the power of IT to create social networks, connections and affiliations.  Or the superb site www.mentoring.org in the US – a modern and accessible national infrastructure for local mentoring organisations.

    With the voluntary sector’s well-deserved reputation for creative thinking and for innovation, I believe there are opportunities

    – through involving business
    – though better local organisation
    – through national appeals including through TV and the Internet

    to recruit and train mentors and to link those who need help and advice to those who can help and advise.

    We as a Government stand ready to provide seed corn funds to do more to help build both a national and local infrastructure that offers mentoring opportunities and help in every area of the country. And i can tell you that David Blunkett and I will be calling a summit of organisations and businesses involved in mentoring to discuss how we can do this.

    Business engagement

    And this leads to the third area where I want to make new suggestions – how we work together to translate the widespread social concern that exists among employers and employees alike into effective action for the common good.

    While there are already good examples here in the UK – Business in the Community, Pro-help, Business Action on Homelessness, Business Broker pilots, Right to Read, Business Bridge, Streetwatch, Business Cares – generally people in the UK think business does more than providing the 7 percent of volunteers and 5 percent of income to charities that it does. And we know that corporate giving of money and time has reached new heights in the US – and in new ways through organisations like ‘Business Strengthening America’.

    There is indeed a goodwill mountain waiting to be tapped.  So building on the new Corporate Challenge that you have been involved in – where more than 60 companies have already nominated champions – David and I want to work with you and them to develop a national campaign to promote involvement by companies and employees in mentoring.  And I hope you will work with us in a group David and I propose to bring together to explore options and recommend next steps.

    Public Service Delivery

    I am conscious that when we talk of public service delivery we have a further responsibility – not just to ensure voluntary organisations can help – as they have done successfully with sure start – to shape the services they run, but to build upon what I felt was a ground breaking 2002 Cross Cutting Review on the role of the voluntary and community sector in service delivery – which, I can say, helped us in government – right across departments – understand much better the issues which voluntary sector organisations face in public service delivery.

    And when you identified a fundamental problem – basic capacity needs in it, sustainable funding, financial management and skills, and the need for an ‘infrastructure map’, as Stewart puts it, we tried to respond.  And from this summer, grants and loans will be available through the Futurebuilders fund to help build capability and I can tell you that recognising that there are skill shortages in management and business planning, David Blunkett is also finalising work with you on a new capacity and infrastructure framework including funding to help improve skills, use of it, performance management and governance in the sector.  And I hope that as we discuss all the new challenges ahead, the same spirit and practice of partnership will flourish to the benefit of all.

    Conclusion

    My late father always said that each of us could make a difference.  We could all leave in his words, “our mark for good or for ill”.

    He said that it was not IQ or intelligence or, for that matter, money that defined whether you made the best mark in your society.

    He believed in Martin Luther King’s words, that everybody could be great because everyone can serve.

    So I certainly grew up influenced by the idea that one individual, however young, small, poor or weak, could make a difference.

    Robert Kennedy put it best: “Let no one be discouraged by the belief there is nothing one man, one woman can do against the enormous army of the world’s ills…against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence” he said.  “Few will have the greatness to bend history itself but each of us can work to change a small portion of events and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation”.

    Together, your organisations are ensuring not only that service remains an honourable tradition in Britain but that as

    old person helps young person;
    young helps old;
    neighbour helps neighbour;
    mentor helps mentored;
    business helps community;
    And voluntary organisations help, enable and empower individuals;
    Service can make us a stronger, more caring, more resilient society.

    A Britain with a strong and independent and forward looking voluntary and community sector…a Britain true to its values… a Britain ready to face the future.

  • Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at the British Chambers of Commerce Annual Conference

    Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at the British Chambers of Commerce Annual Conference

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 21 April 2004.

    Can I say what a pleasure it is to be at this annual meeting of the Chambers of Commerce:

    • to have the opportunity to thank all of you – representatives of, and speaking for, more than 135,000 businesses from every city, every town, every region of our country – for the work you do and the service you give championing the cause of business – and for what you achieve for British enterprise and for Britain;
    • and to congratulate your President Isabella Moore and your Chief Executive and staff for the work you do regionally, nationally and internationally to make the voice of the British Chambers of Commerce count for Britain.

    And let me say what I firmly believe: that the whole country owes you a debt of gratitude for the way, particularly throughout the world downturn of the last few years, you have been meeting the new challenges – demonstrating your resilience, your fresh thinking, your courage to respond and change – with Britain today, through your efforts and that of the British people, seeing 3,000 new businesses starting up each week and 25,000 men and women finding new jobs every day, with an additional 10,000 new vacancies being advertised.

    Modern Britain was built by men and women of commerce and business; by men and women demonstrating entrepreneurial flair; men and women of commerce showing the best of practical skills committed to a vision of British manufacturing and commercial strength; men and women who were not cynics, who never talked our country down but were – and are – confident, forward looking optimists dedicated to the future well-being and economic destiny of Great Britain.

    The nations that will succeed amidst ever more intensive global competition not least from a rising China and India, will be those that are sufficiently confident and forward looking to entrench stability, to celebrate enterprise, to make long term investments in science and skills and be outward looking rather than protectionist. And I want to suggest to you today that at this moment of opportunity when the world economy starts to grow again, Britain’s great strengths – as the country with traditions of stability deeper than almost any other industrial economy, with traditions of scientific inventiveness longer than any other, and with a global reach than has been wider than almost any other – make us well equipped, as long as we make the right long term decisions on stability, science, skills and enterprise, to be one of the great success stories of the global age.

    Now Madam President: of all the economic duties of government the greatest and pre-eminent challenge is the creation and entrenchment of economic stability and taking the hard decisions to lock stability in, even in difficult times in the world economy.

    Let us remind each other of Britain’s chronic post war history of stop-go, inflation, short-termism, under-investment and higher unemployment and the damage it did to good hard working businessmen and women. And only recently in the last world downturn in the early 1990s when – as a result of allowing the economy to run out of control – the British people and British business suffered 10 per cent inflation, 15 per cent interest rates, 1.5 million people in negative equity, 250,000 homes repossessed and 1 million more out of work

    This was the old stop-go Britain: an instability that meant with 10 per cent interest rates or more for a whole four year period, businesses like yours could not invest with confidence; with interest rates charges so high and prospects so uncertain many with talent and initiative found it too costly and risky to start up businesses; even the most successful businesses could not make long term plans as everyone expected inflation to recur – and we must never repeat those mistakes again.

    Now, by working together, we can see a Britain that has a new found and hard won stability with: the lowest inflation for thirty years; and the lowest interest rates for forty years; the lowest unemployment for a generation; and a Britain that is seen today as the most stable of all the major economies.

    And it is important we understand how and why it is Britain – once the most stop go of economies – which has avoided the recessions that hit America, Germany, Japan, Italy and most other industrial economies during the world downturn of the last few years and has enjoyed sustained and sustainable growth.

    So let me just explain the long term difficult decisions that had to be made and what I know we must also do to entrench that stability for the future.

    When we came into power – and having understood the damage that stop go instability had done to your businesses and having talked widely with people like Alan Greenspan and others whom I respected round the world – I decided to break decisively with the old short termism that had brought stop go and so in our first day in office we removed the politicians’ power to make interest rate decisions.

    But the changes we made were not just the right one – opposed by other parties – of making Bank of England independent.
    Even more important we put in place a wholly new long term fiscal and monetary discipline and framework which some now refer to as the ‘British Model’ for monetary and fiscal stability:

    • a symmetrical inflation target – now just 2 per cent – which is – important to how we responded to the world downturn – as worried about deflation as inflation;
    • fiscal rules set not just for one year but for the whole economic cycle;
    • and a new fiscal discipline founded on a radical reduction of the national debt;
    • and having tightened fiscal policy radically by over 4 per cent of GDP and sold off assets including spectrum – paying off more debt in one year than all the debt paid off in the whole of the last fifty years taken together – we cut debt from 44 per cent of GDP to one third;
    • and having cut debt dramatically, we reduced our debt interest payments – which with social security had taken up half of all additional public spending ten years before – to less than 2 per cent of GDP, lower than at any time since the first world war.

    And in contrast with the experience of other economies hit by recession, the credibility that has come from independence for the Bank of England, the symmetric target, the reduction of debt and debt interest and the new fiscal rules – the British Model we have created – has enabled the Monetary Policy Committee to respond early and decisively – raising interest rates in 1997, cutting them sharply in 1998 and again with nine interest rate cuts during the global downturn, and now in the last six months acting pre-emptively with interest rate changes on two occasions – with the result that, even when more exposed than many other European economies to the IT shock, growth has continued and continues at a sustainable level.  And each year since 1997 low inflation – barely achieved by previous governments – has been achieved and our inflation target met each year and every year.

    So instead of being – as in the old days – first in, worst hit and last out of any world downturn, Britain has not only avoided recession but has continued to grow in quarter after quarter, year after year, in all seven years of our government since 1997.

    Indeed, Britain has now enjoyed the longest period of growth for over 200 years.

    And now that the world economy is strengthening, growth is also becoming more balanced with business investment, manufacturing output and exports rising now – and expected to continue to rise this year and next.  And as a result and because the New Deal has, at your suggestion, insisted on the obligations of the unemployed as well as on the opportunities, the numbers of people in work have risen by 1.8 million since 1997. Indeed, this year there are for the first time actually more than 30 million workforce jobs – 30.3 million in December 2003 – a rise of 2.42 million since 1997.  And while – as you know – jobs have risen and fallen in a number of areas, you will be interested to know that jobs in construction are up by 345,000; jobs in finance and business services up by 965,000; transport and communications up by 187,000; and distribution and hotels up by 540,000.

    So let me be clear: but for the new British Model which other countries are now examining, Britain would have run the same old recessionary risks.

