UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Jim Murphy – 2006 Speech on Homelessness

    jimmurphy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy, the then Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform, to the 16th November 2006.

    Introduction

    I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to join you this morning – to offer my support for the invaluable work that so many of you here are doing to tackle homelessness – and, of course, to celebrate the launch of the Transitional Spaces Project.

    Why tackling homelessness is so important

    Tackling homelessness is about much more than simply putting a roof over someone’s head.

    It’s about understanding the causes and addressing the factors that so often lead to homelessness, such as:

    – relationship and family breakdown;

    – debt and unemployment;

    – mental health problems; and

    – alcohol or drug dependency.

    Tackling these issues helps provide a way back for people on a path to homelessness – helping them to hold on to a place to live even when facing other challenges in their lives.

    We know that – if we don’t tackle the root causes – many homeless people can get trapped in a vicious cycle of deprivation; a cycle that eats away at their confidence and self-esteem; a cycle that was so vividly portrayed for the first time 40 years ago today – when the BBC first aired the drama documentary “Cathy Come Home.”

    12 million people – a quarter of the British population at the time – watched the story of Cathy and Reg. Initially a happy couple, their lives spiral downwards when Reg loses his job. After periods of squatting, eviction and care homes, finally – on a suburban street in front of astonished passers-by – Cathy has her children forcibly taken away from her by the social services.

    It shook the social conscience of a nation. Even as recently as 2000, a British Film Institute poll voted it the 2nd Greatest British Television Programme of the 20th Century.

    Progress

    We’ve come a long way in 40 years. The Homelessness Persons Act of Callaghan’s 1977 Government finally put a duty on local authorities to find accommodation for homeless applicants. And despite a marked lack of progress in the early 1980s and 1990s – this Government has made huge strides forwards:

    Today rough sleeping is down nearly three-quarters since 1998;

    We’ve ended the scandal of families spending long periods living in bed and breakfasts;

    The number of new cases of homelessness is at a 23 year low – down 29% on the same period last year; and

    We’ve set the ambitious target of halving the number of households living in temporary accommodation by 2010 – and have already seen a 7% reduction over the past year.

    Much of this progress has been down to many of you here today. A result of ground-breaking partnerships with local authorities and the voluntary sector in tackling the root causes of homelessness.

    Key to our success now is preventing people from ever getting onto the downward spiral that can lead to homelessness and despair.

    Through our Supporting People programme we are investing more than £5 billion over three years in locally delivered services to help people maintain independent lives through more settled housing.

    In the past decade we have doubled the funding for affordable housing and supported the creation of 230,000 new affordable homes.

    We’re investing in social housing and increasing the supply of new social homes by 50 per cent by 2008, providing 75,000 new social homes over the next three years.

    And, as our response to the Barker Review of Housing Supply made clear – we’re committed to going further and making social housing a priority in the next spending round as well.

    Challenge ahead

    But we need to go further. We know:

    There are still up to 500 people on the streets on a single night; and

    More than 90,000 households are still living in temporary accommodation.

    The challenges and causes of homelessness are changing. And our response must reflect these new challenges. We know that the single biggest cause of homelessness – accounting for nearly one-in-four new cases – is where parents are no longer willing to accommodate young people; and while one in five cases results from the breakdown of relationships.

    That’s why earlier this week the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government unveiled a package of measures specifically designed to tackle the root causes of homelessness – with a particular focus on the rising prevalence of youth homelessness – and the need for access to mediation services, to try and prevent the breakdown of relationships in families leading to homelessness.

    It means saying no to the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for 16-17 year olds, except in emergencies;

    It means training community volunteers and establishing supported lodgings across the country – that don’t just provide accommodation – but also advice and mediation services for young people; and

    It means making the initial move into supported accommodation a springboard for helping people turn their lives around, not the beginning of a downward spiral of rejection and dependency.

    Off the Streets and Into Work (OSW)

    As your report “Multiple Barriers, Multiple Efforts” highlighted, tackling homelessness requires a truly joined-up, holistic approach. Not one that tackles each barrier separately.

    That’s why it’s absolutely right that Off the Streets and Into Work should be making the connection between homelessness and worklessness. In “Cathy Come Home” it was, of course, when Reg lost his job that Cathy and Reg’s problems really began.

    Most of OSW’s clients are unemployed – nearly a third have been unemployed for more than three years.

    But we also know that many homeless people aspire to work. Your own survey in May last year (“No home, No job”) – the most extensive study of its kind in Europe – found that 97% of respondents said they would like to work in the future. And over three-quarters wanted to work straightaway.

    We need to go further in ensuring that labour market policy is properly joined up with housing and homelessness policy.

    We know, for example, that temporary accommodation can attract high management charges and the resulting high rents can be seen as a barrier to employment.

    That’s why we’re working with DCLG and OSW to support the Working Future project being tested by the GLA and East Thames Group. One hundred households in temporary accommodation in East London being offered lower rents in return for increased training opportunities and tailored employment support.

    We know that voluntary work or work experience plays an essential role in helping homeless people reconnect with work. As one respondent to your survey said:

    “It gives you the opportunity to work in areas that you thought were beyond you.”

    That’s why it was so important that we listened to you – and changed the rules on volunteers’ lunch expenses – allowing those on benefits to have their lunch expenses disregarded for benefit purposes. To make it easier for people who are on benefits to volunteer – and to take those crucial early steps on the road to work.

    As well as the transition into work – it’s clear we also need to shift the focus away from simply getting a job to supporting people to progress in the workplace.

    Through Jobcentre Plus and our wider welfare to work strategy – we have invested heavily in helping people find work. Our welfare reforms – the reform of Incapacity Benefit and our investment in the tailored support of Pathways to Work – are renewing a sense of hope and opportunity for those who have been written off by the welfare system for years.

    But our future success will hinge not just on getting people into work – but on supporting them to stay in work and to acquire the skills, confidence and ambition to progress though the workplace. This is the new challenge for welfare. Getting people into work is only the start. Keeping them in work and helping them to progress through the labour market must be our objectives.

    Our work to transform hostels – including the current £90 million Hostels Capital Improvement Programme – will make an important contribution by making hostels places where people can acquire skills and training to progress in their lives. Ending the “revolving door” of homelessness and helping people to build their way out of poverty and dependency.

    Role of Housing Benefit Reform

    Housing Benefit also needs to promote work and support a greater independence. Complexity and lack of transparency in Housing Benefit can act as a barrier to work. When payment is made to the landlord it does nothing to help tenants in developing their financial and budgeting skills or their sense of independence.

    By contrast, our new Local Housing Allowance – a flat-rate amount based on household size and location – is paid in most cases to the tenant rather than the landlord. It’s already operating successfully for private sector tenants in 18 local authority areas – and we intend to extend it to new customers across the whole private rented sector.

    But with 80% of those receiving Housing Benefit living in social housing and the highest levels of worklessness being in this sector – we’re also clear that there’s a strong case for reforming Housing Benefit for social tenants. While that means recognising the significant differences between the private rental market and social housing – we need to find a way of enabling social tenants to exercise a greater degree of personal responsibility in respect of their managing their finances.

    Transitional Spaces Project

    Even with Government action to increase the supply of social housing, we need to make better use of existing housing stock – including, with adequate safeguards, embracing the possibilities and choices offered by the private rented sector.

    That’s why I’m so keen today to launch the Transitional Spaces Project – a new project that will combine an innovative incentive scheme and a transitional support package to link employment with sustainable moves from hostel accommodation into the private rented sector.

    Two pilots: one in Tyneside and one here in London – working with 100 people a year over three years.

    Not just providing financial support – but practical and motivational support to help with job-search, CV preparation, interview skills, training and mentoring, financial literacy, budgeting and even mediation with employers if needed. Not just working with people to think about employment – but to think about a career.

    Not just doing more of what we already do – but doing things differently. Testing the boundaries of what is possible and forming new alliances and new partnerships which themselves can – and I believe must – drive further progress in tackling homelessness.

    Conclusion

    Because ultimately there can be no place for homelessness in our society.

    Forty years ago “Cathy Come Home” – helped change societal attitudes as well as the Government’s approach. Today we’re still talking about it.

    Since then – together – we’ve made enormous strides in tackling and preventing homelessness. But there is much more to do. And it is only by continuing to work together that we can help even more people out of a cycle of homelessness and into independent and settled lives.

    We need to finish the job. Homelessness has no place in a sustainable community. Like poverty and disadvantage, our aim should be to eradicate it.

  • Paul Murphy – 2003 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    paulmurphy

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Northern Ireland Secretary, Paul Murphy, at the 2013 Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth on 2nd October 2003.

    Chair, Conference.

    – the minimum wage and union recognition;

    – the lowest unemployment in a generation and record investment in public services;

    – defence of liberty abroad and economic stability at home.

    Just some of the achievements of your Labour government.

    However, I’d like today to point you to another achievement of which we can all be equally proud; the Good Friday Agreement.

    Before the Agreement, politics in Northern Ireland had been in cold storage for 30 years.

    In its absence, bigotry, hatred and sectarianism flourished, until Ulster became a by-word for terror and tragedy throughout the World.

    Three and half thousand people killed, out of a population of one and a half million souls.

    Almost every household touched in some fashion by a conflict that became banal, so familiar had it become.

    And outside Northern Ireland, when the Troubles elbowed their way into the running order of a TV bulletin, or inspired some journalist to write, all too often the unspoken response was a sigh and a weary shrug of the shoulders at the insoluble problems of that part of the United Kingdom.

    When I first arrived in NI as a minister, with Mo Mowlem, we were determined that Labour would never succumb to such defeatism.

    We were determined that a resolution of the problems could be found and that politics – that democracy – could supplant terror in the future of Northern Ireland.

    The Belfast Agreement marked the beginning of that process.

    The Assembly, where nationalists and unionists, loyalists and republicans, worked side by side and delivered good government for Northern Ireland, marked a new era of politics and of peace.

    It is, of course, an imperfect peace.

    Though the ceasefires hold firm, and the deaths are counted in tens and not hundreds, stability and trust are still lacking.

    The paramilitaries – whose day should have ended with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement – have not yet gone away.

    Their continuing activities lay behind our reluctant decision to suspend the Assembly almost a year ago, and the cessation of those activities is the key to its restoration.

    People in Northern Ireland know that Tony Blair, our Prime Minister, has invested unparalleled time and energy in the peace process.

    They know, too, that he – and I – have said consistently that we want to see an election to the new Assembly in the coming weeks.

    But an election serves a purpose: it must create a government.

    And without action and words from the IRA, that can build trust and cement confidence, we risk either more direct rule or an election to a dysfunctional assembly and renewed cold storage for politics in Northern Ireland.

    And direct rule cannot continue.

    When we have an Assembly in Wales and a Parliament in Scotland, with local ministers and local accountability, it just isn’t right that Northern Ireland should be run by MPs from Torfaen, Merseyside, the Black Country and Essex.

    While we are there, however, Jane Kennedy, John Spellar, Angela Smith, Ian Pearson and I will continue to try and provide good government for the people of Northern Ireland.

    When those people – over 70% of them – voted for the Belfast Agreement, they signalled their determination to write a new chapter in their troubled history.

    The foundations of that agreement are tolerance and compromise, justice and equality, rights and responsibilities.

    The agreement leaves no room for hatred and violence, nor for bigotry and sectarianism.

    And we are determined that the agreement will be implemented in its entirety and that it will realise the potential that people saw in it five years ago.

    We are also determined that we will find other measures to bring about the changes in Northern Ireland society that the Agreement envisages.

    That is why today I am announcing changes to the law in NI which will prosecute crimes motivated by sectarian hatred.

    Intimidation and violence inspired by sectarian malice has no place in modern Northern Ireland.

    The threats and terror visited upon the courageous men and women who are members of the Policing Partnerships in NI are just the latest examples of such vile behaviour.

    The thugs who are responsible, and those behind recent death threats aimed at priests, or the cowards who placed pipe bombs in the yard of a catholic primary school, should know today that their actions will, when they are caught, result in prison sentences which properly reflect the sectarian motivation of their crimes.

    The changes I am announcing will oblige judges in Northern Ireland to take into account the motivation of crimes by hatred of the victim’s religious faith, racial background or sexual orientation, and will empower them to hand out significantly heavier sentences where such motivation is proven.

    I am also increasing the maximum sentences available to judges in such cases.

    In so doing I am sending a message that I’m sure will be welcomed by the good people of Northern Ireland.

    Sectarianism has no place in our society.

    This government will not tolerate it, in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else in the UK.

    Since my return to Northern Ireland, despite the difficulties which have ensnared the political talks, I’ve witnessed tremendous improvements in life there.

    The transformation of the police is one of the greatest.

    The PSNI is now a modern force which enjoys support across religious and political divides and which polices the whole community with fairness and justice.

