Tag: Speeches

  • Alex Salmond – 2011 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    alexsalmond

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, on 22nd October 2011.

    Firstly Scotland has many friends internationally. People cheering us on and wanting us to do well.  That international reach is a great asset for this country.

    Secondly climate change is perhaps the greatest issue facing this planet. The responsibility of the Scottish Parliament for it is almost accidental. It wasn’t even on the agenda back in 1997 and therefore wasn’t specified as reserved in the Scotland Act. As a result it was devolved.

    So given that by international acclaim we have handled this mighty issue so well as a parliament, what possible argument could there be that the Scottish Parliament is not capable of discharging ALL of the issues facing the Scottish people.

    I also wanted to say a word about Scotland’s late national poet Eddie Morgan. A man whose modesty as an individual was matched by his brilliance as a poet. He didn’t wear his politics on  his sleeve but he has left this party a financial legacy which is transformational in its scope, and Angus Robertson will spell that out tomorrow..

    However his real legacy is to the world in his body of work.

    Eddie Morgan once told our Parliament:

    “We give you our deepest dearest wish to govern well, don’t say we have no mandate to be so bold.”

    Delegates by your applause let us salute our Makar Edwin Morgan.

    When I was cutting my teeth in politics in West Lothian the late Billy Wolfe once told me that the SNP stood for two things – independence for Scotland and home rule for Bo’ness!

    In reality the SNP does stand for two fundamental aims – and these are enshrined in our constitution – independence for Scotland and also the furtherance of all Scottish interests.

    These are our guiding lights and they are equally important because they reflect the reality that our politics are not just constitutional but also people based.

    I tried to reflect this on election night when these self same people, the community of the realm of Scotland presented to us the greatest ever mandate of the devolution era – an absolute majority in a PR system – a system specifically designed to prevent such a thing ever happening

    Mind you it was designed by the Labour Party so we should not be too surprised  that their cunning plan didn’t  work.

    “The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ Lord George Robertson gang aft agley.”

    What I said on election night was that after almost 80 years we had lived up to the name of one of our founding parties – east, west , south and north.

    WE ARE NOW THE NATIONAL PARTY OF SCOTLAND

    It is a good phrase “the community of the realm”. It was developed in mediaeval Scotland to describe a concept of community identity which was beyond sectional interest.

    The best Scots term for it would be the common weal.

    It does not ignore the fact that sometimes as a Government we have to take sides within Scotland, as well as taking Scotland’s side.Particularly when times are tough we have to ask the rich to help the poor, the strong to help the weak, the powerful to help the powerless.

    But we do so in pursuit of the common weal, the community of the realm.

    We love Scotland but we don’t believe our country is perfect. We seek to make it better.

    We know that in building the new Scotland we must confront our demons from the past like sectarianism and our problems from the present like the abuse of alcohol.

    Some people say tackling these things is unpopular. But the election  told us that the people respect and understand that sometimes it takes guts to govern.

    But we shall always govern for that common weal..

    We govern – we have governed – wisely and will continue to do so.

    We have sheltered the community from the economic storms in so far as it is in our power to do so.

    Our people – our community – face a hugely difficult position – a squeeze between falling incomes and rising prices.

    To help family budgets we have frozen the council tax for FOUR years and will continue to freeze it through this coming parliament.

    Labour say we shouldn’t do this. Really!  And then we would have the same 60 per cent rises as when they were in power. A Council tax rise of £680  for a band D property.

    To help family budgets we have held down water rates.

    The Liberals say that we should privatise water. Really!  And then we would have been  as powerless to act on water bills as they are right now on energy bills.

    To help family budgets we have abolished prescription charges.

    The Tories say we shouldn’t  do this. Really! Tell that to the 600,000 Scots on incomes of only £16,000 who were forced to pay for their medicine.

    Every household bill which is under our influence, we have tried to control.

    Every household bill under UK influence is out of control.

    In Scotland we have a prices and incomes policy.

    In England the Tories control incomes – except of course in the boardroom- but not prices.

    None of these things- the freeze on the Council Tax, the ending of prescription charges, the stability of water bills, are easy.

    They are all difficult.

    BUT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ONLY PARTY AND THE ONLY GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTING TO HOLD DOWN HOUSEHOLD BILLS IS THE SNP GOVERNMENT.

    The unionist parties have lost touch with the people.

