Tag: Speeches

  • Rhodri Morgan – 2009 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rhodri Morgan, the then First Minister of Wales, to the 2009 Labour Party conference on 27th September 2009.

    Conference, I’ve had the privilege as Labour Leader in Wales, of addressing you since 2000, and today I’m doing so for the last time.

    Over that decade of devolution, I’ve seen Wales grow enormously in confidence.

    Learning the art of government.

    Getting used to making our own decisions.

    Moving away from the old culture of blaming others for anything that goes wrong.

    We would not, and could not, go back to the old days of going on bended knee for help from the likes of William Hague and John Redwood – those figures from what now seems like the prehistoric past.

    That era is over for ever and ever.

    Finito.

    Dead as a Norwegian blue dodo.

    Dead as the Thatcher/Reagan era of ultra free-market economics which ended with the 2008 credit crunch.

    What’s needed now is active, interventionist, strong government, helping people through the recession and re-equipping the country for the coming up-turn.

    You don’t get that from the free marketeers.

    Their only answer is – cue John Maples Tory Deputy Chairman  – ‘this recession must be allowed to run its course’.

    What Labour is doing is to intervene for breakfast, for lunch, for tea and for supper, to shorten the recession and reduce the bad effects on ordinary peoples’ lives.

    In Wales, that has meant a social partnership, getting trade union and business leaders, local government and the third sector, round a table to get a full understanding of where the shoe is pinching. Deciding what to do about it, so that Wales can be ready for the upturn.

    From those summit meetings came the ProAct programme, paying employers to keep workers on their books, instead of making them redundant when orders are low.

    But we pay our £4,000 per head in return for up-grading the skills of those employees on the scheme.

    ProAct is saving thousands of jobs now and, even more important, it will prove its worth in saving thousands of future jobs because of those improved skills.

    That’s creative government intervention for you.

    Wales now has our own state-owned bank, Finance Wales, with a £150 million investment fund for small and medium enterprises.

    I announced the first tranche of investments totalling £6 million in 37 companies last week.

    Also last week, we launched a £105 million fund for our housing associations, mostly from the European Investment Bank, to take the place of the money they can’t get from the market because of the credit crunch.

    Where the market fails, Labour steps in, creating thousands of desperately needed construction jobs and meeting our urgent need for new homes.

    But active government doesn’t end with beating the recession.

    Since I last addressed conference, we have rolled out to every nursery and infant school in Wales our new Scandinavian-style learn-through-play curriculum.

    I have never known enthusiasm like it among all our early years teachers and learning assistants.

    It’s the biggest investment of new money in education in Wales in decades and we will see the benefit in decades to come, shortening the long tail of educational under-achievement from which Wales has always suffered.

    Ten years ago we wouldn’t have had the powers to break with a century of educational tradition in the UK and in any case, we wouldn’t have had the confidence to do it, even if we had.

    Now this new curriculum for the 3 – 7 year olds is a fantastic example of inventive government using devolution to the full.

    We don’t now teach the bended-knee, or the tug of the forelock, any longer in our posture and comportment classes!

    So Conference, a word about the future. Wales’ worst kept secret – I’m not going to be with you next year as Welsh Labour Leader and I’ll be announcing, before too long, the exact details of how and when the election of my successor it going to take place.

    Still, it’s the little things which say the time is coming to move on. Two weeks ago today, Julie and I were having a swim on Barry Island beach, taking advantage of our Indian summer.

    There was a surf life-saving competition going on and as I’m swimming along, quite powerfully so I think – OK, I’m not Michael Phelps, but I was quite impressed with my powerful stroke – next thing I know there’s an inflatable boat alongside me, and there is Miss Baywatch Barry Island 2009 leaning over and saying, ‘I’m just checking that you’re alright sir’!

    At least she said Sir, not Grandad!

    It’s things like that which tell you, to get ready to hand the baton over to the next generation.

    It just remains for me to thank the Labour Party for doing all the heavy lifting – to get devolution up and running 10 years ago, to strengthen our powers in 2006 and to give me the chance to have been First Minister of Wales.

    The Devolution Decade has been the most important thing to happen to Wales since the industrial revolution.

    All because of you.

    All because of Labour.

    And now we need to make sure the British people make the right choice next year.

    This is not the time for a free-market obsessed party to take over.

    It’s not time to make government smaller when there’s such a big job to do.

    It’s a time for a Party that believes in the power of government to develop our public services and to generate the new technologies and the new jobs.

    You only get that from one party – Labour.

    So, two final messages for this conference.

    First, to the whole of the Labour party in this hall and outside.

    I know that we are in difficulty now. We have temporarily mislaid that magic recipe for blending the mushy peas of old Labour with the guacamole of new Labour.

    Those difficulties will be temporary. We will find that recipe again soon.

    Because when the country is in difficulties, the Government takes a hit – it always happens, but when the country is in difficulties, that is precisely when you need the intervention of a government that actually believes in intervention.

    That means Labour.

    Last, to all my Welsh Labour compatriots here:

    Diolch yn fawr am eich ffydd a’ch cefnogaeth di-dor dros y ddegaid ddiwethaf.

    Thank you from the bottom of my heart for coming with me on this incredible journey over the past decade.

    Your loyalty and support has enabled me to do what I’ve been able to do to lead Wales and establish Wales as a ‘Yes We Can’ country.

    I know you will give the same support and loyalty to whoever takes the helm of leadership on after me.

    While my Labour leadership in Wales may not have long to run, Labour’s role of leadership in Wales and in Britain certainly isn’t coming to an end.

    When times are tough, when the future needs to be shaped for everybody’s benefit, Labour is the one party you can count on.

  • Rhodri Morgan – 2003 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Welsh First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, to the 2003 Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth on 28th September 2003.

    Conference, twelve months ago, in the steamy heat of Blackpool, I suggested to you that, if we could draw on the determined effort of the whole Labour movement, we in Wales were in a position to take outright control at this year’s Assembly elections.

    Well, we make that effort, we took outright control and today I’m here to thank everyone in the Labour family who helped to make it happen.

    Immediately after that election, the Labour Party in Wales met together in a special conference in Cardiff.

    What I said on that Saturday seems to me to be even more important today.

    We fought our Welsh Assembly campaign as the most united Party which I could ever remember.

    United Parties win elections. Divided Parties lose them.

    It’s the simplest law of successful politics – and all of us need to remember that today.

    And by all of us, I mean what I say.

    I mean the platform, as well as the people in the hall.

    I mean those who get elected, as well as those who help to get them elected.

    I mean the trade unions, as well as political wing of this Movement.

    We win when we are united for two main reasons.

    Unity means that we get our message across in a direct way, without the discord which disunity brings. When we are all really singing from the same hymn sheet, then not only do we make more noise –  we make it in harmony.

    But united parties don’t only deliver messages better. They have better messages to deliver.

    I don’t underestimate, for a moment, the struggle which our Party has always had to wage, to get our messages across. The vested interests of power and privilege may change as the years go on – but they are always there, and the message of this Movement will always be – must always be – a message which the powerful and privileged will find so uncomfortable that they will wish to stifle and suppress it.

    Let me give you just one example. For 18 years the Conservative Party made a concentrated attack upon our core public services. Nowhere was that attack more sustained, more insidious and more successful than in the case of NHS dentistry. Nor was that the whole of their plan. They wanted dentists out of the NHS, just as they had already got rid of opticians, before moving on to family doctors next.

    Since 1997, we have had to pick up the pieces and grow back dental services in parts of Wales where they had been completely abandoned. Since that time, because of the decisions which Labour has made, 31 practices have been expanded and 9 competely new ones opened, 90 dentists have benefited and 52,000 extra NHS places have been created.

    Of course, there is more which needs to be done. Many of you will have seen pictures of the queues which formed when an additional 300 NHS places were on offer at a West Wales dental practice over the summer.

    But what are the lessons which are really to be drawn from this story?

    Firstly, it reminds us, if we needed any reminding, that the NHS remains an institution which people in Wales, and beyond, value beyond almost any other. When people who had been denied such services were offered an opportunity to take them up again, then they welcome it hugely.

    Secondly, that the expansion in services only came about because of the actions of government – a Labour government in Westminster prepared to provide the additional investment and a Labour government in the Assembly committed to the NHS. Comrades, that so many should have been denied treatment for so long is a disgrace – but it is a disgrace which only this Party is committed to putting right.

    Those 300 places which were the focus of so much attention are only one part of the 6 practices where new and expanded NHS services have been provided in West Wales over the past two years. Even since those pictures appeared earlier in the summer, a  further practice has been expanded in the same part of Wales, using a grant from the Welsh Assembly Government to create 1,300 new NHS places, guaranteed for the next five years.

    The third thing we learn from all this is that, even when we are extending services, even when we are doing so in a way which so clearly meets a powerfully felt need, the media, and our opponents, will try to find a way to portray all this as some sort of government-induced crisis. It really is the height of hypocrisy to hear the Tories bleating about a lack of NHS dentists when they set out so deliberately to decimate that service.

    That’s why, looking back at our experience in the Assembly elections, I want to suggest to you that parties which win elections don’t just get better at getting their message across. They have to have the best messages – and that means messages which unite us, rather than divide us: messages which connect us with our supporters in the country, rather than cutting us off from them, messages which tell a real story, of real policies, benefiting real people.

    In the Assembly elections, we deliberately set out to make our Manifesto the centre-piece of our campaign. It’s become fashionable in some quarters to look down on Manifestos, to portray them as irrelevant to voters and a weak guide to what governments elected upon them will actually deliver. We tried to break out of that destructive circle by concentrating our Manifesto upon a series of practical measures which make a day-to-day difference in the lives of those who look to this Party to be on their side, the vehicle for help and for improvement.

    So, over the next four years, we will abolish all prescription charges in Wales and we will see to it that free breakfasts are on offer in all our primary schools.

    Why did we chose to make such commitments? Well, they bring direct health and education benefits. When I visited the South Wales Valleys, in the run up to the election, a headteacher of 30 years standing told me that free breakfasts had made the single greatest contribution to learning, of all the many initiatives which she had witnessed during her career. Children who begin the day properly fed are children who are ready for learning, whose behaviour is better, whose sociability is improved and whose alertness and receptivity has been secured.