    But there are other changes too…

    The economy is growing – faster in many sectors than anywhere in the UK.

    People are in work, unemployment at 5%.

    Tourism is booming, and figures out just last week show that Belfast is now the 4th most visited city in the country

    This is a part of the World which is changing – and at a rate with which we politicians sometimes struggle to keep pace.

    But we must now redouble our efforts.

    People in Northern Ireland want devolution back.

    They want decisions about their schools and hospitals to be taken locally.

    And they want their Ministers in government in a locally elected and locally accountable Stormont Assembly.

    In conclusion, I’d like to pay tribute to the Party Leaders in Northern Ireland who, for years, have striven to make this peace process work – to David Trimble, Mark Durkan, Gerry Adams, David Ervine, Monica McWilliams, and David Ford.

    I applaud too Bertie Ahern and the Irish Government for all their work.

    We cannot return to the troubled past.

    We must make progress…

    And all my instincts tell me that we will.

  • Meg Munn – 2008 Speech on 20th Anniversary of Burma Uprising

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Foreign Office Minister, Meg Munn, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 11th August 2008.

    I’d like to welcome you to the Foreign Office this evening.

    We are here to mark the twentieth anniversary of the 1988 uprising in Burma. We commemorate the tragic loss of so many lives, but we also celebrate the tenacity of the human spirit. We show our solidarity with the people of Burma who have endured a particularly tragic twelve months.

    Tonight, we remember not only the victims of political oppression, but also the many tens of thousands who perished this year in the devastation of Cyclone Nargis, and the thousands more who are still struggling to survive and rebuild their lives in its wake. The Foreign Office and the Department for International Development have worked hard in responding to a political, as well as a humanitarian crisis.

    With the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the United Nations and Western countries working together we have achieved much for the Burmese people since the cyclone. I hope that in the coming months we can build on this cooperation to break the political deadlock.

    The 1988 uprising cost the lives of thousands of Burma’s young generation. They rose, unarmed, to call for the restoration of democracy and an end to misrule and the abuse of their human rights. Their lives were brutally cut short by the Burmese military, but their spirit endures.

    I also pay tribute to those who continue to face intimidation, violence and imprisonment as they work for peaceful change. They make daily sacrifices to keep the flame of democracy alive.  Our thoughts rest particularly with the leaders of the protests twenty years ago who, after only two years of freedom, were detained again for their role in triggering last year’s ‘Saffron Revolution’.

    I’d like to welcome tonight Lucinda and Adrian Phillips, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of Aung San Suu Kyi.  Since that famous speech at the Shwedagon Pagoda in 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi has been a symbol of heroic and peaceful resistance in the face of opposition and in the face of oppression.   She has shown an unwavering commitment to her country for the last twenty years.

    The internet and other forms of communication inform people around the world about the shameful acts of the Burmese regime.  They are responsible for widespread and systematic human rights abuses; the deplorable treatment of ethnic groups and the detention of over 2,000 political prisoners.

    Across the world there is support for the people of Burma. Support that has grown following the marches of last autumn: columns of monks leading people in peaceful protests against appalling and worsening economic and social conditions. As the UN Development Programme boldly reported from inside the country last November, Burma’s estimated per capita Gross Domestic Product is less than half of that of Cambodia or Bangladesh. The average household spends three quarters of its budget on food, and less than 50% of children are able to complete their primary education.

    Even though they continue to deny her freedom, Aung San Suu Kyi cannot be silenced by the regime. Her messages of hope and moderation are accessed daily by people in their thousands from all corners of the world. As the Prime Minister has said, ‘Aung San Suu Kyi’s fortitude sends a message that reverberates around the world – that every human being has a right to live in freedom and democracy’.

    Last October, the UK played a key role in securing the first ever Security Council action on Burma, with a Presidential Statement condemning the regime and stating clearly what the international community expected from it. Included is the immediate and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners; and the start of a credible process of reconciliation. We are determined to use the next few months and possible return of the UN Secretary General to Burma later this year, to make progress towards meeting these demands which are as relevant now as they were last October.

    We have also helped galvanise the European Union into action. With our strong support, earlier this year the EU strengthened sanctions in key sectors – timber, gems and precious metals. We have also taken every opportunity to encourage the Association of South East Asian Nations, China and India to do more to promote political change in Burma.

    The inherent instability of the current situation should be of deep concern to Burma’s neighbours and economic partners. Over the last year I have repeatedly discussed the situation with governments of the region, urging them to bring their influence to bear on Burma. The country acts as a brake on the successful development of the region as a whole.

    While we work for international action, we also run projects on the ground in Burma to help boost the capacity of civil society groups. The free and active participation of all Burma’s communities in the debate on the country’s future, remains our goal.

    The UK’s efforts are boosted enormously by our mission in Rangoon and I’d like to take this opportunity to commend Mark Canning and his team, who have worked tirelessly in very difficult circumstances in the wake of Cyclone Nargis.  They are indeed the best of the FCO and represent us incredibly well in Burma.

    Burma will not be forgotten.  The UK will continue to work hard to support the Burmese people. They have shown their courage, and their determination to re-join the global community. Burma’s people, whatever their ethnicity or political beliefs, deserve the democratic civilian government that they have shown so many times they want.

  • David Mundell – 2011 Speech on the Big Society in Scotland

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mundell on 28th October 2011.

    Thank you very much for inviting me to speak this morning.

    This conference is dedicated to examining the Big Society and assessing whether it can work in Scotland.

    I believe it can and it will.

    It’s an opportunity, not a threat, to charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.

    This morning I want to share my thoughts with you on the Big Society in greater detail; before updating the conference on welfare reform and the Scotland Bill – 2 issues I know you are interested in.

    The Big Society: the big picture

    Representing Scotland on the UK Ministerial Group advancing the Big Society agenda, I am determined that our voice and interests are heard.

    However, I am not wedded to titles such as the Big Society. Indeed, some have suggested that in Scotland it would be the ‘Wee Society’.

    But for the purposes of this discussion, I’ll use Big Society as this has partially led so many people to show a significant interest here today.

    There are 3 pillars to this agenda:

    – community empowerment

    – reforming and opening up our public services and

    – encouraging greater social action

    These 3 pillars are vital.

    But most important is what is happening on the ground and acknowledging those who are doing it.

    The Big Society is not another government programme.

    In fact, the Big Society is quite the opposite.

    It’s about giving power back to individuals, families, communities and groups.

    It’s about turning government upside down – so that society, not the state, is in the driving seat.

    Community empowerment

    Some of our critics have said that government cannot create a Big Society on our own. They’re right.

    But there is no need for such a magic wand solution.

    Because we are not starting from scratch.

    Scotland already does the Big Society or whatever we call it. I want us to do more of it.

    We are building on the long-standing tradition of community engagement and social action in Scotland.

    The grass roots are there. Many of you are the manifestation of movements already out there – helping Scots nationwide.

    The UK government’s role is to play an enabling role in the Big Society and it will focus on ensuring that all parts of society are able to play their part and thrive.

    The Scottish government will also have a part to play and I hope they will engage, whether they formally acknowledge the Big Society concept or not or not.

    Sometimes it will mean that the state, in all its forms, pulling back when it has overreached and acknowledging that it doesn’t have all the answers to local issues.

    I want our vision to interact with the work that so many Scots are already doing.

    I believe that this is an opportunity to shine a spotlight on the excellent work done by local groups across the country.

    The UK government has opened up a dialogue on taking forward the Big Society in Scotland.

    It is already proving a rewarding conversation.

    Stakeholders across the country have given me a flavour of what they are doing and the good practice they are encouraging.

    It’s an ongoing process.

    There are more Scotland Office events in the pipeline, culminating with a Scotland-wide forum.

    Empowerment stands at the forefront of our vision of a Big Society.

    It is about freeing people and communities to make the decisions which affect them.

    It marks a radical and welcome break from the tired old view that civil servants in London and Edinburgh, or dare I say local authorities, always know what is best for you and your community.

    Reforming and opening up public services

    Some of our critics claim that the Big Society is geared to providing public services on the cheap. I don’t agree.

    I view the Big Society as more about working with, and improving, existing services rather than replacing them.

    However, not all answers and services need to be provided by officials, councils or government.

    Tough times also demand innovative thinking.

    There is no escaping the need to tackle the deficit – the challenge we face in terms of public finances cannot be ignored.

    So our detractors also characterise the Big Society as a shorthand for cuts.

    That’s both wrong and unfair.

    The Big Society is a positive, proactive agenda developed before the recession to achieve a better quality of outcomes with limited resources.

    Our priority must be to seek the best value provider of public services.

    That’s the right answer for service users and taxpayers.

    Greater social action

    And I want to see people and communities across Scotland feeling both free and powerful enough to help themselves and transform their neighbourhoods.

    So in many ways the Big Society is a challenge to achieve even greater social action:

    – to think and act differently

    – to consider the personal and social consequences of your actions

    – to take ownership of an area and find ways of to transform it for the better

    And it poses the question to the state, ‘why can this not be done by individuals themselves, by voluntary, community or social enterprises?’

    We’ve seen the success of the National Citizens Service pilot south of the border.

    It’s designed to build a more cohesive, responsible and engaged society by bringing together 16 year olds from different backgrounds for a programme of activity and service during the summer.

    It gives these young people an introduction to community action.

    It shows them the positive differences they can make in their localities and beyond.

    We are planning to expand the service to offer 90,000 places by 2014.

    I hope that over time, the Scottish government will look at what we’re doing and want to take part.

    This renewed commitment to a stronger sense of society, where taking a more active role will be both expected and recognised, can only benefit us all.

    But I recognise that we need to make it simpler for individuals and organisations who offer their time and knowledge to benefit their communities.

    Good intentions must not be deterred by the burdens of bureaucracy.

    That’s why we are examining ways of reducing regulation and red tape faced by charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.

    It’s not for government to tell Scots how they can best support their communities.

    But government can provide support when society is restricted – such as by removing the red tape which can hinder community groups from forming.

    Local people and local bodies know their communities better than anyone. Charities, churches and co-operatives have the unique grassroots knowledge to drive social action at local level.

    We want to make it easier for you to do what you do best.

    It’s self-evident that most of the specific policy areas within the Big Society are devolved to the Scottish government and not all the major Westminster Big Society projects have exact equivalents in Scotland.

    That’s why it’s imperative that Scotland’s 2 governments work together and co-operation is central to our approach.

    I’m keen to engage on the issue and have had useful discussions with both John Swinney and Alex Neil; and my Cabinet Office colleague Nick Hurd will be in Scotland soon to share experiences from elsewhere in the UK.

    Big Society Bank

    I know you will also be interested to hear about the Big Society Bank.

    We have delivered on our commitment to set it up, although it is no longer being called a bank.

    It has been renamed the Big Society Capital Group, in case people are confused into thinking there is a new high street bank on the scene.

    Most importantly, it’s open for business in Scotland.

    Big Society Capital will invest in social investment intermediary organisations across the UK, such as Charity Bank and the Key Project.

    And these intermediaries will bring together bodies that need capital and bodies that have capital and want to invest it.

    Big Society Capital will not make grants to individual organisations or charities.

    Your organisations should be able to gain access to capital at a more competitive rate than you would be able to secure from a high street lender.

    Big Society Capital will act independently of government to support social enterprise through intermediaries.

    I want organisations in Scotland to benefit from the very favourable terms it will offer.

    Encouraging charitable giving

    The UK government is also committed to helping charities in these challenging economic times.

    We understand that charity law and charity reform straddles reserved and devolved policy areas.

    A key focus in the UK government’s Giving White Paper is on encouraging charitable giving.

    Innovative schemes can make it easier to give – at the cash point, at the till, by text or by phone app.

    Government is committed to incentivising giving.

    We want to grow and raise the profile of payroll giving and are sponsoring the National Payroll Giving Awards to encourage this activity.

    Similarly, inheritance tax will be cut for those who leave 10% or more of their estate to charity.

    Finally, in the 2011 Budget we announced a number of significant tax incentives and the removal of red tape for gift aid donations up to £5,000.

    These are sensible, practical measures geared to making it easier for charities to raise more money.

    The Big Society also has responsibility at its heart.

    It offers the opportunity for individuals, businesses and organisations to step forward to help address the social issues in their communities and help shape the future direction.

    People like you are already giving significant amounts of your time for the benefit of your communities.

    Businesses are seeing the benefits of supporting volunteering and encouraging their staff to do the same.

    Individuals and groups are improving communities across Scotland.

    On recent visits I have seen how volunteers at Peterhead Projects are raising funds in their town by recycling furniture, running a gift shop and holding car boot sales.

    Or how Cambuslang and Rutherglen Community Health Initiative is promoting better health locally.

