UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Denis MacShane – 2003 Speech on the European Constitution

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Office Minister, Denis MacShane, on the subject of the European constitution. The speech was made in Strasbourg on 29th January 2003.

    Mr President, it is a great honour to have been invited to take part in this debate in this Assembly, the oldest European Parliamentary Assembly.

    I would like to thank the distinguished Rapporteur, Mr Pangalos for a stimulating and timely report on the Council of Europe’s contribution to an EU constitution. Timely, because the Future of Europe Convention which is looking at reform of the EU is in full swing. And while EU states are naturally preoccupied with the internal reforms which are vital to allow for an expanded EU, its appropriate to remind them that Europe extends far beyond the EU. Even a 25-member EU with 450 million citizens does not cover the whole continent. The 44-member Council of Europe, with an 800 million population, has a much better claim to do so.

    Mr Pangalos’ excellent report puts forward a number of suggestions on the Council’s contribution to the EU constitution-making process. The report recommends incorporation of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights into the constitutional treaty. We can see the argument that a Constitutional treaty should refer to the values we all share. But at the same time we are alive to serious legal and practical problems including the potential for confusion in the European legal space which could arise if the Charter were incorporated into the treaty structure in the form in which it was declared at Nice.

    The Report suggests tackling this problem by the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. This will create harmony between the two legal orders; it would also make the EU institutions directly accountable for violations, rather than through the member states. But the United Kingdom does have concerns about the impact accession may have both on EC/EU competence and regarding the position of the individual member states in relation to Protocols, reservations, and the ability to derogate. The Convention on the Future of Europe’s Charter Working Group Final Report acknowledges these concerns. But it is fair to point out that it offers no answers.

    Furthermore, not all ECHR Protocols have been ratified by the member states,; indeed some have entered, reservations and derogations. EC/EU accession to the ECHR, without taking into account the individual legal positions of the member states, could entail a lot of confusion. The need, as the United Kingdom sees it, would be to ensure accession took place without prejudice to the individual legal positions of the member states in respect of the ECHR.

    These are indeed important and difficult questions. The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the Future of Europe debate to work out how they are best answered.

    How the EU frames its human rights is one of dozens of questions under discussion at the Future of Europe Convention. But the EU must not be so absorbed with its plans for internal reform that it neglects the impact the Convention outcome will have on the millions of Europeans who are not part of the EU. This is where the role of the Council of Europe is essential and must be protected from collateral damage as the future EU is being shaped. The European Court of Human Rights’ place in the European human rights architecture must not be undermined.

    The debate on the Future of Europe, coupled with EU and NATO enlargement, is throwing a spotlight on the European human rights and security architecture. This is an ideal opportunity for the Council of Europe to assess its own role in the future of Europe. The Council could be well-placed, perhaps, to provide the framework for the privileged relationship between the EU and its neighbours mentioned in the draft EU constitution.

    But the Council’s future is not simply defined by the EU. Seen from the United Kingdom perspective, the Council should continue to play a unifying role as the one, truly pan-European forum where EU and non-EU states engage on the human rights, political and social issues. The Council should continue to lead the way in setting and developing human rights standards. Its careful watch of how member states are living up to those standards, sometimes resented as intrusive, is essential for ensuring that all of its members, new and old, live up to their obligations and the values they espouse. The Council will continue to have a vital role as a common European forum.

  • Denis MacShane – 1994 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Commons by Denis MacShane on 16th May 1994.

    I have addressed many audiences and many chambers, but none quite as intimidating as this, with my true friends behind me and my real opponents facing me. I gather that convention demands that one must be polite, so polite one must be.

    I am very conscious of coming to the House in place of Jimmy Boyce, a man who came from a part of our society about which not enough of us know. He was unemployed for many years, a victim of the very cruel policies that have cost so much for some of the great talents of our nation over the past 15 years. I come from a different background, but I will fight for the causes that Jimmy supported. I hope that I can in some way measure up to the service that he provided to Rotherham in the short two years in which he was a Member of this House.

    I am also conscious of the fact that I follow in the footsteps of Stan Crowther who is well known to the House and was a great public servant to Rotherham over 50 years of political life. I am also conscious of following in the footsteps of Brian O’Malley, the man who inspired me when I first became involved in politics. He collapsed at the Dispatch Box, another victim of the stress of public life. Like everyone else, I was glad of the tributes paid to John Smith in the press. We speak no ill of the dead; perhaps from time to time, my old friends in the Gallery may speak some good of the living.

    Last week was for me the best of weeks and the worst of weeks. When I came to the House on Tuesday, John Smith greeted me and said that it would be a day that I would remember for the rest of my life. John Smith talked of a dream, but the dream was extinguished when, on Thursday, he left us. He spent a whole day with me in Rotherham, seeing the steel plant and the college, and talking to Asians and to party members. He left a message of hope for a new and better Britain.

    I am proud to have been elected by the people of Rotherham to represent their interests in Parliament. They have not always been so happy in their choice. The first Member for Rotherham—a Member for Yorkshire in those days—was Sir Thomas Wentworth, later the Earl of Strafford. Older Members of the House may remember that he was executed on a Bill of Attainder in 1641. He was promised that his life would be saved by none other than King Charles I, but he was, of course, sacrificed.

    Alas, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) are not with us today. They must know how poor Thomas Wentworth felt as they, too, were given the full support of a Prime Minister—a sure sign that they were about to mount the political scaffold. ‘Put not your trust in princes’, were Thomas Wentworth’s last words. The spirit of Rotherham and, indeed, of Yorkshire ever since has been one of sturdy self-reliance and a rejection of authoritarianism and the centralising forces that Toryism has represented throughout the ages.

    Rotherham was the place where Thomas Paine, that most noble of commoners, who brought democracy to America and the ‘Rights of Man’ to Europe, even as he was forced into exile by the Pitt Government, built his great suspension bridge. I do not know how many hon. Members know that Thomas Paine was a great manufacturer as well as a great democrat. The bridge was a feat of great engineering, as important as in many ways as his enunciation of the rights of man. Paine’s bridge was built by the Walker Brothers of Rotherham, whose cannons sunk Napoleon’s fleet at Trafalgar.

    What would Tom Paine find if he returned to Rotherham today? The great manufacturies, on which Adam Smith based his ‘Wealth of Nations’, have all but disappeared, 25,000 jobs have gone since 1979 and the coal mines, which once promised Britain its own energy source safe from the perils of foreign disturbances, are now capped. The local council, with the money and the will to build homes for the homeless, is prevented from doing so by the most centralised administration since that of Charles I.

    Paine would find poverty in Rotherham, I am sad to say, as bad as anywhere in Europe. Indeed, he was dismissed from Government service for arguing for fair wages for public servants. Poorly paid public service, he argued, attracts only the ill-qualified and breeds corruption, collusion and neglect. He went on: ‘An augmentation of salary sufficient to enable workers to live honestly and competently would produce more good effect than all the laws of the land can enforce.’ I offer that to our low-wage merchants on the Government side of the House. We already knew that Thomas Paine was a great democrat and a friend of Rotherham manufacturing, but it came as news, even to me, that he believed in a statutory minimum wage 200 years before its time.

    For all those problems, Paine would find, as would anyone who visits Rotherham, a town and a people whose spirits are unbroken despite all that has been thrown at them in the past 15 years. The pedestrianised town centre, which is one of the nicest in Europe, is spoiled only, alas, by the pressure on shopkeepers arising from the declining purchasing power of the citizens of Rotherham.

    One of the world’s most advanced engineering steel plants, UES, is at the cutting edge of modern technology. I must to say my hon. Friends, talk not of steel as an old industry. Steel is one of the most modern and advanced sectors of our economy.

    There are new partnerships between the chamber of commerce, the training and enterprise council, the local council and the trade unions, which support unity and a common cause to promote Rotherham.

    Tom Paine would also find a very great sense—Tom Paine was, if nothing else, an internationalist—of feeling that, if Rotherham is to succeed, Britain must play its full part in Europe, because Britain is part of Europe as surely as Yorkshire is part of Britain.

    I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, who, since 1938, has stood for, yes, a Tory vision of internationalism against isolationism and that yellow streak of appeasement and opting out, which has always shamed the Conservative party, as it shames it in so much of its policy today.

    We are part of Europe and the Euro-septics on the Government Benches may want their cash-and-carry Europe, in which each state takes what it wants. They decry centralisation, yet they have gone through the Division Lobby voting for measure after measure after measure to transfer power from local authorities—indeed, from the House—to give it to their friends in privatised companies and quangos. I want to see power shared downward to the regions, to communities, horizontally to the sister units of civil society in Europe, but, above all, I want to see power made accountable.

    If we are to live in an international community in which trade and travel and money and ideas can go through porous frontiers, at least we, as human beings, as subjects of Her Majesty, as citizens of Europe, should have the right to have the human spirit protected through regulation of trans-frontier activity. Yes, Europe is too important to be left to Brussels, but if we are to fight for British interests, we must do so by promoting transparency, democracy and accountability in all European institutions. R.H. Tawney described the hereditary disease of the English nation as ‘the reverence for riches’ and went on: ‘If men are to respect each other for what they are, they must cease to respect each other for what they own.’ I apologise to the hon. Ladies present and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the references to the rights of man and quoting men. I see myself, after post-modernism and post-industrialism, as the first ‘PPC’—post-politically correct—hon. Member.

    England is the most money-obsessed country in Europe. Switch on the BBC and every five seconds there is some Brylcreemed spokesperson for the bond markets telling us how the dollar is doing. The BBC and ITV tell us the price of the stock market at any moment, anywhere in the world, but have ceased to report on the values needed to bring cohesion back to our communities. I do not blame them. They take their lead from those who rule our society and until we get public interest hands on the tiller of the state, instead of the sticky fingers of so many of the Conservative Members and their friends in the till, the media can do no more than take a lead from those who put a price on everything, but know the value of nothing.