    But there are vital economic as well as social benefits which these measures bring. In Wales, we have to tackle the problems of economic inactivity – people who could be in work, but who the Tories pushed onto the scrap heap. Thanks to the  astonishing success of Labour’s record since 1997, the Welsh economy has been transformed. During that period we have closed two thirds of the employment gap between Wales and the rest of the UK. Employment in Wales has increased by 78,000 comparing the three months to July this year with the same period a year ago. The employment rate in Wales is now higher than all the G7 countries (apart, of course from the UK) and higher than all EU countries apart from Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. And unemployment has fallen in the less well-off parts of the country at an even faster rate than elsewhere.

    Now we have to help back into work, those people who, after two decades of Tory neglect, have come to see themselves as cut off from the economic mainstream. To deliver that assistance we have to smooth the path back to work. Prescriptions are free when out of work. Now, in Wales, they’ll be free when working as well.

    Conference, the experience in Wales has been that when the Labour Movement offers the sort of policies which connect in this direct way with people’s lives, then this Party remains the natural home for all those who understand that we all do best when we know that we are  part one of another, stronger when united than divided, shaping that society which gave us our chances, so that there are better chances still for those who come after us.

    Now, of course, not all our political opponents understand the importance of this sense of inter-dependence.

    Our friends in Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Independence Party, have just spend an agonising weekend deciding that independence is, after all, the main aim of their game. Or at least for some of them. Their new President, Dafydd Iwan, a plucker of the more morose form of folk song, was enthusiastically in favour of  a seat at the United Nations, a Welsh army, navy and airforce and, as far as I know, a Welsh man on the moon. Their former president, Lord Elis Thomas, the far from morose Presiding Officer of the Assembly, is adamantly opposed. Their former, and now born-again leader at the Assembly, Ieuan Wyn Jones, nailed his colours so firmly to the fence that he didn’t vote at all.

    Ieuan Win – Ieuan Lose – Now it’s Ieuan abstain.

    Chair, we live in an interdependent world. What each one of us does in our own lives directly affects the lives of others. What each of us does in our communities affects other communities too. This idea is etched deep in the Welsh political psyche. It is the ethical foundation of our socialism. It is the reason why the narrow nationalist notion of independence is such a one-way ticket to political obscurity.

    That’s why when we face the electorate again next year, in our local government and European elections, and in the general election which will follow, it is not the nationalists who we need to draw back to the attention of the voters. It is the Tories, with their own brand of narrow minded malice, whom we will have to hold to account. Now, for two general elections in a row, Wales has been that socialist nirvarnah – a Tory-free zone. And we plan to keep it that way again next time. In the Assembly, however, our voting system means that we’ve been able to see that endangered species – the Welsh Conservative – at close quarters. And the truth is that they are both nastier and more resilient than we sometimes remember. Nastier in their willingness to attack every progressive measure. More resilient in their ability to attract a core vote based around the worst sort of political appeal to fear and to envy.

    Conference, we’ve had a Labour Government in Westminster for six years. We’ve had a wholly Labour Government at the Assembly for less than six months.

    Now we have a golden chance, the chance of a generation, to use out combine will and our combined skill to make those changes which matter to Labour voters up and down the land.

    And when we do that together, we will not let you down.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2014 Speech on Charity

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Financial Secretary, on 15th May 2014.

    Introduction

    Good afternoon.

    I’m sure I won’t be the first – or the last – speaker at this conference to talk about Stephen Sutton…

    Who sadly succumbed to bowel cancer yesterday.

    And – with no disrespect intended to any of the other speakers – if I want you to look back in a month or a year’s time…

    And remember one speech from today…

    Now, in that speech, which I can’t recommend highly enough…

    Stephen tells his story…

    From his childhood…

    Through his diagnosis…

    And into his – if you will – campaign…

    And the part of it that has stuck with me most is when he says… and I quote…

    I do not know how long I’ve got left to live…

    But one of the reasons for that is because I haven’t asked.

    And that’s because I don’t see the point in measuring life in terms of time anymore…

    I would rather measure it in terms of what I actually achieve.

    I’d rather measure it in terms of making a difference…

    Which I think is a much more valid and pragmatic measure.

    And I’m sure that anybody that has seen the papers this morning…

    And read about everything he did achieve…

    And the difference he did make…

    Would agree that – in his nineteen years…

    Stephen touched more lives, and bought more hope and more joy to more people than many of us will in a lifetime.

    He attempted a world record.

    He trended on twitter.

    He skydived.

    He drummed at the Champions League final.

    And perhaps most famously – and some would say most importantly – he raised over £3 million for the Teenage Cancer Trust.

    And the reason I wanted to talk about Stephen is this:

    I’m sure that he – having given up all those hours to do all that fundraising…

    And I’m sure that everyone who was touched by his story, and inspired to give up their time or their money to charity…

    Would expect those charities to make sure their money went as far as possible.

    And they would certainly expect the tax system to make sure their money went as far as possible.

    And it’s the latter of those that – as a Treasury Minister – I want to talk to you about today.

    Of course, I recognise that in an ideal world…

    Wherever possible, charities wouldn’t pay any taxes on income or expenditure.

    But realistically that isn’t possible…

    And – as such I want to use my time at the Treasury…

    To ensure that we all use the tax system as well as we can…

    Both to reduce the burden for charities…

    And to increase incentives for givers.

    I’d like to believe that we are making sure that happens.

    Tax reliefs for the sector were worth over £4.4 billion last year…

    Gift Aid alone was worth over £1bn…

    But I’d like to spend my time with you this morning to:

    first – look back on some of the progress the government has made on helping charities to date

    second – talk you through some of the announcements that the Chancellor made in his most recent budget…

    and finally – to discuss some of the work that we hope to take forward between

    Progress

    So first, what progress have we made to date?

    You’ll all – no doubt – be familiar with a lot of this, but…

    We’ve launched the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme…

    Which allows charities to benefit from a Gift Aid style top up payment on small cash donations.

    We’re clarifying the rules for Community Amateur Sports Clubs…

    And we’re introducing corporate Gift Aid to encourage companies to support their local sports clubs.

    We’ve launched Charities Online to make claiming Gift Aid quicker and easier…

    …and acted on feedback from charities that needed help in understanding the new online platform.

    And we’ve also:

    – reduced inheritance tax for those who donate to charity

    – increased the Gift Aid benefit limit for donors

    – introduced the Cultural Gifts Scheme

    – and introduced the Employment Allowance to reduce NICs bills by up to £2,000 a year – which could help 35 000 charities

    So – in four years – we’ve made a lot of very positive changes to the system.

    But – as you’ll all know – launching or unveiling or announcing schemes is one thing…

    But making sure they’re taken up is quite another.

    And of course we – as government – have got a part to play here.

    The new HMRC Outreach programme that the Chancellor announced in last month’s budget…

    Will play a key role in raising awareness of all these schemes.

    They will be a 15 strong team tasked with:

    – identifying – and contacting – charities that need help making Gift Aid claims…

    – simplifying HMRC guidance and forms…

    – and – most importantly –multiplying the number of people who know about – and take advantage of – these schemes

    But while we’ve recognised that government can – and that Government will – do more to raise awareness…

    You have just as crucial a role to play.

    First, we need you to use your networks and your contacts…

    To make sure that as many people as possible are aware of these schemes and these reliefs.

    And secondly – and most importantly – we need you to take advantage of them…

    Because as each future fiscal event comes around…

    Be it a budget or a spending review or an Autumn Statement…

    Ministers and opposition leaders and journalists will go through our entire tax system with a very fine toothed comb…

    And it’s crucial that we’re able to prove that these measures are being used…

    And that they are making the difference we intended.

    Budget

    Of course, we had a big fiscal event just two months ago…

    And – again – I hope it contained measures that will support what you do.

    We reiterated our support for Gift Aid…

    …and our intention to help people donate through modern, digital channels.

    We announced a programme of work with donor researchers…

    To clarify the wording of the Gift Aid declaration…

    And – on top of that – we announced a review and update of the Gift Aid guidance for charities and donors…

    Again, so people can understand it more easily…

    And access it more easily as part of the GOV.UK site.

    The Chancellor also announced…

    that we’ll set the rate of income tax relief for the Social investment tax relief at 30%…

    that we’ll be developing a joint HMRC/Charity Commission portal…

    …to make administration – particularly for smaller charities – easier

    And this was an announcement I was particularly pleased to see happen…

    We’ll increase the Cultural Gifts Scheme limit…

    To allow even more pre-eminent works of art and historical objects to be donated to public collections across the entire nation.

    Future work

    So – again – the budget built on our progress with further announcements.

    And there will be – I hope – a few more announcements to come.

    Because wherever you alert us to issues or blockages or problems…

    I will do my best to fix them.

    Some of you may know that I spoke to the Charity Tax Group at the end of last month.

    It was quite clear to me at that conference, that the biggest issue on your mind is tax avoidance.

    The first thing I’d say on that, is that we are using the powers we already have to clamp down on those who are abusing the system

    Just last week – in fact – HMRC scored its fifth victory against schemes promoted by Matthew Jenner and NT Advisors…

    The same Matthew Jenner behind the Cup trust scheme…

    Bringing the total tax protected to more than £750 million.

    This was in a case against an individual who used a ‘bluebox’ charity tax relief scheme to avoid £200 000 in tax.

    And as a result of that decision, about £21 million of tax is likely to be paid by users of the scheme.

    So there are measures in place to clamp down on this behaviour…

    We did add measures last month, in the form of our accelerated payments change…

    And wherever we do see disreputable companies – or individuals – using those reliefs…

    Which were set up with the best intentions…

    To support the worst kind of behaviour…

    We will continue to take action.

    As I’m sure all you’ll know, our recent consultation on tax avoidance and the charitable sector has closed…

    And officials back at Treasury and HMRC are working through the responses.

    Now, while I can’t yet share the outcome of that consultation…

    What I can share is the intent – which I’ve always made very clear.

    I want to protect innocent charities – and their reputations – from unscrupulous avoiders…

    And I will make sure that our response doesn’t harm those reputable charities devoted to making the world a healthier and a happier and – let’s be honest – a better place.