    And I can tell you that such is my determination to lock in that stability that looking forward, vigilant to the global economic cycle, we can and will take nothing for granted.

    And it will be the same forward looking monetary action – backed by our sound fiscal policy – that can, if we continue to make the right decisions and stick to our resolve, lock in greater stability not just for a year, or for an economic cycle, but in this generation —– a prize of greater stability that has eluded successive governments of all parties in the post war era; a prize that – with resolve and prudence – is now within our grasp.

    While we will always be vigilant to the risks, growth in 2004 which is expected to be – even after three years of flat growth – just over 1.5 per cent in France, Germany and the euro area, will be between three and three and a half per cent in Britain with, of the G7 countries, Britain and America again growing fastest.  And I am pleased that forecasting organisations which doubted us last year and then doubted us again this year are now accepting – as the IMF has done today –  that growth will be higher than last year, one of the highest of the main economies, and above 3 per cent this year.

    And I can assure you that having had the strength to make the difficult long term decisions after 1997 we will continue to have the strength to take the long term decisions that put stability first now and in the future, supporting our monetary authorities in the difficult choices they have to make. And I can say categorically to investors everywhere that while no-one can ignore the reality of the economic cycle and the potential of global events to impact on the economy, we will entrench not relax our fiscal discipline.

    For let us recall that at this stage in the economic and political cycle, past governments have resorted to short-termism in fiscal policy and gone on to raise the rate of spending in a pre election spree.  But I can tell you this morning that in exactly the same way that we had the strength since 1997 to take long term decisions on fiscal as well as monetary policy, we are equally resolved today to avoid at all times the short-termism and mistaken fiscal as well as monetary policies of the past.

    So, as I have announced, we will, while meeting all our commitments and our fiscal rules, lower not raise the rate of spending growth in the next spending round.  I can tell you that while it was right – because we are tackling decades of under investment – that current spending rose in real terms by an average of 4 per cent between 2000 and 2004, it will grow by an average of 2.5 per cent in real terms between 2006 to 2008.

    And I tell you we will not be tempted into making the mistakes of the past. And I would caution against policies – bad for Britain’s long term future – that would complacently assume that our stability is a given that any government could maintain without risking the return of the old stop go; and against policies that would:

    • tamper with our fiscal rules vital to that stability, abolish the New Deal with its obligations on the unemployed, cut investments each of us know are vital for our local economies in infrastructure and in science and skills, as well as in security and law and order, the importance of which you have highlighted this morning;
    • and retreat from our long term fiscal disciplines – from fiscal rules set over the cycle – to the old annual inflexibilities which would repeat in Britain the same mistakes of the stop go years of the early nineties and indeed repeat in Britain exactly the same rigidities seen in the Stability and Growth Pact in the euro area.

    And let us also recall that in the past Britain usually fell into recession after two inflationary bursts – an initial burst of inflation when demand got out of control and then a second burst of inflation when wage negotiators sought to catch up with expected high inflation in their pay claims.

    But I can tell everyone who depends on a wage or salary that under our new model of Bank of England independence, inflation – as we saw yesterday – is now less than 2 per cent, is likely to be less than 2 per cent this year and it is set to be just 2 per cent in the next and subsequent years.   And in this upturn when Britain must seize the opportunities by being fully competitive it is vital we complement this anti inflation discipline by both private sector and public sectors showing pay responsibility.

    Our message on pay is clear: there must be no return to the bad old days of pay irresponsibility in the private sector and we will tolerate no irresponsibility in the public sector. Civil service unions should also know that not only will we proceed with the 40,500 job reductions in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue and Customs – reducing administration costs across Whitehall from the 4.6 per cent we inherited to 3.7 per cent by 2008 – but there will be no going back to the old days of inflationary pay deals that would put hard won economic gains in jobs, prosperity and stability at risk.

    So once a stop-go economy, Britain is now one of the more stable.  And we are determined not to be diverted from keeping it that way. And it is time for us, facing new global economic challenges, to combine this new stability with a new resolve to make the right long term choices and reforms to achieve excellence in enterprise, in science and innovation, and in skills.

    So in the same way that a British consensus has been forged across the country – across management and workforces, and across all parties – for low inflation and our British framework for stability, we can, I believe, aim higher to forge – again across all parties, all groups – a deeper British consensus for enterprise — an entrepreneurial renaissance that celebrates and develops the entrepreneurial spirit that made us the first industrial power of the world and opens up the opportunities of enterprise to all with the talent and drive.

    Think back to the old days not just of stop go but of a sterile self-defeating corporatism that stifled enterprise and creativity and was Britain’s response to our nation’s relative economic decline

    Hence what we called:
    ‘The productivity problem’
    ‘The short termism problem’
    ‘The union problem’
    ‘The management problem’
    ‘The investment problem’
    The ‘What’s wrong with Britain problem’.

    I am pleased to report that because of your efforts there are today 100,000 more businesses than in 1997.

    Because for us a key priority was to send a message not just about stability but also about enterprise, a Labour Government, even with other priorities including investing in the NHS, education and transport and law and order, made the decision to cut capital gains tax for long term business assets dramatically – from 40 pence where it had been for years down to 10 pence.

    And I can tell you that while in every country health care cures and technologies have meant rising costs – in America most dramatically to 15 per cent of national income – hence our decision which I explained to you last year that national insurance pay for new investment matched to managerial reform in the NHS – we have since 1997 cut corporation tax from 33 pence to 30 pence, cut small business corporation tax from 23 pence to 19 pence and we are determined to keep our tax rates low and competitive, one of the reasons why  Britain is the most attractive place to invest and do business.

    You asked us to consider capital allowances and in particular special help for start up businesses, and support for venture capital. And not only have we made first year capital allowances permanent and in 2000 enterprise areas we have abolished stamp duty altogether but for this year as the economy moves forward we increased allowances for small firms to 50 pence and gave new support in the budget for the venture capital industry in all regions and nations of our country.

    Now regulation, red tape and bureaucracy are challenges in every industrial country of the world and whenever I go to the USA businessmen and women there raise about the very same things about the USA economy –  red tape, bureaucracy and regulation.

    You asked if together we could look at VAT. Instead of having to account for every transaction an automatic flat rate VAT calculation for small businesses which lifts the burden of VAT red tape off the shoulders of hundreds of thousand of companies. And we have more small companies taken out of VAT from a more generous threshold than any country in Europe.

    You asked us if working together we could look at red tape in auditing and we have exempted more small businesses from the requirement to submit an independent audit.

    You asked us if working together we could look at the system of inspections and enforcement and its costs – and we have set up a review – to which I know you are contributing – to minimise and reduce duplication in the inspection system and enforcement regimes.

    You asked us if working together we could look at the administration of the working tax credit – and having accepted the case for the Inland Revenue paying the credit directly to employees, we are now consulting with you on detailed implementation.

    You asked us if working together we could look at the cost of submitting statistical returns and the National Statistician is working with you through the Business Forum to look at what more can be done to minimise the burden on small business.

    You asked us if working together we could look at the Information Commissioner’s requirements and we produced shortened and simplified guidance for companies about the Employment Practices Data Protection Code.

    You asked us if working together we could look at the way new regulations were examined and from now on, the Regulatory Impact Unit will prevent the implementation of new policies if no proper assessment of the regulatory impact on business has been done.  For the chemicals, construction and retail industries we have established industry forums to give business early warning of new regulations and allow you to express your views on them.  And just as legislation can only be is only approved after a Cabinet process chaired by the Prime Minister so too from now on new regulations with a major impact on business will only be allowed to go ahead after being submitted to a cabinet route, with a strengthened Panel for Regulatory Accountability.

    And because 40 per cent of new regulation comes from Europe we have resisted inflexible barriers being added into European Directives like the Working Time Directive and Agency Workers Directive, the Investment Services Directive and the Transparency Directive – showing that the best contribution we pro Europeans can make to Europe’s future is to lead the reforms that will make it more competitive. And Britain has agreed with Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg to put regulatory reform at the heart of our four EU Presidencies through to 2005, ensuring that any proposed regulation and every costly and wasteful existing regulation is put to a competitiveness test.

    We also know that working together we can do more to enhance Britain’s great entrepreneurial culture.

    And we have been considering what might be done to recognise that outstanding success.  So it is right to tell this conference which has been so prominent in promoting entrepreneurial talent in every region and every locality that building on the Queen’s Award for Enterprise the Government is in discussions with the Palace about new ways of recognising outstanding individual contributions to the development and promotion of enterprise nationally, regionally and locally.

    We will hold the first ever national Enterprise Week – focused on inspiring the young to be enterprising – in November.

    There will be an annual British competition for the British town or city of enterprise and just as we compete for a European City of Culture we propose a competition for the European City of Enterprise too.

    All pupils before they leave school will have the opportunity to enjoy not just work experience but enterprise education too.

    And we are launching a new national council for graduate entrepreneurship – and I’d like to thank you, and in particular your Director General David Frost, for your commitment to this initiative.

    And we will devolve Small Business Services to where they should be – run locally, sensitive to the needs of local businesses.

    And in budget after budget I want to do more making the right long term choices for Britain to encourage the risk takers and those with ambition to turn their ideas into reality and make the most of their talents.

    And facing up to the global economic challenge – within 20 years potentially half the worlds manufactured exports produced in the developing economies, with up to 5 million jobs outsourced from Europe and America –  this government must also have the strength to make the hard long term choices in favour of free trade and an outward looking internationalism.

    That is why our commitment as a Government is that we will make the case for our membership of the European Union – which accounts for 50 per cent of our trade – for the advantages it brings to Britain, and for being a leader in the enlarged Europe, the biggest single market in the world.