    Our aim is that volunteering becomes a social norm and is considered by all the responsible thing to do.

    There are 2 more issues I want to touch on – 2 significant issues for this sector – welfare reform and the Scotland Bill.

    Welfare reform

    Fairness is a pivotal part of the Coalition’s approach.

    We are committed to helping the vulnerable.

    We will take over 90,000 Scots out of tax altogether by April 2012.

    We have helped one million older Scots by re-establishing the link between pensions and earnings after a gap of 30 years.

    We have maintained Winter Fuel Allowance payments for Scottish pensioners.

    While last year’s Spending Review turned the temporary increase in Cold Weather Payments into a permanent increase.

    They are geared to reforming the benefit system to make it fairer, more affordable and better able to tackle poverty, worklessness and welfare dependency.

    The introduction of Universal Credit in 2013 will radically simplify the system – and make work pay.

    We are determined to remove the barriers to work and to ensure that work pays more than benefits.

    Our back-to-work initiatives will pay a crucial part in supporting employment in Scotland.

    As part of our reforms, the Work Programme went live in June.

    We know that one size cannot fit all.

    That’s why the Work Programme is built around the needs of individuals – providing the personalised support people need, when they need it – so they have the right support to move into employment.

    The UK government’s ‘Get Britain Working’ measures like work experience are geared to this end.

    In the Youth Unemployment Seminars, hosted by the Scotland Office across the country, we are hearing about the benefits of work experience with local employers.

    Some Scottish employers see young people, particularly inexperienced young people, as high risk.

    So giving young Scots greater work experience enhances their readiness for work by developing the skills which are essential for the workplace.

    We need to work side by side on this – to collaborate more effectively to support our young people into work.

    As with the Big Society, Scotland’s 2 governments must work together, alongside our key partners to address the labour market challenges we face.

    Scotland Bill

    One of the Coalition’s key commitments is to improve the devolution settlement and strengthen the accountability of the Scottish Parliament.

    The Scotland Bill delivers this pledge.

    This Bill has real economic teeth.

    It signifies the largest transfer of financial powers out of London since the creation of the UK.

    It will give the Scottish Parliament new levers over the Scottish economy and strengthens its accountability and responsibility to the people of Scotland.

    The First Minister has told us about other areas he thinks should be devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill.

    We have made clear that we will consider all proposals for amendments to the Bill on their merits.

    Any amendments must meet the three tests set out by the Secretary of State for Scotland. They must:

    – be based on detailed and well evidenced proposals

    – maintain the cross-party consensus on which the Bill is based

    – demonstrate that they would benefit Scotland, without prejudice to the UK as a whole

    The Scottish government has made their set of demands as a package and we will respond as a package at the appropriate time.

    The UK government will also fight to maintain the United Kingdom in any independence referendum.

    We will not place obstacles in the way of a referendum but we believe strongly that more powers for the Scottish Parliament – through the Scotland Bill – is the right constitutional route for Scotland.

    That’s why we will oppose separatism in any guise whenever the referendum takes place.

    Conclusion

    Alongside our commitments to more tailored welfare and improved devolution we are also determined to build a bigger and stronger society.

    In the coming months and years we aim to build on the deep-rooted foundations we have in Scotland to achieve this goal.

    Government can be an enabler but it cannot be expected to deliver the Big Society alone.

    We all have an important role to play.

    We want to support a thriving market in charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.

    I support and admire what so many public-spirited Scots are doing in their communities.

    I look forward to working with you to realise the benefits of the Big Society in Scotland.

  • David Mundell — 2011 Speech at Scottish Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mundell at the 2011 Scottish Conservative Party Conference on 2nd October 2011.

    Scottish Politics is never dull, Scottish Conservative politics particularly.

    It’s been a busy year already with a parliamentary election and a referendum 2011. I want to thank all our candidates and activists across Scotland for their hard work in May.

    Before I speak about the future of our party and the challenges the Coalition Government faces in Scotland, I also want to pay tribute to our outgoing leader, Annabel Goldie.

    Its may be trite to say but it is true – Annabel Goldie is not just one of the best known but best loved figures in Scottish politics with a long and distinguished service to the voluntary party.

    Annabel was elected to the Scottish parliament in 1999.

    She became leader of the MSP group in 2005.

    Her skirmishes with Alex Salmond at the First Ministers Questions have become a feature of the Scottish political scene.

    During the last Scottish Parliament Annabel was acknowledged as the only leader to hold Mr Salmond to account and to be willing to take tough decisions and tell people like it is.

    Well-respected across the political spectrum in Scotland, Annabel has become a national figure and her wit and good sense more widely known through her many appearances on Question Time and Any Questions.

    So, ladies and gentlemen, I know you will all join me in wishing her well in the future, but also in sharing my hope that she still has much to give to our party and to public service.

    Of course, the future of the Conservative party in Scotland, which Annabel has been so proud to represent, is going to be debated at an event at this conference and indeed the length and breadth of Scotland at leadership hustings.

    The contest to date can, I think, be rightly characterised as being about change.

    I don’t think anyone within or outside our party in Scotland would disagree with the statement that the party must change, and in particular, we must attract more, and younger people to vote for us across Scotland as a whole.

    We must be clearly identifiable as the first choice for those want to vote for a sensible centre right party of the sort that exists (and commands support in) virtually every other European country.

    And in so doing, we must be able to demonstrate that we are relevant and make a difference to the lives of people in Scotland if they vote for us at Council, Scottish Parliament, Westminster and European Elections.

    That is why I want to see the leadership election underway focus on policy, leadership qualities and on the campaigning style our party will have in Scotland to take us forward.

    As our only Member of Parliament in Scotland, I have clearly set out my own personal views this morning.

    But of course it will be for members in Scotland to decide.

    But during the period of this leadership election, we must continue to focus on the issues which really matter to real people; the economy, growth and jobs remain the government’s top priorities.

    The difficult financial decisions we have been forced to make have brought confidence and stability to the UK economy: record low-interest rates for our borrowing, our triple A credit rating assured and, in the first six months of this year, the UK economy growing at a faster rate than America’s.

    And we are taking action to promote growth: not least by cutting corporation tax to 26% this year, and 23% by 2014, making it the lowest rate in the G7, the fifth lowest in the G20.

    We’ve singled out corporation tax because we know it is the most growth inhibiting tax that there is.

    Alex Salmond says he would cut it too, but the facts speak for themselves.

    He already has power over business rates and yet he is increasing them by £850m by 2015, undermining the very support we are providing businesses through our cuts in corporation tax.

    Alex Salmond’s “Big Plan McB” is political junkfood.

    When it comes to getting the economy moving, the only B we should be interested in is Business – helping it, promoting it.

    In Scotland there are positive signs, with unemployment below the national average and falling last month.

    And in the Scotland Office we are doing our bit to get Scottish enterprise motoring.

    Not only are we proceeding with the Scotland Bill and its significant transfer of financial powers, we have set up a Trade and Economic Growth Board, made up of leading Scottish business figures, to advise on global opportunities and to act as ambassadors for the Scottish business community to make clear that Scotland is open for business.

    Now if you listen to Alex Salmond you’ll hear him take the credit for any good economic news, and pass the blame to Westminster for any bad news.

    When the sun comes out it is thanks to the SNP and is a boost to the case for independence and when it starts to rain it’s all the fault of the London-based parties.

    Conference, people are seeing through this.

    Just because the Scottish people rejected Iain Gray and Scottish Labour in May does not mean they voted for independence.

    And just as the Scottish people rejected AV overwhelmingly, when the time comes I believe they will see through Alex Salmond’s narrow, nationalistic separatism.

    However, we mustn’t be complacent. I welcome the Prime Minister’s reaffirmation this weekend of his commitment to keep Scotland in Britain.

    Nothing must get in the way of that and it must be the priority in months ahead for the Scottish Conservative & Unionist party.

    Thank you.

  • Chris Mullin – 2004 Speech on Africa

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Mullin, the then Foreign Office Minister, in New York, USA, on 4th February 2004.

    There are a number of reasons why Africa should matter to us. The first, of course, is moral. The war, famine, disease and unspeakable barbarity that have haunted that tragic Continent for much of the twentieth century are simply unacceptable in a civilised world. Some years ago Prime Minister Blair described the condition of Africa as ‘a scar on the conscience of mankind’. And so it is.

    There are also, however, sound practical reasons why we cannot afford to ignore the state of Africa. The most immediate of these is terrorism. It is a little known fact that there have been more Al Qaeda attacks in Africa than anywhere else in the world. The fact that in parts of Africa such as Somalia entire societies have imploded makes them a ready breeding ground for terrorism.

    It is also not widely realised that there are more Muslims south of the Sahara than in the Middle East, most of them, fortunately, are moderates. If we want them to stay that way, we cannot neglect Africa.

    Africa also has oil and gas resources to rival those of the Middle East. We need to work together with Africa to make sure Africans benefit from this resource. This is an important strand of efforts to bring prosperity to the region.

    Then there is HIV/AIDS. Of estimated 42 million people living with AIDS about three-quarters are in Africa and the rate of increase is steeper in Africa than anywhere else. Globalisation and travel means that AIDS is exported ever more easily. The USA and Europe are not immune.

    These then are sound practical reasons why we should be interested in Africa, but as I said at the outset the primary reason – for decent people of all political persuasions – is moral.

    A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY

    The good news is that for a variety of reasons, some man-made, some fortuitous, a window of opportunity now exists that will enable us – if we demonstrate the necessary political will – to make a difference. To coin a phrase, a wind of change is blowing. A series of venal dictatorships is giving way to elected governments; countries like South Africa, Mozambique, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Uganda and even Nigeria, now have governments that care about their people. This year we celebrate the tenth anniversary of the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Who, ten years ago, would have dared predict that the transition to majority rule could have been achieved without a bloodbath? What has happened in South Africa is a great achievement and ought to serve as an inspiration for the rest of the Continent.

    Elsewhere – in Angola, the Congo, Sudan – civil wars which have wracked those countries for decades and generated slaughter and barbarity on an unimaginable scale – appear to be coming to an end.

    There is also a growing recognition among African leaders that they, too, have a part to play in resolving their Continent’s problems. Witness the South African-led peacekeeping forces in the Congo and Burundi. Witness the role Nigeria and Ghana are playing in helping to resolve the West African conflicts. Witness, also, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in which Africans are taking the lead in spreading sound economic management, democracy and good governance.

    So, there is a sound basis for partnership between the G8 and Africa. The United States and Great Britain share common priorities in Africa. Last November in London President Bush and Prime Minister Blair re-affirmed their commitment to Africa. They agreed to strengthen co-operation in a number of key areas and provide support through the G8 Africa Action Plan. Both our countries have key roles to play in our respective G8 Presidencies this year and next to take forward those commitments. Today I want to set our how Britain and the US, together with our other partners, can work together in support of Africa.

    THE G8 AND AFRICA

    With leadership from President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, the G8 responded to NEPAD over two years ago by agreeing a series of commitments under the G8 Africa Action Plan. These included increasing and improving development assistance, tackling debt, liberalising world trade and helping developing economies and developing a new partnership with Africa.

    One of the main objectives of the Plan was also to define a new way of working with Africa as well as addressing the main constraints on Africa’s development. The G8/Africa partnership is based on the principle of mutual accountability – that if Africa is to make progress, both the G8 and African governments must live up to their commitments. This represents a fundamental shift in the development relationship between the international community and Africa. It is not a case of quid pro quo, it is a partnership based on the need for both sides to make progress. In the G8, we must live up to our commitments to increase the volume and effectiveness of aid, and improve the coherence of policies – such as on trade – with international development goals.

    The partnership between the G8 and Africa has galvanised efforts on both sides to deliver. It also keeps Africa on the agenda. It provides a regular opportunity for leaders from African and major industrialised countries to sustain political efforts and attention needed for change. The fact that President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and other G8 leaders sat down at last year’s G8 Summit with President Mbeki, President Obasanjo and other African leaders was important in itself.

    But the principle value of the G8 lies in its ability to give high level political attention to issues where political weight is essential to progress. It is important that we, in the G8, focus our efforts where they will have most impact. A concerted effort by G8 and African leaders to tackle key issues including conflict, HIV, trade and education is essential if we are to get on track for the Millennium Development Goals. With our support, the G8 engagement with Africa has recently broadened to an extended Africa Partners Forum, which includes 19 African countries. It is important that the Forum maintains the high level political engagement that African Heads of government have emphasised as being key to G8 engagement with Africa. We do not see the Forum as a channel for deciding or bidding on sector projects. The Forum has a strategic role to play, one which should put a political spotlight on issues.

    Our objectives for the Forum are for a frank and open dialogue which will maintain high level political commitment; review priorities; promote coordination and policy coherence; and track progress against commitments made on both sides.