    I also know from that conference that there is concern in the sector about take up of the Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme…

    So the HMRC outreach team that I mentioned earlier, will have raising its profile as a key activity.

    I’m also hopeful that our new and improved guidance will clarify just how easy it is for charities to claim that relief.

    And I also was reminded that morning that there are some concerns about donor benefits…

    So I went straight back from that conference to the Treasury…

    And made sure that our officials are hard at work consulting with charities and rep bodies on areas where we could simplify the process.

    In fact, one such official – Cerys Morgan – is on one of the panels later this afternoon…

    And if I can’t answer any of your more detailed questions in a moment…

    I’m sure that Cerys will be able to expand on my answers further.

    Conclusion

    In fact, I’m very keen to get to that Q&A as soon as possible…

    Because – presuming I stay in this post

    If I want to look back in a years’ time…

    And if I want to judge what I’ve done not in political terms, but in Stephen Sutton’s terms.

    By what I’ve achieved…

    And – by helping charities wring every last penny of every last donation – how many lives I’ve helped you to touch…

    Then we as the Treasury – and you as the sector – need to have as honest and as open a dialogue as possible.

    So that we can make sure that the schemes already in place work.

    That the schemes recently announced are introduced smoothly.

    And that ultimately…

    And this is the point of all this…

    We can make sure that all the money that you raise…

    Helps as many people as it possibly can.

    Thank you for listening.

  • Jonathan Morgan – 2003 Speech to Conservative Welsh Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Morgan to the 2003 Conservative Welsh Spring Conference on 8th March 2003.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    Four years since Labour’s promises of better public services.

    Four years of Labour’s dogma, interference and Minister knows best mentality.

    Four years of missed opportunities for getting increased funding to schools.

    Four years of Labour government in the National Assembly happily supported by the Liberal Democrats who do as they’re told.

    It’s a strange partnership. Labour get the blame for what goes wrong, the Lib Dems try to claim the credit for any thing that goes right, the Lib Dems say the government is driven by them, and Labour are driven to attacking the Lib Dems. A bat man and robin outfit where no one seems to wear the trousers. School teachers, pupils, parents and governors are asking, “where did it all go wrong?”

    I thought that devolution would have meant new ideas and new imagination for helping our public services. Perhaps I was being too optimistic, perhaps I was being youthfully naive, perhaps I was hoping for too much that the Labour government would start seeing our education service from the point of view of teachers, pupils, parents and governors instead of Labour councillors, Labour councillors and…well more Labour councillors.

    The present education Minister would make a very good local government minister. She has excellent local government credentials, former councillor, and former employee of the Welsh Local Government Association.

    For my part it has been a privilege to serve as this Party’s Education Spokesman in the first term of the National Assembly, without any baggage like the minister. 4 years of constructive Conservative ideas, of renewed determination to back our teaching profession 100%, to support our pupils and provide choice and opportunity for Welsh families.

    We have built up our working relationship with the teaching unions, consulted with schools on our ideas, and have produced a manifesto demonstrating our commitment to our education service, and also our willingness to be innovative and exciting in our ambitions for Wales.

    Labour and their Liberal Democrat helpers are settling for second best. They do not have any ambition for Wales. During these 4 crucial years there have been 4 big missed opportunities, which could have provided crucial resources to schools. No one will doubt that education spending has gone up, but spending does not equate investment unless there is a return.

    Last year the Education Act was hailed as supporting devolution with new powers to protect school budgets. The minister refuses to use powers to ring fence budgets. Because of her fixation with local government she refuses to protect school budgets.

    Labour’s reluctance to act has cost Welsh schools money, but a Welsh Conservative administration would protect school budgets.

    The refusal of the government to introduce a 3-year cycle of funding is stopping schools from planning for the future. How can we expect schools to run effectively when they don’t know how much money they will get from one year to the next? Head teachers want to know what resources they will require, how many teachers they can afford, and this needs certainty.

    Labour’s reluctance to act is preventing schools from planning ahead, but a Welsh Conservative administration would provide that certainty.

    Since 1999 the government have announced lots of little schemes, schemes with duplicated aims and huge amounts of cash. This is where a substantial amount of the money goes, hundreds of millions of pounds into various pots. These pots are there, not for the taking, but for the bidding. Schools are caught up in an endless stream of bidding cycles, begging for money. We need to see these pots merged, and money targeted at school budgets – let schools decide how to spend the money according to their local needs.

    Labour’s reluctance to concentrate on core funding is costing schools money and their time, but a Welsh Conservative administration would focus on money going into school budgets and not little schemes designed by government ministers.

    Lastly, Labour’s political interference in the way that schools budgets are allocated will mean that schools in Wales are set to lose money. Just ask schools in Cardiff North or in Flintshire, school budgets are about to be attacked and redistributed according to a politically correct formula. Labour don’t want to support schools that do well, that raise standards, that attract good teachers and supportive parents. Labour’s reluctance to shake off its political dogma will cost schools money and staff.

    But there is an alternative.

    We have a vision of a Wales where teachers are trusted as the professionals that they are, where schools are supported by a government that does not interfere, where pupils are given the chance to succeed according to ability and aspiration not background and status.

    But to realise that vision the people of Wales need their eyes opened, so go out and help them.

  • Michael Moore – 2013 Speech at Fife Chambers of Commerce

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Secretary of State of Scotland, Michael Moore, at the Fife Chambers of Commerce on 31st July 2013.

    The Chambers of Commerce network right across the United Kingdom plays a vital role in growing British businesses.

    I know that the network here in Fife is central to ensuring that the area attracts and supports its local businesses.

    It’s a great opportunity for me to be able to talk with you about the measures we are taking to support our economy, and the future that we want to see for you and your businesses in the years ahead.

    Economy

    There is no doubt that the last few years have been a real challenge for us all: for individuals, for families and for businesses.

    We have experienced an unprecedented global financial crisis; the UK’s largest ever peacetime deficit; and a series of external shocks, both in the euro area and to commodity prices, that have continued to make our recovery a challenge.

    Returning the whole of the UK to sustainable and balanced growth was the unifying objective for the two parties who came together in the national interest to form our Coalition Government.

    We remain fully focussed on delivering that.

    By reducing the deficit, restoring stability and rebalancing the economy we want to equip the UK to compete in the global race.

    Recent news has shown that the economy is on the mend and moving from the rescue phase to recovery.

    Last week’s UK GDP figures showing 0.6% growth in the three months to June were encouraging – above forecast and double the rate of the first quarter.

    We have made substantial progress in our plan to cut the deficit, reduced by a third as a percentage of GDP since we came to power.

    And we have seen significant progress over the past year in job creation and reducing unemployment.

    To continue to make progress, the UK Government is ensuring the right business environment is in place for you, and for the families and communities who depend on you for their livelihoods.

    We are supporting the recovery, reducing taxes remains an important priority – in particular by cutting the main rate of corporation tax to 20%.

    This is helping to deliver on our objective of making the UK’s tax system the most competitive in the G20.

    But tax reform is only part of the story.

    It sits alongside the Bank of England’s monetary activism of recent years and our programme of financial sector reform, particularly of the banks, as key components of fixing the economy.

    And we are determined to invest in our future, too.

    I’ve already mentioned the UK Government’s support for the Queensferry Crossing, a less prosaic name than the previous working title of ‘the Forth Replacement Crossing’.

    And the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, too. These are important parts of our investment programme.

    But we have also provided over 1.7 billion pounds of additional capital spending power to the Scottish Government since the Spending Review of 2010.

    It is for the Scottish Government to invest that money as it sees fit – including in the ‘shovel ready’ projects it has been so keen to promote.

    Where responsibility sits with the UK Government, we are working hard to improve Scotland’s infrastructure links with the rest of the UK and to get the construction sector moving again.

    In the housing sector, we are introducing the Help to Buy Mortgage Guarantee Scheme, which will offer up to 12 billion of Government guarantees to lenders who provide mortgages to people with a deposit value of between 5 and 20 per cent.

    Helping to make more high loan-to-value mortgages available to potential home-owners who can’t save for the large deposits needed following the financial crisis.

    And we have set out a clear industrial strategy to ensure that Government is working with the experts in our key industries: such as construction, renewable, oil and gas and life sciences.

    We know that you – and businesses like you, right across the United Kingdom – have been working hard to do your bit too. We need to keep working together to ensure that the economic recovery gathers strength and is sustained – we are not complacent about the challenges that remain.

    The Future of Scotland

    In this environment I know that right now all of you remain focussed on addressing the challenges we face day to day.

    But aside from that, I know that the next issue on everyone’s minds is ‘what future will Scotland choose in the referendum next year?’

    It’s just over 400 days until those of us living here in Scotland will make our biggest ever collective decision.

    It will be a big, bold moment.

    Offering us the choice between staying within the most successful partnership of nations the world has seen, or an irreversible decision to leave the United Kingdom and go our own, separate way.

    To my mind it will come down to one simple question: which of the alternatives is better for me, my family, and my country?

    For me the answer to that is absolutely clear.

    As a proud Scot I believe that we can enjoy a better future as a nation if we remain within the United Kingdom family.

    With a strong Scottish Parliament and a strong voice in the UK Parliament giving us the best of both worlds

    It is clear to me that, as Scots, being part of the United Kingdom gives us greater opportunities; greater security and an unrivalled platform on the world stage.

    And I believe all that is worth keeping.

    If you focus in on the economy, which I am sure will dominate your thinking, the argument for staying in the UK is a powerful one.

    As part of the world’s sixth largest economy, Scotland has strength in numbers – our 5 million people have unfettered access to a highly integrated single market across the UK.

    More than 300,000 Scottish businesses can sell goods and services in a domestic market of more than 60 million people.

    And enjoy support from an unparalleled network of embassies and consulates boosting their trade around the world and creating thousands of jobs at home.

    We have seen for ourselves the ability of the UK economy to absorb huge financial shocks like the banking crisis which devastated our two largest Scottish banks.

    And, as has been debated at length – as part of the UK we have certainty about our shared currency.

    Over the last decade and a half we have created a devolution settlement which maintains these inherent advantages of the UK, while developing our decision making here at home at the Scottish Parliament.