    And we must also make the hard long term choices to build on Britain’s scientific and creative genius and make investment in science and skills a priority:

    • offering the long term incentives that encourage new as well as established firms to invest in R and D;
    • setting out a long term plan for science funding – all to encourage investment in the new technologies of the future

    And as your report proposes this morning every one of you who runs a company knows that you must draw on the potential of everyone in your company to be successful – and its no different for a country.

    Through Learn Direct, employer training pilots, union learning funds and then the return of apprenticeships, over 1 million more adults are gaining practical new skills than six years ago.  But I want us to be the best educated and best trained workforce and so I also commit us to taking, in this coming public spending round, the tough decisions necessary:

    • demanding, in return for investment, the highest standards in our schools and further education colleges;
    • reforming university finance to secure for Britain world class universities now and in the future;
    • and because university financial reforms will help fund universities, a chance also to invest in consultation with you in the area you have highlighted today and to which I am committed to do far more in our review – the all too often neglected area of vocational education and the improvement of the numbers and quality of modern apprenticeships – once dying, now covering 250,000 young people and soon one third – giving young people the practical skills they and the economy needs.  Our aim, the aim you share – that Britain becomes the best educated, most skilled, most technically proficient workforce; all the time encouraging and incentivising a great historic British quality – a work-your-way-up ethos of self improvement and self reliance.
    • So, in conclusion, no return ever to the old boom-bust policies of the past and no relaxation of our disciplines but a Britain – once the stop go economy of the world – that succeeds in the new global competition because as the country of great political stability it now also it maintains and entrenches its economic stability.

    A Britain that succeeds in the new global competition because working together we reject the old rigidities of the past and win as a flexible, reforming, and ever more enterprising economy.

    A Britain that succeeds globally because working together we build on our scientific genius and are outward looking, internationalist and European.

    Government effective where it has to be effective – in economic stability, science, skills; businesses are able to be the wealth creators they are, and encouraged where it matters – with incentives and rewards to invest and grow.

    And a Britain that succeeds globally because we share a long term economic purpose – that long term commitment not ever to take the easy way out or the short term course but resolute to get things right for the long term.

    Making Britain a better place to do business – and, if we make the long term changes needed, better still years from now.

  • Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at the Institute of Directors Annual Convention

    Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at the Institute of Directors Annual Convention

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Royal Albert Hall in London on 28 April 2004.

    Can I say what a pleasure it is to be able to address you – Britain’s top business leaders – at this, the annual conference of the Institute of Directors, today.

    And to be able, on my return from the IMF and World Bank meetings in America in the last few days:

    • to share with you my discussions with Alan Greenspan, Central Bank Governors and fellow Finance Ministers on the strengthening world economy;
    • to discuss with you how, building on the foundation of greater stability, we can as a nation seize the opportunities the world upturn offers us, now and into the future – the theme of your conference today;
    • and because it is British industry, British jobs and British prosperity that is our interest – and because it is by government and business working constructively and creatively together that Britain achieves its full potential – to discuss with you how out of our dialogue we can advance a shared economic purpose for Britain that starts with our commitment to stability; an economic purpose that recognises that wealth creation is even more important to the society we want to build; an economic purpose that encourages – as I will propose with specific measures today – a wider and deeper entrepreneurial culture; and an economic purpose that is driven forward by the shared view that if we, the people and businesses of Britain, have the strength to make the hard long term choices, Britain – the country that pioneered free trade, the Britain that has a history of scientific invention greater than almost any other, the Britain that now has an economic stability rivalled by few others – is uniquely well placed to become one of the strongest, most successful enterprise centres of the world.

    It is indeed true that of all government’s economic responsibilities – to create a competitive environment, to ensure investment in infrastructure, science and skills – the first and most fundamental duty is economic stability. And it has been the objective of Tony Blair and I that Britain have the strength to take the long term decisions to ensure stability — yesterday, today and tomorrow.

    That is why in Washington in the last few days, while confident about a strengthening world economy, I have insisted that – even as trade, investment and output grows – fellow Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors also be vigilant to global risks: current account imbalances, rising oil and commodity prices, the risks to emerging markets in the transition to higher interest rates, and the long term fiscal pressures of ageing and healthcare.

    And at this time in the economic and political cycle, Britain has had its own special problems when past governments, of whatever political colour, have allowed either inflation to get out of control or spending to get out of control – or both as happened most recently in the early 90s with 10 per cent inflation, 15 per cent interest rates, an 8 per cent deficit and a doubling of the national debt.  And I do not need to remind you that our first duty in 1997 was to address Britain’s chronic post war history of stop-go, inflation, short-termism, under-investment and higher unemployment: the old stop-go Britain. An instability that meant many with talent and initiative found it too risky to start up businesses and even the most successful British businesses could not invest with confidence for the long term or make ambitious plans.

    And it is because we recognised that – even more so in the global economy of the future – investment would move only to the countries that could demonstrate a long standing commitment to, and record of, monetary and fiscal stability, that in our first act in Government we broke from the old short-termism and removed from politicians the power to make interest rate decisions.

    And the changes we made were not just making the Bank of England independent – but by:

    • freezing spending, selling off assets and cutting the national debt dramatically;
    • imposing new fiscal policies over the economic cycle which allowed us to invest through a world recession;
    • and introducing a symmetrical inflation target that targeted deflation as much as inflation;

    the Government under Tony Blair’s leadership also put in place a wholly new long term fiscal and monetary discipline and framework.

    And I believe that it is because Britain imposed these rules, this ‘British Model’ for stability – which allowed the Bank to cut interest rates aggressively during the world downturn and allows the Bank to act proactively and pre-emptively in the upturn too – that while the USA, Germany, Italy and Japan suffered recessions, Britain for the first time in 50 years did not suffer a recession during the world downturn and instead has grown in quarter after quarter, year after year, in all seven years of our Government since 1997.  The number of people in work has grown by 1.8 million.  And Britain has now enjoyed the longest sustained period of growth for over 200 years.

    And while we will always be vigilant to the risks, I am confident that monetary and fiscal policy will ensure that growth in 2004 – which is forecast to be just over 1.5 per cent in France, Germany and the euro area – will in Britain, be between three and three and a half per cent with, of the G7 countries, Britain and America again this year growing fastest.

    And, looking forward, I can assure you that Tony Blair and I will put stability first, now and in the future — supporting our monetary authorities in the difficult choices they have to make and entrenching not relaxing our fiscal discipline.

    Because in the past Britain usually fell into recession after two inflationary bursts – an initial burst of inflation when demand got out of control and then a second burst of inflation when wage negotiators sought to catch up with expected high inflation in their pay claims – I have made it clear to wage bargainers that it is vital we maintain our anti-inflation discipline and be fully competitive by both private sector and public sectors showing pay responsibility.

    And in the public sector we will combine this anti inflation discipline with moving forward our plans for the relocation of 20,000 civil service jobs from the south east to the regions and the reduction of 40,500 civil service posts.

    And I can also tell you this afternoon that – in contrast to past governments who have resorted to short-termism in fiscal policy and gone on to raise the rate of spending in a pre election spree – we are committed to holding current spending at or below the level of revenues over the cycle and investing only where debt remains at a prudent level.  The Japanese deficit is now 7 per cent of national income, the US deficit is 5 per cent, and the French and German 4 per cent.  Our deficit is and will remain lowest of all these.  And while debt is 55 per cent in Germany, 50 per cent in the USA, 45 per cent in France and 86 per cent in Japan, it is around just one third of GDP in Britain.
    So our debt and deficits are – and this year will remain – the lowest of our major competitors and not only are our public spending plans fully financed and affordable but we will also continue to meet, as we have done for these last seven years, our fiscal rules and disciplines.

    So once the stop go economy of the world, Britain is now one of the most stable. And because we will not fall for easy options or short term quick fixes, we will not be diverted from locking in that stability.

    Britain must never complacently assume that our stability can be taken for granted and would be maintained by any government.  As I have said, it is not by accident but by the specific actions we have taken together that we have the lowest inflation for thirty years, the lowest interest rates for forty years and the lowest unemployment for a generation.  And policies that would tamper with our fiscal rules and fail to take long term stability and investment seriously would be bad for Britain and take us back to the old short termism and stop go.

    And I can assure this conference that we will not ever make the mistakes either of the late eighties and earlier nineties when monetary disciplines were forgotten.  Nor will we make the mistake of applying a rigid interpretation of the European Stability and Growth Pact – or a British version of that – where – as again happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s – insufficient attention is paid to the long term, to the economic cycle as a whole, to the needs of investment and to the long term sustainability of debt as well as deficits.

    And I now hope that in the same way that business and Government agree on the importance of our new won and hard won stability, we can now move forward to build an even deeper and more lasting consensus about the importance we all attach to a wider and deeper entrepreneurial culture in our country – a culture which rewards and values business and wealth creation; a culture which encourages the risk taker, the innovator and the investor; a culture which says to the young person with the will to succeed that enterprise is genuinely open to all who make the effort.

    Let me explain what I have said not just to business but to the Labour Party and to the trade unions about why it is so important to build that stronger and deeper enterprise culture in all areas of Britain.

    We all know that the new global economy means not just speed in innovation but also a shift in global production so great that while in 1980 less than a tenth of manufacturing exports came from developing countries, today it’s 25 per cent; in twenty years time 50 per cent. That’s not just cars and computers but half of all the world’s manufacturing goods produced for export in the developing countries.

    Already China and India are becoming technological powers – China with 750,000 researchers and 750,000 graduates a year, India with nearly 700,000 graduates a year. And China’s significance to the global economy is that this year it is consuming more than twice the amount of steel than the USA, nearly half of the world’s cement and is adding as much output as the whole of the G7 put together.  So for Britain, as for Europe, there is no escape from uncompetitiveness by resorting to the old loss making subsidies, artificial barriers or protectionist shelters.