    Labour and Tories are parties without a leader. The Liberals have a leader without a party.

    We govern well. They oppose badly.

    IN THE ELECTION THE PEOPLE DECIDED THAT LABOUR WERE NOT FIT FOR GOVERNMENT. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE NOT FIT FOR OPPOSITION.

    Governing well makes a real difference to real people.

    Back in 2007 we said we would put 1000 extra police on the streets and communities of Scotland. Labour said it couldn’t be done.

    But it has been done.

    And the result has been a 35 year low in recorded crime in Scotland. I’ll just repeat that.

    Recorded crime in Scotland is at its lowest since 1976 when Jimmy Carter was elected President of the United States and Jimmy Saville was presenting Top of The Pops.

    Earlier this week a poll showed that peoples FEAR of crime in Scotland was running at almost HALF of the level in the rest of the United Kingdom – 28 per cent against 48 per cent.

    Much of that success is down to the  extra police officers.

    We are the SNP. We believe in freedom.

    But the freedom of people from the fear of being mugged or robbed is a key objective of this Government and the 1000 extra police in the communities of Scotland is a substantial part of achieving that objective.

    LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE. OUR REFORM OF THE POLICE SERVICE IS ABOUT PROTECTING THE FRONT LINE SO THAT THE FRONT LINE CAN PROTECT THE PUBLIC.

    Right now our focus is on jobs and the economy.

    John Swinney and his team spend every waking minute seeking to encourage our own businesses to grow and to attract new companies to Scotland.

    We have the most competitive business tax regime in these islands.

    80,000 small businesses either pay no business rates or have a substantial discount.

    We know, as they do, that their success holds the key to job creation. We will continue to offer that crucial incentive throughout this Parliament.

    LET US BE CLEAR. THE SMALL BUSINESS BONUS STAYS IN SNP RUN SCOTLAND.

    In the last few months a procession of major international companies have chosen Scotland as the place to conduct their business.

    From Amazon, Mitsubishi, Doosan, Gamesa, Vion, Avaloq the message has been the same – Scotland has the people and the resources to allow them to conduct their international operations from a Scottish base.

    And what have the UK Government been concentrating on while we focus on jobs and investment?

    They have formed a Cabinet sub Committee to attack Scottish independence.

    Let’s get this right. Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Alexander sit in a committee working out how to do down Scotland and they engage in this while the European Monetary system teeters on the brink of collapse, while the jobless total in England is at a 20 year high and inflation more than double its target.

    And these politicians wonder why they carry no confidence among the people of England never mind the people of Scotland.

    OUR MESSAGE TO THIS QUAD OF MINISTERS: STOP ATTACKING SCOTTISH ASPIRATIONS AND START SUPPORTING ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

    We need more capital investment not less, finance for companies and price and job security for the people.

    And what is their grand strategy to restore their flagging political fortunes?  To have more Ministerial day trips to Scotland.

    *CONFERENCE EVERY TORY MINISTER WHO COMES NORTH PUTS ANOTHER 1000 VOTES TOWARDS THE NATIONAL CAUSE.

    Of course these visits to Scotland are selective. Very selective.

    Last week the Prime Minister came to Scotland to hail the billions of investment in the new oil and gas fields off the western approaches.

    However there was no sign of a Prime Ministerial visit this week when his Government betrayed the future of Longannet.

    Over £13 billion from Scotland’s oil and gas in the course of this year but not even a tenth of that to secure the future of the clean coal industry in Scotland.

    Not even one tenth of one year of oil and gas revenues to secure a world lead in planet saving technology.

    MR CAMERON HOW LITTLE YOU UNDERSTAND SCOTLAND

    When he was making the BP announcement David Cameron claimed his geography teacher at Eton had told him that all the oil would be gone by the turn of the century.

    The Prime Minister’s memory is faulty. It wasn’t his geography teacher. It was successive Labour and Tory Governments.

    Like Margaret Thatcher’s Energy Minister who claimed oil was declining in 1980!

    Now the cat is well and truly out of the bag and we know that oil and gas will be extracted from the waters around Scotland for at least the next 40 years.

    Can I therefore put forward this simple proposition.

    After 40 years of oil and gas Westminster had coined in some £300 billion from Scottish water – around £60,000 for every man women and child in the country.

    The Tories’ own  Office of Budget Responsibility figures suggest another  £230 billion of oil revenues over the next 30 years – and that was before the latest announcements.