    Since the landmark creation of the Parliament at Holyrood we have seen it anchored in Scottish public life and seen its powers enhanced – significantly by the Scotland Act of last year which brings major tax and borrowing powers north of the border, in the biggest transfer of financial powers from London to Edinburgh since the Act of Union sent them the other way. But it’s not just by milestone Acts of Parliament that powers have been transferred.

    We have seen flexible, responsive arrangements evolve that have allowed economically important powers like the management of our railways come north, while ensuring that when it makes sense to legislate on a pan-UK basis, as we have done in relation to tackling organised crime, we can still do it in Westminster with the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

    This ‘best of both worlds’ approach is a real strength for us. And I believe the settlement will develop further.

    For me as a Liberal Democrat, seeing the commitment to further devolution coming from all three parties who support Scotland staying within our United Kingdom is a real milestone in our country’s development.

    But before we can take decisions on changes to our devolution settlement we need to take the most fundamental decision: are we in, or are we out?

    Scotland Analysis Programme

    As the UK Government, our proposition is clear: Scotland should remain the integral part of the United Kingdom that it is, and has been for over the last 300 years.

    That is why over the last six months we have set out in great detail on fundamental economic questions what Scotland has as part of the UK and what all of us need to weigh up as we consider our vote.

    I recognise that before many people can make their choice they want information, and they want to hear the case for each option.

    So far we’ve published four papers in our Scotland Analysis Programme, amounting to over 460 pages of argument and data.

    I’ll admit the title isn’t all that catchy – but it reflects a really important point about the way we are approaching this debate.

    Analysis. We are doing the homework,

    We are examining the evidence

    And we are setting out the facts.

    Our first paper sets out the legal position of Scotland within the United Kingdom – and the legal realities of becoming a separate independent state.

    Because it’s important for us all to be clear that independence means Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.

    And leaving the United Kingdom, means leaving the state that we have built together, with our fellow citizens who live in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    It means there are no guarantees that an independent Scotland would be a member of international organisations like the EU, NATO, G8 and G20.

    A separate Scottish state would need to apply to join these organisations.

    For the UN that could be a relatively simple process, but it’s a process that a newly independent state would have to go through none the less.

    For other organisations there are detailed negotiations that would be required before an independent Scotland could be a member.

    For the EU that would mean a newly independent Scotland negotiating with 28 existing Member States.

    Simultaneously asking for fast-tracked membership, but also apparently expecting favourable terms:

    An exemption from the euro;

    An opt-out from the Schengen Agreement for the free movement of people; and

    An agreement on Scotland’s contribution to the EU budget having left the UK’s rebate behind.

    But it is not just the international implications of leaving the United Kingdom that need to be considered.

    Our second paper in the Scotland analysis series examined in detail the currency arrangement we have, right now, as part of the United Kingdom, and the options that would be open to an independent Scottish state.

    All of the options:

    Seeking a formal currency union with the continuing UK state;

    Using sterling outside of the UK, like the Isle of Man;

    Adopting the Euro;

    Or a separate Scottish currency altogether.

    None of these options is the same as the shared currency we have now.

    All are sub-optimal – for Scots and Scottish businesses and for the rest of the UK – to the current system we have of a shared pound sterling and a shared Bank of England.

    And as the Chancellor made clear when he launched our currency paper, it is ‘unlikely’ that the continuing UK would choose to have a formal currency union with a separate Scottish state.

    We’ve published a paper on our Financial Services sector

    Setting out the importance of the sector to Scotland, where financial services contribute more than 8 per cent of Scottish GDP and support around 7 per cent of Scottish employment.

    And the enormous benefit that this strong Scottish industry gets from being part of the UK financial sector, not least the support that the size and strength of the UK can provide in times of trouble.

    We recently produced a fourth paper that examines the benefit of our shared single domestic market.

    For whilst the border between England and Scotland means a great deal historically, it means nothing for our businesses large and small that operate across that border on a daily basis: Whether that be the 300,000 people that travel into or out of Scotland from the rest of the UK each day to work;

    Or the lorries that transport goods to and from Scotland providing free unfettered access to a marketplace of 60 million rather than five;

    Or the shared infrastructure we have like our broadband networks and energy markets.

    Through our work to date, I believe we have established the key facts in the debate.

    Independence would mean the end of devolution and Scotland leaving the UK, its institutions and its place in the world;

    Independence would mean a fundamental change on currency;

    A big change in regulation and the bodies we interact with every day

    A big change for our position in Europe;

    And – as we’ve seen reported extensively in recent days – some big challenges for our pensions.

    Over the autumn period we will develop these and other arguments further.

    The other side’s arguments

    But we’ve not just been setting out our own case over the past six months.

    We’ve been looking carefully at the arguments from the other side too.

    We’ve looked carefully at the Scottish Government’s approach.

    And you have to give them credit for some creative thinking about what independence means.

    I have always taken it to mean a separate country making its way in the world, choosing new and different policy paths, which the proponents of independence have argued are necessary.

    It’s that thirst for change, and recognition of the likely divergences, that lay behind the Chancellor’s thinking when he said that a currency union between the rest of the UK and Scotland was ‘unlikely’.

    ‘Unlikely’ because the simple truth is that, if we break up the United Kingdom, we will have turned our backs on our shared interests, so that we can instead develop separate interests.

    And as everyone in business knows – you can get along very well;

    You can be the best of neighbours;

    But where you have separate interests you get divergence.

    Doing things differently and creating differences is at the heart of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK.

    It is the inherent logic of creating a separate Scottish state.

    There is no hiding the upheaval independence would bring

    Even if the advocates of independence spend rather a lot of time trying to assure us that all the good things we have as part of the United Kingdom can be maintained under independence – that there will be no change to speak of.

    As I say, that’s a creative approach, but it doesn’t really add up, does it?

    Those who advocate independence are surely not saying to people in Scotland – vote for independence to keep everything the same as it is now?

    Indeed – even people in the yes camp are starting to question this vision of independence as a pale imitation of what they dream of.

    And more to the point, it is something that the Scottish Government cannot faithfully promise or deliver. Common sense tells us that.

    Looking at the detail of their work throws up more anomalies and contradictions.

    We’ve looked at the work of the Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commission.

    The Scottish Government like to highlight the Commission’s finding that keeping the pound would be the best starting point for an independent Scotland – but they refuse to set out their plan B or even what the long-term currency plan is.

    Instead the Scottish Government say that they will unilaterally use sterling regardless – so called ‘sterlingisation’.

    But if we then go back to their own Fiscal Commission report, those same economists pointed out the downsides of sterlingisation: no central bank or lender of last resort, no influence over monetary policy – in short this would be, in the Commission’s own words, ‘no long-term solution’.

    Another group set up by the Scottish Government to review welfare made clear that it was given no guidance about the principles they should work from – so no plan for what the welfare system should look like in a separate Scottish state. And far from recommending radical change it proposed that an independent Scotland should keep the same system as we already have in the UK.

    That’s the system that the Scottish Government like to say is flawed, but their own experts say should carry on under independence.

    If we turn to look at one of the most fractious areas of debate, over the oil numbers, this is another area where the Scottish Government lauds the role of independent experts.

    But when the independent experts in the Office for Budget Responsibility came up with figures, the Scottish Government didn’t like they cherry-picked the highest, most favourable figures to base their public arguments on.

    Something their own Fiscal Commission warned against doing.

    But of course we know from the leaked Scottish Government Cabinet paper that in private they are rather closer to our position on oil numbers and future spending than they care to admit in public.

    In private they say that, quote, ‘there is a high degree of uncertainty around future North Sea revenues’… and

    ‘that Scotland would have a larger net fiscal deficit than the UK’

    They also acknowledge, and I quote again, that ‘at present HMT and DWP absorb the risk…in future we will assume responsibility for managing such pressure. This will imply more volatility in overall spending than at present.’

    I think that is a fair assessment by Scottish Government ministers – it’s just a shame they won’t face up to it in public.

    Concluding remarks

    I gave a speech at the start of 2013 saying that I wanted this to be the year we moved from process to substance in the independence debate.

    That 2013 had to be the year of evidence and not assertion.

    And that is exactly what we, as the UK Government, have done and will continue to do.

    We are setting out the benefits we continue to enjoy and the contribution we have made working together for the last 300 years.

    And we are setting out the opportunities and prospects that lie ahead if we choose to remain part of the United Kingdom family.

    Our Scotland analysis papers are setting out the analysis and facts.

    Together they make the positive case for Scotland within the United Kingdom.

    We strongly and passionately believe that Scotland is better, safer and stronger within our United Kingdom.

    That’s our case.

    We don’t shy away from that – we don’t pretend to be arguing for anything else: we are making the case that we believe in, and we are making it clearly.

    And that’s what I am going to be doing throughout the Summer – to groups like yours – right across Scotland.

    Making the case that I am proud of.

    The case that I believe in.

    Thank you for the opportunity to set it out to you here in Dunfermline today.

  • Michael Moore – 2013 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, in Edinburgh on 18th January 2013.

    2013 is the year that the debate about Scotland’s future moves from process to substance. Many people – including some of you, I’m sure – feel that the process discussions have gone on for too long.

    I share that frustration: I certainly want to get on to the real issues as soon as possible.

    But it’s important that we recognise the centrality of getting the process right. On 15th October the Prime Minister and I signed what’s become known as “The Edinburgh Agreement”, along with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That Agreement saw both Governments commit to ensuring that there is a legal, fair and decisive referendum on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.

    In December the Scottish Parliament backed this Agreement. And this week, both Houses in the UK Parliament gave their unanimous approval. There can now be a legal referendum. In recognition of the Scottish National Party’s election pledge to hold a referendum on independence, it will be the Scottish Parliament that sets out the detailed rules for that referendum. This will make sure that the “Made in Scotland” principle which lies at the heart of devolution also lies at the heart of this referendum.

    The Referendum Bill is promised in March and will set out the question, the date, the franchise and the rules about how money is raised and spent during the campaign, in light of recommendations from the Electoral Commission. This is the body that has unparalleled expertise and unquestionable neutrality in these issues and whose recommendations aim to ensure an unbiased and impartial referendum process.