    And while there are huge challenges, the opportunity for us is that as low cost, low value production comes under increasing pressure, we are well placed to meet and master the challenge of finding and exploiting the high valued added, high tech, high skilled, science-driven products and services that are the key to our wealth creation in the future.

    The Britain that fails will be the Britain that relapses into the old short-termism and stop go, failing to take long term stability seriously; and fails to invest in science, technology, infrastructure, skills and enterprise.

    But the Britain that succeeds will be the British economy that builds upon its foundation of stability; thrives on robust competition and on free trade not protectionism; and insists on making the long term investments needed in science, skills and enterprise – backing enterprising and knowledgeable people from the entrepreneur and cutting edge research scientist to the trained apprentice and skilled worker.

    British inventiveness is not just a feature of our industrial revolution past.  I am proud to say that today we lead the world in areas from aerospace, pharmaceuticals and financial services to telecommunications, broadcast technologies and digital electronics.

    And while it would always be easier to take the short term route – and fail to continue to make the necessary investments for the future – we propose to take the longer term view, to choose science and technology above many other spending priorities and building on the widely acclaimed one and a quarter billion pound renewal of Britain’s university and science base – and on the new research and development tax credits you have already welcomed – we propose to set out this summer a long term investment framework for British science, technology and innovation over the next decade. And I can tell you today that, as the next step toward our long term ambitions, we will raise the level of science funding as a share of national income in the next spending review period.

    But there is something even more ambitious we propose for Britain.

    Our aim must be to remove all the old barriers holding the enterprising back and create an environment in which businesses – whether companies starting up, investing, hiring, training, seeking equity, exporting – can grow and thrive.

    Let me give a few examples.

    Planning: Britain must make our planning laws quicker, more flexible and more responsive – and I can tell you that we will.

    Pay: Britain must do more to encourage local and regional pay flexibility – and we will.

    Transport: we must work with you – private and public sectors together – to tackle the massive backlog in infrastructure investment.  And with £180 billion of investment over ten years we will.

    Company regulation: we have exempted 69,000 more small businesses – over 200,000 now in total – from the requirement to submit an independent audit. And we will do more.

    Inspections: with our new review, we will seek to minimise and reduce duplication in the inspection system and enforcement regimes.

    Small business regulation: we have introduced a simple flat rate VAT calculation for small businesses which lifts the burden of VAT red tape off the shoulders of hundreds of thousand of firms.  And we will do more.

    Tax: just as we have cut long term capital gains tax from 40 pence to 10 pence, small business tax from 23 pence to 19 pence and corporation tax from 33 pence to 30 pence, I promise we will continue to look with you at the business tax regime so that we make and keep the UK as the most competitive place for international business.

    As I was reminded when I heard business this weekend express their concerns about regulation in the USA, red tape, regulation and bureaucracy are challenges in every industrial country of the world.

    In total over the last 2 years, 650 regulations have been identified in Britain for reform or removal and we now propose sector by sector, working with you, to look at how we can remove more wasteful regulations starting with the chemicals, construction and retail industries.

    Because 40 per cent of new regulation comes from Europe we have resisted inflexible barriers being added into European directives like the Working Time Directive and Agency Workers Directive, the Investment Services Directive and the Transparency Directive. And I am pleased to report that Britain has agreed with Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg to put regulatory reform at the heart of our four EU presidencies through to 2005, ensuring that any proposed regulation and every costly and wasteful existing regulation is put to a competitiveness test.

    And just as we remove regulation that is wasteful we must also encourage competition, enterprise and trade that is job creating.

    In the new global economy a competitive environment abroad is as important as the one at home so we must also have the strength to make the hard long term choices in favour of free trade and an outward looking internationalism.  That is why our commitment as a Government is that we will not only lead calls for a resumption of world trade talks but will make the case for our membership of the European Union – which accounts for 50 per cent of our trade – for the advantages it brings to Britain – and for being a leader in the enlarged Europe, the biggest single market in the world.   And I believe that the best contribution pro-Europeans committed to Britain leading in Europe make to the cause of Europe is by ensuring that in Europe we face up to rather than duck the difficult decisions about economic reform.

    But Europe and America should also do more to work together.

    Having just returned from meetings in the United States with John Snow, the Treasury Secretary, and Alan Greenspan, the Head of The Federal Reserve, I want to announce a joint initiative of the US Administration and the US Government — the first USA-UK Enterprise and Productivity Forum which will be held in Philadelphia on 24 May. The purpose is to bring together businessmen and women from both countries to discuss how best we can advance enterprise and equip ourselves for the next challenges of the global economy. And not only is your Director General but young entrepreneurs from across the UK being invited.

    In June, in a second enterprise initiative jointly with the United States, we will examine how together we can improve enterprise education in our schools.  And as we learn from America’s “can do”, “get up and go”, dynamic entrepreneurial culture, we will be asking why a third fewer people in the UK say they are considering starting up a business compared to the US.

    These are just two of a number of initiatives, working with business, that we are taking this year to strengthen and deepen the enterprise culture in Britain and to learn from the USA’s stronger and deeper enterprise culture – remembering that if Britain had the same rate of entrepreneurial activity as the United States, we would have 1.8 million more people starting up or running new businesses every year.

    I want also to inform you that to further USA and European cooperation, the Transatlantic Business Dialogue – which has just been relaunched – will, with our support, meet at the forthcoming EU-US Summit on 26 June and will focus on the regulatory, competition and other barriers which deny us the full benefits in jobs, growth, business activity, employment and prosperity from the interaction of the world’s two most successful economies.

    And let me tell you something that matters for this Institute which has done so much to foster and encourage enterprise: that building on the Queen’s Award for Enterprise the Government is in discussions with the Palace about new ways of recognising outstanding individual contributions to the development and promotion of enterprise nationally, regionally and locally – and thus recognising the importance of the dynamic entrepreneur as a role model in our community.

    Let me also tell you that in June we will be announcing the detailed plans for Britain’s first ever National Enterprise Week to be held in November 2004 and to be led by your Director General – whose sterling work in this area has rightly won wide acclaim.

    Out of our Enterprise Week – focused on inspiring the young to be enterprising with events, competitions, master classes and other initiatives in every part of the country – I want to see literally thousands of young men and women in Britain challenged by the excitement of business and fired with the enthusiasm to start a business or to work in business….yet another example of a sea change in attitudes to enterprise I want to encourage for Britain.

    I can tell you that we have set aside resources, starting in September next year, to give each school pupil at least 5 days of enterprise education and from today, enterprise advisers will be working in one thousand schools in our most deprived areas – together ensuring that before they leave school all pupils will have the opportunity to enjoy not just work experience but top quality enterprise education too.

    More than in the past, our colleges and universities ought to be a training ground for businessmen and women of the future.  And this is the thinking behind the new National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship – to be launched shortly – which will provide advice and support for college and university students considering a career in business and will be championed by Karan Billimoria, the prominent graduate entrepreneur behind Cobra Beer.

    I have always thought it right that if we have towns and cities recognised for their culture or environment or sports we should have towns and cities recognised for their contribution to enterprise and I will soon be announcing further details with the Deputy Prime Minister of an annual British competition for the British town or city of enterprise.

    And just as European countries compete for a European City of Culture we have persuaded our fellow European partners that there should be a competition to identify the European city of enterprise too.

    In the past, areas of high unemployment seemed to be no go areas for enterprise.  But in an era when enterprise is open to all no community should be left behind so I can tell you that the 2000 new enterprise areas – new zones for new business opportunities in areas traditionally associated with high unemployment, should enjoy a stamp duty holiday for property purchases, a special community investment tax relief, fast tracking planning for new business development and the prospect of enhanced capital allowances for renovating business premises.

    In the past the work of science seemed remote from the work of business but I can inform you also today that – following Richard Lambert’s recommendations – we will make it one of our spending priorities to encourage business to draw on innovative work from our colleges, universities and research institutes, and to encourage universities to think of the needs of business — through funding grants for collaborative R&D; helping universities translate research effectively into commercial benefits; and encouraging more university-business link ups not just within the UK but between the UK and other countries.

    Every one of you here who runs a company knows that you must draw upon, encourage and incentivise the potential of everyone in your company to be successful. And it’s no different for a country.   But each year too many 16 year olds leave school with no qualifications.  There are nearly 5 million adults still without basic skills. And only 300,000 of them are in training.

    I believe this is a responsibility of all of us – employers, employees and governments – and not only do I want a partnership that raises the level of skills available to you in businesses but Charles Clarke and I have committed ourselves to making the tough resource decisions necessary to help make Britain the best educated, most skilled, most technically proficient workforce:

    • demanding, in return for investment, the highest standards where training must start – in our schools and further education colleges;
    • reforming university finance to secure for Britain world class universities now and in the future;
    • focusing resources on the all too often neglected area of vocational education for young people and adults – including improving the quality of modern apprenticeships, once dying and now taken up by a quarter of a million young people;
    • entrenching and expanding the rights and responsibilities of the New Deal – which has helped over 1 million people into jobs since 1997.

    But it will only work if we work together:

    • you taking an interest in schools, colleges and universities to ensure they are not remote from the needs of business;
    • and, because it is a national priority where urgency is required, the Government ready to do more to be of assistance.  And I can say today that we are ready to do more, working with you, to expand the highly successful Employer Training Pilots that are now offering over 80,000 employees paid time off to train towards relevant skills.

    So the modern role of government in the global era is to entrench stability, build a competitive environment, and to ensure the public investments necessary, in partnership with business, for a knowledge based economy — investments in science and technology, in enterprise and in skills.

    Government doing what it needs to but only what it needs to do:

    • determined to maintain stability and create a competitive environment in which businesses can thrive;
    • resolved to invest in those areas where government can make a real difference – science, skills and infrastructure;
    • committed to entrenching a wider and deeper enterprise culture;
    • and building what is increasingly vital: a shared British economic purpose – hopefully a national consensus that stretches right across all parties and all sections of the community – that Britain, the first industrial nation, has the strength and the will to avoid the old short termism and mistakes of the past and think, act and work together for the long term.