    For all our obsession with cash, Britain remains the poor man of Europe. Italy’s gross domestic product per capita in 1960 was exactly one half of Great Britain’s. Now, it has overtaken us. We have been so busy preaching at Europe and trying to teach Europe the secrets of the United Kingdom’s economic record, we have committed, to use James Fenton’s phrase—how pleased I was to see my old friend become professor of poetry at Oxford on Saturday— ‘the fault of thinking small and acting big’. Perhaps we have forgotten that we have some lessons to learn; lessons about partnership, lessons about the successful countries in Europe. Germany, even after unification, has a lower unemployment record than our own. The Benelux countries and the new entrants are successful, too. Those who proclaim themselves Thatcherites, such as in the Prime Minister’s favourite holiday country Spain, have the worst record of job creation and balanced development.

    The core answer from Europe—one of vital importance to Rotherham and one to which I intend to commit myself in the House—is that manufacturing is not dead and, despite all the best efforts of the Government, should not die. The rising sun has been coming here continually to try to save a sinking England, but we now find that Japanese investment is going to Germany, to France and is leaving these shores.

    If I may refer, as a socialist, to my favourite Sunday reading, The Sunday Telegraph tells us how well Germany is doing, that the Japanese research and development centres are installing themselves there and that the Japanese now prefer to be in Germany because of its high skill base, good labour relations and its position as Europe’s engine of growth.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) blamed our balance of trade on Europe. I have to say to him that it is 15 years of anti-manufacturing policies, of the destruction of partnership, of the lack of investment and the money that has flowed overseas that has been at fault. In fact, if we would learn from our European partner competitors, Britain would be in a much better shape.

    It is not only an economic question. I was privileged to have many conversations with John Smith when he was in Rotherham and he talked of the constitutional changes that Labour would like to introduce, such as the end of the absurd spectacle of hereditary Members in another place making and casting laws, the need for national Governments for Scotland and Wales and regional assemblies, and the need for a referendum—not on electoral reform as I see it, but on re-thinking the way in which we govern ourselves. That is part of the constitutional package that I think is necessary for a new Britain.

    As with John Smith’s commitment to full employment and to trade union rights, we are seeing fleshed out a new programme to reconstruct our lives in Britain as great as that which we saw after the war, but, this time, with us secure in the heart of Europe.

    A Europe of what? Is it a ‘Europe des patries’ as General de Gaulle said? That is difficult for us. We have four nations, but what is our fatherland? That is not a word that we can use easily as British people. It is not a united states of Europe or a stepping stone to Tennyson’s ‘Parliament of the World’, either. After many years working in Europe, I find the Germans more German, the French more French and the Italians more Italian. It is only we in Britain who seem to live in a permanent identity crisis about who we are and what it means to be British. That is because the old Toryism is dying. The new Labourism is not yet born. As a consequence, the morbid symptoms of corruption and xenophobia that lie at the heart of the Cabinet are everywhere to be found where the Government are at work.

    Those who are hostile to Europe are to be found in all nations. We have the Euro-sceptics here, there are the French communists and now we have the Italian fascists. I have with me the programme of Philippe de Villiers, the conservative right-winger in France. He wants Europe to be protected against any imports from outside the Community. He wants also a Europe in which national controls stop immigration. Like the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my father came here in the 1930s. He was a refugee from fascist Europe. The Europe that is described by Philippe de Villiers is not one of which I want to be part. Indeed, I am not even sure whether Conservative Members believe in such a Europe.

    Closing the door to foreign immigrants and to exports from around the world is not a Europe in which we need to believe. We in Europe should defend our interests, but, at the same time, we in this country should deepen our friendship with countries such as Germany and—I declare an interest because my wife is French—France. In the words of Victor Hugo, ‘France is the adversary of England as the better is the enemy of the good.’ I am conscious of returning to the country that made me. I have returned from elsewhere in Europe, where I worked for many years. I have learnt much, and some of that learning I might bring to the House. I am not ‘A steady patriot of the world alone, The friend of every country but his own.’ I remain British. I am proud of the schools that made me and of the health service that put me together when I cracked my head open in the 1950s. I am hopeful that such again could be the kind of United Kingdom in which my children can grow up. It is a country in which we always refer to faith, hope and charity. But greater than any of those concepts is justice.

    I will argue for justice for the people of Rotherham. I will strive for economic justice for the unemployed and social justice for the weak and disabled people of Rotherham. I so much agree with those who say that the best tribute that we could pay to John Smith would be to pass the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was recently talked out. There must be ‘plain justice’—justice for the criminals who walk free in an England that opts out of Europe. In so many parts of our communities, unfortunately, it seems to opt out of decency and law and order. If I can deliver any part of that message during my time in the House on behalf of the people of Rotherham, I shall be well pleased.

  • Andrew Smith – 2003 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Work and Pensions Secretary, Andrew Smith, to the 2003 Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth on 2nd October 2003.

    [NB, the numbers on this speech have been distorted and are not available]

    Conference, this Welfare Reform debate defines the party we are, the values we stand for, and the fight we must win.

    Our mission is to win the war on poverty throughout people’s lives.

    The Tories gave the poorest families just � a week to cover the cost of a child.  Through record increases in child benefit and tax credits, Labour has increased that to �.

    Where the Tories left over 4 million children in families on under �0 a week Labour has cut that by one and a half million.

    But it’s right that as Labour’s most ambitious goal we want to see not just fewer children in poverty, but no child in poverty.

    It’s about more than income alone.  It’s about education, housing, and health, with freedom from crime, drugs and abuse.  Sure Start is transforming the life chances of Britain’s poorest children.

    Giving children the best start also means helping hard working parents.  Eight times as many people are getting help with their childcare than under the Tories, with the new tax credits giving up to �0 a week for childcare.

    But we need to make more places available.  It’s ridiculous that so many school buildings stand empty after hours and in the holidays.

    So conference, I can announce today that from April we will offer in 3 areas school-based childcare -available 7 to 7, 50 weeks a year, to ensure good care for children and the chance to work for parents.

    We will also pilot payments to help lone parents move into work – an extra � a week to look for a job and an extra � a week when they get one.

    Conference, we will keep driving forward with welfare to work. It’s one of Labour’s greatest achievements that even in a turbulent world with unemployment rising elsewhere, Britain has not only more people in work than ever before but the lowest unemployment for a generation.

    That is not down to chance but to the choices of a Labour Government committed to economic stability and active steps to help people into jobs.  It’s not something to be taken for granted.

    Britain must never go back to those Tory days where  three million unemployed were their “price worth paying” with the young condemned to idleness  and older workers thrown on the scrapheap.

    So where the Lib Dems and Tories would  axe  the New Deal, Labour will extend it, with extra help for those who need it most, because we are determined to achieve our goal of full employment in every region.

    That means removing barriers which still stand in the way of ethnic minorities.  We must ensure that training recruitment, and promotion depend on ability and not the colour of people’s skin. We will challenge racial disadvantage and racism wherever it occurs so that full employment really does mean employment for all.

    That also means helping the million disabled people who want to work. This month we start new programmes combining focussed help in finding work, better NHS rehabilitation and extra payments of � a week for those who get jobs.

    If everyone is to make the most of their potential, we must change the whole approach to disability from one based on what people can’t do to one based on what they can.

    Disability rights is about more than jobs.  It is about people’s equal worth as individuals so they are not disabled by the preconceptions of others.

    In years to come the treatment of disabled people typical of the last century – and still too often the case today – will be seen as an affront to their humanity.

    This is a great cause of emancipation of our time. Labour wants Britain to lead the world on the rights and opportunities of disabled people.  We will extend anti-discrimination law and publish this year a Draft Bill, to fulfil in this Parliament our manifesto pledge to the full civil rights of disabled people.

    Thanks to health and safety reps and workplace partnership, industrial deaths were down 10% last year. But we must do more. I am announcing today a new Challenge Fund, working with unions and employers, to extend workplace safety advice in small and medium size businesses, and we support the Freedom from Fear campaign, because we believe every worker has the right to workplace safety.

    As people live longer, opportunities for older workers are critical.

    1.2 million more people over the age of 50 are now in work than in 1997 but too many still face barriers.  For young and old alike it is wrong to base opportunities on age rather than aptitude and it’s right that we press ahead to outlaw age discrimination.

    Our pensions consultation shows that people want flexible options for retirement.

    We will change the rules so people can draw down a pension and continue working for the same employer.

    Where people choose to take their state pension later, they deserve a better deal.

    So I announce today, we will offer people the choice – for the first time ever – of a lump sum, as much as �,000 where they defer for 5 years. So poorer pensioners can get sums which until now have been the preserve of the better off.

    We are giving people more choices.  But it would be wrong to force longer working on the least well off, often with the hardest working lives and the shortest retirement to look forward to. We reject putting up the State Pension Age.

    Conference, partnership should be the basis for security in occupational pensions.

    We have set up the Pension Commission; it’s work will include the case for greater compulsion.

    While we applaud those employers taking tough decisions to meet their pension commitments, we condemn those who walk away from their responsibilities, short-changing workers who saved all their lives. They can’t claim workers’ loyalty, then dump them in retirement. Labour is in government not just to challenge such injustice but to do something about it.

    So we will change the law …

    – To stop employers walking away from their obligations.

    – To stop companies using take-overs to scrap pensions; and,

    –  To stop firms changing schemes without consultation

    A pension promise made must be a pension promise honoured. When a firm goes bust, it can’t be right that workers see their life savings destroyed. So, conference, our Labour Government will legislate for a Pension Protection Fund…

    We build on the improvements we have already made –

    –  with the state second pension, extending pension rights to 20 million low paid workers, carers and disabled people, most of them women

    –  free TV licences for the over 75s; and

    –  the winter fuel payment,  going up to �0 for the over 80s.

    And where the Tories want to privatise the state pension, Labour has increased it by �a week more than inflation and will continue to build on it as the foundation of security in retirement.

    Labour has already raised the incomes of the 2 million poorest pensioners by more than � a week,  narrowing the gap between them and the society as a whole.

    But the system has until now penalised those who’ve put something by for their retirement, with each pound of income knocked straight off benefits.

    On Monday we change that. The new Pension Credit – the most significant increase in help for a generation – not only guarantees a minimum income but rewards those who have saved and so often missed out in the past.

    It is straightforward, awards are backdated and half of pensioner households – the poorest half – gain, by an average of �0 a year.

    From next week – as the Tories debate privatising state pensions – already more than 1 million pensioners will see their income rise with Pension Credit and that number will go up with every passing day.