    I am pleased that the Edinburgh Agreement commits the Scottish Government to hold the referendum according to the highest international standards. And I pleased that the crucial role of the Electoral Commission is now recognised by all. The referendum must be regarded as fair and reasonable: not only by those on the different sides of this passionate debate, but also by each and every person living in Scotland whose choice will determine our nation’s future.

    This referendum is too important to get wrong. Too important to see either side accused of using the rules to gain political advantage.

    When all the votes are counted, this must be a referendum result that is decisive and that is accepted by all. A referendum result that allows Scotland to move on.

    The eyes of the world will now be on the Scottish Government as they bring forward their proposals and the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for scrutinising, challenging and approving the final legislation. That is a serious job. But I am confident that it will be fulfilled. All of us here will look to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament to act on behalf of all of us, irrespective of our views on Scotland’s future.

    Some argue that the SNP’s dominance of the Parliament means they will simply railroad through a one-sided referendum process. But in the referenda established by the Westminster Parliament in recent years the governments concerned, of different political complexions, have always had majorities and could have abused their position to suit their preferred outcome. But they did not. And so UK referenda have been recognised internationally for their exemplary processes.

    Central to that reputation has been the role of the Electoral Commission and the respect shown to its advice by successive UK governments. These governments, including ours, could have ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice. But to do so would have called into question the fairness of these referenda. Time after time the wording of the question has been altered to respect the thoroughness and impartiality of the Electoral Commission.

    They offered advice. No more than that.

    But it would have been a foolhardy government that ignored that advice and used their majorities in Westminster to bulldoze through a biased referendum. The Scottish Government and Parliament are now placed in exactly the same roles as the UK Government and UK Parliament have been. The same expectations are placed on the Scottish Government and our Parliament here as on the UK Government and our Parliament at Westminster.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    So, the Electoral Commission advises and the Scottish Parliament determines. But in delivering the question, the rules and the campaign financing agreements, we are entitled to expect that our Parliament sets aside party or campaign advantage and acts for all Scots, whatever their views. Following the Electoral Commission’s advice will give everyone confidence in the process and allow nobody to cry foul.

    So 2013 starts by resolving the process that took centre-stage in 2012.

    And we sorely need to move on from process alone. We need a loud, clear and robust debate about the impact that independence would have on Scots’ lives. Those who support independence must bring forward a detailed proposal of what they would hope to achieve through negotiations.

    Over the last few days, we’ve had the First Minister speculating about the new written constitution of a separate Scotland. And the Deputy First Minister blogged on Tuesday that “All parts of the Scottish Government will be working on a transition plan considering what needs to be done to give effect to the decision of the Scottish people when they vote yes”.

    Nicola wants talks about talks. Not talk of what an independent Scotland would be.

    I really don’t think that this is where the debate should be. We cannot have the Scottish Government fast forwarding through all the difficult bits to their longed for ending where they clinch a referendum victory. People want to know what independence would mean for them, their families, and their communities. It is on that basis that they will decide how to vote.

    Planning the summits and designing the constitutional apparatus is like framing and hanging a picture that is yet to be painted. No matter how gilded and fancy the frame, the missing image is the essential part. I know that it is also the most difficult part for the SNP.

    But, to be blunt, that is their problem. They must treat all of us with respect and start painting the independence picture. 2013 must be the year of evidence, not assertion.

    So today I want to set out what the UK Government is going to do to help inform this debate.

    Last summer, I announced that the UK Government was embarking on a programme of analysis to consider how Scotland contributes to and benefits from being part of our United Kingdom. Our work will be comprehensive, open and robust. We are engaging with experts in order to flush out the issues and establish the facts. We want you to examine our work and we want you to scrutinise it.

    Over the next few weeks and months we will publish a series of papers that look at Scotland’s position in the UK today and make clear the choices that would face all of us as Scots if the UK family were to break up. The first paper will be published in February. I believe that this work will show not only that every part of the UK makes a valuable contribution to the whole, but that, together, we are greater than the sum of our parts.

    Together our economy is stronger and more secure. Scotland’s five million citizens are part of the UK’s economy of 60 million people with no boundaries, borders or customs, but with a common financial system, rules and currency. Together we have shown that we can withstand global economic challenges, pool our resources in the good times and manage our risks together in the bad. By working together we have a stronger place in the world. We have a great and wide consular network with over 14,000 people in nearly 270 diplomatic offices, projecting our values around the globe and looking after Scots abroad. And as an integral part of the UK Scotland benefits from significant levels of influence in the EU, UN, G8 and other international institutions.

    But it’s not just on the international level that you can see the integration and benefits that being part of our shared United Kingdom brings. We also have close social, cultural and family ties across the UK. More than 800,000 Scots live and work in other parts of the UK. Each year, around 50,000 people move to Scotland from the rest of the UK. One common passport, one national insurance system and one shared tax system that allows the free movement of people, goods and investment. Together providing a level of prosperity that is greater than the sum of its parts.

    There is no-one in this debate who says Scotland couldn’t go it alone.

    What we – and those who share our view – are saying is it is better for Scotland and the rest of the UK to stay together in our United Kingdom. Devolution ensures power is practised as close as possible to the people it affects whilst keeping the strength and security of the United Kingdom. Important decisions on health, education and justice are made here in Scotland, but Scotland enjoys the economic strength and security of being part of our United Kingdom, working in our interests, for us all.

    We enjoy the best of both worlds.

    Our papers over the course of 2013 will set out the evidence about how devolution works in 21st century Britain, the facts about the way in which it benefits us as citizens and the analysis of what would be lost by leaving the UK family. In this debate, I want all of you to be active participants. Many of you are already involved in the UK Government’s work. But for those of you who aren’t, I say: please get involved. We want you to read our papers; ask us questions in the same way that you will ask the Scottish Government questions about their proposals.

    The next period of this discussion must not just involve politicians and business people. I want charities, voluntary organisations, and social enterprises to be at the heart of this great debate as well. You have a crucial role to play. But most of all, you must help each and every voter in Scotland to seek out the evidence and find the information that will allow them to reach an informed decision in the referendum.

    Over the course of the next year, you, Scots, all citizens in our United Kingdom, have a right to expect both of Scotland’s governments to deliver in our national interest.

    Over the course of the next year you have a right to expect your UK government to demonstrate its commitment to Scotland and prove its value and relevance to Scotland’s future.

    And over the course of the next year you have a right to expect those who doubt that value and question that relevance to set out how things would be better if Scotland goes it alone.

    In tough times, and in the heat of constitutional battle, these are big challenges.

    I relish meeting them.

    I hope others do too and I look forward to the debate.

  • Michael Moore – 2012 Speech at City UK Event

    Below is the text of a speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, in Edinburgh on 29th November 2012.

    We’re here today to discuss the contribution that the Scottish financial services sector makes not just to the Scottish economy but also to the wider UK economy;

    To think about how we make sure that government – whether that be in Holyrood, Westminster or Brussels – is supporting this vital industry;

    And to consider how the industry and government, working together, can best ensure that the sector continues to seize the opportunities and respond to the challenges we face.

    I want, this morning, to set the scene with the steps that the UK government is taking in London and Brussels;

    The steps we are taking to promote a stable and internationally competitive financial services sector through our regulatory reforms;

    And our wider economic reforms.

    You will not be surprised to learn that I will also argue that Scotland’s place in a strong and stable UK provides the industry with the certainty it needs in a competitive, global environment.

    The financial services sector has of course experienced some tough times in recent years.

    Governments, industry – we must all share responsibility for this. We must be candid about what went wrong, but more than that, we must work together to find the right way forward.

    One thing that remains true, past, present and future, is that this sector is of vital importance to all of us.

    Your sector provides direct employment for more than 95,000 people in Scotland.

    A quarter of UK life insurance and pensions employment is based in Scotland, and 13% of UK banking sector employment.

    Scotland plays host to renowned homegrown companies such as Standard Life, Aberdeen Asset Management, Baillie Gifford, Alliance Trust and Scottish Widows.

    And its strengths have persuaded many others from outside Scotland to base themselves here – including companies such as State Street, Citibank, BNY Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Barclays and Virgin Money, to name but a few.

    The sector provides the banking and investment services that households and businesses rely on in everyday life;

    It provides life and general insurance service to protect us when things go wrong;

    And it provides pensions and long-term savings to support us in the future.

    These services are important to millions of people and thousands of businesses;

    And that is reflected in the significant contribution the sector makes, with the industry accounting for around £8.5 billion, or 7% of Scottish GDP.

    I understand the importance of this industry. And I want to make clear to you today that the UK government understands it too.

    Of course, the UK government had to take rapid, and historically unprecedented, action to support the financial sector during the crisis. And of course we have all had to learn hard lessons as a result. But the UK government is now looking forward.

    We are not shying away from fixing the problems, but we are also implementing policies that will enable the Scottish financial sector to support jobs, provide vital services and contribute to the Scottish economy over the long term.

    We aim to strike the right regulatory balance to deliver an acceptable level of risk to government, shareholders and consumers.

    We are determined to make the UK the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business;

    A crucial part of this is to ensure that we have a robust and stable financial system.

    Our programme of regulatory reform aims to ensure that Scotland has a reformed, fair and competitive financial services industry.

    The new system of regulation that we are putting in place will give the Bank of England – and as announced by the Chancellor earlier this week, its new Governor, Mark Carney – responsibility for overseeing the financial system.

    We are creating the Financial Conduct Authority to supervise all firms to ensure that business across financial services and markets is conducted in a way that advances the interests of all involved.

    Within the EU and other international forums, we are working closely with our key partners to ensure that the legislative framework fully supports the unity and integrity of the single market, and creates the right environment for stable and sustainable growth in financial services and the wider economy.

    This is a hugely important point – the industry should be in no doubt as to the benefits that accrue as a result of the UK’s influence and voice on the international stage.

    Being part of the UK allows Scotland’s voice to be heard on such key issues as Solvency II, where we are urging EU institutions to act decisively and agree a credible process for resolving disagreement on the treatment of long-term products, and commit to a realistic timetable for Solvency II implementation.

    We are strongly opposing the imposition of Solvency II-inspired capital requirements on the pensions industry. These would negatively affect millions of Europeans, by reducing growth, investment, competitiveness, jobs and pensions income.