    Britain not only well placed to be the success story of the new global economy but determined that nothing will stand in the way of that achievement.

    It is a global challenge we can meet by working together.

    And a British achievement we can – in our generation together – celebrate.

  • Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech to the Social Market Foundation

    Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech to the Social Market Foundation

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 18 May 2004.

    I am grateful to the Social Market Foundation not just for its contribution in forum after forum and publication after publication to a vibrant debate about the future of our country but for giving me the opportunity to speak on markets and social reform last year, now being so kind as to publish in pamphlet from the speech I made.

    In the speech I argued for a new clarity on one of the oldest and most important issues in political economy: the role and limits of the state and markets.

    I argued that markets are in the public interest, while not to be automatically equated with it, and that we should be advancing market disciplines across the economy – promoting greater competition, open trade, entrepreneurship and flexibility in labour and capital markets.

    I said that where there are market failures we should work to make markets perform better – as in skills and training, in science and research and development, in financial markets, in regional policy and to tackle environmental damage.

    And I suggested that where there are systemic problems with the operation of markets that cannot easily be corrected, such as in healthcare and other public services, the challenge is develop efficient and equitable but non centralist means of public provision.

    Since that speech – and with your general support – we have already announced major changes in policy that were prefigured or anticipated by the arguments of the speech.

    We have removed the last permanent industrial subsidies in coal, steel and shipbuilding.

    We have announced the sale of UK Government privatised shareholdings.

    From a platform of an increased national minimum wage and tax credits, we have promoted regional and local pay flexibility.

    We have announced new deregulatory initiatives for the administration of small companies in for example VAT and audit.

    We have agreed a four Presidency deregulation initiative for the EU, with the aim of putting every regulation to the competitiveness test.

    We have proposed a further round of European economic reform – liberalising product, capital and labour markets.

    We have proposed how the European Union can reform its state aid regime – abolishing wasteful state aids but also making sure the rules do not prevent measures which help make markets work better.

    We have implemented our new competition and enterprise regime and the OFT and Competition Commission have a new work programme with investigations into market conditions in areas from pharmacies and doorstep selling to estate agents and the professions.

    And we have invested substantially more in the areas where if Government does not act, voluntary, private or other agencies cannot be relied on to do so – in schools, adult learning, universities, colleges, health and infrastructure.

    And in adult learning we are seeking a new partnership between government, employers and employees.

    In health and the public services the programme of reform is proceeding faster than ever and that reform will go on and on.

    Tony Blair and I are working closely on both our spending round and the five year departmental plans for the future:  radical plans for investment matched by reform which we and the Cabinet are also working through together, reform plans that we will outline in the next few weeks, reforms on the basis of which Tony Blair will map out the road ahead.

    And working with John Reid in the field of health care, we are recognising just how much more progress on the reform agenda we can make.

    Last year I argued for more devolution, more local accountability, more flexibility and more choice – more diversity of supply – in the delivery of services. But advances we are making now allow us to go even further.

    Take information available to the patient. In my speech last year I pointed out that professional and care relationships suffer from information asymmetries — information asymmetries that made the typical market model of service provision difficult to work in every health care system including in America as well as Britain.    Whereas in a market there is always a temptation for the supplier to exploit information asymmetries, in public services we must attempt to face up to them in the interests of patient power.   So increasingly we will empower patients.

    In addition to producing better information for patients through star ratings, putting waiting times and other information on the NHS.uk website, we are piloting expert support for patients in exercising choice over their care.  In our coronary and heart disease choice pilots, for example, specialist nurse ‘patient care advisors’ are being provided to help patients.  And we are now planning to roll out choice at referral, where PCTs and GPs will provide advice and support either directly to patients or with the help of voluntary organisations.  We are also providing more information particularly in primary care and for patients with chronic conditions where patients increasingly have considerable knowledge of their condition.

    Addressing these asymmetries – putting patients and users of other public services at the heart of the delivery of those services – is a crucial aspect of the government’s desire to achieve a wider aim: to make public services more personal to the needs of the user.

    Personalisation means opening up wherever possible a greater range of options to the service user and I believe it will serve us well to consider the future of the public services in this way: making public services responsive to the particular needs of their users so that his or her needs are better met:

    • for the NHS patient, the opportunity to book an appointment time, to see their own electronic records, to choose a hospital
    • for the school pupil, allowing the individual to learn at his or her own pace and style
    • for the elderly or disabled person, the chance to design for themselves and then obtain the right package of care options for them
    • for the young person on the New Deal, access to an adviser who can provide help tailored to the particular circumstances of the individual and the employment conditions of the area
    • for the parent, a range of flexible childcare services and financial support to choose from
    • for the local community, the opportunity to discuss and influence community safety strategies and environmental improvements.

    And in this way the work of the doctor, the nurse, the teacher and the provider focus more on the individual needs of the patient, pupil and user than ever before; public services can be shown to be superior to privately provided services in these areas; and a new model of non centralised non market public service delivery can evolve – devolved, accountable, flexible, with the user in the driving seat.

    For too long in the past chronic under-investment made many resigned to the poor performance of too many public services, standardised and uniform services starved as they were of resources and of long term direction and hope.  But today we can see a new vision ahead of us – where instead of standardised and uniform services, public services meet peoples diverse needs in ways personal to those who depended upon them

    As Amartya Sen has famously argued, equality rooted in an equal respect and concern for our citizens demands not just greater equality of resources but also equal capability to function and develop their potential. Such capability can be developed through a new approach to public services – one that maximises responsiveness and flexibility to provide services that empower the individual to flourish and one that engages individuals themselves to be active partners in achieving these results.

    Because achieving equality of opportunity is a fundamental goal in a progressive society, I believe each person has an equal entitlement not just to high standards of service, but to as equal a chance as another of developing themselves and their potential to the fullest. Because people begin from different starting places, in different circumstances and with different needs, public services need to be personalised in terms of their resources and range of provision.

    Achieving this vision of personalised public services — meeting the individual needs of all our citizens — requires continuing reform in the way we deliver public services.  This is the process on which the government has embarked and on which we continue to push ahead, as we shall show in the spending review in the summer.

    And this vision is not of personalised services just for the few, for those who can afford to buy them in the market.  It is for all.  For personalisation is not opposed to equity; it is at the very core of what equity means.  Achieving the goal of equality of opportunity – enabling each person to achieve their own potential to the fullest – requires a tailored approach that takes into account each person’s unique circumstances.

    When I gave the speech to the SMF last year, some people said that the Government’s three goals for public services

    – greater personalisation, higher efficiency, and increased equity – were mutually incompatible.  They said that we faced a dilemma:
    – that if public services were to be efficient, they had to be inequitable, because only market mechanisms, which depend on ability to pay, can achieve efficiency
    – and that if services are to be equitable and universally available to all, then they cannot be personalised, but must inevitably be uniform, inflexible and standardised

    Yet, in my speech and now pamphlet, I showed how not just equity but efficiency is better served through a publicly-funded and publicly-provided NHS rather than a private market.

    But now I believe we can go further than this. We can show that public funding and largely public provision cannot only be equitable and efficient but can provide personalised services as well.

    I very much hope the SMF, along with other think tanks, will continue to contribute to the debates we are now engaged in on how we develop more personalised, equitable and efficient public services. I hope this pamphlet helps this process. I am very grateful to the SMF for publishing it.  And to all of you for attending this launch.

  • Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at Launch of the Enterprise Insight Campaign

    Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at Launch of the Enterprise Insight Campaign

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 28 June 2004.

    I am delighted to be here today with Britain’s top entrepreneurs, businesses and education organisations to launch a new campaign aimed at inspiring young people to believe in their own entrepreneurial potential and “Make Their Mark”.

    As you know, the campaign will culminate in November with the first ever British ‘National Enterprise Week’ designed to encourage young people to think entrepreneurially, to get them excited about the possibilities of starting up a business, and to mark a step change in the creation of a more dynamic enterprise culture in our country.

    And I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you here who are working tirelessly to make Enterprise Week a success: Kevin Steele and George Cox from Enterprise Insight; and all the individual members of the Enterprise Insight campaign who are bringing together so many events into just one week this autumn.

    During Enterprise Week Britain will showcase our entrepreneurial talent and inspire young people in every region of the country:

    • over 2,000 young people from all over the world will compete in a 24 hour global enterprise challenge;
    • Shell Livewire will showcase their 300 best young business start-ups;
    • Britain’s 100 fastest growing inner city companies will be rewarded for their success;
    • young people will attend mentoring classes, networking events and workshops with established entrepreneurs;
    • there will be competitions for the most innovative business ideas; and
    • there will be enterprise roadshows for school pupils all over Britain.

    And as we launch this Enterprise Week campaign today, I can also tell you that there will be three other competitions to recognise and reward our brightest and best entrepreneurs – and the cities and towns that are doing most to encourage the entrepreneurs of the future.

    The ‘Enterprising Britain’ competition will identify British cities or towns that have championed a culture of enterprise throughout the regions of the UK. Nominations from across the country will be unveiled during Enterprise Week, and Britain’s first national capital of enterprise will be chosen next spring.

    I congratulate the Daily Mail and Enterprise Insight for setting up, in parallel, ‘Enterprising Britons’ – a competition to find the nation’s most outstanding enterprising individuals – with the winners crowned during Enterprise Week this autumn.

    And when in a fortnight’s time the Queen and other members of the Royal family visit the most outstanding examples of enterprise in each region, we will be announcing a new Queen’s award for enterprise.

    As we celebrate entrepreneurship I have set a goal for the Pre-Budget Report, which will be presented to the House of Commons at the same time as National Enterprise Week, to do more to remove all the old barriers holding the enterprising back.