    THE UK AND AFRICA

    Underlying everything we do in Africa is our belief in a relationship with African countries as equal partners. We expect issues affecting Africa to remain on the G8 agenda this year, under the US Presidency. The Prime Minister is committed to making Africa a key part of the UK’s 2005 G8 Presidency. We have made a bilateral commitment to £ 1 billion a year in development assistance to Africa by 2005, an increase of over 50% in the last three years alone. The funds will be used in the countries that need them the most – the poorest. We will focus development assistance on the areas that can best reduce poverty – health, education, and building accountable and effective governments.

    AREAS FOR GREATER INTERNATIONAL AND AFRICAN COOPERATION

    I would like to highlight next some areas where I think the international community and African partners need to continue to focus their efforts:

    CONFLICT

    Progress in Africa, and improvement in the lives of its people, has been undermined or destroyed by conflict and insecurity. Scarce resources needed to fight poverty have been wasted. Conflicts in one country have fuelled insecurity and instability in its neighbours. In all, some 200 million people in Sub Saharan Africa have been affected by conflict.

    I therefore see peace and security, and tackling the underlying causes of conflict, as top priorities. We must support African efforts to resolve armed conflicts. We need to provide assistance so that African countries and regional and sub-regional organisation are able to engage more effectively to prevent and resolve violent conflicts and to undertake peace support operations.

    The new African Union peace and security architecture presents an opportunity for us to engage. The AU is now leading the first African mission in Burundi with Ethiopian, South African and Mozambican troops to which the UK has contributed nearly £4 million. And the AU is developing a plan for an African standby peacekeeping force. We are seeking to support this through the implementation of the joint Africa/G8 plan to enhance African peace and security capabilities in close collaboration particularly with the African Union, ECOWAS, the US, France, Germany and Canada. A peace plan for training and operational support has been developed and agreed between the G8 and African countries.

    Our engagement in Sierra Leone is an example of where Britain, working alongside others, can make a difference in Africa. By deploying UK forces, creating a more effective and accountable Sierra Leonean army, and helping to tackle the root causes of the conflict, we have played a part in bringing peace to Sierra Leone. But this would have been nothing without the UN, ECOWAS and Government of Sierra Leone’s commitment to make it work. Much remains to be done, but we have demonstrated that the international community can work together to bring an end to seemingly impossible conflicts.

    The support of the international community has been vital in helping to resolve the conflicts in the Great Lakes region – Africa’s equivalent of the first world war in which millions died. We are doing all we can to ensure that peace is established in that region – a region the size of Europe.

    In Liberia the partnership between the US and ECOWAS has bought tentative peace to a country ravaged by years of conflict. While the numbers of US troops deployed were small, their effect was great; an example of the importance of international engagement in African conflict resolution. We welcome the leadership role the US has taken in Liberia.

    In Southern Sudan, for the first time in more than a generation, there is a prospect of peace. A chance to end Africa’s longest-running civil war in Africa’s largest country. After decades of conflict, the challenges are enormous. Former combatants, amongst them child soldiers, need to be persuaded to give up their weapons and helped to return and re-settle into their communities. The displaced people will want help returning home and rebuilding their lives. Schools and hospitals must be built. And the foundations for democracy have to be laid to give a voice to those who have been marginalised for so long. And of course an international peace-support operation will have to be set up to monitor the peace. The UN is already making plans, but the support of the international community in all these areas will be crucial if peace is to hold.

    TACKLING TERRORISM

    Terrorism. Africa has a track record of serious terrorism including the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2002 Kenya hotel bombing and attempted shooting down of a holiday jet carrying Israeli passengers. The failed state of Somalia, and undoubtedly other weak states in Africa, present terrorists with space in which to plan and export attacks. These are not anomalous incidents but symptoms of a problem in Africa which poses a serious, direct and continuing security threat to us, and poses a fundamental threat to Africa itself.

    We are of course pursuing terrorists in Africa in collaboration with our partners there, and are doing so with great vigour. But that is only part of the solution. Irrespective of operational success, the factors which sustain and feed terrorist networks and activity also need tackling. These factors stem from a complex relationship between geography, institutional weakness, corruption, poor borders, economic and social issues, radicalisation and alienation, and simple opportunity. So to that extent the problems of terrorism are inextricably connected to Africa’s other problems, and the solutions are likewise interconnected. And we cannot wish the problem away: on the contrary the signs are that, if unchecked, the terrorist problem in Africa could grow.

    ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TRADE

    The current trade system doesn’t work for Africa. Africa’s share of world trade is declining. In 2002 it produced only 2% of global exports compared to 6% in 1980. We need to reverse this trend and facilitate Africa’s integration into the global economy by making our markets more accessible to African exports.

    We therefore welcome the moves here to extend the coverage and duration of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to 2015 which has opened up new markets for African exports in the US. In Lesotho for instance, the Act has attracted significant foreign direct investment and increased garment exports to the US by an average of 24% a year, creating almost 30,000 new jobs.

    The UK Government is determined to do all it can, working with the US and other international partners, to get the Doha Development Round back on track and deliver real benefits for African countries and their poorest citizens.

    We should pay special attention to critical areas such as agricultural market access and reducing trade distorting subsidies particularly for key commodities for Africa such as cotton.

    HIV/AIDS

    Supporting African partners to fight HIV/AIDS is a high priority for both the US and the UK. Indeed we are the two largest bilateral donors of HIV/AIDS assistance. Both our countries have substantial bilateral country-based programmes and are major contributors to a number of relevant global initiatives, including the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and malaria.

    Last November when they met in London, President Bush and my Prime Minister agreed to enhance our collaboration on the ground in five African countries (Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Zambia) in order to better support their national HIV/AIDS plans.

    This enhanced collaboration, when harnessed to the efforts of all other contributors, should help improve overall donor harmonization, an aim both our governments are keen to pursue. Better coordinated and better funded support is clearly an important means to reach the key international targets of: three million people – two million in Africa – receiving treatment by the end of 2005; 25% fewer young people infected by 2005; and slowing the progress of HIV/AIDS by 2015.

    GOVERNANCE

    We must work to strengthen governance in African states. Effective institutions, representative democracy and accountable government are essential conditions for growth, development and poverty reduction. African governments are increasingly taking poverty reduction seriously, improving governance, economic and political performance. We are supporting them through our engagement with and support to NEPAD and country owned poverty reduction strategies.

    The African Review Mechanism, developing under NEPAD, is a bold commitment, establishing a process for monitoring good governance. We support it as well as the work currently in progress in the OECD to develop a mutual review of donor performance in Africa.

    MORE AND BETTER DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

    There is an urgent need to increase the quality and quantity of development aid. We are taking a lead role in working with our international partners and with international organisations to do this. Improving aid quality means making sure that donors adopt common practices for the disbursement of aid and that country programmes reflect the recipient’s priorities.

    We also need to maintain momentum on meeting our commitments for substantial new development assistance. This includes ensuring that 50% of new commitments go to Sub-Saharan Africa, providing predictable levels of resources to those countries who can best use it.

    We are exploring with partners how best to do this, for example, through the UK’s proposal for an International Finance Facility (IFF) which aims to double resources for development assistance up to 2015 by leveraging in additional resources from the private sector. The IMF and World Bank are carrying out detailed work ahead of reports to the Spring and Annual Meetings of the Fund and Bank. We welcome the potential of the US Government’s Millennium Challenge Account to make more resources available for development in Africa. It is important that this initiative succeeds, both in terms of the volume of funding delivered through the mechanism, but also as a new approach to deliver aid. We look forward to seeing the Millennium Challenge Account up and running and to working with it in any way we can.

    CONCLUSION

    Africans are increasingly recognising their responsibility to tackle the problems on their Continent. Our role is to help Africa help itself.

    The UK is strongly committed to the G8 Africa Action Plan and the Africa partnership. They offer a new framework for long-term, constructive engagement with African people and their leaders to ensure that a stable, democratic and successful Africa takes it rightful place in the global economy.

    We look forward to continuing to work with our American friends to realise that goal.

  • Chris Mullin – 2003 Speech on Britain and South Africa

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Office Minister, Chris Mullin, in Cape Town, South Africa, on 3rd November 2003.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends,

    Last week in London a series of events was held to celebrate the tenth anniversary of your country’s freedom. I myself had the pleasure of hosting a reception to mark the occasion, which was attended by many members of the South African and British governments, including your Foreign Minister, Dr Dlamini Zuma. I will say to you what I said to them. Namely, that for many of us active in British politics, the release of Nelson Mandela and the subsequent peaceful transfer of power from the Apartheid regime to South Africa’s first democratically elected government was one of the seminal events of our political lives. What made a particular impression in the UK, where we sometimes tend to take democracy for granted, was the sight of long lines of impoverished people queuing patiently for hours in order, for the first time in their lives, to cast their vote.

    South Africa has come a long way during the last ten years. It has assumed its rightful place as a major player, both of the continent of Africa and in the world as a whole. It plays an important part in the Commonwealth, in the Non-Aligned Movement, in the United Nations and in the African Union. It has contributed peacekeepers to war torn neighbours. It is playing a leading part in NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development – of which we all have high hopes.

    But what has impressed us most in the ten years since you won your freedom is the dignity with which you went about coming to terms with your past. How you did not allow yourselves to become consumed with bitterness or a desire for revenge which might so easily have poisoned the future. How instead you have built a coalition in which there is a place for everyone who wants to play a part in a multi-racial democracy. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission has become a model for other divided societies struggling to overcome their terrible past – only the other day a prominent Iraqi remarked to me that Iraqis could do with something similar in their own country.

    THE CHALLENGES AHEAD

    Friends, I congratulate you on what has been achieved so far. We are proud to be your partners. But, as I am sure you will be the first to agree, it is not enough to celebrate what has been achieved so far. Other large challenges lie ahead. I want, if I may, to use this opportunity to set out some of those challenges and how we hope, in partnership with our friends in Africa, to tackle them.

    First however, I want to assure you that we will not allow events in Iraq to distract us from our commitment to Africa. Prime Minister Tony Blair has long made clear his personal commitment to Africa and he has re-iterated this commitment on several occasions. DFID has reaffirmed 2 commitments; that it’s spending in Africa will continue to rise substantially (set to reach £1billion per year by 2006); and that the proportion of DFID programmes going to low income countries will rise to 90% by the same date. We had already planned to reduce our overall allocation to middle income countries (MICs) in order to increase spending in the poorest countries. In light of the needs in Iraq we will make reallocations within our overall MIC programmes. No decision has yet been taken on changed spending for individual countries. But Hilary Benn has made clear that he intends to maintain a substantial programme in South Africa. It is not my place to preach about Africa’s problems, indeed you are as well aware of them as I am, but the grim facts will not go away unless they are faced. Since 1960 over eight million Africans have died as a result of war and ninety percent of the casualties have been not soldiers, but civilians. Many millions more have become refugees, fleeing war and chaos. It is the responsibility of all of us to tackle poverty in Africa. We are committed to meeting the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to halve the proportion of the world population living in poverty. Africa requires annual growth of 7% to meet this goal.

    Second, we should remember that there is much good news in Africa. Democratic governance is taking root. Ghana, Senegal and Kenya, which I have just visited, have all seen peaceful transfers of power in the last four years. Some countries have seen very strong economic performance. Uganda is among the ten fastest growing economies in the world. The recovery of the South African rand is a tribute to the strength and sound management of Africa’s largest economy.

    There is also hope of an end to Africa’s most intractable conflicts. Angola is at peace for the first time in thirty years. Sierra Leone is rebuilding itself. The DRC and Burundi are all making fresh starts. The role which President Mbeki played personally in helping to broker agreements including the signing of the Pretoria Protocol yesterday, together with the commitment of South African troops to sustain them, reflect great credit to your country. I am encouraged by the prospect of a peace agreement in Sudan, and the success of ECOWAS in ensuring a peaceful transition in Liberia.

    Africa’s leaders are leading this progress. They have made clear that they will not wait for the rest of the world to solve the continent’s problems. NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development demonstrates this approach. It is about Africa taking responsibility for African problems; and development partners accepting their role in supporting it. The G8 has responded by making clear commitments to reinforce the efforts of regional leaders.

    Thirdly, good governance is critical to Africa’s development. As President Mbeki has said, democracy, good governance and respect for human rights are not alien conditions imposed by western donors. They are African values rooted in the councils of the chiefs for many generations. The African Peer Review Mechanism is a bold commitment, establishing a process for monitoring good governance that goes further than any other in the world. It will give business, African and foreign, the confidence to invest.