    LONDON HAS HAD ITS TURN OUT OF SCOTTISH OIL AND GAS.

    LET THE NEXT 40 YEARS BE FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND.

    Scotland has the greatest array of energy resources in Europe. Oil, gas, hydro, wave, wind and tidal power and clean coal..

    On Thursday I went to Nigg to announce the redevelopment of that great fabrication site. Once again thousands of jobs can be developed there as marine engineering comes alive in the Highlands.

    Today I am announcing a further important development on our journey to lead the world in wave and tidal power.

    A new £18 million Fund to support marine energy commercialisation.

    This will support the deployment of the first commercial marine arrays and the scaling up of the devices currently on test in Scottish waters.

    And this is part of a £35 million investment over the next three years which will support testing, technology, infrastructure and deployment.

    TODAY SCOTLAND IS LEADING THE RACE TO DEVELOP OFFSHORE RENEWABLES.

    WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT, OUR NATION IS MOVING UP ANOTHER GEAR.

    THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR. IN MARINE ENERGY  SCOTLAND RULES THE WAVES.

    Conference, right now some two thirds of wave and tidal projects in Europe are in Scottish waters. That will soon be three-quarters. The announcement by Kawasaki Heavy Industries on Thursday of their intention to test in the Orkney Islands   underlines the international impact that Scotland is now making.

    And as we develop wave and tidal commercially in our waters then we will export that technology across the planet.

    Our objective in wave and tidal power is to have not just demonstration projects but hundreds of mega watts of electricity by 2020 -enough to power  half a million Scottish homes.

    The green re-industrialisation of the coastline of Scotland is central to our vision of the future.

    And the jobs impact will be felt from Machrihanish, to the Clyde, to Leith, to Methil to Dundee to Aberdeen and the North East ports to the Moray Firth, to Nigg and the Highlands, from Orkney waters to Arnish in the Western Isles.

    Onshore wind power has one serious drawback. And that is, only little of the fabrication is home based.

    Despite the fact that the first modern wind turbine was demonstrated in Marykirk Aberdeenshire  in 1887 the technology of the onshore industry was exported to Denmark and Germany more than a generation ago.

    However we can do something about our offshore renewable opportunity.

    Our objective is that Scotland will design, engineer, fabricate, install and maintain the great new machines which will dominate the energy provision of this coming century.

    THAT IS OUR VISION FOR SCOTLAND AND WE SHALL GET THERE.

    And in doing so we will create jobs and opportunity and hope for young people of Scotland.

    It is the inescapable responsibility of this Government and indeed of every adult Scot to help  tackle the scourge of youth unemployment.

    Employment among Scottish youngsters is almost five per cent higher than elsewhere in these islands. We have a near record of school leavers going on to positive destinations of a job, apprenticeship or full time education.

    However this is not enough. Youth unemployment is still far too high.

    So this is what we are doing and this is what we shall do.

    First apprenticeships. There will be 25,000 modern apprenticeships in Scotland – 60 per cent more than when we took office -not just this year but every year – and in Scotland remember every single youngster on a modern apprenticeship is in a job.

    Secondly every major contract or grant from Government will now have an apprenticeship or training plan attached to it. For example when Vion chose Broxburn as their centre of excellence for food production there were 50 modern apprenticeships among the new jobs.

    Thirdly every single youngster who is not in a job or full time education or an apprenticeship will be offered a training opportunity. That is every single 16-19 year old under Opportunities For All.

    Fourthly we shall ensure that university and college education remains free to Scottish students. We now have more world-class universities per head than any other nation on the face of this planet.

    AND THANKS TO THIS PARTY THAT OPPORTUNITY WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE TO YOUNG SCOTS ON THE BASIS OF THE ABILITY TO LEARN NOT THE ABILITY TO PAY.

    AND TODAY I AM ANNOUNCING A FURTHER MOVE. COMPANIES IN ENERGY SECTOR ARE REPORTING SKILL SHORTAGES. THEREFORE OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS WE ARE DELIVERING 2,000 MODERN APPRENTICESHIPS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ENERGY INDUSTRIES.

    HOWEVER WE WILL ALSO NOW PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 1,000 FLEXIBLE TRAINING PLACES FOR ENERGY AND LOW CARBON.

    REAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR YOUNGSTERS IN THE SECTORS WHICH WILL SHAPE THE INDUSTRIAL FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.

    We cannot wipe every tear from every cheek but we can try. And everything we do will reflect the common weal of Scotland.

    The best way to get people back into work is through capital investment. That is why John Swinney has diverted funds to sustain economic recovery.

    That is why we have created the Scottish Futures Trust to gain value for money. Major contracts sponsored by the Scottish Government are now delivered on time and on budget.

    And this gives me the opportunity to make a further announcement today.

    Two years ago we set out plans for a new school building programme in Scotland.

    Led by the Scottish Futures Trust, our investment was to deliver 55 new schools.

    Already 37 schools have been committed in the first two phases.

    Conference, the Scottish Futures Trust has levelled the playing field in public sector construction contracts. We have sunk the PFI and replaced it with value for money programmes.

    THAT ACTION HAS ALLOWED US TO DELIVER OVER 3O0 NEW OR REFURBISHED SCHOOLS IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

    AND THAT’S WHY TODAY I AM ABLE TO TELL YOU THAT THE NEXT PHASE OF OUR NEW SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAMME WILL BE ABLE TO DELIVER 30 NEW SCHOOLS ACROSS OUR NATION.

    A DOZEN MORE THAN PREVIOUSLY PLANNED.

    PROVIDING A FURTHER 15,000 PUPILS WITH 21ST CENTURY LEARNING FACILITIES

    DELEGATES IN THE FACE OF WESTMINSTER CUTBACKS THE £2.5 BILLION NON PROFIT DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMME IS CRUCIAL TO ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

    NONE OF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IF WE HAD ALLOWED THE PFI  RIP OFF TO CONTINUE.

    THAT IS WHAT GOOD GOVERNMENT IS ALL ABOUT.

    We face a winter in this energy rich country of ours where people will be frightened to turn on their heating.

    Fuel poverty amid energy plenty. What a miserable, disgraceful Wesminster legacy for our energy rich nation.

    Fuel poverty amid energy plenty. If there ever was an argument for taking control of our own resources then this must be it.

    The Prime Ministers fuel summit was little more than hot air. We don’t control the energy markets but we can and will do something to help.

    WE ALREADY HAVE THE BEST HEATING INITIATIVE IN THESE ISLANDS

    WE HAVE INVESTED ADDITIONAL FUNDS THIS YEAR TO MAKE WHAT IS GOOD, EVEN BETTER

    WE’VE EXPANDED OUR ENERGY ASSISTANCE PACKAGE TO INCLUDE THOUSANDS OF SCOTTISH CARERS.

    AND CONFERENCE, BY 2015 THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT WILL INCREASE OUR FUEL POVERTY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUDGET BY ONE THIRD.

    BECAUSE OF THIS INVESTMENT I AM ABLE TO MAKE A FURTHER ANNOUNCEMENT.

    A FEW MOMENTS AGO YOU HEARD PREMIER RANN OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA  PRAISING OUR OFFER OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES TO HALF A MILION SCOTTISH HOUSEHOLDS.

    I CAN NOW TELL YOU THAT BY APRIL OF NEXT YEAR THAT 500,000 WILL BECOME 700,000.

    ENSURING 200,000 MORE SCOTTISH FAMILIES GET THE HELP THEY NEED TO HEAT THEIR HOMES IN THIS ENERGY RICH COUNTRY.

    Delegates –

    On the way to Inverness I noticed an outdoor company called ‘naelimits’. No limits is a beautiful idea, and somehow it carries more punch in Scots.

    Nae limits to your ambition, your courage, your journey.

    Nae limits sums up the spirit of freedom which many of us take from our magnificent landscape, and which we wish for our society and politics.

    This same spirit was reflected in the words of  Charles Stewart Parnell:

    “No man has the right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has the right to say to his country, ‘Thus far shall thou go and no further’.”

    No politician, and certainly no London politician, will determine the future of the Scottish nation.

    Mr Cameron should hear this loud and clear.

    The people of Scotland – the sovereign people of Scotland – are now in the driving seat.

    Twenty years ago when Scotland faced a previous Tory Government a cross party group drew up a Claim of Right for Scotland. This is what it said.

    “We do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.”

    Twenty years ago we demonstrated for that right in front of an open topped bus in the Meadows in Edinburgh.

    But we had no Parliament then.