    We are a vocal opponent of attempts to ‘water down’ international agreements on issues like tough bank capital requirements, in order to avoid regulatory arbitrage and financial instability.

    And we have pushed back hard against unworkable proposals for a Financial Transaction Tax.

    Of course, we are not only acting in the area of regulation.

    Elsewhere, we are taking decisive action to ensure that the Scottish financial and professional services sector can flourish. That action includes:

    Working with the banking industry to improve competition.

    We are removing barriers to entry and growth for mutuals and credit unions, to help foster diversity in financial services;

    And we are working to introduce a more competitive tax regime for funds, including special taxation rules to facilitate tax transparent funds, allowing UK-based asset management companies to thrive.

    In the area of professional services, some of you may have attended an event last week at which the Advocate General set out the work the UK government is doing in support of the Scottish legal services sector.

    The UK government is ensuring that the Scottish legal sector has promotional opportunities through the unique UK government network around the world. We recognise that the sector is of huge importance, underpinning strong economic growth in all sectors, including financial services.

    Of even greater importance to the financial and professional services sector, we are working to help return the wider Scottish economy to growth – we understand that, just as the financial services sector is vital to the health of the wider economy, so the health of the wider economy is fundamental to the prospects of the sector.

    So we are reforming the tax system to help promote growth.

    We will introduce a reduction in the main rate of corporation tax to 22% in 2014, the lowest in the G7.

    We are taking action to support bank lending to businesses, including through initiatives such as the Funding for Lending Scheme.

    We have introduced the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme to encourage investment in new start-ups and in businesses with the highest growth potential.

    The UK Guarantees Scheme will help dramatically to accelerate investment in infrastructure.

    And we are reducing regulation and making procurement processes simpler to help small businesses gain access to government contracts.

    Let me now turn to the final issue I will speak about today – Scotland’s place in the UK, and the benefits our United Kingdom brings to the financial and professional services sector.

    I mentioned at the outset the historic strength and enduring place of the financial services sector here in Scotland.

    But I know from meeting and talking with many of you that those working in this industry would be the first to acknowledge the benefits that we derive from close ties with the rest of the UK and the City of London in particular.

    Under the current arrangements, the Scottish financial services sector benefits hugely from the strong and credible Bank of England as its central bank, lender of last resort, and – as demonstrated with HM Treasury in recent times of crisis – the rapid and coordinated action between strong, credible fiscal and monetary authorities.

    Coordinating the Bank’s monetary activism with the greater fiscal firepower that the UK, as a larger and diversified economy, is able to leverage, has been absolutely crucial to our financial system.

    The UK government spent £45 billion recapitalising RBS. In addition, the bank received £275 billion of state support in the form of guarantees and funding. In total, this would have been more than 200% of Scotland’s GDP on any measure – including the Scottish government’s preferred one that includes a geographical share of North Sea oil.

    The UK government was able to deliver a coordinated response that mitigated the significant harm that could have been caused to the UK economy and our families and businesses if the 2 banks had collapsed.

    It’s unclear to me how an independent Scotland, which the First Minister wanted to be more light-touch in its regulation of the sector, could have achieved that.

    Let’s also look at the benefits of a highly integrated UK financial services marketplace. Taking 2 examples; the mortgage and life insurance sectors, in the last financial year:

    Fewer than a fifth of mortgages provided by Scottish firms were for Scottish properties, with the remainder – four fifths – for properties in the rest of the UK.

    Eight out of 10 life insurance products sold to Scottish postcodes were from rest of the UK firms; and

    Only 1 in 10 life insurance products sold by Scottish firms were to Scottish postcodes – 9 out of every 10 sold went to the rest of the UK.

    One of the main factors underpinning this integration is that we have a single regulatory environment covering the whole of the UK.

    Why would anyone wish to put a barrier in the middle of these transactions? Doing so could surely only harm competition and choice, and drive up costs for Scottish consumers.

    The plans and consequences of leaving the UK are based on shifting sands and enormous doubt.

    Gone are the days where we heard about the differences that independence will bring – now apparently everything will definitely remain the same.

    It’s not just the pound sterling that the Scottish government claim they now want to adopt, but also the UK’s financial regulatory framework.

    The Scottish government like to tell us that banks and financial services in an independent Scotland would remain under the UK regulatory regime because “that framework is solid and substantial” – John’s own words.

    But as you in this audience know, under European rules every member state must have its own regulatory system.

    The Scottish government tell us that they will be part of Europe, but they have yet to explain how their proposal to adopt the financial framework of another state would work. (Never mind how they will become part of the EU!)

    Now there are those who say that Scots need not worry about these problems because the Referendum Agreement states that Scotland’s 2 governments will work together.

    That Paragraph 30 is a magic paragraph that will erase all the difficult questions.

    Well, let’s be crystal clear this morning about what this agreement does – and does not – mean.

    And let’s begin by hearing the Paragraph 30 text itself.

    “The United Kingdom and Scottish governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect.

    The 2 governments have reached this agreement in that spirit.

    They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.

    The 2 governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”

    This means that the 2 governments will conduct the referendum on the same constructive terms as they work today.

    It means that if the referendum follows the path set out in the Order and Agreement, its outcome will be decisive.

    And it means that, regardless of what the result is, that constructive relationship should continue as we move forward.

    That is good practice and common sense.

    But what it does not mean is that, in the event of a yes vote, the remaining UK would facilitate Scotland’s every wish – any more than an independent Scotland would unquestioningly facilitate the wishes of the remaining UK.

    Inevitably, when there are 2 separate countries, there are 2 sets of interests – sometimes mutual, sometimes at odds.

    So it is in the UK’s relationships with its closest allies today.

    And so it will always be between separate, sovereign states.

    Nor does it mean that the difficult questions that would face a newly independent Scotland would all be within the UK’s gift to resolve.

    Membership of the EU, participation in NATO, international regulation of our financial services.

    These deeply complex issues would require resolution on the international stage, and Scotland alone would take responsibility for tackling them.

    This too is common sense.

    So the Edinburgh Agreement – particularly its Paragraph 30 – are a statement of our determination to hold a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive.

    They do not – cannot – pre-empt the implications of that vote.

    I know that this is what the words mean.

    Because I negotiated them.

    This all matters because the key to a strong financial services sector is confidence and stability.

    And not just to this sector but to the whole economy.

    So we need more than optimistic assertions of what might be, without evidence, analysis, or support.

    That approach will not help the Scottish financial services in a global industry where confidence and stability are hugely important.

    That is why the UK government is setting out what we are doing now to support the financial services in Scotland; and we will continue to do so over the next few months.

    It’s also why the Scottish government must set out what the details of its independence proposal would be for this sector

    And why each and everyone of you should examine statements from both governments and test them, in just the same way that you would examine and test your own business models.

    Where we do not have all the answers – we must be honest and say that. Where the Scottish government cannot give the financial services industry or the Scottish people a guarantee – for example where matters need to be negotiated, and agreed with others – the Scottish government must be clear of the limits of what they can promise.

    It is only by doing so, by us all being candid, that we ensure the facts are heard, and that everyone is able to make an informed choice in the referendum.

    To get the right outcome for the financial services sector.

    And the right outcome for Scotland.

  • John Monks – 2001 Speech to the AEEU

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Monks to the AEEU on 12th June 2001.

    Last Thursday, the British people spoke – and spoke up strongly – for the values which run through the heart and soul of the best of British trade unionism. They voted for better public services especially a better health service, a better education service and a better transport service.

    They voted against narrow nationalism – of Welsh, Scottish and the English Conservative varieties. They voted for a decent, friendly relationship with the European Union.

    They confirmed the Fairness at Work agenda – the minimum wage, trade union recognition, family friendly policies, workers learning, trade union education and partnership at work.

    The result is plain. Trade unionism can now advance with a spring in its step, confident that much of our agenda can be implemented with the incoming Labour Government.

    I stress the word ‘with’. It’s not just a matter of what we want. It’s not an annual pay claim. Instead it’s a matter of what we can do, how we can help, where we can make a difference.

    Because we all know that the key test that the electorate will impose on Labour in four years time is has it delivered? Has the health service improved? Is education better? And can we move ourselves and our goods more efficiently, more quickly, more reliably round this country?

    So the next four years will be a challenge to us. We need to rise to the occasion, to prove our worth to the nation and to demonstrate our crucial importance in achieving the results that the British people are demanding.

    This must be a two way relationship. I want to pay tribute right away to Estelle Morris and David Blunkett who have made clear their wish to work in partnership with their unions. I know Alan Milburn has also made clear that will be his approach – and I am sure Stephen Byers and John Spellar in local government and at transport will take the same line.

    It is important that they do. At the moment, too many public servants are demoralised. They feel that the 18 years of Tory insult and attack have not been adequately addressed.

    They worry about the decline of regard for public service and the power of the belief that only the private sector can deliver.

    In too many areas, there are desperate shortages of the right kind of people to carry out the jobs so essential to society. Relative pay levels have slumped. A friend of my son’s said to me the other day – only mugs go into teaching nowadays.

    The concerns of public servants have been heightened in the election campaign. There were some in Millbank who were said to relish an early confrontation with a major public sector trade union. I could not believe it.

    I say to them – look at the lessons of history. Look at 1978/79 when there was such a confrontation and it was an electoral disaster for Labour and for trade unionism. We still walk with those ghosts of 20 years ago. We still live with the memory of being out of office for a generation and with the collapse in public regard for trade unionism, I say never again.

    Remember too the early Thatcher years. Year after year, she took on groups in the public service and this union was involved several times. We still bear the scars. For example, primary and secondary education still has not recovered in key areas from the teachers’ dispute of 1983 – look at the continuing decline of out of school activities like school sports and the problems of attracting enough bright teachers.

    So my message on this is clear – no-one will deliver better public services by seeking bruising confrontation. Although the private sector will have an important place in many areas of public service, privatisation must not be the key way forward.

    The watchwords the Prime Minister adopted in redefining Clause 4 – ‘it is what works that matters’ are dead right. Let’s not be ideological about privatisation.