    ZIMBABWE

    I am sure that you are expecting me to say a little about Zimbabwe in this context. I will disappoint some journalists when I point out that Britain and South Africa agree to a large extent about Zimbabwe. When Foreign Secretary Jack Straw visited South Africa in May, he and Foreign Minister Dlamini-Zuma agreed a communiqué on a range of bilateral issues. Let me quote to you the section on Zimbabwe: ‘both countries agreed on the need to encourage the parties to commit themselves to removing the obstacles to the negotiations. They underlined that the longer the problems in Zimbabwe remain unresolved, the more entrenched poverty will become. They stressed their commitment to an outcome in which the people of Zimbabwe enjoy independence, freedom, peace, stability, democracy and prosperity. The Working Group noted, unequivocally, that no lasting solution to the challenges that face Zimbabwe can be found, unless that solution comes from the people of Zimbabwe themselves’.

    We know that President Mbeki and others have been working hard to help the negotiations between ZANU (PF) and the MDC bear fruit. We applaud those efforts, and wish them every success. But for these talks to succeed there has to be a serious commitment to dialogue – in this context the recent closure of the Daily News and the locking up of trade union leaders sends the wrong signal, and these must be reversed.

    The British position is often misrepresented. We support the people of Zimbabwe. We support their human rights. We recognise and have said clearly that the colonial inheritance on land was both unjust and unsustainable. We fully support land reform, but only if it is done transparently, sustainably and for the benefit of the poor. And we are helping keep Zimbabweans alive, by helping to finance the international humanitarian relief effort. Last winter the World Food Programme, to which we are major contributors, helped to feed more than five million Zimbabweans. How can it be that this beautiful country that was the bread basket of Southern Africa has been reduced to relying on foreign aid to keep its people alive? I should also make clear that, once there is a democratically accountable government in Zimbabwe, working for the interests of its own people, we are ready to help lead the international community’s efforts to rebuild the country. In the meantime, we will do all in our power to ensure that no Zimbabwean starves, and to help tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis.

    BRITAIN’S WIDER ROLE IN AFRICA

    But enough on Zimbabwe. Let me say a little about the role that Britain hopes to play more widely in Africa. Our aim is a relationship with African countries as equal partners. We recognise the moral obligation to support African efforts. But we also recognise that there are wider reasons. Terrorism and extremism thrive where there is oppression and poverty.

    So what are we doing to help Africa to achieve the recovery is seeks? First, our bilateral commitment. We will commit £1bn a year in development assistance to Africa by 2005. The funds will be used in the countries that need them most – the poorest. We will focus development assistance on the areas that can best reduce poverty – health, education, and building accountable and effective governments.

    Secondly, we recognise that trade is much more important than aid. The disappointment of Cancun should not discourage us from pursuing a fairer global trading system. We will build on alliances with developing countries, including South Africa, to get the Doha Development agenda back on track. We will not continue to tolerate a situation in which a cow in Europe is subsidised at $2 a day (twice the amount that half of all Africans live on). With our support the European Union has made substantial reforms to the Common Agricultural Policies Policy which when implemented will cut damaging European subsidies and open European markets. We want to go further.

    Thirdly, we will continue to use our influence to ensure the developed world is prepared to give Africa a fairer chance. We are leading the effort to provide debt relief for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. This is releasing up to $41.2 billion for the twenty countries in Africa that are participating. We have also proposed, with South Africa’s support, an International Financing Facility. Including debt relief this should lead to the release of up to $50 billion of development assistance in a reasonably short time frame, making the Millennium Development Goals more achievable. We will support African national, regional and continental institutions to build the capacity to absorb these levels of funding.

    I highlighted Africa’s efforts to end its wars. We will support these. The UK is providing resources and expertise for conflict prevention, peacekeeping and conflict resolution missions as the AU Peace and Security Council establishes itself. We are closely involved in the process of peacebuilding in Sierra Leone, and we supported deployment of South African troops in the DRC. In Burundi, we have provided £3.9m to the cost of peacekeeping efforts led by South Africa, Mozambique and Ethiopia. In this context, I am happy to announce that South Africa and Britain will in the next few days conduct a bilateral command and control exercise in South Africa – Exercise African Shield. British and South African military and civilian personnel will share experience and techniques in regional peacekeeping. We hope this practical co-operation will help the AU and UN to meet the challenges ahead.

    Like you, we will give increasing attention to HIV/AIDS. We are already engaged in battling TB and malaria throughout Africa, but tackling this new disease poses unique challenges. So far, Africa has borne the brunt of these, although HIV is now spreading fast in other parts of the world too. The world has had to learn fast, we now know that we need a comprehensive response – preventing the spread of infection; treatment and care of those infected; addressing the wider impact on society. Britain is working with African countries and with international organisations to promote this sort of response. Like many round the world, we welcome South Africa’s recent decision to expand access to anti retroviral treatment as part of a comprehensive approach.

    Finally, we will continue to act as champions of NEPAD and the African Union. Tony Blair intends to make Africa a central focus of the UK’s Presidency of the G8 in 2005.

    CONCLUSION

    Our relationship with South Africa exemplifies this partnership. Tony Blair and President Mbeki have worked closely together on the progressive governance. South Africa and Britain have £6bn worth of two-way bilateral trade every year. We are working together in multilateral fora to combat crime, terrorism and money laundering. We also share goals in the pursuit of free trade, in the Renewable Energy Partnership that followed the Johannesburg summit, and in ethical business practise, in particular the efforts to promote transparency in the Extractives Industry.

    Friends we regard South Africa as a role model for the rest of Africa. In 10 short years you have managed a peaceful transition from Apartheid to a modern democracy in which there is freedom of speech, the rule of law, a market economy and a real effort to improve the lives of your poorest people. We recognise that great challenges still lie ahead and we want to help you meet them. Success is important not only for you but for the whole of Africa.

  • Mo Mowlam – 1998 Speech to TUC Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mo Mowlam to the 1998 TUC Conference.

    Can I say it is good to be here, particularly to open the debate on Northern Ireland as part of the International Affairs debate. Before I speak on what I have planned to do, can I just, in terms of the TSSA, David, and Keith from ISTC, add my comments that one of the important things – and I think it is symptomatic of what the TUC has done over the years – is that the cross-community representation in the different delegations makes a difference. It is sometimes difficult but it always has helped when the unions have remained organised across the divide – a very important situation to have.

    Also in relation to what Mark Healy said from the POA, of course we will have our differences and I would just like to say, through him, a ‘thank you’ to his members for what they have done because, as he says, they have not had an easy time with the deaths that they have gone through, and working in certain prisons in Northern Ireland is tougher than elsewhere for the very simple reason that when somebody threatens you in the Maze there are people outside who are prepared to carry it out. That is tough not just on the POA members but on their families too. Hopefully we have got a time of change ahead and it is change for everybody. So I thank them for what they have done in the past and thank them also for the difficult times that we will face in the future, because change is hard for everybody.

    Just a final note on the brothers and sisters in the Probation Service: it is not easy in Northern Ireland. I think the Probation Service is one of the harder jobs around. They make some very tough decisions and not many of them people acknowledge. They have worked hard in Northern Ireland and it has made a big plus. (Applause)

    In terms of the welcome you very kindly gave me earlier, can I just share that with the people who have done the work over the years. I think it is important to acknowledge that it has been a joint effort over many years – previous Governments, Tony Blair, Bertie Aherne, the Taoiseach – and one of the big differences is we have worked together, the British, Irish and the Americans, to build the coalition to move the process forward, an important point in getting us going when the Labour Government took over.

    But over the years the work has been put in by people like Peter Cassells from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, an all-Ireland body as many of you are aware, and by people like Terry Carlin and Tom Gillan from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress. They have put that work in. We also have people like Bill Atlee here from SIPTU. Again this did not happen in 16 months, it has happened over 16 years and it is the people who are not represented here today that I would like to share that acknowledgement with.

    I do not think it will come as any surprise to anybody here to learn that trade unions, which have been at the forefront of much of the progressive social changes that have taken place throughout the world, were also at the forefront of social change in Northern Ireland and we should say ‘thank you’ to them.

    Let me just give you some examples in Northern Ireland of how the trade unions have worked over the years which have helped us get to where we are today. The first – and you do not often think about this – is over the last 30 years most of the focus by the press has been on the violence, and it has been appalling and atrocious for people to live with, but the trade unions, to their credit, kept up campaigning on those issues that affect people’s lives day in and day out as well as the violence. They have campaigned on health, education and, above all, employment. They never let those fall off the agenda in Northern Ireland and I think that is terribly important to remember. One of the phrases they used as a campaign phrase was “A Better Life for All”, and that really encompasses everything that they have fought for over the years gone by.

    The other thing they have done is work tirelessly to build up relationships across the communities. A good example is money came from Europe for Northern Ireland to help try and build the peace – Peace and Reconciliation Fund – and they gave it to Northern Ireland and said, “How can we get this through to the people?” So Monika Wulf-Mathies, who is a wonderful Commissioner in Europe, set up these committees, 26 throughout Northern Ireland, and on them are politicians right from DUP to Sinn Fein, trade unionists, business people, community groups, voluntary sector, and they allocate the money for different areas. Throughout all the difficulties those committees have kept meeting, kept talking and delivered things for the local people – over 11,000 community groups set up.

    Crucial to those were the trade union members and when the politicians found it difficult, which they inevitably did, they were there to keep the process alive. I can never prove it, but I have no doubt that those partnerships and the schemes they have set up over the years have helped people on the ground get to know each other and get the kind of results we have got now because it is people in Northern Ireland who want peace. They will keep pushing which is why I am so sure we will get there because people want a future that is non-violent and that is a way that the trade unions have helped tremendously. They have got their own projects, like Counteract, in the workplace to try and deal with inter-communal strife that arises – again trade union instigated, again slow, subtle. People do not necessarily notice it first time but again it makes a difference.

    Can I just be cheeky for one minute because it is my own union and that is UNISON, just to say what I think UNISON has done and I would like particularly to mention Inez McCormick and Patricia McEwan and lots of the other folk there who worked on the ground to get lots of people, particularly women, involved. They have done an amazing job and I know how effective they are because I remember the first time when I was Shadow in this job I went to Inez’s office and said, “Inez, I just need you to talk me through what the issues are, what I need to know”, and she said nothing, took me down to the Royal Victoria Hospital to the basement, put me in a room for an hour with cleaners, cooks, porters and they told me what they expected me to do without any doubt. That is the way the work has been done on the ground and I would like to acknowledge particularly what they have done.

    Other examples of what the unions have done: the campaign that they have organised on what we call the Fairness Equality agenda again has been central because inequality, discrimination, has been a crucial part of the backdrop of what has happened in Northern Ireland, and the work they have done on fair employment legislation has made a big, big difference.

    Finally to thank them, when we had the referendum in Northern Ireland back in May I kind of had a free front of panic for the first week because not many people were saying anything, and because of the difficulties that have happened in the past people are sometimes reticent to speak out. It takes a lot to have the confidence to stand up and say, “I’m going to support this side”, or the other. It is a bit of a risk. It is not easy in Northern Ireland. That “Yes” Campaign, which won the Referendum, was due in large part to, as always, the union leaders in Northern Ireland having the guts to stand up, put their head above the barricade and say what they believed. That got it going and that made a difference. I do want to put that on record because they were crucial in getting us to where we were.

    The second thing I want to touch on, briefly, is the degree of violence and the degree of divisions which exist in Northern Ireland – that sectarian bigotry which you see at different times manifest itself. That is not going to disappear overnight. It is going to be there for years. We must slowly edge away at dealing with that. You deal with that by building up people’s confidence and getting them closer and closer to respect each other to hope that the future will be very different.

    One of the central difficulties is the degree of exclusion that divisions create. The deprivation which exists in parts of Northern Ireland is worse than anywhere else in the UK. That fuels the difficulties of the past.

    Let me give you a very bland statistic. Out of the unemployed in Northern Ireland, more than half of them are long-term unemployed. That is double anywhere else in the UK. It gives you an idea of the extent of how there is a group which is marginalised on both sides of the divide, and that needs addressing. We are beginning, in the first sixteen months, to address that.

    Let me give you a quick example so that you get a feel of what is actually happening in Northern Ireland. First, New Deal is working and making progress. We have a thousand employers signed up. Do not forget that Northern Ireland comprises 1.5 million people, similar to Greater Leeds, so that is a good bit of progress in terms of getting people off the dole and into a better future.

    Policies which will be implemented here by the middle of next year, such as the minimum wage and Fairness at Work will all help. We have many policies, thanks again to the equality agenda which has been pushed, on TSN – Targeting Social Need – so that policies in terms of fair treatment are directed to the most deprived.

    The Gordon Brown “the Chancellor’s package”, as we call it, which is a specific effort to put money into infrastructure to make it more attractive to get investment, has helped again. One of the big differences is that the people of Northern Ireland are at the moment putting together their own economic strategy to grow local businesses. In the past 24 hours there has been , 5 million worth of investment between two local companies in Craigavon and Dungannon. Again, that is real progress alongside the talks which will help make them work.