    It’s a key dividing line for the next General Election.  The Tories and Lib Dems will have to explain why they plan to take �0 off half the pensioner households in the country.

    So let us get out there, campaigning to ensure pensioners get, and keep, what is rightfully theirs.

    And let’s thank all the staff of  the new Pensions Service, the first ever dedicated service for pensioners, just as we value all the New Deal Personal Advisors, the Disability employment workers and the child support staff. They are the front line troops in the war against poverty – and we’re proud of them.

    – progress on full employment,

    – child and pensioner poverty,

    – occupational pensions, and tackling discrimination

    – it all shows the difference Labour is making – and how much more Labour can do.

    So let’s go from here proud of our achievements, clear in our vision, confident in our purpose to build a Britain of fairness and opportunity, where no-one is left behind.

    The campaign for social justice is at Labour’s heart.  It’s what brought all of us into the Labour Party. It is changing Britain for the better and it will be our inspiration until the job is done.

  • Andrew Smith – 2002 Speech at Lancaster House

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Smith, at Lancaster House on 26th March 2002.

    Just a few years ago, The Government set out its thinking on how Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) could be used to create new businesses – with both the public and the private sector involved.  I am very pleased to see, from the wide range of speakers here today, that these ideas are becoming a reality.

    Through the Wider Markets initiative (WMI), we have entered into a new type of partnership: not changing the responsibility for, or the funding of, public services, but liberating the underlying potential.

    WMI is about enabling public sector workers to realise their full potential and about getting the full value out of public sector assets.

    WMI is not about transferring assets, or the responsibility for assets, from the public sector to the private sector. Rather, it is about generating commercial activities from public sector assets in addition to fulfilling their public sector purpose.

    The best of our Government agencies, research institutes, armed forces facilities and hospitals are, as we know,  a match for any in the world.  Our scientists, our technicians, and our managers, some of the people I see in the audience today, are highly motivated, highly trained, and ready to embrace change and modernisation.

    They recognise that PPPs – and the WMI – are not about transferring responsibility out of the public sector, they are about bringing the public sector’s ideas and expertise to commercial markets so we can realise their full potential.  This is all about getting additional value from the assets and ideas that underpin the delivery of services, services that are with, and will remain within, the public sector.

    The aim is to allow the entrepreneurial talent in the public sector to flourish.  It is about public enterprise. That is why public bodies and the private sector are entering a range of public private partnerships – creating new activities and generating value by bringing together their respective skills and assets.

    In Government, we want more of these PPPs to be formed. That is why we have established Partnerships UK as centre of expertise with a specific remit to help the public sector generate new sources of commercial income.  That is why we have published new guidance on forming joint venture companies: making it easier for the public sector to set up new businesses and new partnerships across the whole range of economic activities, including science and technology.

    This conference is about making it happen.  Across the public sector, in the BBC, in the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture, and at the Radiocommunications Agency, there are already a number of success stories.

    There is a responsibility on all of us to make sure these stories get heard, and to write the next chapter, deploying successful approaches across the public sector.

    Our approach brings together the WMI and Governments policies more generally on PPPs.

    WMI encourages public sector bodies to exploit their assets – physical and intellectual, enabling them to undertake commercial activities that are additional to their core function as public sector organisations.

    The public sector owns over £274 billion of physical assets.  That is £274 billion of latent energy.  Liberating the potential in these assets, and in the knowledge base and intellectual excellence of the public sector, will mean more money for public investment and higher levels of productivity across the entire economy.

    It is vitally important that we improve the commercial uptake of ideas and technology coming from public sector, and in particular for research establishments.  We need to bridge the gap between the supply of ideas and assets that flows naturally from the delivery of public services and the demand in wider markets.

    That means a tailored approach, providing for different forms of partnerships which meet the particular objectives of a project.

    The form of PPPs range from joint ventures to licenses, concessions and other partnership arrangements. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach.  The aim is always to ensure that the taxpayer gets their fair share of the rewards while at the same time protecting public sector interests.

    In some cases the public sector is major partner, in others it plays a minor role. We are developing ideas across the entire range of Government activities and assets: property, equipment and facilities, skills and expertise, databases and IT systems, research and scientific developments.

    So there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach – but there are guiding principles. The aim is to ensure that all partnerships:

    – align public and private sector interests

    – extract best value from assets and investments

    – generate activities which develop, not detract from, delivery of core public services

    – provide the desired level of public sector control.

    Bringing together wider markets and PPPs, we are in fact creating whole new businesses – developing new commercial activities as well as supporting traditional public services.

    Over the course of this conference we will be hearing about a vast array of value-generating PPPs.  Success stories which show our approach does work:

    – how the BBC has brought in investment of around £350 million to market its programmes internationally through its joint venture with Discovery;

    – how the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture (an agency of DEFRA) and the Army Training and Recruitment Agency have managed through WMIs to build up their revenues from virtually nothing to well over £5 million per year from their wider markets activities

    – how best estimates suggest the Radiocommunications Agency has achieved annual savings of around £1 million in its IT systems through a joint venture with CMG.

    This is revenue on top of that raised through taxation, and of course savings that are recycled back into public services.  This extra money will be used to improve the quality of public services with benefits too for the working conditions of public sector staff.

    Accordingly, the wider markets initiative is:

    – encouraging public sector workers to develop and demonstrate their entrepreneurial expertise by building new businesses; and,

    – training staff in the new skills needed to enter commercial markets.

    We are opening up new vistas of opportunity for public sector staff.  We value public sector workers, the effort they make, the ideas they have, the ethos that drives them – WMI is about giving them more opportunities.

    Entering partnerships with the private sector to commercialise public sector ideas and assets can benefit staff at all levels in an organisation.

    Through its commercialisation activities, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture has been able to maintain and enhance its reputation as a world class research institute, attract more staff, and improve morale through enhanced training and opportunities for interchange with private sector partners.

    It is quite simple: WMI means a better deal for public sector staff.

    PPPs generate additional value: increasing revenue for the organisation; enhancing opportunity for the staff.  To release that value, working together, there are a number of things we have to get right. We have to :

    – make sure we have the right incentives in place

    – manage and distribute risk appropriately

    – safeguard the public interest and the reputation of the public sector because trust is in itself a valuable commodity

    – create a more entrepreneurial culture in the public sector: this will not happen overnight, and we have to make sure we have the right staff with the right skills to make it happen.

    We have taken decisive action to move forward on all of these issues.

    In 1998 we introduced a framework for WMI, ensuring that Departments automatically retain the benefit of money generated by sales into wider markets – creating the incentive to innovate. We have given Departments delegated powers of approval over the majority of projects – creating a flexible and responsive system. The framework aims to ensure each Department has a wider markets officer – creating a single point of contact, enabling expertise to develop and spread best practice.

    The right incentives, a flexible system with authority delegated downwards, and a central point of contact in each Department.  It is all about making sure we getting extra value out of the Government’s assets without detracting from the responsibility for or the delivery of the services on which we all rely.

    To make sure we do, we are scrutinising carefully the National Asset Register – identifying where the opportunities are. We are making the move to resource accounting – so the true cost of capital is reflected in the value of fixed assets.  And we are utilizing Departmental investment strategies as a means of reviewing new and existing assets – considering their potential for generating commercial revenues.

    Behind the success of the wider markets initiative stands Partnerships UK – a dedicated organisation working solely for the public sector with the objective of supporting the implementation of PPPs.

    Their team works on science and technology commercialisation, and wider markets, helping us to release the potential of public sector staff and assets.  Acting as a central point of contact, PUK provides a free support service, helping with anything from simple enquiries and troubleshooting to support in taking a PPP from an abstract idea to making it a commercial reality.

    Partnerships UK is also producing guidance and best practice materials for the Treasury – helping us develop a body of expertise on wider markets. The first major document, guidance for public sector bodies forming joint venture companies with the private sector, was published in November last year.

    With the ability to share development costs and invest in a PPP, alongside the public sector, Partnerships UK will be a powerful catalyst as we take forward our programme of public sector reforms.

    This is a programme of reforms for the public and for the public sector staff. Getting extra value out of public sector assets is good news for both. WMI means the freedom for staff to innovate, to develop new ideas, and to reach their full potential.

    And it is good news for the public as:

    – WMI leaves responsibility for funding and delivery of public services unchanged

    – commercial activities releases extra resources for priority areas such as health and education

    – the flexible use of assets releases stored potential and boosts productivity across the entire economy.

  • Andrew Smith – 2001 Speech to the Government Procurement Service

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Smith, to the Government Procurement Service conference held in Brighton on the 4th December 2001.

    Introduction

    1. I am very glad to be here today.   As Chief Secretary, it is quite rare for me to be out of London addressing conferences, but I am here today because of the importance of your work.

    2. From the election through to last week’s Pre-Budget Report, from the Prime Minister and Chancellor downwards, we have been stressing the importance of delivery of our service commitments – and that means not just more money but also better use of money.

    3. But to make sure the money we invest is used wisely, we must also invest in the capacity of our public sector systems, workers and management to ensure our public services are efficient, effective and professional.

    Office of Government Commerce

    4. All of you, the Government Procurement Service and the Office of Government Commerce, have an important role to play.

    5. We established the OGC to act as a catalyst to improve the quality of procurement, with an important role in improving the quality of investment by the public sector. It is encouraging the use of modern techniques and a cross-Government approach to procurement. These professional approaches are already proving successful – generating savings that can be invested in our priorities.

    6. Procurement has moved up the Government agenda, with active and growing political interest and support, and increasingly visible involvement of Departments at the highest level. This reflects the priority we give to improving the quality of public services, with a strong emphasis upon both successful delivery for the public, and value for money for the taxpayer.

    Government Procurement Service

    7. In 1997, we realised that, whilst we had good commitment of public sector staff, in some areas the capacity to spend taxpayers? money efficiently was frequently worse than it should be. Procurement was too often the poor relation of the civil service: orders had to be placed, invoices had to be matched, and bills had to be paid, but that was about the extent of anyone’s interest.  We wanted to change all that.

    8. The Treasury and Cabinet Office commissioned the Public Expenditure Committee to report into ?Efficiency in Civil Government Procurement?. Their work, completed in 1998, focussed on a set of targeted measures, enabling government to maximise procurement efficiency. One of the key recommendations was to establish a new, professional, GPS. This was part of a package of measures designed to recruit, retain and motivate professional procurement staff.