    What will work will be the partnership approach that many of you aim to pursue with your employers but which is all too rare in the public services. What will work will be a restoration of the public service ethos – that strong sense of serving the community.

    Most of my family have been public servants – mother a teacher, father a district parks superintendent, brother another teacher. The approach was dedicated, honest and hardworking. I grew up with that ethos and I want to see it recover, thrive and be appreciated.

    What won’t work is wholesale privatisation or a new set of rail style complex contractual arrangements or those best value systems which allow work to go private at rates of pay and other conditions under the agreed standards in the public sector. Labour have made commitments to end the two tier work forces. We want them honoured swiftly.

    Of course what also won’t work is obstructionist trade unionism intent on protecting the status quo when the need is for a great step forward together.

    So today I endorse the approach of those ministers who have called for partnership. I call on them to turn those into hard plans and deals. If public servants are regarded as second class, the services will remain second class.

    Of course, while there must be a huge improvement in public services, the next four or five years must address other issues crucial to the importance of our nation.

  • Ed Miliband – 2014 Speech on Condition of Britain Report

    edmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, at the launch of the IPPR Condition of Britain Report. The speech was made on 19th June 2014.

    Along with Rachel Reeves and the Head of Labour’s Policy Review, Jon Cruddas, I am delighted to be here with you launching the IPPR’s Condition of Britain report.

    For years, IPPR has done brilliant work to help us respond to the challenges Britain faces.

    And they have done it again with this important report.

    So I want to thank the report’s authors Kayte Lawton, Graeme Cooke and Nick Pearce for the work they have done.

    And all those – voluntary group leaders, campaigners and community organisers – many of whom are here today who helped IPPR with their work.

    The issue that motivates this report is the same one that brought me into politics.

    A belief that the deep inequalities of income, wealth and power in our country are damaging, wrong and can be tackled.

    In each generation, we must seek to tackle these inequalities.

    And today this belief means there is one question, over-riding all others, that matters to the future of this country.

    It is a question that goes beyond one party, one government or one election.

    It is a question that countries all around the world are grappling with:

    How can we make the country work not just for a few at the top but for the security and success of ordinary families?

    When I went round the country in the recent elections, so many people told me the country didn’t work for them.

    They were talking about the basic fundamentals of work, family and community.

    Things many people at the top of our society just take for granted.

    The basic bargain that if you work hard there would be a degree of security, an ability to make ends meet, has been broken.

    Low paid, low skill, insecure work that doesn’t give people any sense of fulfilment: that is the reality for millions of people.

    That is not good enough for me.

    And it is not good enough for Britain.

    For the first time in generations, parents from all types of background, fear that their children will do worse than them.

    That is not good enough for me.

    And it is not good enough for Britain.

    And all round this country people who are doing the right thing don’t seem to be rewarded anymore.

    That is not good enough for me.

    And it is not good enough for Britain.

    For my Party, in everything we do, in every reform we make, in every decision we take, in opposition and in government, our job is to tackle this challenge.

    And no vested interest, no orthodoxy, should stop us changing the country for this cause.

    The importance of this report is that it shows there is a distinctive and compelling answer to addressing this issue, in particular when it comes to our welfare state.

    This report shows we can change things at a time of scarcity.

    Because we know the next Labour government won’t have money to spend.

    It starts with work.

    And a welfare system that helps all our young people to succeed.

    For decades we have known about the problem of young people with no or poor qualifications entering adulthood, facing little chance of being able to get on.

    But it hasn’t been addressed.

    Indeed the perversity of the system means that the one thing we most discourage those young people from doing is getting the skills they need for a decent career.

    Because we tell them that they should sign on for benefits not sign up for proper training.

    And we say, at the same time, to those who go to university that they are entitled to financial support to improve their skills and qualifications.

    There can be no better example of a divided country which seems to value the 50 per cent of young people who go to university and fails to value the untapped talents of the 50 per cent of young people who don’t.

    It is about people like Danny who I talked to yesterday.

    I asked him whether the Job Centre had been good enough at getting him in to training.

    He said it had been completely useless.

    And that’s because of the rules and the system.

    How can he have faith in the system when that happens?

    It is no wonder that people feel that politics doesn’t serve them.

    It is not good enough for me.

    And it is not good enough for Britain.

    We can’t succeed as a country with unskilled young people going from benefits to low paid work and back again without proper skills.

    Because it doesn’t give business the productive workforce they need.

    And it costs the taxpayer billions of pounds in extra welfare spending and lower productivity.

    So we’re going to change it.

    What the proposals in this report show is that we can address these issues and reform welfare in a way that is progressive not punitive.

    And a Labour government will get young people to sign up for training, not sign on for benefits.

    So for 18 to 21 year olds, we will replace Job Seekers’ Allowance with a new youth allowance.

    An allowance dependent on young people being in training

    And targeted at those who need it most.

    These are the right principles:

    Britain’s young people who don’t have the skills they need for work should be in training not on benefits.

    We should abolish the limit on training that has for decades held young people back.

    And to pay for these changes in tough times, we should say young people will be entitled to financial support only if they really need it.

    Assessed on the basis of parental income, as we do for those young people who go to university.

    This is the right thing to do and it doesn’t cost money, it saves money.

    So with this proposal and others, this report says to those worried about work in Britain that there are answers.

    And we can restore the link between hard work and reward.

    And to properly reward hard work and effort, we need contribution to be at the heart of our welfare system too.

    We talk about the problem of people getting something for nothing.

    And we are right to do so.

    But there is a problem that politicians rarely talk about of people getting nothing for something.

    How many times have I heard people say: “for years and years, I paid in and then when the time came and I needed help I got nothing out”?

    Rewarding contribution was a key principle of the Beveridge Report.

    And it is a key intuition of the British people.

    But it is a principle that has been forgotten by governments of both parties.

    Aside from pensions, less than one tenth of social security spending now goes on entitlements that are based on contribution.

    We should not allow the contributory principle to recede still further.

    Instead, we should strengthen it.

    That’s why as one example, the next Labour government will change the way Job Seekers’ Allowance works.

    To make sure that someone who has been working for years and years, paying in to the system, gets more help if they lose their job, than someone who has been working for just a couple of years.

    And we will pay for it not by spending more money in social security.

    But by extending the length of time people need to have worked to qualify.

    And this report faces up to the tough reality that my party understands.

    We won’t be able to ensure the security and success of ordinary families in the years ahead with higher benefit spending.

    Instead, we must do so by tackling the problems at source.

    That’s why we have set out proposals to tackle low pay, increasing the minimum wage.

    Saving money on benefits.

    Supporting childcare to help mums and dads get back to work.

    Reducing the costs of worklessness.

    And this report shows also how we can start to tackle a historic problem in Britain, a problem which has developed over decades: a housing benefit bill going up and up and investment in housing itself falling further and further.

    Higher housing benefit spending is not a sign of progressive success.

    It is a sign of failure.

    And again in this report shows the right vision for how we can start to turn this round.

    Moving from benefits to bricks by empowering local authorities to use the money they save on housing benefit and reinvest it to help build homes.

    And this report is right also that if we are to tackle the generational challenge our country faces of inequality, we cannot do so simply by pulling levers at the centre.

    We can’t make the country work for people again by relying on Whitehall and Westminster.

    We can only do it by devolving power.

    Whether it is getting work for our young people.

    Creating the jobs of the future.

    Supporting business.

    And in public services:

    Giving more powers to parents in shaping the future of their schools.

    And patients in shaping the future of their hospitals.

    People-powered public services.

    That is why devolving power is a key part of this report and other reports that are being published in the coming months.

    Anyone looking to bring change to Britain today is confronted with a huge problem.

    People’s desire for change is enormous, just as it was at the time of the Beveridge Report in the 1940s.

    But their belief that this change is possible has been profoundly shaken.

    There is a deep sense of pessimism about whether Westminster politics, or anyone within a million miles of it, has any of the answers.

    People see a country that doesn’t work for them and hasn’t done so for a long time.

    And they believe nobody really gets it.

    And it is not just that people think the problems are huge, it is that they don’t believe they can be solved because of the financial challenges the country faces.

    I know we must meet the cause of our time, the cause I came into politics for, while confronting a fiscal situation the like of which we have not seen for generations.

    The result of a financial crash the like of which none of us have ever seen.

    What this report shows is that we do have answers.

    Distinctive answers that are right for this time.

    Above all the situation means we can’t just hope to make do and mend.

    We can’t just borrow and spend money to paper over the cracks.

    The old way of doing things won’t work anymore.

    Instead, we need big, far-reaching reform.

    Which means big changes, not big spending.

    Reform that can reshape our economy, so that hard work is rewarded again.

    Rebuild our society, so that the next generation does better than the last.

    And change our country so that the British people feel it is run according to their values.

    That kind of reform is going to be tough.

    No one said it would be easy.

    I know that.

    And you know that.

    But it is a cause worth fighting for.

    It is the way we change Britain.

    That is our mission.

    That’s what the Condition of Britain teaches us.

    And I congratulate IPPR on your report.

  • Ed Miliband – 2014 Speech to Labour Friends of Israel

    edmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the Leader of the Opposition, to the Labour Friends of Israel on 17th June 2014.

    Friends, it is once again a privileged to have the opportunity to address the annual LFI lunch.

    I would like to thank everyone from LFI for organising today’s lunch, and I am sure you would like to join me in thanking Sir David Garrard and Isaac Kaye for helping make it happen.

    I am delighted that Ambassador Daniel Taub is with us today and I would also like to take this opportunity as we approach the first anniversary of his induction to say how much I have admired the humanity and generosity of spirit shown in his tenure by Chief Rabbi Mirvis.

    I am proud to be a supporter of LFI.

    You play a vital role in promoting Israel and passionately campaigning for a two state solution for two peoples.

    We are committed to working with LFI to further deepen the relationship between my party and the Israeli Labour Party led by Isaac Herzog, who I was delighted to welcome to my home during his recent visit.

    I would also like to play tribute to Anne McGuire who has done an excellent job in chairing LFI over the last year.

    I also want to welcome Adrian Cohen to his new position as chair of LFI and I am sure we all want to show our appreciation for the tireless efforts of Jennifer Gerber who joined us on our recent trip to Israel.