    For too long, in too many areas, for too much of our recent past, enterprise has been seen as something for someone else, for a small elite. People thought the opportunity to start a business, to become self-employed, to make their ideas happen, was, somehow, not for them.

    So we must rebuild a truly enterprising culture in Britain and we must open up enterprise to all.  Encouragement for business start ups must be available in the highest unemployment area as well as the most prosperous areas, to the redundant worker as well as to the tycoon’s son.

    I want us to create a Britain of ambition where what matters is not where you come from but what you aspire to – and where business creation is encouraged.

    That is why in the last seven years we have put in place reforms to help business start up and grow.  We have cut capital gains tax from 40p to 10p. We have introduced the most open competition regime this country has seen. To cut the penalties of failure we have radically reformed the insolvency laws. We have cut small companies corporation tax from 23p to 19p, with a new zero rate for the smallest companies first £10,000 pounds of profit. And perhaps most importantly of all, we have created economic stability in which businesses can plan ahead with confidence.

    As a result more people than ever want to start businesses. There are 100,000 more businesses than in 1997, 3000 new businesses are starting up each week, and last year saw the fastest rate of increase in self-employment for two decades.

    55 per cent of people now believe they have the skills to start up a business, compared to 40 per cent in 2001.  Indeed 39 per cent believe there are good start up opportunities for them, compared to 18 per cent, only a few years ago.

    It takes 24 days to set up a business in the rest of Europe but only 7 days in Britain – and I want that time to be even less.

    So we have made progress but there is still much more to do.

    It is because we want as strong and deep an enterprise culture as the United States, that Britain must now prepare for the next round of enterprise reforms: removing the barriers to enterprise; more devolution of business support to the regions; and enterprise brought into schools and universities –  as well as greater encouragement for entrepreneurs.

    At every stage – whether for companies starting up, investing, hiring, training, seeking equity, exporting – our aim is to be on businesses’ side.  And, learning from flexibilities in the United States, we are working to remove all the old barriers holding the enterprising back:

    • we are simplifying VAT, audit and regulatory regimes;
    • instead of having to account for every transaction there is now a simple flat rate VAT calculation for small businesses which lifts the burden of VAT red tape off the shoulders of hundreds of thousand of companies;
    • we have exempted more small businesses from the requirement to submit an independent audit;
    • we have set up a review to minimise and reduce duplication in the inspection system and enforcement regimes;
    • this year we will launch new funds for enterprise capital, to bridge the funding gap many new businesses face;
    • and because run down inner city areas or derelict industrial estates should not be seen as no go areas for new business but as areas of business opportunity – offering new choices, new recruits, and new markets – we have put in place 2000 new Enterprise Areas with stamp duty exemptions, community investment tax relief, fast track planning, and enhanced capital allowances for the renovation of business premises.  And I want to look at how we can go even further to encourage enterprise in disadvantaged communities in particular.

    And I believe that the announcements we make in the forthcoming Spending Review will reflect these priorities.

    Indeed I have studied the submissions of the Spending Review and what is remarkable is the consensus from unions to management; from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to the regions of England south and north that enterprise, along with science, innovation and skills, must be an investment priority for government.

    And in each case we should commit ourselves to the long term – resisting the old stop-go in spending that has done so much damage in the past.

    To make business support services more responsive to local people and local businesses, we will confirm in the Spending Review that the Business Links service – which helped half a million businesses last year – will be devolved out of Whitehall to the regions and we will do more to give RDAs the freedom and flexibility to be the driving force behind enterprise and business growth in every region of the country.

    Creating an enterprise culture starts not in the boardroom but in the classroom. Yet when I was at school no business ever came near the doors of our classroom.

    I can tell you today that there are funds set aside in the forthcoming Spending Review so that each school will be able to offer every pupil not just work experience but 5 days of enterprise education too.  1000 new enterprise advisors are already working in schools in deprived areas. And a week ago experts from Britain and the US met in Boston to share experience on inspiring young people in schools about enterprise.

    British universities, once slow to respond, are now fixed on working with businesses, expanding university spin offs, licensing technologies and teaching students about enterprise.  The spending round will offer more incentives for university and graduate enterprise.  We will encourage existing firms to use the entrepreneurial skills of Britain’s universities and colleges.  And this autumn we will launch a new National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship – which, working with the Kauffman foundation, will hold an international conference on how we can do more to put enterprise at the centre of the university curriculum.

    All our proposals on enterprise for this year each add up to something bigger than their individual parts – initiatives that taken together can make a difference, and contribute to a change in culture and attitudes by valuing and celebrating the spirit of enterprise throughout Britain.

    We know how much stronger our economy and our society will be if we see released all the dynamism, creativity and potential of all our people.  But too often, young people do not believe that enterprise is for them.

    That is why this campaign and Enterprise Week are so important – inspiring young people to be enterprising, mobilising people to aim high and to achieve success, and giving those with ideas and ambition the confidence and know-how to start up their own businesses and make a success of their ideas.

    So I urge you all to get involved and play your part in making Enterprise Week a success:

    • setting up and taking part in enterprise events;
    • telling the world about Enterprise Week – helping to get the enterprise message to young people where they spend their time – in  schools, universities, pubs and coffee shops, and online; and
    • sharing your stories about how ideas can become successful businesses.

    Because with business, government and the voluntary sector working together, I believe we can foster a British enterprise renaissance – and begin to tap the immense skill and entrepreneurial talent that exists in Britain to the benefit of the whole community.

  • Gordon Brown – 2003 Speech at the Inner City 100 Awards

    Gordon Brown – 2003 Speech at the Inner City 100 Awards

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 2 December 2003.

    Can I say first of all what a pleasure it is to be present at these awards for Inner City 100 – these “Oscars for Business”; to thank not only the New Economics Foundation, for their work in developing and running IC100, but the lead sponsors, Royal Bank of Scotland and Natwest; to be able to congratulate all of you who are finalists for the contribution you make both to your community and to the British economy; and to say that Inner City 100 is not just a competition between new high growth firms in our inner cities but a celebration of the dynamism of new enterprise in our inner cities.

    This competition – Inner City 100 – which I was proud to be present at the start of two years ago with only a few entries, now has – with over 400 nominations from across the country this year and over a thousand since the awards began – become the premier showcase for the initiative, innovation and renewal that is a feature of so many of our inner cities today.

    From fashion to food, construction to computer software, recruitment to property renovation, Inner City 100 firms are leading the way:

    • providing services like community transport, basic skills training and care services which are benefiting your local area;
    • taking innovative approaches to staff recruitment and training;
    • utilising environmentally friendly products and processes;
    • and developing hi tech solutions to problems.

    And as a result of the work you – and others like you – are doing across the country, small business creation rates remain strong and survival rates continue to improve, despite the global downturn.

    There are 133,000 more VAT registered companies today than in 1997.

    And there are more people starting businesses in our highest unemployment areas; and more people from different backgrounds realising that a career in business can be for them.

    And in thanking all of you for what you have achieved – and will achieve – I want, in the minute or two I have, to show how your achievements, your ingenuity and your creativity are building a new Britain of enterprise and initiative.

    Your successes show that the British economy will do best when enterprise is open not just to a privileged elite but where men and women from all social backgrounds are encouraged to know that with the banks on their side, with local authorities backing their efforts, with community support for them as role models for the young, they can transform their ideas and hopes into business start up and growing firms.

    A Britain where people know what matters is not where you come from but what you do, not where you were born but what you aspire to; a Britain where we break down the old barriers to opportunity and everyone has the chance to move ahead.

    And I can assure you that, on your side, the Government intends to play its part removing the barriers to start ups, to growing businesses, to the development of enterprise in all areas especially the inner cities:

    • building a competitive environment;
    • investing in skills and science;
    • and enthusing young people with the spirit of enterprise.

    And with 5,000 new jobs created across the country as a result of your successes – and average growth in your companies of nearly 600 per cent over the last five years – all of you here today have proved that inner cities and established industrial areas should be seen as new markets with competitive advantages – their strategic locations, their often untapped retail markets, and the potential of their workforce.   But there are still too many areas in Britain where businesses face special problems in obtaining access to support, advice and finance.

    So to stimulate business-led growth in our inner cities and estates, we have created enterprise areas in the 2000 most deprived wards in the country – where with the abolition of stamp duty, fast track planning permission, community investment tax relief, financial incentives to do payroll on line and the possibility of enhance capital allowances for renovating business premises – we will give special help with starting up, employing, training and investment.

    You have sent me your Entrepreneurs’ Manifesto and building on our capital gains, small business and corporation tax cuts, I promise you that the Pre Budget Report will make it easier to start up a business, help bridge the equity gap and cut red tape for small firms by further simplifying VAT administration and reducing your audit burden.

    We know that the key to your success has been getting the best people and the best out of your people, so with

    the return of apprenticeships – once dying now taken up by one quarter of a million young people;
    the new University for Industry – Learn Direct – which has already given nearly 1 million adults the chance to take courses from literacy to language to IT;
    and the employer training pilots that offer paid time off to train towards relevant skill

    we are investing more today in education and workplace skills than at any time in our history.  So that we can continue to do so, and do more, it is right to move ahead with the reforms in the structure and funding of higher education.  It is right that once students become graduates they make a greater contribution.  That is why as Tony Blair has said today it is essential that our reforms proceed through the House of Commons.  In this way we can both get more money into ensuring excellence in our universities and extend opportunities to more young people who would otherwise be denied the higher education chances that would benefit them.

    Later this week the Lambert Review will propose that universities receive greater encouragement to commercialise their research and already we are investing an extra one and a quarter billion pounds a year to expand the science research infrastructure and train more skilled scientists and engineers.