    The other and final area which we have been working in is trying to get more inward investment. We have not done too badly. We are off again next month to try and get more investment from the United States, who have been quite positive in their investment in Northern Ireland. Eleven cities will be visited and Gordon Brown will launch it. The important point about this tour is that it is headed by David Trimble and Seamus Mallon, together in partnership symbolically saying “We are working for a different future in Northern Ireland and we are leading it to show that this is where the future lies”. That is a real big plus because it shows to people Unionists and Nationalists working together to build for the future.

    In terms of that visit in October, we have had a lot of support from the AFL-CIO, particularly John Sweeney, who has worked with us in what could otherwise be a difficult area to facilitate that trip.

    While I am on the subject of leaders, one of the things which has helped in Northern Ireland is the relationship between the trades union Movement in America, in Ireland and here, in Northern Ireland, in the UK. The co-operation between them makes work easier. John Monks is an important part of that. His contribution — do not look so embarrassed — has been important because he is there in public when you need him. He went after the Canary Wharf bomb to Derry and spoke. When we were having the Referendum, he came to Belfast and spoke. That counts.

    But in addition what also makes a difference is, privately, when we are going through tough times he is there behind the scenes, over the years, working consistently to try and move it forward. We all have bad days. I have had some pretty bad days in the past 16 months. It makes a difference when people like John phone you up and says “It happens to all of us. Keep going”. I did just want to take this opportunity to thank him, too, because that has made a difference.

    Let me just touch on some aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. I also ought to say that of symbolic importance is at the Labour Party Conference at the week after next. We have a fringe meeting at which David Trimble and Shamus Mallon are speaking. It is sponsored by the TUC and the CBI, which shows that in Northern Ireland it is about partnership and working together. That is happening.

    I hear a mobile phone! I have a rule with the press in press conferences in Northern Ireland. That is that if a mobile phone goes off I stop and refuse to speak until the sinner leaves the room. They do not thank me for it but it is pretty awful.

    Let me talk about a couple of things that we are doing in the Good Friday Agreement. It is quite important in terms of the fairness and equality agenda which you, as a Congress, have committed yourselves to over many years. One of those aspects is that we are setting up a Human Rights Commission, which will be a new and powerful body. It is about changing the culture, to a human rights culture from one of injustice and discrimination. When people are threatened, they go back into their own culture and people. We are saying that if we have a human rights culture where everybody is treated fairly, then that will make a difference. That is part of the Good Friday Agreement and it is being set up. It will exist not just to advise people about the rights that they are entitled to but to help them when they believe their rights have been abused, or they have been denied rights, but it will give them assistance in taking it through the courts. I think the Human Rights Commission will be an important and powerful body. It is part of the “new” politics which is going to be the future as Northern Ireland begins to change.

    One of its priorities, for example, is to look towards consulting with all the parties in Northern Ireland to examine the possibility of a human Bill of Rights, which would, again, be an important and symbolic backdrop for making progress in Northern Ireland.

    Another part of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, which again links in with your interests, is, as part of that, a commitment to introduce a legal duty on all public bodies, which is legally binding, to be sure that there is the promotion of equality of opportunity, not just a fairness for Catholics and Protestants, and that will be for men and women, people of different races, people with different disabilities, sexual orientation and age. It will be a pretty comprehensive equality of opportunity portfolio together. The point is that unless we deal with those underlying inequalities, we will never deal with the fundamental problems. That is why I have highlighted those two because I think they are important.

    As to that equality commitment, in terms of equality of opportunity, we are putting in an Equality Commission to implement it. I know, from talking to a number of you, that that is not terribly popular because we are merging some of the different inequalities. People feel that some may be treated as second class rather than the importance they have as individual agencies. We are still consulting on it and I hope that we can find an agreement so that everybody will get a bit of what they want. In the nature of compromise, nobody ever gets everything they want. I hope we get there.

    Let me, briefly, emphasise where we have got to and where, I hope, we are going in the next couple of months. At present we are indulging in implementing all the different bits of the Good Friday Agreement. The only way we are going to continue to make progress is if it is implemented in total, because those Parties which signed up to it did not sign up to it because they agreed 100 per cent with it — nobody agreed 100 per cent — but they all got something which they wanted. The only way that we are going to be able to move it forward now is that the bit which they wanted moves in unison with everything else. Otherwise, they will say “Why have you got it and I have not?”, and we will be back to where we were for many years.

    At the moment we are putting in place the Assembly in the North, the North-South Ministerial Council and the Civic Forum, which is a chance for other voices to be heard in Northern Ireland from other communities apart from the political parties. I noticed, as I was coming in, I saw one of those voices, Monica McWilliams, who is a T&G woman, who had her voice heard in the Women’s Coalition, which did very impressively and gained a couple of seats, and also May Blood, who is one of those women who have been there for years and worked on the ground to make it happen.

    I have to mention some other bits because if I do not, people say “You are not doing that which we are implementing” in parallel with the ones that I have just mentioned. At the British Irish Council we have Commissions working on criminal justice review, on policing and where that will go in a year’s time, and a decommissioning independent body, which is a difficult one. Nobody doubts that the decommissioning of weapons has been one of the stumbling blocks in previous years with previous Governments. It is hard. It is part of the Good Friday Agreement and it has to happen in unison with the other parts of that Agreement.

    I believe that in the two year stretch we have we will see not just the decommissioning, but another tough issue which has started and that is the accelerated release of prisoners. Again, it is very difficult for victims who have lost people – victims’ families – to cope with that. We have a counselling service in place and constraints. Anybody who committed anything after April 10th cannot qualify. None of those who committed the atrocities at Omagh or those who murdered the three Quinn brothers will qualify. But that accelerated release, however difficult people are finding it to be, is part of the Good Friday Agreement. My job is to honour that Agreement and implement it in full, and that is what we will be working at.

    Alongside that, and Tony has worked very hard — I did not think the Prime Minister would have as much time as he has had to work on this — on this. When we have had difficulties and could not anybody, it has been very useful to call on the Prime Minister to come in and knock heads together, which he has done on more occasions than I believed possible, but he has made a difference.

    The other person who has made a difference is, when we have worked with the President of the Irish Republic, Bill Clinton. I do not think that many people know but during the talks he used to stay up all night because of the time difference. When we wanted a call from the Prime Minister, a call from the Irish Taoiseach or a call from the President of the United States, when we were trying to move along in those last days, everybody played their part, but none of that has hit the media. That helped us push people along to get to where we did.

    Finally, let me talk briefly about the security situation because, as a Government, one’s real job, first and foremost, is to make sure you protect citizens, and that is our first job. We are doing everything we can on that front to achieve as tight a level of security as we can. Two weeks ago we put through the House of Commons legislation which now matches the Irish legislation — legislation for legislation — to do all we can to catch the very small numbers still engaging in violence. The advantage of that is for the first time ever — the Irish Dail passed legislation at the same time as the Westminster Parliament — terrorists cannot go from one side of the border to the other, which they have in the past, to escape. This should put us in a much stronger position.

    Contrary to some of the things said in the wonderful press, everything we have put in place is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am sure we will be challenged but we would not have done it otherwise. It is time limited and focused on the specific groups which are still committed to violence.

    I consider myself a libertarian. I do not have any trouble with that legislation. We are dealing both north and south of the border with — I do not know — maybe 100, 200 or 300 people who are directly or indirectly still involved with violence in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we should let them ruin what 99.9% of people in Northern Ireland want to see.

    The final way to rid a community of terrorist activities, of people who indulge in violence, is to make the Good Friday Agreement work. Only when the community reject them and does not give them any hiding place ‑‑ that is, everybody’s mum and granny says, “If he is involved, they are not coming in this house” ‑‑ do you begin to root them out. That is why making the Good Friday Agreement succeed will take out those men of violence quicker than anything else. That is also why, in the weeks and months ahead ‑‑ it is going to be tough; nobody said it was going to be easy ‑‑ we have to make sure, even though the formal talks are over, that the talking continues because that is the only way we are going to find a way to build a better future. The good part of that is that most of the decisions now are devolving slowly to local people during this transitional period ensuring that by next year it is not us but the representatives of all the communities in Northern Ireland making those decisions.

    David Trimble made the best point when the Assembly met last week: “I want this to be a pluralist Parliament for a pluralist people in Northern Ireland in which all of us, Unionists and Nationalists, work together for the benefit of all.” When David Trimble says that, and Seamus Mallon immediately afterwards says “A peaceful path has been created”, it is up to all of us now to walk down it.

    That is why I am hopeful. I am very pleased that we are walking down that path step in step with the unions in Northern Ireland to deliver what people in Northern Ireland deserve, which is a future based on equality, justice, opportunity, but, above all, hope. Thank you.

  • Estelle Morris – 2002 Labour Party Conference Speech

    Below is the text of the speech of the then Education Secretary, Estelle Morris, to the 2002 Labour Party Conference.

    A few days ago some youngsters asked had it been tough in the last two weeks. I said yes, but not as tough as it has been for our students who have been left uncertain about their examination results.

    Today the inquiry I initiated has given further details of what happens next and a firm date by which we will know of any changes.

    The reason the last few weeks have been so difficult, why it’s worried so many people, is because it’s uncertainty about something that is so very important. It matters that we have an exam system in which everyone can have confidence, that’s why we must make sure this never happens again.

    You know, in this job I am invited to do a lot of prize givings, in schools up and down the country. And a bit like now I get to be on the stage. And from the stage you can see the faces of all the parents. You can spot the parent whose child’s name has just been read out. You can see the pride in their faces and the light in their eyes.

    As parents, you know that feeling. And we know as a party that pride we have in education.

    Education has always been at the heart of everything we’ve wanted to do. We have always wanted to tear down the barriers that hold people back.We have always said that the street you were born into should not determine what you will achieve. We have always told people to aim high and believe that what you dream about as a child you can achieve as an adult.

    That gives us a responsibility. If as a party we give people that hope, we must give them the means to achieve it.

    Think how much more important education is for our children then it was for us. More than any other generation, they need qualifications to get jobs. Yes, they have opportunities unknown to their grandparents but when they grow up into a world where the challenges are greater than any previous generations.

    Our children are the genome generation. It is they who will have to grapple with the big decisions about how far we go with genetic research, how we temper the advances in technology with the needs of our environment, how we plan for our society as more people live longer.

    What we give tham to help them on their journey, our inheritance to them, is education. It is education that provides the bridge from ambition to opportunity to reality. That is why we need a world-class education system and that is why those who work in schools, colleges and universities are in one of the most important professions there is.

    We know that our government has achieved a great deal:

    · Sure Start

    · Literacy and numeracy

    · GCSEs

    · Standards rising in our inner cities

    · More students in our colleges and universities

    · EMAs

    · More adults with basic skills

    · The fabric of our schools never better

    But you know there is another list as well:

    · One in four children cannot read and write at the proper level at age 11.

    · 50 per cent of children have still not got five good GCSE passes.

    · Seven million adults still do not have basic skills.

    · The link between social class and poverty is still strong.

    Now we face a choice. A choice that comes to every generation perhaps only once. And the choice is this. We can settle for what we have got , which is a good education system, or we can have the courage of our ambitions and go for being great.

    And if we show that courage, as Tony said yesterday, there’s nothing we cannot do. New Labour is doing a lot. Bold Labour will do even more. But if we turn our back on this chance, it may never come our way again.

    That choice between settling for what we’ve got, or striving for what we [want], is at the core of every challenge we face in education.

    I believe in the comprehensive ideal – every child of equal worth; the highest expectations of everyone. I know the achievements of comprehensive education. I’ve seen it. It’s stopped us writing off children at the age of 11. I don’t believe we’d have the made the progress we have with girls’ education without comprehensive education. The expansion of higher education has been on the back of comprehensive schools.

    The old rigid selection system – so valued by the Tories – couldn’t have achieved that.

    But it has not delivered everything I wanted. It hasn’t achieved all that we campaigned for. I thought it would break the link between poverty and achievement. It hasn’t. I hoped it would end the massive underachievement of ethnic minorities. It hasn’t.

    So we face a choice. We can settle for what we have already or we can have the courage to reform. I tell you what I mean by a post-comprehensive era. It cherishes the values of opportunity and worth, but it’s honest about it’s strengths and weaknesses, and brave about where it goes next.

    I know that we’ve got many good schools, but I know some are better than others and I know that there are some schools that parents avoid. I know our best schools have a strong identity and sense of mission. I know that schools need incentives to improve. I know that successful schools need rewards and that failing schools need to be supported and turned round. One child spending one day in a failing school is one child, one day too many.

    I know that schools learn best from each other and that the secret to success is in the corridors of our schools not the corridors of Whitehall.