    Let me say before I get into the main part of my remarks, I am sure all of our thoughts today are with the 3 kidnapped Israeli teenagers, Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaar, and Eyal Yifrach and their families. We all profoundly hope for their speedy and safe return. And it is a measure of this community’s concern that on Sunday afternoon the Chief Rabbi led a service attended by over a thousand people to pray for their safe release.

    Today I want to talk to you about my reflections following my recent trip to Israel.

    And what it meant to me as a Jew, as a son, a grandson and a father.

    And what it means for Labour in government and our approach to Israel.

    We travelled out on the El Al flight LY316 three days before Passover.

    Justine and I had not entirely anticipated something, which I am sure will be more familiar to so many in this room, and Chief Rabbi I am sure in particular to many of your congregants – that every other passenger on the plane seemed to know each other.

    And it wasn’t long before complete strangers were coming up to Justine and me to ask the same question – “So where will you both be for Seder?”

    On our trip we would witness the candour of Israelis and the willingness to speak their minds.

    I particularly enjoyed the moment at a briefing given by a group of Knesset Parliamentarians, one of whom, in a state of complete exasperation, turned to me and referring to his colleague said, “Mr Miliband, please don’t listen to him he has no idea what he is talking about”.

    It makes the Parliamentary Labour Party appear positively benign.

    As we touched down on that pre-Passover plane, it immediately took me back to being a young boy and travelling to Israel for the first time.

    For the next two days, I would have the most vivid reminders of the deep roots that I have in Israel: like visiting my cousins at the Nachshonim Kibbutz, where I had picked oranges as a child, and having dinner with my extended family in Tel Aviv, arguing and debating, with love and affection.

    And there were three particular things which made this visit not only an official trip but a deeply personal journey:

    First, being approach by the assistant to the President of the Hebrew University, who said to me: “My grandmother was in hiding in the same Belgian village as your grandmother”.

    I can truly say to you, that experience would be unlikely to happen to me in any other country in the world.

    That is just one of the reasons why Israel has special meaning for me and a special place in my heart.

    Second, my visit to Yad Vashem.

    A moment of reflection, mourning and discovery.

    Reflection on the loss of so many millions of Jews.

    Mourning for so many members of my family that were lost.

    And discovery. As I left Yad Vashem I was handed a collection of documents about my family including new information, 70 years later, about what happened to my grandfather and where he perished.

    It was an extraordinary feeling, so many years after he died, to make new discoveries about his death.

    The new Yad Vashem tells an overwhelming story of the greatest single stain on the conscience of humanity – the Holocaust.

    But it also tells, in a way that I was not expecting, a story of life; the richness and the colour of life for European

    Jews before 1939. And of course, it also tells how Israel became a miraculous affirmation of life in the face of death.

    Finally, I would also say that it was a joy for me to have Justine with me on my trip to Israel. And for her to have a chance to meet my family.

    She was moved and delighted to be there.

    And I look forward to travelling to Israel with my children, Daniel and Sam, when they are older.

    So these are some personal reflections about my trip.

    But I did not simply go as a Jew returning to his family’s roots, but also as someone who wants to be the next Prime Minister of this country.

    So I also want to reflect on the lessons I learn as the person wanting to do that job.

    And my theme, the promise I want to make to you today, is about the priority the next Labour government will attach to its relationship with Israel.

    Because of its importance to the Jews of Britain, because of the democracy it represents, because of its economic lessons, and because of the importance of a Middle East peace process for the stability of the world.

    I specifically chose this as one of my first official overseas visits because of all these reasons and more.

    The priority that I attach to our relationship with Israel, is not just a promise for Opposition, but a commitment for government.

    And today I want to tell you where that sense of priority leads me on the major issues that matter.

    Israel: economic power with social challenges

    As LFI has repeatedly argued, the world needs to get to know Israel better for its economic achievements, as well as its security and diplomatic challenges.

    And what struck me is that while Israel is an amazing economic powerhouse, it also faces the common challenges of inequality that so many countries around the world are wrestling with.

    The Israel I experienced on my trip was one that is seizing the future: like the young people at Hebrew University and the thrilling innovation and entrepreneurship of new and high tech businesses.

    Israel is a major world innovator and I was inspired by the work of the high tech hub, organised by the British Embassy.

    We learnt some of the interesting lessons about Israel’s success: the rate of graduate entry, immigration bringing new skills, the availability of venture capital and the collaboration between private and public enterprise.

    I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work of our brilliant Ambassador Matthew Gould.

    And I can tell you that a major priority for a Labour Government would be to further collaborate, building stronger working relationships between British and Israeli companies.

    And yet for all the innovation, and economic success, it is impossible to ignore the security challenges that Israel faces.

    Indeed, they are an economic issue, holding back investment and preventing Israel from achieving even greater things economically and socially.

    And they are not simply issues for Israel, because we all have an interest in a stable and secure Middle East.

    Visiting Israel brings home the security challenges that it faces very starkly.

    We visited Sderot and I saw the rockets that had been fired from Gaza and landed in that town.

    I heard from the Mayor about the reinforcements against rockets they had to build for their local schools.

    And Justine and I met children, no older than my own, who don’t get the luxury of playing outside as ours do, but are assigned to an inside bunker playground.

    And we met the parents of Daniel Viflic, who had been killed in a rocket attack just before Passover in 2011.

    He had simply been visiting his grandmother.

    The Viflics are the bravest people, but nothing can change the grief and loss they face.

    And after 10 years of continuing rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza, of course there remains deep concern amongst Israeli citizens about their security.

    So attaching the right priority to our relationship with Israel means fully understanding its security concerns and the threat to its people.

    Therefore, we must ensure Israel’s security and right to protect itself.

    With the unfolding situation in Iraq, we are also reminded of the security situation that Israel faces beyond its borders.

    Iraq is today facing fundamental threats to its integrity, security and stability.

    ISIS is a violent and brutal military group posing a threat to the entire region. As we have seen in a horrifying way in the last few days.

    Their advances in Iraq and their growing base in northern Syria should be seen by all as extremely grave developments.

    As Douglas Alexander said yesterday the priority now must be to promote the political integrity of Iraq, to help the Iraqi government through support and advice and do everything we can to provide humanitarian assistance.

    Nobody should be in any doubt about the seriousness of the situation and the priority it demands from the world.

    Given all of our interests in stability in the region it is right also to be seeking dialogue with other countries in the wider area.

    Which brings us to Iran.

    I want to be clear about Labour’s position: we are under no illusions about the Iranian regime.

    It has supplied thousands of missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah which have been used against Israel.

    If Iran continues its illegal nuclear programme and develops a weapon, it poses a grave threat to Israel and to the stability of the region.

    That is why the world has such a strong interest in preventing this happening.

    The interim agreement brokered by Cathy Ashton is a step forward. We should take nothing for granted about Iran’s behaviour but that route represents by far the best hope for avoiding what we all fear: Iran with nuclear weapons.

    But while it is absolutely right to remain deeply sceptical about the nature of the regime, we support the Government’s decision today to reopen the Embassy as a means of engagement.

    All of us are conscious, especially at this moment of the instability of this region. Not just in Iraq but also the unfolding tragedy in Syria and the consequences that is having for neighbouring states.

    For us that reinforces the importance of a successful peace process.

    Our trip to Israel turned out to be just prior to the collapse of the talks.

    We can all see the considerable challenges to the peace process. And there is a growing sense as to what those challenges are.

    Settlement building in the occupied territories is a significant threat to a negotiated agreement.

    The daily reality of all this was brought home on our visit.

    We had the chance to visit a Bedouin camp in the Occupied Territories.

    People there lived difficult, impoverished lives, and are faced with the potential threat of eviction.

    As we heard during our trip, the real fear is that settlement activity makes the viability of a two state solution more challenging.

    And those significant challenges to the peace process include the role of Hamas, not just its failure to renounce violence against Israel but to accept its very right to exist.

    These deep concerns about time running out represents reasons for pessimism.

    They lead some to say that support for a two-state solution should be abandoned.

    I don’t agree.

    After all what is the alternative?

    So we should step up, not abandon, our support for a two state solution.

    We should do so deeply conscious of the pressure of time.

    But having set out the reasons for pessimism, there are reasons for optimism too.

    Most conflicts are unresolved because we do not know what an agreement looks like.

    What came home to me on this trip was reasonable people on both sides have a sense of what a resolution looks like.

    Two states for two peoples, based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, with Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, and with each state enjoying self-determination, security and mutual recognition.

    We know that compromises in key areas must be made on both sides.

    We must also do nothing that will get in the way of peace.

    So we are clear that the threat of boycotts of Israel is the wrong response. We do and we will resolutely oppose the isolation of Israel. And my party does so.

    No one in my party either should question Israel’s right to exist.

    And what is our role in all this? As friends of Israel.

    We must, as LFI is, be persuaders for peace and the two state solution.

    We can’t deliver peace unless both sides in the conflict want it.

    The international community can set high expectations of both sides.

    That is what Secretary Kerry has sought to do in an outstanding and brilliant way, winning the trust of both sides.

    That will be how a future Labour government approaches the peace process, passionate and engaged in a successful outcome.

    I am reminded of the words of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin used twenty years ago next month at a joint session of both houses of Congress:

    “We all love the same children, weep the same tears, hate the same enmity and pray for reconciliation. Peace has no borders…here is where we were born. Here is where we created a nation. Here we forged a haven for the persecuted and built a model of a democratic country. But we are not alone here on this soil, in this land we have neighbours, the Palestinian people – we who have seen you in your difficulties, we saw you for generations; we who have killed and been killed are walking beside you now toward a common future and we want to be good neighbours.”

    So let me make this pledge today: in that spirit, we stand with Israelis and Palestinians in their pursuit of peace.

    It was meeting extraordinary Israelis and Palestinians that made my recent trip an extraordinary journey.

    And a complete privilege for me.

    The Jewish community in Britain is also extraordinary: civic minded people of the charity world, dynamic business people, committed public servants, people from every walk of Jewish life with deep love and affection for Britain.

    Over these four years, I have learnt a lot from you.

    And I hope you have found me willing to listen and learn.

    I want you to know that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.