    9. That report, together with Peter Gershon’s rigorous analysis of the problems with procurement, provided the basis for action. We moved decisively to accept and implement the recommendations. We established the GPS, under the able guidance of Brian Rigby, in April 1999.

    10. The GPS brought together the 1,500 procurement staff working across Government into one professional body. The aim is to enhance your contribution to the achievement of Government objectives by:

    ensuring the availability of staff with appropriate skills, experience and qualifications to deliver professional, good quality and legally compliant procurement processes;

    providing departments and members with best practice guidance on training, career development, and related issues to help ensure the best match of procurement staff to posts; and

    offering members the information on employment opportunities and support they need for more effective career management.

    11. So we have established procurement as a professional discipline within Government: acknowledging the valuable contribution that you make and raising the profile of your work across Whitehall and beyond.

    12. By improving the career opportunities, training and status of hard working procurement professionals we will ensure that your effort is rewarded and your contribution is recognised. With the support of the GPS you will come to play a more important part in the life of your Departments. You will help us to achieve our three-year target of £1bn in value for money improvements.  And your Departments, in their turn, will play a more effective role in delivering on our public service commitments.

    Reform of procurement

    13. To deliver that improvement in our public services we have to reform the way we think about procurement.  We need to move procurement towards higher value added activities, such as:

    building partnership with the private sector – using procurement to lever in business efficiency, innovation and expertise;

    developing adult approaches to supplier management – working with third party providers to standardise procurement process, increase competition in the market for government business, and drive down the costs for all parties; and

    considering the whole life cycle of projects in the procurement process – working with stake holders to identify desirable outcomes early in the day, and considering the whole life cycle of a scheme when identifying our Best Value objectives.

    14. That is how we will improve the management of complex spending programmes, fulfil our responsibilities to the taxpayer, and deliver on our commitments to the consumer of public services.

    15. These are ambitious goals. To achieve them we will have to work hard and we will have to work together. Working together means ensuring that you, the procurement professionals, have the skills and expertise to drive forward your departments spending programmes.  We need to make sure you have got that.

    16. In the past, the capacity to achieve value for money savings through better Government procurement practice was simply not there. There was no political commitment, there was wasted expertise, and there were no resources to support efficient purchasing procedures.

    17. The first step was to revitalise the skills of the government purchasing community. Great strides have been made towards educating procurement professionals and informing departments about the value you can add.  We are entering into an era of continuous professional development for staff at all levels.  For those of you who have just achieved your qualification this is only the beginning.

    18. We are Investors in People: we will work tirelessly to ensure that you have the opportunities to develop and grow. You will attain the skills necessary to advance your careers and at the same time contribute to the advancement of your Department’s objectives.

    19. I would like to say a big thank you to Chris Howard and his colleagues on the GPS management board for their hard work on the programmes for professional development.

    Achievements so far

    20. Higher standards of training, better opportunities for development, and greater levels of professionalism all add up to a massive boost for the procurement agenda.  We are already beginning to see the results.

    the Government Procurement Card (GPC) – reducing transaction costs wherever it is used;

    the Gateway process – helping us manage complex projects; and

    collaboration between Government Departments – hard working professional working together to deliver on our shared objectives.

    21. The GPC was introduced in 1997 and has already delivered £30m in efficiency savings. It has enabled Government Departments and agencies to streamline their purchasing processes, realising these dramatic savings both in time and costs incurred by standard administrative processes.

    22. Today’s launch of the consortium of VISA banks? fourth annual report into the use of the GPC, audited by KPMG, confirms that the 2001 target of £150m spend on the card has been exceeded by 7.5%.

    23. In just four years, over 155 departments and agencies have implemented their own card programmes, and the number of cards issued has risen by over 50% in the last year. A landmark was reached in April of this year when we saw the millionth transaction. That is a million transactions where money was saved, costs were driven down, and extra resources were freed up for investment in crucial public services.

    24. The Monitor Card? – which is accepted in over 12,500 outlets and accounts for 100 million litres of motor fuel – is already delivering similar savings in Government procurement of motor fuel. The NHS and Ministry of Defence provide branded fuels cards for their own fleets. Many Departments are organising similar initiatives and the number of corporate travel cards is set to increase dramatically.  These cards drive down costs, reduce administrative overheads and allow higher levels of control.

    25. Delivering on priority areas often means working over longer time scales, managing large amounts of money, and achieving objectives through collaboration with a range of different partners. In the past there has simply not been the capacity to manage this type of project. That is why I launched the Gateway review process in February this year.

    26. The Gateway review process is a technique for developing and delivering complex projects based on proven private sector practices, designed to ensure value for money improvements in major Government programmes.  Through the Gateway, experienced senior staff, separate from the schemes, consider their development at crucial stages – helping to guarantee the taxpayer a return on their investment.  So far 70 projects – or £18bn of Government investment – have benefited from the Gateway process.

    27. The pilot projects we ran saved around £150m, and once the scheme is in full operation we anticipate savings of around £500m a year. These savings are not kept by the Treasury, but are available to be spent elsewhere, where they can deliver further benefits to front line services.

    28. This is an achievement of which we can all be proud. We are planning to build on this success and roll out the process to a wider public sector audience.

    29. Gateways are just one of the ways in which we are reforming our procurement processes. The deal you reached with Vodafone for the supply of cell phones to the entire public sector has exceeded all expectations. I know that arrangements are in hand to develop similar deals for the supply of Government vehicles, hotel accommodation, and energy supplies.

    30. These framework agreements realise value for money savings for the taxpayer, reduce the costs of doing business with Government, and release valuable procurement resources – your time and effort – to concentrate on areas that really matter. This is a win-win situation.

    31. Professionalism in procurement and in the delivery of public services also means closer working between Government Departments and agencies. As we develop the capacity of the procurement community to work towards our shared objectives, so we must build the capacity in Departments and agencies to work together, generate economies of scale, spot the synergies, and realise the value for money savings.

    32. The OGC is leading the way in joining up procurement programmes across Government. The happy marriage between the OGC Buying Solutions catalogue and the Procurement and Supply Agency of the NHS is just one example.

    33. In the short term the results will be value for money savings that can be recycled into the NHS, adding to the extra £1bn the Chancellor announced in the Pre-Budget Report. In the longer term we want to see more successful partnerships, delivering greater cost savings, and freeing up even more resources for investment in front line services.

    Conclusion

    34. In conclusion, let us take stock of what we have achieved:

    the GPS – more opportunities for you to develop, greater professional expertise for your departments to draw upon;

    the GPC – improving transactions, freeing resources and achieving value for money savings;

    the Gateway Review – facilitating the delivery of large and complex projects, already producing results and savings; and

    collaboration between Government Departments – pooling expertise and pooling public sector purchasing power.

    35. On skills, already this year we have seen a 20% rise in the number of GPS staff either fully qualified or moving in the right direction. You all have the skills, expertise, and commitment to take the procurement agenda forwards, and soon 83% of you will have the certificate to prove it.  This year, 98 students have gained their Certificates of Competence, bringing the programme total so far to 855.  In addition, I know that another 98 students were studying for the graduate diploma of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply.

    36. So, a lot done, still a lot to do. We need to diffuse procurement expertise even more widely around Whitehall. The Wider Skills agenda will develop the skills to manage IT, programme delivery, and procurement across government departments. We are sowing the seeds of change and modernisation, bringing cohesion to our wider commercial agenda. I am taking a close personal interest in this project and I look forward very much to seeing how it develops.

    37. I thank you for all you are doing and wish you a very successful conference.

  • Mark Simmonds – 2014 Speech in Nigeria

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Simmonds, the Minister for Africa, in Abuja on 27th February 2014.

    Thank you, Mr President. Your Excellencies, distinguished guests: I am honoured to represent the British Government today – and to bring with me warm congratulations and best wishes from Her Majesty the Queen, on Nigeria’s 100th birthday.

    It is a particular privilege to join you all as my Prime Minister’s representative, to celebrate this important day and to strengthen and renew the unique ties between Nigeria and the United Kingdom.

    I am honoured, Mr President, to speak today of Nigeria and Africa. I am always struck by Nigeria’s youth and vitality. I believe strongly that your country, and the countries represented here today, should be viewed through the lens of promise and ambition. I want to take this opportunity to focus on the great future ahead of Nigeria and its African counterparts face.

    It is a future that is closely linked to the achievement of prosperity, stability and democracy. And I believe that, as is the case in Europe, it is the choices African leaders make in these three areas that will determine Africa’s future.

    Nigeria’s first Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, said on Independence Day in 1960 that Nigeria’s relations with the UK were “always as friends.” That is as true now as 54 years ago.

    Our relationship is rooted in our joint history; in the large and important Nigerian community in the UK; the deep and expanding trade relationship; and our countless educational, sporting and cultural connections.

    So it is exciting to recognize, as we stand at the dawn of a new century for Nigeria, that the future brings with it extraordinary possibilities for your country, and for many African nations.

    In 1914, the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates and Lagos, brought together peoples, territory and resources that had never before considered themselves as having mutual interests. That brought challenges- and perhaps still does.

    But Nigeria’s diversity has brought the Country strength, resilience and a multitude of talent. It has growing international influence as a peacekeeper, as a leader in the African Union and on the UN Security Council. The Country has become the driving economic and political force of its region.

    A child born in 1914 in Nigeria, joined a population of just 17 and a half million people. Now, the population is 10 times that figure.

    In Nigeria today, more than 18,000 children will be born. In their lives, they could see Africa’s population quadruple; its GDP triple; a world where one child in every three is African.

    They could witness extraordinary social, political, and economic shifts, boosting this continent’s global role as never before.

    But, they could also suffer from the impacts of climate change and witness unprecedented competition, at every level, and perhaps unsustainable demands on Africa’s resources and environment. They will need productive jobs and will want a political, economic and social voice. Managing these challenges will test the leadership and vision of all those here today.

    I believe we share a vision that we want to see realised in our lifetime. It is the vision of independent, thriving and dynamic African countries, overcoming poverty, famine and conflict.