    But we have now, and next month I will ask Scotland’s Parliament to endorse anew Scotland’s Claim of Right.

    The point is a simple one.

    THE DAYS OF WESTMINSTER POLITICIANS TELLING SCOTLAND WHAT TO DO OR WHAT TO THINK ARE OVER. THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE WILL SET THE AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE.

    Robert Kennedy once said, ‘the future is not a gift, it is an achievement’.

    That is true for Scotland as for any nation. Our future will be what we make it.

    The Scotland Bill isn’t even enacted yet it lies in the past. Unloved, uninspiring, not even understood by its own proponents.

    The UK Government haven’t even gone through the motions of considering the views of the Scottish Government, the Scottish people, the last Scottish Parliament Committee, the current Scottish Parliament Committee -total negativity to even the most reasonable proposal to strengthen the Bill’s job creating  powers.

    THE RESPECT AGENDA LIES DEAD IN THEIR THROATS.

    This is Westminster’s agenda of disrespect – not of disrespect to the SNP but of fundamental disrespect for Scotland.

    The Tories and their Liberal frontmen have even taken to call themselves Scotland’s other Government. A Tory Scottish Government?

    If Murdo Fraser thought such a notion was conceivable then he would’t be trying to disband the Party!

    In contrast fiscal responsibility, financial freedom, real economic powers is a legitimate proposal. It could allow us to control our own resources, introduce competitive business tax, and fair personal taxation.

    All good, all necessary but not good enough.

    Delegates even with economic powers Trident nuclear missiles would still be on the River Clyde, we could still be forced to spill blood in illegal wars like Iraq, and Scotland would still be excluded from the Councils of Europe and the world.

    THESE THINGS ONLY INDEPENDENCE CAN BRING WHICH IS WHY THIS PARTY WILL CAMPAIGN FULL SQUARE FOR INDEPENDENCE IN THE COMING REFERENDUM

    We have the talent, resources and ingenuity . The only limitations are our imagination and our ambition. So give Scotland the tools, put the people of Scotland in charge and see our nation flourish as never before.

    Let us a build a nation that reflects the values of our people.

    With a social contract – and a social conscience – at the very heart of our success.

    The society, the country, that Scotland desires, that Scotland believes in – it is not a country or a future on offer from the Tory government down south.

    Even that one institution which really made Britain great – the National Health Service,  – is being dismantled in England.

    THE TORIES CALL IT A BIG SOCIETY

    I CALL IT NO SOCIETY AT ALL

    Remember the founding principles.

    We are committed to winning Independence for Scotland.

    And we are pledged to the furtherance of all Scottish interests.

    Both are in our DNA.

    It is who we are and what we are for.

    They are what makes us Scotland’s National Party.

    And it is more than a name – it is an attitude.

    Over these past three days, at this conference, I have seen that passion and belief in action.

    We are a party with a mission, because we know Scotland’s cause is great and we know Scotland’s need is great.

    Let us be strong.

    Let us have our own debate about our own  future on the timescale which was endorsed by the people in May.

    And let us decide it in a proper fashion.

    Our task is to work – to convince the people of this nation that we can do better.

    To work at building a society which is not simply better than today’s, but a beacon of justice and fairness to the world.

    All these things will come from hard work, from toil and from sweat.

    Look around you, look at where we stand.

    And tell me this was easy – it was not.

    This was eighty years of hard work.

    We stand where we do because of generations before us, because of party workers and campaigners who never saw this day.

    And we shall prevail – because we share a vision.

    A vision of a land without boundaries.

    Of a people unshackled from low ambition and poor chances.

    Of a society unlimited in its efforts to be fair and free.

    Of a Scotland unbound.

    Nae limits for Scotland.

  • Alex Salmond – 2011 Acceptance Speech to the Scottish Parliament

    alexsalmond

    Below is the text made by the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, on 18th May 2011.

    When Donald Dewar addressed this parliament in 1999, he evoked Scotland’s diverse voices:

    The speak of the Mearns.

    The shout of the welder above the din of the Clyde shipyard.

    The battle cries of Bruce and Wallace.

    Now these voices of the past are joined in this chamber by the sound of 21st century Scotland.

    The lyrical Italian of Marco Biagi.

    The formal Urdu of Humza Yousaf.

    The sacred Arabic of Hanzala Malik.

    We are proud to have those languages spoken here alongside English, Gaelic, Scots and Doric.