    And that’s why over time we want every school to be a specialist school – teaching the national curriculum, but playing to its strengths and developing a centre of excellence.

    And that’s why we’ll develop advanced schools – our best schools responsible for leading the rest.

    And that’s why we’ll develop city academies, a new model of schools in areas where everything else has failed.

    And that’s what we mean by getting rid of “one size fits all.” Each area, each pupil is different, so we need different types of schools to meet their needs.

    And when we come to the school workforce we’ve got a choice here too. We can carry on as we are now – a model of staffing schools that has hardly changed for half a century, teachers working harder than ever before but using their time on things that others could do, a school timetable that offers too little flexibility.

    Or we could do what we’ve always wanted to do – staff our schools so we can meet the needs of each individual child. But that’s the harder choice. It will mean new staff with new skills, new ways of working, so teachers are freed to do what they do best, teach. And it will mean using our classroom assistants – properly trained and supported – in more productive roles. It will mean teachers rewarded for high performance. It will mean every school with state of the art information technology. And that way we can change how our children learn.

    And this is not a pipe dream. It’s beginning to happen in our best schools.

    And there’s a choice for parents and children as well. We have a wonderful generation of young people. They achieve more. They work harder. You only have to listen to them play music and perform to see how good they are.

    We know what they’re like at ICT – better than most adults, and certainly better than me.

    They are a credit to themselves, their families and their schools and we should be proud of them.

    But there is a minority who misbehave and are out of control. And they make life a misery for teachers and their classmates.

    Teachers cannot teach if children are disruptive. One child threatening or abusing one teacher in one of our schools is one too many. Actually, one child showing just disrespect to a teacher is one child too many.

    So we have a choice. The easy choice is to say nothing can be done. It is a sign of the times. We can choose to be a society that throws up its hands in horror but is unwilling to do anything about it.

    Or we can give a clear message about the behaviour we expect from our pupils. We must back teachers and make parents take responsibility.

    It’s not asking a lot. Why shouldn’t all children start school knowing the difference between right and wrong? Why shouldn’t our children know it’s wrong to swear? Why shouldn’t they understand that they should respect the authority of the teacher? How is it that most primary aged school children who are found truanting are with a parent or another adult?

    And although almost all parents support teachers, the small numbers who do not, damage their childrens’ future. I hear too many stories of parents questioning a teacher’s right to exercise discipline in the classroom. It has to stop.

    Parents do have rights. They should know how a school performs. They should always be able to question what is going on. But they have responsibilities as well. And if they do not exercise those responsibilities, then they will have to face the consequences.

    It sometimes seems as if we put the responsibility for solving all the ills of society on the shoulders of those who teach in our schools, colleges and universities. But the truth is that we all have our part to play.

    We have responsibilities as a government. For the first time ever, every permanently excluded child is now guaranteed full time education. They’re no longer slung out of schools, dumped on the streets, allowed to run wild and finally end up as a law and order statistic in the magistrate’s court.

    In all these areas, in all that we do, this is the choice the education service faces. To settle for what we’ve got, or to do what we came into politics to do.

    We’ve made our choice. That’s why we set high targets. Some don’t think we can make it. But I’ll tell you this. All we have to do to meet the targets we have set, is for poor children to achieve at the same level as more affluent children; black children to achieve at the same level as white; and boys to achieve at the same level as girls.

    Don’t tell me it can’t be done. I see it every single day in our best schools.

    We all know the success of literacy and numeracy. But do you know what is its greatest prize? That it has raised standards for everyone, and closed the achievement gap as well. In literacy and numeracy, we’ve raised standards everywhere but most of all in the most deprived neighbourhoods.

    So don’t let anyone say that more means worse. Don’t ever be persuaded to drop our sights. Don’t any one of us ever be embarassed by excellence.

    I say this to those who work in education. When I ask for reform, it’s not because I go around the country and see that everything is bad. It’s because I go around the country and see what’s possible.

    If ever there was a time when education should have the confidence to take on reform, it’s now. We’re a party that understands that education matters. We’ve got a government that’s consistently invested in education in a way that’s never happened before. And we’ve got the best generation of teachers ever. Don’t let’s falter now.

    If in five year’s time our schools look the same way as they do now, we’ll have made the wrong choice. If in five year’s time. they’re staffed in the same way as they are now, we’ll have made the wrong choice. And if in five year’s time we as a country do not believe that all our children can achieve more than they do now, we’ll have made the wrong choice.

    I have made my choice. I have chosen ambition and reform over caution and settling for second best.

    If we sit on our hands and do nothing, if we spend nothing, if we create nothing, if we change nothing, we’ll end up like the Tories – doing nothing, investing nothing, meaning nothing.

    Just remember, all this talk of reform, all this talk of investment, all this talk of change – it’s not just about politics, it’s about people, it’s about every child, every student, every parent.

    That’s why though it’s hard, there is only one choice. Falter now and I know we’ll live to regret it. Make the right decision and it will be one of the proudest achievements of Labour in power.

  • Estelle Morris – 2001 Speech at London Guildhall University

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Education Secretary, Estelle Morris, at London Guildhall University on 22nd October 2001.

    I was very sorry not to have been able to speak to you at the Universities UK conference in Southampton, and I think we all regret the circumstances that didn’t make that possible, but I am pleased to be here today.

    London Guildhall is a good place to make the sort of speech that I want to make today because I want to talk about the mission for higher education, and many of the elements we see at London Guildhall – widening participation, diversity, rising to new challenges and promoting leadership – are key to what I want to say.

    I know I am going to be a disappointment to at least one person today. I got a lot of messages of goodwill after the Election in June (it’s probably downwards from then on, I’ve decided). But there were lots of messages of good will, except for one which appeared in the Independent. An academic, Warden of a well known college, said, “I rather assume that all her interests will be in schools rather than universities. Politicians do not understand how universities work. It will be a period of benign neglect, and I don’t mind that.” Well, I’m setting out very deliberately today to disappoint that one gentleman but I hope not the rest of the audience.

    One of the reasons I want to disappoint him is that what you do every day in your institutions, the students you teach, the work that you do, the research that you carry out, is far too important, not only to individuals in this country, but far too crucial to the whole nation’s future to be neglected benignly or otherwise. What I think is true (and maybe this is the source of those comments) is that since the Labour Government was first elected in 1997 we have been devoting enormous energy and enthusiasm and drive and resources into raising standards in our schools. And that is as important, I’d argue, to the future of higher education and what we want to achieve there as to any of the structures of our community.

    I want to remind you what the position was throughout the schools system in 1997. There was massive under-performance at primary and secondary level; children reaching the age of 11 without the skills that they needed to read and write effectively and to access the secondary curriculum. And that’s why we have introduced the literacy and numeracy strategies. Before then, the gaps between those who achieve and those who don’t achieve have never really been seriously and consistently addressed. That’s why we introduced Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities – offering targeted good quality and sustained challenge and support in some of our most challenging urban areas in the country, to see if we could narrow the unacceptable gap in performance between children from different backgrounds – something which no-one had done before – and that includes generations of educationalists, and not just Governments.

    And what’s more, in this term we will want to concentrate on our schools agenda and transforming secondary education. We have set up the Learning and Skills Council to try to tackle the nation’s long-term failure to raise skills. But it is time now to put more focus on what we do in higher education, and the work we have done so far in schools and with the skills agenda will lay good foundations for us all to do that.

    There has been a huge change in higher education over the last ten to twenty years – it has shifted from being an elite system to being something much wider, something much more important than that. When we look back over those decades, it almost happened without anyone necessarily thinking strategically about what we want Universities to do. I am committed to further expansion, I know and I believe with all my heart that it can be achieved without any compromise on excellence. But as we expand further we’ve got to think strategically about what the sector does and how we want it to do it. We’re here to set out today together a vision for higher education that looks forward a decade or more. That vision has got to be built around diverse institutions pursuing excellence in their different ways. There are four central goals that I want to put to you today, and I want to talk about how we can achieve them and look at the challenges that face us and how we might begin overcoming them. I think those four are:

    Firstly, widening participation and unlocking the potential of the poorer sections of society. We do want to move ahead to achieve our target that half of the population will enter higher education by the time they reach the age of 30.

    Secondly, to continue to produce world class research.

    Thirdly, making sure that Universities work better with industry and with the wider community.

    Fourthly, to support excellent teaching in our higher education institutions.

    Meeting these goals won’t necessarily be easy. It will demand vision and it will demand commitment and drive from every single one of us. So I also want to raise today the issue of excellent management and leadership in the sector.

    The pledge that the Government made shortly before the General Election and repeated in the Manifesto that 50 per cent of under 30s would enter higher education by 2010 is one of the highest priorities on the Government’s agenda. It is not unrealistic – it can be done – and the increase in figures for accepted applications this year suggests that we have made further progress. But I want to be clear as I can, it’s not just something that would be quite nice, it’s not just a social aspiration (although it is both those things) – it’s far more important than that. You know that way back in 1997 our Government made the decision that as a nation we wanted to compete on the world stage as a high-value-added and high skills economy. We can’t do that without investment in skills, investment in education and increasing participation in higher education. Quite simply we need more graduates and we will not be training people for whom there are no jobs. Labour market forecasts by the National Skills Taskforce show that between 1999 and 2010 there will be a growth of 1.73 million jobs in those occupations that typically recruit graduates – things like managers and associate professionals. In the past, a 50% participation rate might have been seen as socially desirable, certainly part of my political background and philosophy would have made it the right thing to do. But now it is an economic necessity.

    You know better than I do the link throughout all parts of our education system between social class and educational attainment. And no where are those statistics more startling and frightening than they are in higher education. That’s inevitable given its position after the compulsory years of schooling. About 70% of the children from higher socio-economic groups go on to higher education and that’s compared to somewhere between 13 and 14 percent from families from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

    And it can be traced back to wasted talent in schools. Children from non-manual backgrounds are one-and-a-half times more likely to get five or more A* to Cs at GCSE than those from manual backgrounds, and twice as likely to get eight A* to Cs. 43% of 18 year olds from higher socio-economic backgrounds achieve two A levels – the basic requirement to go on a degree course – compared with only 18% from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

    But in a strange sort of way, when I look at those statistics, terrible though they may be, they actually give me my optimism. Because like you, nobody can think that middle class children are brighter than poorer children. Nobody can think that white children should achieve at a higher level than black children. Nobody can assume that children from the inner cities shouldn’t be able to achieve at the same level as those from the suburbs. So it is possible. All we have to do is to raise the achievement of those children from the communities which have traditionally underachieved to the same level as those from the communities that have traditionally achieved. If you look at it in that way, 50% does not sound unrealistic. But it will be hard work and it will be a challenge.

    I know that what most needs to be done is to raise attainment in schools and that is my responsibility not yours. That is why in our first term we put such emphasis on literacy and numeracy; and why we are putting such emphasis in the second term on building on that as we move into reform of secondary education. But it goes further than that and I do need your help as well, and we do need to work together.

    I know academic attainment at 18 is essential if we are to increase the number of young people eligible to go into higher education but it is never going to be enough by itself. We have to raise aspirations, we have to raise self belief, we have to raise self esteem and ambition in some of our young people. You know as well as I do that some young people, even the brightest, grow up believing that higher education cannot be for them. They get to 18 without ever having set foot on a university campus, without ever having had a lengthy conversation with somebody who lectures in higher education. They go home to families and communities where the whole social life is with people who don’t have jobs which require degrees. It’s hardly surprising that their aspiration to go into higher education is perhaps not as great as some of their peers from other backgrounds who have had those opportunities.

    Excellence Challenge has made a start. I am deeply grateful to the universities and higher education colleges that have done work on it. I know that the Government’s launch of the Excellence Challenge over the last three or four years was only based on some of the good work that higher education has already done. I know myself as a teacher in the inner cities some ten years ago that even then there were some universities who were beginning to put out feelers and beginning to talk to us about how we can do better and about ending this relationship between social class and access to higher education.

    Now I think we need to go further than that, and that’s really our joint agenda. To have a school system that raises the attainment level. For higher education institutions to work with the school system and the Government to make sure you do all that you can to build on the work that you’ve done in the past. I think that what I want most of all to happen in all those universities is to put roots down into the schools so that we can see the work you are doing on access. This is not an optional extra. This is not just an occasional summer school or visit by a lecturer or student. What I want to see is that the presence of somebody from higher education almost becomes run of the mill so that you give those young people the aspiration and the ambition, and you help to persuade them that university is for people like them. That is the contribution that you can make to the widening participation agenda. I think the prospect of going to university is something that fires many young people to work harder for their A levels and achieve at a higher level. If you haven’t got that aspiration to go to university it is one of those levers that is missing. What we want you to do in secondary schools is to inject these aspirations to go to university amongst working class children so that together with the work that we will do in school, it will actually once and for all take us along the road which breaks the link that other nations don’t have between social class and educational attainment.