    It is the vision of African families raised without disease; economies managed effectively, linked to open markets and providing jobs. It is the vision of African states governed with the consent and participation of their peoples and fundamental rights protected for everyone, regardless of your gender, ethnicity, belief, disability or sexuality.

    Whether it is in the tech hubs of Lagos and Nairobi or the scientific innovation in South Africa, energy and ambition can be found everywhere in Africa. This is why the United Kingdom is positive about the bright future for many African nations. This is thanks in large part to the achievements that many African governments have made, over the last decade, in lifting millions of people out of poverty and conflict. I would like to put on the record my admiration for this achievement.

    These achievements have brought African countries a long way. But if the vision that I have set out and which I believe we share is to be truly realised, African governments must now allow their countries to flourish. While some African governments are helping their countries to take off, others are yet to make a clear choice between building open governments, institutions and economies, or putting up barriers, oppressing minorities and ruling through fear and violence. I have no doubt about which choice Africans expect of their governments.

    In 1914, as Nigeria was being born, Europe stood on the verge of tearing itself apart. Europe’s future was uncertain. Its path towards democracy, prosperity and stability unclear. It was the choices European leaders made that have brought European countries to where they are today. Many of those choices brought success. But, as we sadly know, some of the choices brought terror and devastation to millions.

    If African nations are to avoid in the next century the mistakes European nations made over the last 100 years, then ultimately, African leaders – you here today – must make the right choices.

    It is no exaggeration that the leaders here today hold in their hands the fate of possibly 1 billion people and their prosperity.

    I have been privileged to see the ancient mosques of Timbuktu and to sit on the shores of Lake Kivu. I have been from Addis to Abidjan; from Cape Town to Khartoum. I’ve seen the mosaic of nations, cultures and histories that make up Africa’s richness.

    Africa’s variety defies easy categorisation. But I believe there may be a guiding narrative that will critical to Africa’s emergence: three areas in which the success of African governments will not be judged by rhetoric, but by outcomes. They are democracy, prosperity and security.

    The first choice is on democracy: African nations will need to direct themselves with determination towards democracy. This is a call from Africans themselves, who – with a smart-phone in their hand and twitter at their fingertips – want to shape and define their future; choose committed leaders and hold them accountable.

    By virtue of her scale and energy, Nigeria could lead the way. Next February’s elections will be a vital milestone – Nigeria’s fifth consecutive Presidential election under civilian rule. Mr President, you have committed yourself to ensuring that the elections are free and fair. I am confident Nigerians will accept nothing less. And in doing so, you and your government could be a role model for many other African governments.

    Secondly, thanks to the rising African middle class, strong growth rates, and increasing stability, African economies are on the verge of take off. But, to get the wheels off the ground, African economies will need to choose to couple transparent, capable and visionary economic management with investments in infrastructure, education and energy.

    At the same time, the journey towards sustainable prosperity can only be fuelled through African governments taking strides to unlock barriers to markets; reducing the cost of doing business; and stamping out corruption.

    Here, once again Nigeria is critical to success in the region and beyond. Non-oil growth is still 6%. But there’s potential for much more: genuinely transformational growth, especially if privatisation underway in the power sector delivers what it promises.

    But democracies do not flourish nor do economies grow in the midst of instability. So the final area I want to highlight – for Nigeria and elsewhere – is the imperative of providing security for all citizens. Any government has the right, and indeed the obligation to defend its territory and people from terrorism. As it does so, it also has a duty to be the protector of its citizens and their universal and inalienable human rights.

    The defence of Africa’s people, and the proportionate use of legal force, are mutually reinforcing. The UK will partner African governments in seeking the eradication of violent extremism. But if we ignore the values that we want our own children to benefit from, we will act as a recruiter for the likes of Boko Haram and Al Shabaab. We must not forget what it is that we defend.

    The UK will continue to work with you all on African issues in the UN Security Council. We are partners in the Commonwealth, which African countries continue to join. We want to see a strong, ambitious African Union. We are opening Embassies and High Commissions across Africa, building linkages and strengthening our understanding. And we are expanding our network of trade and investment experts throughout African countries.

    UK Aid has been transformative for many African countries, tackling the roots of poverty and conflict and building the foundations for countries that can flourish. Our commitment to working in partnership on development – as here in Nigeria – remains. It is right that my government made a brave decision in 2010, in spite of the UK’s serious economic challenges, not to balance our books on the backs of Africa’s poor.

    We are one of Africa’s largest traders. Indeed, in Nigeria we remain the largest investor, and are making strides to meet our ambition to double bilateral trade here, from £4 billion in 2011 to £8 billion this year.

    As one of the world’s largest exporters and with our global leadership in education; logistics; retailing; creative industries; hydrocarbons; agriculture; banking; renewable energy; pharmaceuticals; financial services; extractives; research and development; and with businesses that pride themselves on sound ethical governance, the UK has much to offer Africa’s emerging economies.

    Some will say we are doing these things out of self-interest. Let’s be clear. It is in the UK interest to promote democracy, stability and prosperity. But it is also in Africa’s interest too. And it’s an indicator of Africa’s importance in the 21st Century that the UK, and many other nations, seeks to build and sustain the partnerships that will take African countries well into the next century.

    I want to see Africa, Africans and African nations succeed. There is a bright future for this continent; fuelled by its energy, entrepreneurship and ambition. As Nigeria has shown, much has already been achieved.

    Yet, the future journey will not be easy, the challenges will be great. But that opportunity that is at the fingertips of so many African people – with their governments’ help – must be seized. It is about making the right choices. It is about bringing true democracy, prosperity and stability to every one of your citizens.

    Last year, we saw the parting of one of the World’s greatest leaders: Nelson Mandela. His death has left a challenge to all political leaders – Africa’s included – to meet the aspirations of our people, to demonstrate the same “servant leadership” that Mandela showed us. To choose transparency, to choose reconciliation, to choose partnership and opportunity for all.

    So again I wish Nigeria a happy hundredth birthday. And I look forward to the next century of our partnership, and of Nigerian – and African – success.

  • Mark Simmonds – 2013 Speech at the Barclays Africa Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Foreign Office Minister, Mark Simmonds, on 20th June 2013.

    I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak at the second Barclays Africa Forum.

    I would like to thank Barclays for hosting this event. As a bank that has been operating in Africa for over a century, you are better placed than most to provide insights into the many opportunities that the continent offers.

    It is particularly pleasing to see so many representatives of British business here with an interest in Africa. But it should not be a surprise, because we are discussing Africa at an important moment in its history. People have spoken for many years of Africa being at a crossroads, but I think that – finally – the talk is justified.

    I say that not just because of the news coming out of Africa – which I will return to shortly. I say it because last month I was in Addis Ababa for the celebrations that marked the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Organisation of African Unity – a key milestone in the continent’s history – and because just this weekend five African Heads of State were here in London to take part in a conference ahead of this week’s G8 Summit.

    As the Prime Minister, David Cameron, said at the conference, we want to “forge together a new agenda that will drive growth for us all”.

    The active role played by the leaders from Ghana, Guinea, Senegal, Somalia and Tanzania was one of the many signs that Africa is taking its seat at the international top table. And just as we looked back at the last 50 years when I was in Addis, so we now have the opportunity to look to the next 50, as Africa takes the key decisions that will set its future path – how it manages its resources, how it approaches peacekeeping and security and how it enables its people to realise their ambitions.

    Today I want to focus my remarks on this future. To consider where Africa stands and where it’s heading. Why the UK is well placed to work with Africa on its journey. What the Government is doing to support the continent’s future. And how Government and business can work in partnership to build prosperity for Africa, and for Britain.

    “Africa is hot”

    At the end of April The Times ran an article that is synonymous with the new narrative of economic growth in Africa. Putting it simply, it said “Africa is hot.”

    Of course, Africa’s growth story is nothing new. But I think that is telling in itself: you are all here because you know what the narrative is. You know that countries in sub-Saharan Africa fared better than most during the financial crisis. You know that growth projections are impressive and that the opportunities across the continent reflect this.

    The facts speak for themselves. The economy of sub-Saharan Africa is already worth £1.3 trillion, and it is forecast to be 50 percent higher in 2017.

    Let me take equity funds as a more specific example. Equity funds that badge themselves African held assets of less than $1 billion in 2006. That had risen to nearly $5 billion by the end of last year. Compare the headline figure to, say, Latin America and it doesn’t seem overly impressive – $5 billion to Latin America’s $38 billion. But compare the rate of growth and you get the real story. Sub-Saharan African funds saw an increase of close to 400 percent in just six years. In Latin America growth was less than 40 percent.

    This growth is compounded by a significant demographic shift. Not only is the population of Africa growing, it’s also becoming increasingly prosperous. Standard Chartered estimated that in 2011 around 60 million Africans had an annual income of more than $3,000. They predicted that this would rise to 100 million by 2015. Again, consider the rate of increase: nearly 70 percent.

    It’s not surprising, then, that the World Bank says that Africa is on the verge of an economic take-off similar to that experienced by China 30 years ago.

    Yet there is still a perception problem. Even now, many companies are put off by what we call the “old agenda”. They worry that doing business with Africa is too risky. Corruption, war and famine are words I hear all too often.

    There is, of course, a reason for that. As the situation in Mali, Somalia and other conflict areas makes clear, the “old agenda” has not gone away completely. But one of the key messages I make to companies in the UK and overseas is that Africa is not homogenous. Corruption, war and famine are very real in some places, but look across the continent as a whole and they are now exceptions, not the rule.

    So we need to continue spreading the message of Africa’s growth story, which is why events like this are so welcome.

    The UK as a partner of choice

    It’s a story that the UK cannot – and should not – ignore.

    And that’s not just because it’s in the UK’s interest; it’s in Africa’s interest too, because the UK has a lot to offer to support Africa’s rise. We have expertise and skills in sectors from the financial services and the knowledge economy to oil and gas, green energy, agriculture and infrastructure. These are all areas in which British firms can add value that would benefit Africa in the long term.

    But we need to look beyond even our expertise and skills and make the most of all the unique levers that give us competitive advantage in the African market. And by that I mean things like our close links of history, and personal ties built up over generations. Or the vital importance of English as the language of international relations and international business – a skill that many African countries want to develop further, and one they look to us to help them with.