    This land is their land, from the sparkling sands of the islands to the glittering granite of its cities.

    It belongs to all who choose to call it home.

    That includes new Scots who have escaped persecution or conflict in Africa or the Middle East.

    In means Scots whose forebears fled famine in Ireland and elsewhere.

    That is who belongs here but let us be clear also about what does not belong here.

    As the song tells us for Scotland to flourish then “Let us be rid of those bigots and fools. Who will not let Scotland, live and let live.”

    Our new Scotland is built on the old custom of hospitality.

    We offer a hand that is open to all, whether they hail from England, Ireland, Pakistan or Poland.

    Modern Scotland is also built on equality. We will not tolerate sectarianism as a parasite in our national game of football or anywhere else in this society.

    Scotland’s strength has always lain in its diversity. In the poem Scotland Small, Hugh MacDiarmid challenged those who would diminish us with stereotypes.

    Scotland small? he asked.

    Our multiform, our infinite Scotland, small?

    Only as a patch of hillside may be a cliche corner.

    To a fool who cries “Nothing but heather!

    The point is even the smallest patch of hillside contains enormous variation – of bluebells, blaeberries and mosses.

    “So to describe Scotland as nothing but heather is, said MacDiarmid.” Marvellously descriptive!

    “And totally incomplete!”

    To describe Scotland as small is similarly misleading.

    Scotland is not small.

    It is not small in imagination and it is not short in ambition.

    It is infinite in diversity and alive with possibility.

    Two weeks ago the voters of Scotland embraced that possibility.

    They like what their parliament has done within the devolved settlement negotiated by Donald Dewar.

    They like what the first, minority SNP government achieved.

    Now they want more.

    They want Scotland to have the economic levers to prosper in this century.

    They are excited by the opportunity to re-industrialise our country through marine renewable energy, offering skilled, satisfying work to our school leavers and graduates alike.

    But they also know we need the tools to do the job properly.

    This chamber understands that too.

    My message today is let us act as one and demand Scotland’s right. Let us build a better future for our young people by gaining the powers we need to speed recovery and create jobs.

    Let us wipe away past equivocation and ensure that the present Scotland Act is worthy of its name.

    There is actually a great deal on which we are agreed. The three economic changes I have already promoted to The Scotland Bill were chosen from our manifesto because they command support from other parties in this chamber.

    All sides of this parliament support the need for additional and immediate capital borrowing powers so we can invest in our infrastructure and grow our economy. I am very hopeful that this will be delivered.

    The Liberal Democrats, Greens and many in the Labour party agree that Crown Estate revenues should be repatriated to Scottish communities. We await Westminster’s reply.

    Our leading job creators back this Government’s call for control of corporation tax to be included in The Scotland Bill. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland – a Conservative – supports the devolution of this tax – and the cross party committee of this last parliament agreed unanimously that if the principle was conceded in Northern Ireland then Scotland must have the same right.

    But these are not the only issues which carry support across this chamber. There are three more constitutional changes we might agree on.

    Why not give us control of our own excise duty. We have a mandate to implement a minimum price for alcohol. We intend to pursue that in this parliament come what may.

    However our Labour colleagues agree that it is correct to set a minimum price for alcohol, but they were concerned about where the revenues would go.

    Gaining control of excise would answer that question. It means we can tackle our country’s alcohol problem and invest any additional revenue in public services.

    So I ask Labour members to join with me in calling for control of alcohol taxes so that we together we can face down Scotland’s issue with booze.

    Another key aspect of our national life controlled by Westminster is broadcasting. All of Scotland is poorly served as a result.

    If we had some influence over this currently reserved area we could, for example, create a Scottish digital channel – something all the parties in this parliament supported as long ago as the 8 October 2008.

    We agree that such a platform would promote our artistic talent and hold up a mirror to the nation.

    How Scotland promotes itself to the world is important.

    How we talk to each other is also critical.

    These are exciting times for our country. We need more space for our cultural riches and for lively and intelligent discourse about the nation we are and the nation we aspire to be.

    Finally, many of us agree that, in this globalised era, Scotland needs more influence in the European Union and particularly in the Council of Ministers.

    At the moment that is in the gift of Westminster.

    Sometimes it is forthcoming, more often it is withheld.

    We in the Scottish National Party argue for full sovereignty – it will give us an equal, independent voice in the EU.