    There is another rich source of talent that we need to get into higher education over the next ten years. There are one million people in their 20s who already have level three qualifications. We need to work with employers to raise skill levels even further and to see if some of those people with level three qualifications in their 20s might benefit from a period of higher education to take them further on in their career and to give their employers and their workplaces the skills that they need. And achieving that will need greater diversity – and that’s true for each of the challenges that I set out at the beginning of this speech. As my predecessor David Blunkett said, there should be emphasis on foundation degrees and getting the proper channels for those who want to study vocational qualifications right from age 14 to degree and postgraduate level. That implies innovation in teaching and learning and it certainly means making higher education as flexible and as accessible as possible. Between us I think we have a joint mission to nurture the talent that is currently being lost not only to higher education but to the nation as a whole.

    Whenever I have conversations about access and about participation, many connect those issues to student finance. We want to think again about any obstacles – real or imagined – that could discourage young people from low income families from taking up higher education. All of us would like to produce a system for student support which is simpler than the present one. So we have begun to review the current system. I have said that the review has four clear aims:

    – simplification of the system, especially in the area of hardship support. It’s so complex at the moment you almost need a degree to access all the different funds that are available;

    – provision of more upfront support for students from less well-off backgrounds;

    – ensuring that all students have access to sufficient financial support throughout their years of higher education;

    – tackling the problems of debt and the perceptions of debt.

    The principles of the reforms that David Blunkett announced in 1997 were absolutely right and we will stick with them. Those who benefit from higher education should contribute to its cost. It would be utterly unfair for graduates, who as a group earn 35% more than the average wage, to be completely subsidised through their entire university education by those who do not have their advantages and who can afford it far less easily.

    And remember this – the “golden age” of free tuition and grants for those who need them did not work as a driver for access. The proportion of poorer students entering higher education did not rise. And despite the rhetoric around it, however much money we choose to put into student support it will not be by itself the answer to the access challenge. The problems are more complicated and more profound: they are about ethos, about the perception, and about prior attainment. So I want to satisfy myself and to be absolutely certain that there is nothing in the student support system that might act as a disincentive to those we most want to attract. But we must not see this as the only issue in the debate, and we must not let it distract us from the more fundamental and the more difficult challenges.

    I wanted to say a little bit about world class research. It’s a success story. It’s one of the real strengths of British higher education. With only 1% of the world’s population, the UK carries out 4.7% of the world’s research, it has 7.6% of the world’s scientific publications, and over 9% of the citations of scientific papers. We rank first in the world in terms of the number of publications and citations generated for each pound spent on research. We’ve got a challenge here as well, and the challenge is very real. It’s how to keep our leading position.

    I know that if you want to carry out good research you need to hire and back good quality researchers. That’s why the human resource strategies which universities and colleges are drawing up need to address the issues of recruitment and retention. And that is why I think successive research assessment exercises have helped improve the quality of research in universities because the results of those exercises have made universities think very carefully about where they can best invest their money. Weaker areas have declined, but developing and strong areas have grown and flourished.

    Research is expensive. It needs talented researchers, but also buildings and equipment as well. The infrastructure for both science and technological research was becoming run down. We have been investing huge sums of money to put it right in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, first with the Joint Infrastructure Fund, and now with the Science Research Infrastructure Fund.

    But more needs to be done. It’s that old cycle of years of under-investment followed by the Government injecting large amounts of money every so often to sort out the problems with infrastructure. I think just as we need to do in our schools and throughout the whole of our education service we need to end that dependence mentality and the idea that once we have invested in capital we think we could ignore it for a few more years. And that is one of the things that I very much hope that the cross cutting review of science which is part of our current spending review will look at.

    Again there are questions to ask. We need to ask about how universities provide their share of the support for research grants from external bodies. The dual support system has served us well, but the growth in research income from charities in particular – which has outstripped other sources – must make us ask whether the dual support system can continue to work in its present form. That is another issue for the cross cutting review.

    Again the challenges for both Government and the higher education sector are bigger than this. We have productive research, but we don’t spend that much on it in total. The UK ranked 16th out of the 23 OECD nations for higher education expenditure on research and development. So there are concerns about the UK slipping down the world league tables of research excellence and about UK research being unable to compete on a level playing field. Quite simply, we won’t keep our world class place if we allow that to happen. Since we have a comparative advantage, we should make sure it stays that way. So we do need more resources. But these cannot come from the Government alone. Government will never be able for instance to match the level of investment produced by the endowments of the top US universities. So there are hard questions to answer about how we maintain our position. What is the best way to lever in more support for world class research institutions in the UK, and how can the money best be distributed between institutions? How can we make sure that the brightest and the best want to use their talents here in the UK – whether they are staying on here or coming from elsewhere? And how can we help our best institutions collaborate effectively with other world leaders? How can we make sure that the benefits of the best research are shared throughout the system?

    The third challenge I outlined was that of embedding universities in industries and our communities. We know we live in a global economy. It’s a compulsory sentence in most speeches that politicians make these days. But it applies to universities and colleges in just the same way as it implies to individuals seeking training or education or employment. Yet the strange thing about globalisation is as much as national boundaries and national frontiers seem to break down this increases the importance of local and regional areas. And I believe that higher education is a very powerful driver of technological and other change. It is crucial to local and regional economic development. You produce the people with knowledge and skills; you generate new knowledge through research and scholarship; you exploit that knowledge through innovation in spinout companies, contract research and transferring skilled people to businesses. It is essential work. It will only work well if you get the relationship right between businesses and communities on the one hand and educational institutions on the other, and each knows each other’s needs. That is why forging links between the two is very important, and why working with regional development agencies is a crucial partnership.

    Survey data of knowledge transfer for technological innovation in the UK shows that enterprises look more to the “technology base” than directly to the science base for technological innovation. This type of applied research can be very important for the regional economy but is relatively poorly done in the UK perhaps for three reasons:

    – the level of business R&D in the UK is low compared to key competitors;

    – we have a skills gap in UK business with a shortage in areas such as certified civil and electrical engineering;

    – we don’t have as good links as we should between businesses and higher education or other publicly funded research.

    All these limit the ability of UK business to absorb knowledge and innovate.

    We are beginning to recognise that there is more money to be put into research and development through tax credits for small and medium enterprises, and there is a number of schemes designed to help in this area such as Science Enterprise Challenge and University Challenge.

    Again there is already good work being done. Newcastle University has a business development team whose main function is to match the needs of business with expertise and capabilities already in the university. And again, at Salford University, Academic Enterprise makes a point of providing a single place of contact for those enquiring about access to business and it offers a fast track for them to relevant expertise in the university.

    But we are only at the very beginning, and this is another immense challenge to the sector. Of course there are many other partners, and British industry too needs to rise to the challenge. But again there is a step change to be made in our thinking; success in this field will come when there is a commitment to the principle that this is an important and growing role of a modern university. I know that most of our universities do not deserve to be thought of as mere ivory towers. The fact that so many of them are perceived that way by people outside perhaps shows how much we need to change the culture and how much we need to talk to each other.

    There is one single issue that is central to the quality of everything that happens. The quality of teaching, and the quality of the student experience in terms of learning. I know there is a long history to this debate in higher education. Not just on teaching quality assurance but on the investment that has already been made in improving the quality of teaching and learning.

    We want to encourage new forms of teaching and learning. We have together already launched the e-Universities project so that we can make sure the UK is at the centre of high quality higher education over the internet. It was announced last Friday that Sun Microsystems had entered into a strategic alliance with a newly formed company UK e-Universities Worldwide, to provide the technology platform to deliver the courses worldwide.

    And there are examples of good university-based teaching as well. Coventry University has developed a comprehensive system of recognising and rewarding excellent teachers through promotion criteria, teaching awards and teaching fellowships. This shows a strong commitment to teaching excellence that I would like to see spreading further. But there is a debate to be had about how we get the balance right between institutional processes and external review. We attach, as I know you do, particular importance to robust assessment and review methods – both internal and external. We shall take a keen interest in the outcomes of the current consultation on quality assurance. Let’s wait to see what that brings before that debate between us. I will be guided by my initial thoughts on quality assurance. There are three key things which need to be put in place. First, in a publicly funded system there must be accountability. We cannot spend public money without some assurance that we are spending it to good effect. Second, there must be good information for students and parents so that they can make informed and sound decisions about the courses they take. And thirdly, because of the very nature of the higher education systems and its strengths, there must be autonomy – institutions must have the freedom to look for the solutions that suit them. But we must have a system that brings these three strands together. Accountability because that is right when public money is being spent; information because any organisation needs to concentrate on those people it serves; and autonomy because that is central to the ethics and values in our higher education institutions.

    We must value teaching quality as part of our vision for higher education. When I first looked at the higher education system it became increasingly evident that there were no financial incentives for excellent teaching, and I do wonder if in some way we could incentivise excellence in teaching in the same way as we do in research. This too raises some important questions: how should you identify what is excellent teaching in higher education? Should we put incentives in place which would let institutions specialise in this? If we are to do that, what does that mean for the relationship between teaching and research? Do the restrictions on student numbers stifle incentives to teach well? And is there a cultural obstacle to overcome? I sometimes get the feeling that teaching is still a bit of a side show compared to research. We need to have excellent research; we need excellent teaching; we need to expand higher education to all those groups that have not had access in all those ways that we need to achieve that. We have to accept that we need excellence and initiative and to allow people to specialise in teaching excellently.

    It’s a huge agenda that lies before us all – widening participation, the challenge of delivering diversity and opportunity, fostering teaching and research excellence, and linking universities to industry and the community. Any agenda like that will demand first class management and world class leadership. We already have some, much of it in this room, but we do not have enough. Too often as in any phase of education there is not enough effective management at the key levels of middle management as well as at senior management. No one can defend the number of women at senior levels of management in higher education. We must also think about succession planning and the development of people in general, to make sure that as each generation of effective managers and leaders moves on, there are more ready to take their place, and to accept that in the fast changing sector that higher education has become the challenges will always evolve.

    I much welcome the initiatives which are already underway from the top management programme to the use of HEFCE’s fund for the development of good management practice. But there is still more to be done. The scale of the pressures on institutions is formidable and we need a renewed effort to make a difference and look at management and leadership in its own right.

    We already have an enormously strong sector. And an increasingly varied sector too. We have the beginnings of new links and alliances. There is a climate of change. I know that London Guildhall University and the University of North London have ambitious plans to come together, as I recognised at the very beginning of this speech, and I wish you both well in that endeavour. But it strikes me that all of this, all these changes, all this new agenda perhaps needs to be part of a bigger picture and we perhaps need an active debate about how far it should be part of a bigger design. We must foster proud and autonomous institutions, confident in their differing missions and meeting the needs of their students. But at the same time we have to ensure that the full range of opportunities – including those relevant to the new students we will be recruiting – are available right across the country.

    I know that there has already been a great deal of debate on these very issues, but it feels as though the time is now right to come up with a more strategic approach. I am convinced that we need to look at the rich complexity of our higher education mission and to make sure that we are fostering all the things we want higher education to do.

    There are some big decisions ahead. We have already embarked on the next spending review, and I have no doubt that you will make your representations in due course to help put more pressure on the Chancellor. I think the time is also right to go beyond the timescale of the spending review and to think more widely and strategically about higher education in Britain. Therefore I have asked my Department to carry out a wide ranging and fundamental review covering all these key areas:

    – widening participation

    – world class research

    – linking universities with industry and communities

    – teaching excellence

    – management and leadership

    I want to look at how we incentivise and resource these missions because at the moment all the incentives seem to me to be skewed towards one end of the big picture. I invite you, the Vice Chancellors, and the rest of the sector to join us in that review as soon as we can get together to begin to map some of the way forward to some of the changes which I have outlined today.

    I am very conscious that I have come to you with a lot of questions and not the answers, but that is the way I want it at the moment. Most of all I want three things:

    True recognition of the work already done and the standing you have and the importance of the contribution you make. My thanks go to you for all that has happened.

    A real agenda to grow between us, not that I think we will always agree, but what I want is to have a sharing of what the key challenges are and what the key issues are that need to be addressed;

    I would like very much over the coming months to try as much as possible, in a diverse sector, to begin to agree the way forward. If we can do that we have actually done a service not only to higher education but a service to the economy, to the nation and to the rest of the community. We would have taken another step along the road of moving universities from their old mission of being elite and giving opportunities for the few, to being in the heart of our communities, the key to individual life chances, and in that sense the heart of our country as well.

    I am most grateful to London Guildhall University for giving me the chance to outline some of these challenges today, and I very much look forward to working with you towards these solutions in the months to come.