    We must do all we can to harness this comparative advantage, because – as the Prime Minister has said – we are in a global race. Indeed, much of the foreign investment surging into Africa is coming not from the developed world but from other emerging economies, China in particular.

    We need to ensure that Britain doesn’t lose out.

    The Government’s response

    That is exactly what the Government is seeking to do. We are working across Whitehall to support Africa’s rise, and to unlock as many business opportunities as we can in the process. But to do this successfully we need increasingly to work in partnership with business.

    Part of this is about improving the UK’s diplomatic presence on the ground. Since coming into office we have opened or re-opened Embassies in Somalia, South Sudan, Cote d’Ivoire, Madagascar and Liberia, as well as opening the doors of a new UK Trade and Investment office in Mozambique.

    And we are backing this up with more effective – and more targeted – high-level engagement.

    Ministers from across Government are visiting Africa frequently – myself included – and we are supporting a growing number of trade missions, such as those led by the Lord Mayor of London to Nigeria, Angola and Ghana in April and May.

    We have created a sub-Saharan Africa Task Force of key companies and stakeholders, which, under Lord Green’s chairmanship, is seeking to better respond to the needs of businesses like yours. This complements the work UKTI is doing to establish British Chambers of Commerce in South Africa and Nigeria – something we hope to emulate elsewhere.

    Ministers are driving forward UKTI’s High Value Opportunities programme, which has identified five large projects in Africa where the UK can win significant business. I am personally leading our work on one of these, focused on oil and gas in Eastern Africa.

    And in November the Prime Minister appointed Baroness Scotland as his Trade Envoy to South Africa. Incidentally, Lord Marland, the Chairman of our network of British Business Ambassadors, was in Gabon on Saturday, meeting government and business contacts. He will be travelling to Africa again in the autumn with a senior trade mission.

    We are also changing the way we work.

    Within the Foreign Office, we have, for example, established a network of around 50 staff across our Africa Posts who work on prosperity issues – which is supported by a seven-strong team of ‘prosperity champions’ in London.

    We have trained our diplomats in commercial diplomacy and used programme funding to undertake projects across Africa to support British companies and improve the business environment on the ground.

    And we have improved our engagement with the private sector by setting up new British Business Groups in places like Sierra Leone and Botswana, and strengthening our links with key organisations such as TheCityUK and the Business Council for Africa.

    We’re already starting to see results. Take West Africa, for example, where as part of this exercise we linked four Posts without a UKTI presence to an FCO/UKTI ‘hub’ in Ghana. During its first six months in operation the four Posts concerned gave support to 113 British companies, and we saw exports over the same period increase by 60 percent.

    A new approach

    However, I think we can do even better.

    I want us to be more ambitious, which is why I am driving a cross-Whitehall initiative to harness the Government’s resources and network to deliver a step-change in our trade agenda in key African markets.

    The initiative will see us working in partnership with the private sector to undertake a range of activities – from conducting research and capacity-building projects to arranging scoping visits – focussed on agriculture, extractives (particularly the supply chain), climate change and energy, infrastructure and financial and professional services.

    We identified these sectors as particularly attractive to British companies, and we will as a first step pilot work programmes in Angola, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania. It is about a partnership so we are looking to see how we can support African governments too, as they seek to improve their business prospects and grow their economies.

    The countries we have identified are those where we judge that a concerted effort by the Government could make a real difference. I hope to visit all five countries in the coming weeks to speak to their governments about how we can make this work.

    Some of you may have already heard about this work, and those that haven’t will I hope do so soon. But I wanted today to highlight three key points about our approach.

    First, the countries we are focused on are indicative of a broader Government strategy – namely that we are strengthening our links to countries with whom we share a traditional connection as well as those with whom we do not. I have travelled extensively around Francophone Africa during my first year as a Foreign Office Minister, for example, and earlier this year I took part in an excellent event in London, organised by UKTI, on partnering with Portuguese companies as a platform to Lusophone Africa. We should do more work like this.

    Second, we want the initiative to support both British businesses and the development of Africa’s private sector.

    This is as much about Africa’s prosperity as it is Britain’s, and it ties in well with the work the Secretary of State for International Development, Justine Greening, is driving forward. As she said in a speech at the London Stock Exchange in March, we need to work “hand in hand” with business to drive economic growth in developing economies, alongside our core development work on basic services.

    DFID are doing much more with business to support both domestic and international investment in African economies, and they are also working to support Africa’s aspirations to deliver a continental free trade area by 2017. A huge amount of work is underway to support the development of infrastructure, open up border crossings and develop local businesses along corridors. At the same time, we are working across Government to help Africa tackle barriers to business such as corruption – not least through our G8 agenda of Tax, Transparency and Trade, the ‘3Ts’.

    And third, we want – as I have said many times before – to work in partnership with business, both here in the UK and in Africa.

    Take as an example the development of small and medium-sized enterprises in Africa, something I am particularly keen that we support. British financial institutions have a clear role to play in supporting SME development as a driver of growth in African countries – and so I very much welcome the initiative Barclays launched last year which aims to do exactly that.

    We want to hear from British businesses

    Taken together, the actions I have outlined today are helping to ensure that the UK responds to – and supports – Africa’s rise and, by extension, that we remain globally competitive in a world of shifting economic power.

    But as I have also made clear, prosperity is driven not by government, but by the private sector. By entrepreneurs and innovators, by companies like yours.

    So we want to work with you, to hear your views, to support your efforts to do business and to help you help Africa on its path to prosperity and peace. Let me know what more we can do.

    I wish you well in your event today and look forward to hearing the outcomes from your discussions.

  • Clare Short – 2003 Resignation Statement

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a personal statement.

    I have decided to resign from the Government. I think it is right that I should explain my reasons to the House of Commons, to which I have been accountable as Secretary of State for International Development, a post that I have been deeply honoured to hold and that I am very sad to leave.

    The House will be aware that I had many criticisms of the way in which events leading up to the conflict in Iraq were handled. I offered my resignation to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions but was pressed by him and others to stay. I have been attacked from many different angles for that decision but I still think that, hard as it was, it was the right thing to do.

    The reason why I agreed to remain in the Government was that it was too late to put right the mistakes that had been made. I had throughout taken the view that it was necessary to be willing to contemplate the use of force to back up the authority of the UN. The regime was brutal, the people were suffering, our Attorney-General belatedly but very firmly said there was legal authority for the use of force, and because the official Opposition were voting with the Government, the conflict was unavoidable. There is no question about that. It had to carry.

    I decided that I should not weaken the Government at that time and should agree to the Prime Minister’s request to stay and lead the UK humanitarian and reconstruction effort. However, the problem now is that the mistakes that were made in the period leading up to the conflict are being repeated in the post-conflict situation. In particular, the UN mandate, which is necessary to bring into being a legitimate Iraqi Government, is not being supported by the UK Government. This, I believe, is damaging to Iraq’s prospects, will continue to undermine the authority of the UN and directly affects my work and responsibilities.

    The situation in Iraq under international law is that the coalition are occupying powers in occupied territory. Under the Geneva convention of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907, the coalition has clear responsibilities and clear limits to its authority. It is obliged to attend to the humanitarian needs of the population, to keep order – to keep order – and to keep civil administration operating. The coalition is legally entitled to modify the operation of the administration as much as is necessary to fulfil these obligations, but it is not entitled to make major political, economic and constitutional changes. The coalition does not have sovereign authority and has no authority to bring into being an interim Iraqi Government with such authority or to create a constitutional process leading to the election of a sovereign Government. The only body that has the legal authority to do this is the United Nations Security Council.

    I believe that it is the duty of all responsible political leaders right across the world – whatever view they took on the launch of the war – to focus on reuniting the international community in order to support the people of Iraq in rebuilding their country, to re-establish the authority of the UN and to heal the bitter divisions that preceded the war. I am sorry to say that the UK Government are not doing this. They are supporting the US in trying to bully the Security Council into a resolution that gives the coalition the power to establish an Iraqi Government and control the use of oil for reconstruction, with only a minor role for the UN.

    This resolution is unlikely to pass but, if it does, it will not create the best arrangements for the reconstruction of Iraq. The draft resolution risks continuing international divisions, Iraqi resentment against the occupying powers and the possibility that the coalition will get bogged down in Iraq.I believe that the UK should and could have respected the Attorney-General’s advice, told the US that this was a red line for us, and worked for international agreement to a proper, UN-led process to establish an interim Iraqi Government – just as was done in Afghanistan.

    I believe that this would have been an honourable and wise role for the UK and that the international community would have united around this position. It is also in the best interests of the United States. Both in both the run-up to the war and now, I think the UK is making grave errors in providing cover for US mistakes rather than helping an old friend, which is understandably hurt and angry after the events of 11 September, to honour international law and the authority of the UN. American power alone cannot make America safe. Of course, we must all unite to dismantle the terrorist networks, and, through the UN, the world is doing this. But undermining international law and the authority of the UN creates a risk of instability, bitterness and growing terrorism that will threaten the future for all of us.

    I am ashamed that the UK Government have agreed the resolution that has been tabled in New York and shocked by the secrecy and lack of consultation with Departments with direct responsibility for the issues referred to in the resolution. I am afraid that this resolution undermines all the commitments I have made in the House and elsewhere about how the reconstruction of Iraq will be organised. Clearly this makes my position impossible and I have no alternative than to resign from the Government.

    There will be time on other occasions to spell out the details of these arguments and to discuss the mistakes that were made preceding the conflict. But I hope that I have provided enough detail to indicate the seriousness of the issues at stake for the future of Iraq, the role of the UN, the unity of the international community and Britain’s place in the world.

    All this makes me very sad. I believe that the Government whom I have served since 1997 have a record of which all who share the values of the Labour Party can be proud. I also believe that the UK commitment to international development is crucial. The levels of poverty and inequality in a world rich in knowledge, technology and capital is the biggest moral issue the world faces and the biggest threat to the future safety and security of the world. We have achieved a lot, and taking a lead on development is a fine role for the UK. There is much left to do and I am very sorry to have been put in a position in which I am unable to continue that work.

    I do think, however, that the errors that we are making over Iraq and other recent initiatives flow not from Labour’s values, but from the style and organisation of our Government, which is undermining trust and straining party loyalty in a way that is completely unnecessary. In our first term, the problem was spin: endless announcements, exaggerations and manipulation of the media that undermined people’s respect for the Government and trust in what we said. It was accompanied by a control-freak style that has created many of the problems of excessive bureaucracy and centralised targets that are undermining the success of our public sector reforms.