    But if we are to truly have the deeper and wider entrepreneurial culture we need we must start in our schools and colleges. I want every young person to be enthused with the spirit of enterprise; every teacher willing to extol the virtues of a career in commerce.  And we will work more closely with the United States to encourage young entrepreneurs — including giving young business men and women in disadvantaged areas of Britain the chance to spend a semester at an American business school and setting up a forum to bring together some of the brightest young UK and US entrepreneurs to learn from each other.

    Let me conclude by telling you what you are achieving here engages a worldwide interest.

    Last month with winners of past Inner City 100 competitions, the US Treasury Secretary John Snow and I took some of Britain’s foremost business leaders, including Richard Branson and Stellios Haji-Ioannou from Easygroup, to meet successful entrepreneurs from the West Midlands – including some of you here tonight.

    The men and women we met – and indeed all of you here this evening – truly are local heroes, role models for others in your communities.  And I urge each and everyone of you to continue to spread your expertise and experience to others – working in your communities, with young people, with schools and colleges, becoming business mentors – encouraging and nurturing Britain’s next generation of entrepreneurs.

    And working together in this way I believe we can not only change perceptions of the inner city as a business location but build a wider, deeper enterprise culture where from the poorest to the richest community, from left to right of the political spectrum, starting a business or becoming self employed is seen as open to all with the talent, ideas and will to do it.  Building a strong, dynamic, economic culture not just in prosperous areas but right across Britain.

    Congratulations again on your success – and enjoy the rest of your evening.

  • Gordon Brown – 2003 Speech on Empowering Local Communities

    Gordon Brown – 2003 Speech on Empowering Local Communities

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 7 February 2003.

    It is a great pleasure to be back here at Wolverhampton University today to celebrate the completion of the first phase of your multi million pound modernisation programme – this Millennium City Building which will expand your teaching, learning and research facilities and signals a dynamic new era for the university.

    And I want to congratulate this university which I have seen advance confidently from technical college to polytechnic, to university, to leading regional university on its quality, diversity and its growing importance as a centre of knowledge, ideas and technological expertise for the developing economy of the West Midlands.

    And I want to pay particular tribute to your Vice Chancellor, Professor John Brooks, and – if I might add a personal note – to the work and international achievements of Lord Paul whose quiet dignity, business acumen, renowned philanthropy and social engagement is respected and admired not just in one continent of the world but in every continent.

    And it is also a pleasure for me to be back in the city of Wolverhampton – to congratulate the people of Wolverhampton on your long deserved and now rightly achieved city status, and to congratulate this city with a proud manufacturing heritage now diversifying into new hi-tech and service industries – and able to do so, in large part, because of the first class facilities provided by the rapidly expanding local Science Park.

    And it is a privilege to be here in the West Midlands at a time when, despite a downturn in the world economy, the region – the heartland of British manufacturing – is again leading Britain, with nearly 60,000 new businesses created and over 70,000 more people in jobs since 1997 — clearly demonstrating the importance of this heartland region to the whole of the British economy.

    With low inflation and domestic stability, Britain remains better placed than in the past to cope with the world economic downturn and yesterday, because inflation is low, the Bank of England was able to respond to lower world economic growth and its potential impact on the British economy with lower interest rates.

    And here in Britain we will continue to have the strength to maintain and lock in our tough and disciplined approach to inflation and take the right long term decisions for Britain. And that is why just as we must have discipline on pay in the private sector it is right that there be continued and long term discipline in the decisions we make, as today, on public sector pay — and as we look forward to the conclusion of other pay negotiations, let us remind ourselves that every pay settlement must be linked to productivity so that investment in our public services is matched by reform.

    It is by holding fast to our economic disciplines that Britain, despite the world wide slowdown, has managed to combine low inflation with high levels of employment.

    And when world trade begins to move forward, there is a real opportunity, building on that stability, for British business and the British economy generally.

    On Monday I said our economic task was to strengthen markets and help markets work better.

    This will inform this spring’s Budget decisions.

    I want business, workforces and Government to work together so that, building on Britain’s platform of stability, we can ensure a more flexible, adaptable and productive economy in the time ahead as we meet the challenges of globalisation and in particular the restructuring of both low value added and high value added industries and services across the world.

    And it is our new approach to regional policy, so relevant to this university and this city and this region, that I want to emphasise in the few minutes I have today: how together we can build in the West Midlands and all our regions indigenous economic strength – by investing in skills, infrastructure and innovation – and help our regions become centres of energy, dynamism and economic strength in the United Kingdom as a whole.

    And how the universities – with their unique knowledge base – can contribute through teaching, technology transfer and new services to business to the development of jobs, wealth and the quality of life regionally and nationally – making a university like this absolutely central to the development of the new Britain.

    Let me forecast that the next decade will see the biggest ever shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to regions, localities and communities — moving Britain from the “old Whitehall knows best” culture to a Britain of not one but many centres of initiative and decision-making power.

    Already there has been more devolution to English regions in the last few years than in the preceding one hundred years. This new regional policy, backed by the Regional Development Agencies, with its emphasis on indigenous sources of economic strength is based on a genuine devolution of power in economic policymaking from the centre – and indeed the Spending Review announced that Regional Development Agencies will have budgets worth in total £2 billion a year; the flexibility to spend as they determine regional needs; and strengthened responsibility for economic development, tourism, skills, planning and – from April in the West Midlands – the management of business support.

    And with further devolution just announced in the provision of housing – and greater regional involvement in transport as our long term aim – this major decentralisation is transforming relationships between the centre and localities.

    Soon 90 per cent of the £7 billion a year learning and skills budget, 50 per cent of the Small Business Services budget and the vast majority of housing capital investment will be devolved to the freedom and flexibility of local decision-making as we pioneer non-centralist means of delivering these services.

    And these financial freedoms and flexibilities are being matched by greater accountability through the role of regional chambers and, for those who in time choose to have them, elected regional assemblies. And having, in the NHS, already devolved 75 per cent of health budgets to Primary Care Trusts, we have also established regional Strategic Health Authorities. And there is discussion of democratic arrangements in these areas too.

    Freedom and flexibility matter just as much in local government. And in return for reform and results, and as an incentive to all the rest, the best performing localities will soon have even more freedoms and flexibilities including:

    The removal of both revenue and capital ring fencing;
    The withdrawal of reserve powers over capping;
    Sixty plans reduced to just two required – the Best Value Performance Plan and a Community Plan;
    And a three year holiday from inspection.
    In other words – government enabling and empowering rather than directing and controlling.

    And there is greater freedom and flexibility, too, for charities, voluntary and community organisations as they take a bigger role in the delivery of services. At the heart of many of the new services we have played a part in developing – Sure Start nurseries, the Children’s Fund, IT Learning Centres, Healthy Living Centres, the New Deal for Communities, the Safer Communities Initiative, Communities Against Drugs, the Futurebuilders Programme – is a genuine break with the recent past: services not only involving voluntary and charitable organisations but being run through and by them – not implementing a standardised central plan but reflecting the needs of local communities and families.

    So instead of people looking to Whitehall for solutions in locality after locality, more and more people are themselves taking more control of the decisions that most affect them – a devolution of power, an empowerment of local centres of initiative that is now ready to spread across regions, local government and communities, large and small.

    Our long term objective has always been to match the attainment of ambitious national standards with the promotion of local autonomy so we can achieve efficiency, equity and choice. In education, health and other services our first priority was to end the post code lotteries and through national targets establish national standards below which our public services should never fall. The next step in service delivery is empowering local communities with the freedom to agree for their own public services their own local performance standards – choosing their own performance indicators on top of national targets and the local community expecting their local managers to continuously monitor and learn from their performance.

    This new direction – this new localism — moves us forward from an old Britain weakened by centuries of centralisation towards a new Britain strengthened by local centres of initiative, energy and dynamism.

    And in this way, I believe that a new era – an age of active citizenship and an enabling state – is now within our grasp —- at its core, a renewal of civic society where the rights to decent services and the responsibilities of citizenship go hand in hand.

    And as power devolves and decentralises away from London, here in the midlands there are huge new opportunities – at this university, in this city and in this region.

    So, once again, I would like to thank you for inviting me here today and for awarding me an honorary degree.

    Over the last few years, Wolverhampton University has gone from strength to strength – providing high quality teaching and research, and generating ever-increasing benefits for the businesses in the surrounding community — and this energy, combined with our new regional policy, will ensure it continues to thrive for years to come.

    Thank you.

  • Gordon Brown – 2003 Speech at the Future Wealth of Nations Conference

    Gordon Brown – 2003 Speech at the Future Wealth of Nations Conference

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Canary Wharf in London on 4 March 2003.

    It is a great pleasure to be here in Tower Hamlets today and to congratulate all of you – your MP, councillors, businessmen and women, local community organisations – on your success in the last six years since the New Deal was created of reducing unemployment in this area from over 6,700 unemployed to 4700 – a cut of nearly 30 per cent.

    With youth unemployment down from over 900 to 300 – a cut of over 65 per cent.

    If only one person had found a job that would be good…but you have working together, found jobs for nearly 2,000.

    And I know you are and should be particularly proud not just of what you are achieving in employment now, but in education for the future where you’ve seen the greatest increase in educational achievement of any borough in the country – and I’d like to add my congratulations to pupils, parents, teachers and everyone involved on this great success. In particular I want to thank all the headteachers here today for the dedication you show and the difference you make to the lives of the children in this borough.

    I am delighted to be here this morning and I’d like to begin by thanking Oona for organising today’s conference.

    Over the last 6 years as Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow, Oona has made a real difference to the lives of people here in the East End, fighting their corner when there are problems, celebrating their successes and working hard to highlight the real opportunities this area offers.

    Oona’s reputation both in Parliament and across government for speaking up on behalf of her constituents is renowned.

    And if she lobbies businesses in Canary Wharf as hard as she lobbies me in the Treasury, many of you here today have my sympathy!