    However, short of that, the Scotland Bill could be changed to improve our position. When the first Scotland Act was debated in Westminster in 1998, there was a proposal, as I remember, from the Liberal Democrats, to include a mechanism to give Scotland more power to influence UK European policy. It was defeated then but why not revisit it now. Let Scotland have a guaranteed say in the forums where decisions are made that shape our industries and our laws.

    I have outlined six areas of potential common ground where there is agreement across the parliament to a greater or lesser extent: borrowing powers, corporation tax, the crown estate, excise duties, digital broadcasting and a stronger say in European policy.

    I think we should seize the moment and act together to bring these powers back home. Let this parliament move forward as one to make Scotland better.

    Norman MacCaig observed that when you swish your hand in a stream, the waters are muddied, but then they settle all the clearer.

    On May 5th the people of our country swished up the stream and now the way ahead is becoming clear.

    We see our nation emerge from the glaur of self-doubt and negativity.

    A change is coming, and the people are ready.

    They put ambition ahead of hesitation.

    The process is not about endings.

    It is about beginnings.

    Whatever changes take place in our constitution, we will remain close to our neighbours.

    We will continue to share a landmass, a language and a wealth of experience and history with the other peoples of these islands.

    My dearest wish is to see the countries of Scotland and England stand together as equals.

    There is a difference between partnership and subordination.

    The first encourages mutual respect. The second breeds resentment.

    So let me finish with the words of Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who addressed this parliament in 1706, before it was adjourned for three hundred years.

    He observed that: “All nations are dependent; the one upon the many.” This much we know.

    But he warned that if “the greater must always swallow the lesser,” we are all diminished.

    His fears were realised in 1707.

    But the age of empires is over. Now we determine our own future based on our own needs. We know our worth and should take pride in it.

    So let us heed the words of Saltoun and:

    “Go forward into the community of nations to lend our own, independent weight to the world.”

  • Alex Salmond – 2005 SNP Conference Speech

    alexsalmond

    Below is the text of the speech made by the leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, to the 2005 SNP Conference.

    Delegates, There are many reasons why I am going to miss having Winnie as our Party President but one of them is her introductions to my speeches at Conference. I never know quite what she is going to say. No, I never know at all what she is going to say. However, I am delighted that she is in the Chair today because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding Scottish politician of her generation.

    Let us consider just two of the phrases which Winnie has carved into the lexicon of Scottish politics “Stop the world Scotland wants to get on” and “this Parliament adjourned in 1707 is hereby reconvened.” Winnie you changed Scotland’s world in 1967. And without you, there never would have been any Parliament of any kind to be reconvened.

    At this Conference, we pay you tribute and you have the thanks not just of every single delegate but of ever single person who cares about Scotland. And what does Winnie intend to do in her retirement? Well I happen to know that her first plans for her well earned relaxation – are a few days campaigning in Cathcart and Livingston. And I will be proud and happy to be campaigning along with her as I know every single one of us in this hall will do.

    Delegates the cat is out of the bag. I have been reading “A Spin Doctors Diary” by Lance Price. It lifts the veil on behind the scenes at Downing Street. It should have been called “Confessions of a Spin Doctor” – just like a blue movie. Some of it is absurd – sex on the sofa at No 10. Come on.

    However, apparently even the air turns blue in Downing Street. Our great Prime Minister re-acts to the prospect of defeat in Wales by swearing at the Welsh nation – just think what he might be saying about us come next Friday. It gives a blow-by-blow account of the backbiting, the tantrums and the squabbles at the heart of the Blair nexus.

    He is depicted not just at swearing at Wales but about Scotland’s late Cardinal, Thomas Winning – someone whose boots Mr Blair was not fit to lace, not to mention insulting Donald Dewar. The Prime Minister emerges from the account as a posturing popinjay – totally unfit for office.

    But let us take just one matter arising, which illustrates how dirty the game is played in Blair’s Britain. Lord Birt is now a personal special adviser to the Prime Minister – responsible would you believe for “Blue Sky Thinking.” These diaries reveal that when Director General of the BBC he plotted with Downing Street to stop the Scottish 6, to stop Scotland getting its own full-scale news bulletin.

    We know this to be true since Lord Birt was arrogant enough to put in his own memoirs. Therefore, the Director General of the BBC – that independent impartial national broadcaster – conspired with the Prime Minister’s office in an essentially political campaign. After which he gets ennobled and is now a special adviser to Mr Blair.