    In the second term, the problem is the centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers who make decisions in private without proper discussion. It is increasingly clear, I am afraid, that the Cabinet has become, in Bagehot’s phrase, a dignified part of the constitution – joining the Privy Council. There is no real collective responsibility because there is no collective; just diktats in favour of increasingly badly thought through policy initiatives that come from on high.

    The consequences of that are serious. Expertise in our system lies in Departments. Those who dictate from the centre do not have full access to that expertise and do not consult. That leads to bad policy. In addition, under our constitutional arrangements, legal, political and financial responsibility flows through Secretaries of State to Parliament. Increasingly, those who are wielding power are not accountable and not scrutinised. Thus we have the powers of a presidential-type system with the automatic majority of a parliamentary system. My conclusion is that those arrangements are leading to increasingly poor policy initiatives being rammed through Parliament, which is straining and abusing party loyalty and undermining the people’s respect for our political system.

    Those attitudes are also causing increasing problems with reform of the public services. I do believe that after long years of financial cuts and decline, the public services need reform to improve the quality of services and the morale of public sector workers – the two being inextricably linked. We do not, however, need endless new initiatives, layers of bureaucratic accountability and diktats from the centre. We need clarity of purpose, decentralisation of authority and improved management of people. We need to treasure and honour the people who work in public service. As I found in my former Department, if public servants are given that framework, they work with dedication and pride and provide a service that, in the case of the Department for International Development, is known throughout the world as one of the finest development agencies in the international system. Those lessons could be applied in other parts of the public service.

    I have two final points. The first is for the Labour party and, especially, the parliamentary Labour party. As I have said, there is much that our Government have achieved that reflects Labour’s values and of which we can be very proud, but we are entering rockier times and we must work together to prevent our Government from departing from the best values of our party. To the Prime Minister, I would say that he has achieved great things since 1997 but, paradoxically, he is in danger of destroying his legacy as he becomes increasingly obsessed by his place in history.

    Finally, I am desperately sad to leave the Department for International Development. I apologise to those in the developing world who told me that I had a duty to stay. I shall continue to do all that I can to support the countries and institutions with which I have been working. It has been an enormous honour to lead the Department. It is a very fine organisation of which Britain can be proud. We have achieved a lot but there is much left to do, and I am sure that others will take it forward. I hope that the House and party will protect the Department from those who wish to weaken it.

  • Clare Short – 1999 Speech at Trade Union Congress Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Clare Short to the 1999 TUC Conference in Brighton on 16th September 1999.

    Congress, I am very pleased to be here today among so many old friends. Labour and trade unions have come a long way together, united by our shared commitment to social justice for all.

    And I am proud to be here today as part of a Labour Government, for which we waited so long, which has – whatever our impatience – those values of social justice at its core.

    Social justice at home – to undo years of growing inequality and poverty.

    And social justice abroad – working systematically to reduce the poverty of the world’s poorest people.

    My job – heading up our Government’s efforts to reduce global poverty -takes me to countries with large numbers of malnourished and illiterate people. These visits have caused me to reflect a great deal on the days when equally bad conditions were common in the UK.

    I recently read a new book about the history of council housing and urban renewal in Birmingham between 1849 and 1999, written by a local historian, Carl Chinnlie outlines how Britain was transformed from the early 1800s by the process of industrialisation. It was a period of great change. Young people moved in droves from the countryside to the towns. The era of deference to the land-owning class ended.

    Both the middle class and working class established a new sense of identity and a new politics. Both were creating wealth and wanted to benefit from it.

    But working people lived in squalid conditions. A report commissioned on Birmingham in 1849 recorded that people lived in tiny, cockroach infested, badly built houses made of dirt. Water came from polluted wells, streets were uncleaned, cesspits overflowed. Women struggled to keep their families clean hut disease was rife and life was short. Birmingham was not alone. In 1847, average life expectancy in Surrey was 45, in London 37, and in Liverpool just 26.

    The history of the British trade union movement and of the Labour Party is the history of Britain’s struggle, first for democracy and then for social justice. A struggle to ensure that the wealth created by industrialisation was fairly shared by all people and that education, healthcare, decent housing and a decent income was available to all.

    Clearly that job is not complete. Our Government is working to reduce child poverty and increase opportunity.

    But many people in the world today exist in poverty and squalor as bad as that of British people in the l850s. I have, for example, recently visited Sierra Leone, where average life expectancy is 35; Bolivia, where 70 per cent of people are malnourished; and India, where one third of the population of nearly one billion people lives in extreme poverty.

    The parallel between the 1850s and now is very striking. Today, globalisation is causing massive economic and social change. huge wealth is being created but we are also seeing an enormous growth in inequality, between countries and within countries.

    The challenge of our times is to ensure that the wealth and opportunity generated by globalisation is distributed equitably; and that we seize the opportunity for a rapid period of advance and a reduction in the suffering caused by poverty worldwide.

    In my view, this is both the biggest moral challenge our generation faces and also a growing challenge to our own interests. If we do not reduce poverty, the conflict, disease and environmental degradation to which it leads will damage the prospects of the next generation, wherever they live.

    The challenge before us is huge. One in four of the world’s population – that’s 1.3 billion people – lives on less than 60 pence a day, without adequate food, clean water, basic education or healthcare.

    It is easy to feel overwhelmed in the face of such poverty. But that would be the wrong response.

    In recent decades, much has been achieved. Life expectancy and literacy are increasing; infant and child mortality is declining. We now better understand what works in development and how to speed it up. But, because the world’s population has grown so fast, there are more poor people than ever before.

    Faster progress is now possible and necessary to prevent the constant growth of poverty.

    At the heart of this Government’s development policy is a commitment to the international development targets – targets for poverty reduction agreed by the world’s governments at the major United Nations conferences of the past decade.

    The main goal is to halve the proportion of the world’s population living in abject poverty by 2015. Associated targets include achieving universal primary education, basic healthcare and reproductive healthcare for all, and sustainable development plans in every country – also by 2015.

    These targets have not been plucked from the air. They build on progress already made. And the development committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which represents the most developed nations, believes they are achievable and affordable. But to achieve them we need to generate the necessary political will, and adopt the appropriate policies, nationally and internationally.

    Congress, what a wonderful opportunity this is! That within 20 years, we can have every child in the world in school, every human being with access to basic healthcare, every woman with the chance to control her own fertility. This Government is committed to using Britain’s influence to mobilise the international system behind these targets and the policies necessary to deliver them.

    Alter years of cuts to the aid budget under the previous government, we have reversed this trend. We have committed an extra £1.6 billion for development over three years.

    And we are improving the quality and poverty focus of our aid. Working in partnership with developing country governments that are serious about reducing poverty, upholding human rights and tackling corruption.

    But the new development agenda goes beyond providing aid. We must also ensure that the interests of the world’s poor are fully integrated into all areas of policy.

    Otherwise, aid is simply a charitable sop to make up for the disadvantages flowing from unfair trade and investment policies.

    Take debt relief. Britain has led the efforts to get international agreement on faster and deeper debt relief for many of the world’s poorest, most indebted countries.

    Progress was made at the Cologne G8 summit and I hope this will be finalised at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings later this month.

    We are also working for a comprehensive trade round that advances the interests of developing countries. This is in the interests of British workers too. We all benefit from the higher levels of growth and investment that result from reduced trade barriers. And we will all lose if the world retreats into protectionism. We cannot reduce poverty without economic growth which must also be sustainable and environmentally responsible. The poorest countries need improved trading opportunities to reduce poverty.

    We have also been very closely involved in reforming the global financial architecture. The Asian financial crisis showed that major reforms were necessary – to deal with the problems of short-term capital flows; and to reduce the risks of financial and economic instability spreading across the world. A lesson of that crisis was that the high levels of growth achieved in East Asia were not sustainable in an Indonesia that did not respect human rights or allow trade unions to organise; or in Korea and Thailand, where the relationship between banks and industry was unregulated and corrupt.

    Congress, this is a very large agenda. And much of it overlaps with your concerns.

    We are all operating in a new, very different world.

    I often say that globalisation is as big an historical shift as was the change from feudalism to industrialisation. That earlier shift remade the whole political and economic landscape of the world. It brought economic growth but unequal benefits.

    And it gave birth to the trade union movement.

    It was the trade unions who realised early on that industrialisation was here to stay – but that it must be managed.

    And so it is today. Global economic integration and interdependence is a reality. We cannot turn back the clock. Our common challenge is to manage the globalisation process equitably and sustainably. That is why my Department and I have been talking with the TUC and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, to strengthen our ability to work together on these issues, particularly core labour standards worldwide. We plan to publish a joint statement on how we take this forward in the next few months.

    Today, I want to highlight three areas where I think future dialogue and co-operation between us is essential to forge a real partnership for social justice and development.

    First, core labour standards. There are an estimated 250 million working children in developing countries. Most are trapped by the need to provide income for their desperately poor families. But many children are engaged in forced, exploited or dangerous employment which threatens their health and mental development.

    My Department is supporting a range of initiatives in this area, such as the programme to remove children from the football stitching industry in Sialkot, Pakistan. We are also working with Juan Somavia to strengthen the role of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in promoting core labour standards across the world.

    Your efforts, and those of trade unionists worldwide, helped to secure the unanimous adoption in June of a new ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour.

    We have much to do to implement this important advance. We must establish programmes to allow children to move out of work and into school, and create conditions in which parents are no longer dependent on their children’s income. There is much to learn from our own experience of eliminating child labour.

    Secondly, the link with business. Here in Britain, trade unions are increasingly working in partnership with employers – to bring real benefits to the workforce, the business and the health of the economy.

    But dialogue with employers can also help strengthen the rights of workers in developing countries. Take, for example, the Ethical Trading Initiative, which is supported by my Department. It brings together trade unions, business and nongovernmental organisations to examine supply chains in poorer countries against an agreed Code of Conduct, which includes key commitments on labour standards.