    Oona is a tireless advocate for her constituents, and today is testament to the hard work she has put in to broker partnerships between business, the voluntary sector and local people.

    Because we know that many problems once addressed only by the state gaining more power can be solved today only by the state giving much of its power back to the people. The Government is determined to do more to build, strengthen and extend the links between the public, private and voluntary sectors – and we can already see the results of these partnerships here in Tower Hamlets:

    The local Employment Zone and Action Team – equipping people with the skills they need to move into the jobs that are available both in the City and beyond
    The East London Health Action Zone where business men and women act as mentors to local GPs
    The Ocean Estate and Weavers and Spitalfields Sure Start projects providing access to health, education and childcare services for nearly 2,500 under 4s

    The New Deal for Communities and local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies which are helping turn round your poorest neighbourhoods
    And the “Idea Store” which is combining a traditional library with an innovative new learning centre and computer facilities.
    All these projects showing how, for the first time, public services can not only involve private, voluntary and charitable organisations, but can be run through and by them – not implementing a standardised central plan, but reflecting the needs of local communities and families.

    The private sector is already playing a key role in many of these projects and it is a privilege to be here to recognise the contribution that many of the companies represented here today, as well as many others, are making not just to the strength of the British economy but also to the strength and vitality of British society – as your support for community regeneration, employee volunteering, mentoring and so many other initiatives in our community shows.

    And as you expand and advance an enterprising economy in our country you hold the key to our economic prosperity.

    But you are here today because you believe that business also has a responsibility to play a role not just in the traditional marketplaces of our country but in the real life neighbourhoods and communities in which you find your employees and your customers.

    And that is what this conference is all about – how corporate self interest and corporate social responsibility are not irreconcilable opposites but can move forward in unison.

    And what is fascinating as you survey the changes over recent decades – as global communication and global competition has intensified – is the progress that has been made as our shared understanding of corporate social responsibility has developed and deepened.

    An initiative that began by focusing primarily on businesses giving money away is now widened to include issues of how companies make money.

    And in this modern era, issues of staff morale and motivation, brand loyalty and reputational risk, and environmental sustainability are now also widely recognised as key drivers of competitive advantage.

    So as corporate social responsibility has come to mean not just charity or philanthropy but also greater transparency, environmental care and direct engagement in communities – we have seen British companies lead the world in the advancement of corporate social responsibility as it has moved from the margins to the mainstream, from the arena of charity to the arena of corporate strategy.

    Corporate social responsibility broadening all the time into a belief that economic, social and environmental objectives can be pursued together and in harmony.

    It is a recognition that trust is critical to success; that reputation management is essential; that a brand must enjoy people’s confidence.

    It is a recognition that when business loses trust and then legitimacy – either through lack of transparency or social engagement or corporate irresponsibility, whether it be Enron or Worldcom – it is at its most vulnerable.

    And it is a recognition that social responsibility is no longer an optional extra but a necessity; not a part of the business of a company but at its heart; not a sideshow but a centrepiece; not incidental but integral to what you do — a smart strategy for modern business.

    And businesses up and down the country are already demonstrating that they understand that corporate self interest and corporate social responsibility – the good economy and the good society – advance together:

    Businesses making its equipment available to the disabled, developing new technologies in doing so as they give special help to a vulnerable group

    Companies setting up in deprived areas, recruiting the local unemployed and at one and the same time creating profitable local enterprises and bringing the out of work back into work

    Firms sending trainee workers to help out in local charitable or community organisations helping poor communities and gaining training opportunities for their employees

    Banks providing basic accounts for people previously financially excluded and thereby tapping new markets and creating a culture of saving amongst low income families.

    And so many of you here today are already making a huge contribution.

    But now is the time to look at what more can be done, to scale up your activities, share best practice, and make even more of a difference.

    And with a new understanding of the changing role of business in the community, governments are also challenged to leave behind the old ideas that see the achievement of a more dynamic market economy and a fair society as somehow mutually exclusive.

    For fifty years Britain was bedevilled by the sterile and self defeating argument that there was a fundamental choice to be made between promoting a dynamic economy and creating a fairer society. That enterprise is bought only at the cost of fairness and fairness only at the price of enterprise.

    But whether it is by tapping the potential of all through equality of educational opportunity, or through recognizing, our responsibilities to the environment for the next generation, or through companies engaging in the community in which they operate, people now see that enterprise and fairness can advance together. And I believe the challenge in our generation is to build a consensus in our country that stretches from the poorest to the richest community, from left to right of the political spectrum, that instead of enterprise at the cost of fairness or fairness at the cost of enterprise, Britain can lead the way in showing the world that enterprise and fairness move forward together.

    And all this demands that government too must change the way we do things and, in changing our ways, face up to our responsibilities.

    That is why we will continue to make the tax system the best in the world for encouraging individual and corporate giving, including extending the 10 per cent supplement on payroll giving donations until 2004.

    Why we are working with business and the voluntary sector to develop a package of measures to encourage more employees to give both time and money to charity through the “Corporate Challenge”.

    And why in high unemployment communities like Tower Hamlets we are now working together for economic renewal – creating new incentives to promote greater business activity.

    In the last six years the number of businesses in Tower Hamlets has risen from 6,800 to 8,700 – an increase of nearly 2,000 businesses in this area alone – but we can still do more.

    If in the best off neighbourhoods there are 50 small businesses creating jobs but in the poorest areas only 4 or 5, then there are less jobs, reduced income for services, and yet because of unemployment more social problems that public services need to fund. So we are agreed that one of the best anti poverty, pro jobs programmes is to encourage more businesses to start up and grow especially in areas of greatest poverty.

    I believe we should see inner-city areas not as no-go areas for business or simply “problem” areas but as areas of opportunity: new markets where businesses can thrive because of the competitive advantages they often offer – with strategic locations, untapped resources, a high density of local purchasing power and the potential of their workforce.

    So to remove the barriers preventing firms from starting up and growing in our most deprived communities, we have designated 2000 new enterprise areas – 18 of these in Tower Hamlets – where we encourage economic activity by cutting the cost of starting up, investing, employing, training, managing the payroll.

    And with the new Community Investment Tax Credit giving new incentives for business investment in those areas – and new charity guidelines now defining economic regeneration as eligible for charitable status – I hope that working together we can bring investment, jobs and prosperity to areas that prosperity has by-passed.

    But if we are to have the deeper and wider entrepreneurial culture we want, we need not just greater incentives for business activity in deprived areas but more businesses to become involved in our schools and colleges – one of the key themes of today’s conference.

    Currently only 30 per cent – and in many areas as few as 15 per cent – of young people gain any experience of enterprise.

    And it is crucial that we act now to equip our children with the enterprising skills and experience to go out into this fast changing world, whatever career paths they choose.

    In Britain we have many world class businesses but productivity growth still lags behind many of our competitors and the number of business start ups remains low with half the proportion of people in the UK actively considering starting a new business compared to the United States.

    Whereas enterprise in the US is seen as an exciting career option for young people, it doesn’t appear so glamorous in the UK and I want to turn this perception around.

    I want every young person to hear about, and experience, the world of business; every college to be aware of the opportunities in business, even to start a business; and every teacher to be able to communicate the virtues of business and enterprise.

    I want businessmen and women going into schools helping to provide enterprise activities; I want every student to have a quality experience of enterprise and contact with business before they leave school; I want every community to see business leaders as role models for their children.

    Our ambition is to raise the aspirations of all our children and then show how these aspirations can be realised.

    That is why the government is implementing the recommendations of the Review of Enterprise and Education led by Howard Davies – investing £75 million over the next three years so that, by 2006, all pupils will have at least 5 days of enterprise education before leaving school.

    But we simply cannot make progress without the active involvement of the business community itself.

    There are already many examples of City and Canary Wharf companies that have established trailblazing partnerships with schools in Tower Hamlets – sending employees into schools to provide classroom support, giving pupils the opportunity to undertake work experience or visit factories and operational sites, being mentors and career counsellors to young people or serving as business governors.

    Later this morning Mulberry School will be highlighting their partnership with the Bank of America but I could equally mention the contributions of Unilever, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, to name just a few.

    When I was at school the world of education was far too remote from the world of business but thanks to the activities of many of the companies here today, this is changing for the better.

    But I believe that we can still do more and so I am urging all of you here today to forge links and partnerships with schools and colleges in Tower Hamlets and beyond.

    In this way every business in the country will be helping to forge the new enterprise culture that we want to see, tapping the immense skill and entrepreneurial talent that exists in Britain to the benefit of us all – corporate social responsibility not just about “doing the right thing” but a core part of improving our competitive edge.

    Now we have many demands on our resources and energies as a government.

    And I make no apology for saying we will spend what it takes to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons by states that defy the international community and to advance the cause of disarmament. Last year I set aside one billion pounds to be drawn upon by the ministry of defence for security and military preparations, if and when it became necessary. Last month I set aside an additional £750 million. Our armed forces do an outstanding job for Britain and today I make clear our gratitude for the work that they do and my resolve to ensure our armed forces are properly supported for whatever lies ahead. The international community must not stand by whilst a regime that proliferates weapons of mass destruction defies more than a decade of international agreements.

    But while we discharge our international responsibilities we will also discharge our domestic responsibilities.

    And my duty is to those areas and communities of this country which for too long had suffered high unemployment and high levels of deprivation who will have the resources through the new deal and our community regeneration budgets that are necessary. It is around regeneration and how we deliver it that this conference will discuss and debate today. And I believe with its breadth of participation from business and the community this conference shows there is a will to work together to create a Britain where just as employment is open to all, enterprise is open to all – a Britain with a creative, innovative and enterprising economy in every area of our country.

    Just as Britain works best when Britain works together so – as Oona’s initiative shows – Tower Hamlets works best when Tower Hamlets works together.