    You have a crucial role here. Your members are the bedrock of knowledge about employee and employer relationships. You have vital links with trade unions in other countries. And you have a mutual interest in protecting the poorest and ensuring that globalisation does not lead to a decline in labour standards that threatens the conditions of workers in industrialised countries.

    A third key area is what I call ‘reaching out to the poorest’. The world’s very poorest people are rarely in the organised workforce. Of course, trade unions have an interest in organising the unorganised. But, like us, you also have an interest in supporting pro-poor economic development. The best of international trade unionism is about speaking up for the poor and the oppressed, whether they are unionised or not. Evidence suggests that high levels of economic growth in very unequal societies have a limited effect on reducing poverty because the poor only gain in proportion to their original share. Where societies are less unequal, economic growth has a much greater impact on reducing poverty. This is familiar territory to the trade union movement and needs to be taken forward in the poorest countries, which tend to be the most unequal.

    We also know that development proceeds fastest where there is an active civil society; where people hold their governments to account, demand that they do better, speak out against corruption, urge faster progress. Just as you are instrumental in pushing for social reform in this country, so must trade unions increasingly be advocates of economic and social reform in developing countries.

    We are rightly proud of the trade unions’ role at the forefront of the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa. And in Zimbabwe today, trade unions are the only effective opposition to the excesses of the Government. Trade unions worldwide can take heart from these examples.

    Congress, throughout this century trade unions have been at the forefront of advancing social justice in Britain and in many countries across the world.

    The challenge for the new Millennium is to advance these principles of social justice in a new, more interdependent world. To bring real advances in human welfare for millions of working people and their families. Trade unions are central to this.

    Strengthening the voices of the poor and the exploited across the world, championing the reforms that will improve their conditions and life chances.

    I very much hope that in the next year we will forge a strengthened alliance to take forward this urgent and profoundly important agenda.

  • Clare Short – 1983 Maiden Speech in House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Clare Short in the House of Commons on 29th June 1983.

    I am grateful for this chance to make my first speech, as I prefer to call it, in this House. I intend to follow tradition and speak about my constituency. However, it is impossible for me to follow the tradition of not being controversial, for what is happening in my constituency encapsulates much of the harm done to many parts of the country by the policies of the Conservative Government.

    I wish first to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sheila Wright, who was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth in the last Parliament. I am the Member for Ladywood and a large part of Handsworth has come into my constituency. Sheila Wright worked with me when I was a candidate and she was a Member of Parliament. For a long time she supported and helped me in my work. She is a friend of many years. She worked for the people of Handsworth for five years as a Member of Parliament and, before that, for 25 years as a councillor. The best tribute I can pay to her is the one that was paid during the election campaign by many people in the area who spoke warmly of her, sent their regards to her and remembered all the help she had given to them and their families.

    It is a great honour for me to represent Ladywood in this House. It is an honour for all of us to represent our constituencies, but in my case there is an added honour in that I come from Ladywood. I was born there, grew up there, have many friends there and many members of my family live there. Therefore I care about my constituency with the intensity with which people care about the place from which they come. I make the pledge to my constituents that I shall work with all my ability and energy to represent and fight for their interests for as long as I am here.

    The people of Ladywood are suffering terribly from the Government’s policies. According to the census of April 1981, Ladywood has the sixteenth worst unemployment in the British Isles. The male rate of unemployment then was 25 per cent. Unemployment in the country has doubled since then, and the male unemployment rate in my constituency is now 50 per cent. For school leavers it is 95 per cent. People say cynically that it cannot get much worse than being nearly 100 per cent. It can, because the period of unemployment is getting longer all the time; young people leave school and go on a YOP scheme—now being replaced by the youth training scheme, which will be no better, and in many ways will be worse, than the scheme it is replacing—and are then unemployed for ever-lengthening periods.

    In Britain as a whole, two out of every three school leavers are unemployed, as are one in four of all under-20s and one in six under-25s. A whole generation is being blighted. Of the total unemployed, more than 1 million have been unemployed for one year or more and more than 500,000 for two years or more. They are living in grinding poverty, and the hopelessness they feel about their future is destructive and intolerable.

    Long-term unemployment is growing faster for young people than for any other group. Of the 1 million who have been out of work for one year or more, 250,000 are under 25, and they comprise the group for whom long-term unemployment is growing fastest. That is damaging to the future of the nation. When we damage our youth, we damage ourselves.

    Half the population of Ladywood is black and half is white, and we are nearly all immigrants. I am a child of Irish immigrants. The white community is made up of immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and many other parts of Britain who came to Birmingham in more prosperous days to seek a better life for themselves and their children.

    The black population similarly came, more recently, from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean for exactly the same purpose. We are the same sort of people. We sought out our homes in the west midlands because we wanted to better our lives and those of our families.

    Now, everything they hoped for and came to the west midlands to achieve is being snatched from them as a result of the collapse of the west midlands in the recent past. In the 1930s the west midlands escaped much of the suffering that went on in Britain. Today the west midlands symbolises the destruction that is being done to the British economy by Conservative policies.

    We were told by the Prime Minister yesterday that recovery is patchy. Indeed it is; there are no signs of recovery in my constituency. As has happened in many other areas since the election, another major closure has been announced and unemployment is rising. It is not true to say that this amount of unemployment, misery and suffering is creating anything good. Nothing is coming out of it except pure destructiveness, and that is not only intolerable but stupid. It is said that productivity is going up. In fact, the less efficient firms are closing down; inevitably productivity goes up, but nothing new is created.

    Investment is at an all-time low. That means that we are laying down nothing new for the future. We cannot secure a recovery and a better future without investment and that investment is not taking place. The money that is available is flowing out of Britain to invest in other countries. We have North Sea oil—we are lucky to have it—but it is being wasted. I understand that £17 billion a year is being poured down the drain merely to keep people unemployed. These people want to work. They want to be productive and we must recognise that a large part of the nation’s wealth is our people and their capacity to produce. We are arranging things in such a way that they cannot produce. We are damaging them and ourselves.

    During the election campaign I was asked repeatedly, “Why are the Government doing this to us?” The people in the west midlands see clearly that there is destruction everywhere and that nothing new is replacing it. They said, “It is claimed that the Government’s policies are designed to reduce inflation but when we had inflation we all had incomes, our incomes increased and we lived better. We now have nothing and we still have inflation.” There are two rates of inflation in Britain and the one for the poor— for those who live in council houses, for example—is still increasing. Nothing is coming out of the Government’s policies.

    The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the former Secretary of State for Transport, said that we must get rid of inflation to create jobs, but that is not true. Inflation has been decreasing and more jobs have been destroyed. We have seen that happen in the recent past and we know that we are not creating jobs. The policy is not working.

    In answer to the question that was put to me by my constituents, I explained, “We have an extremist and dogmatic Government who are deliberately using unemployment” — that is what monetarism is — “to reshape our society. They are using unemployment to frighten workers, destroy trade unions and cut wages. They have a vision of a more unequal society, a more competitive society. They say that from that will come more efficiency and, therefore, more economic prosperity.”

    The people of Ladywood, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I reject the Government’s policies. We do not want the future that they hold before us. It is not acceptable to us and, what is more, it is not even working.

    We frequently hear the excuse that the problem in Britain is the problem of the international economy, over which we have no control. It is clear from OECD figures and American Bureau of Labour statistics that unemployment in Britain has increased massively faster than in any other industrialised country. Britain led the world into recession, but an international recession is made up of individual national recessions. If in turn we each throw our economies into recession, we shall have, of course, a great international recession. We started it and similar policies to ours have been pursued in the United States of America.

    We can now start to undo the recession. We can work with international partners to change the world economy. There should be no excuse there. There can be jobs for all, and it is our duty and obligation to organise our society in such a way that everyone can work, make a contribution and get a decent income. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

    There are nine old people’s homes in my constituency, and I visited them all during the election campaign. They are all desperately short of staff. There are nine old people’s homes in a sea of unemployment. People are queuing for jobs all around them, but those responsible for running the homes are not allowed to employ more staff to take care of the elderly. That is the result of public expenditure cuts. Pretence is made that cuts in public expenditure are cuts in bureaucrats but that is not so. The cuts lead to reductions in the staff who can care for the elderly and the very young. It is disgraceful and unnecessary.

    The great sadness for the people of Ladywood is that they see what is going on in the knowledge that they have rejected it. However, they must continue to suffer because it seems that the rest of the country has to learn the hard way. The Government’s policies are not beneficial to any of us.

    Racial equality is important to the people of Ladywood. As I have said, half of my constituents are black and half are white. However, we are united in our need for jobs, decent schools for our children, decent housing and proper health care. We need to respect one another. We must respect all the various racial groups in our society and we must work alongside one another, or it will not be a good place in which to live and work.

    The black community in Ladywood has been undermined and hurt badly by the Government’s actions. The Nationality Act 1982, which was placed on the statute book in the previous Parliament, has made the black community feel insecure and unwanted. That includes the generation which came as immigrants and the generation that is growing up that was born in Britain. These people must be made welcome and be part of our society, or it will be dangerous for us all.

    Black people, especially those who originated from the Indian subcontinent, are harassed constantly by disgraceful immigration procedures. Many of them have approached me already to make representations. There are families which want to look after their aging parents and which can afford to do so. They have a house and they want to care for them. However, we do not allow Asian families settled here and which are prosperous to look after their aging parents.

    I am making representations to the Minister of State, Home Office about a case which encapsulates all that is wrong with our immigration procedures. It concerns an old man who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and the colonies. He fought for Britain in the first and second world wars. He was made a prisoner of war by the Japanese. He has come to Britain and has been refused entry. He is here on temporary admission while I make representations. That old man is shocked and astounded that the country that he respected, honoured, worked for and fought for will not allow him to come in as a visitor. That is what has been done to a large part of the population in my constituency and it is not good enough. It is not the behaviour of a civilised society and we can do better than that.

    I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion in a form that will reflect part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who was the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government. The Government must not think that their increased majority means that they have a mandate for their policies. They were given a smaller vote than that which the previous Government secured in 1979. They did not win a great victory in areas such as Ladywood, where more than 50 per cent. of the people are opposed to them. The intensity of that opposition is great. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Government are hated in my constituency, especially their leadership. People hate them with vigour. This is divisive, destructive and damaging to our society. If there are not changes, I fear for us all.