    Lord Birt should be pleased about his peerage. In Blair’s Britain, many other people have had to pay big money. Every single donor who has given Labour more than a million pounds has been given a knighthood or a peerage. 80p out of every pound donated by individuals to Labour comes from people who have been honoured.

    And this is the Government of the regular sort of guy who wanted to clean up politics?

    Now I know what Lord Birt’s successor thought about the story of the Scottish 6 because I asked him. Gregg Dyke told me he was “shocked” by this revelation. He went on to assure me that political manipulation of the public broadcaster would not happen in his term of office. I believe that to be true. That is why Greg Dyke is now an ex-Director General. The message is clear.

    In Blair’s Britain if you defend your journalists right to tell the truth about the war in Iraq then, you end up having to resign but if behave like Lord Birt then you get a peerage and a title as special adviser.

    There is something rotten in the state of Blair’s Britain. And can I just say how glad I am that this party will not be nominating any Scottish patriot to set on the ermine benches between Lord Archer and Lord Watson.

    However, the Lance Price book gives an insight into an even more important matter. Price claims that Blair “relished” sending forces into war. Or at least he did before No 10 censors forced him to amend that passage. We are eight years and five military actions into Blair’s premiership. The present action in Iraq has resulted in carnage – 95 British soldiers, 1907 American soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqis and no end in sight.

    It is a war built on lies, which has fanned the flames of international terrorism. The consequences for this country have been murder and atrocity on the streets of London, essential liberties under serious threat and community relations under real pressure. Every member of the Government, Blair , Brown and the rest, every Member of Parliament who voted us into this sequence of disasters should hang their heads in shame.

    Bush and Blair should now be on their knees to the United Nations asking for a security force to be drawn from Islamic countries to replace American and British forces. What we need – and we need it right now – is a strategy and a timetable for withdrawal not more years of Blair’s blood price.

    Of course, the tales about Blair’s sofa style of Government are not the only revelations of late. Let’s talk about Scotland’s oil. We have released secret papers from the 1970s demonstrating the level of deceit from Tory and Labour administrations about the true nature of Scotland’s oil wealth. Gavin McCrone was the Scottish Office economic adviser. He wrote a paper on North Sea oil and the difference it could make to Scottish economy. No wonder they kept in secret.

    Labour say they did not lie. Really! Let’s make a few comparisons between what McCrone said to Labour and what Labour told Scotland. McCrone said that an independent Scotland would have title to 99 per cent of the oil revenues and that the only thing wrong with SNP estimates is that they were too low.

    Labour told Scots our figures were wildly exaggerated. McCrone compared Scotland’s economic prospects to Switzerland. Labour to Bangladesh. McCrone said that oil had overturned the economic arguments against Scottish nationalism. Labour said Scotland couldn’t manage. McCrone praised how Norway had dealt with the international companies and said that Britain had failed.

    Labour said that Scotland would be too small to deal with big oil. McCrone said that Scotland would be a welcome and influential member of the European Community. Labour said that we would be out in the cold.

    Every bottom of every political barrel was scraped to keep London’s grip on Scotland’s oil. And they are still at it today. This week Gordon Brown said that the price of oil was volatile – that you cannot rely on a single resource. The sub text is that it’s not really worth all that much. That is the myth. What is the reality?

    This Chancellor is getting £1 billion a month from Scotland’s wealth. Right now, it is the black black oil, which is filling Brown’s black hole. Gordon says that we cannot depend on one natural asset. Strange that his former adviser Ed Balls MP says that bulging North Sea revenues are “the main good news on the economic front ,” and remember when Balls speaks its Brown speaks its Balls.

    After 25 years of wasted opportunity, we don’t need lectures from any London Chancellor on how to handle our natural resources. We only have to look across the North Sea to see how to husband a capital asset. The Norwegian fund for future generations has now topped £100 billion and the interest and earnings from it are as great as this year’s Norwegian oil revenues. Norway celebrating 100 years of independence is also celebrating 25 years of oil.

    People ask, how long will oil last? For Scotland, the answer is between 30 and 50 years.

    For Norway, the answer is for all time. Why? Because the economic impact of their fund will last for all time.

    In contrast, thus far Scotland’s oil has disappeared down the gullet of the London Treasury. Therefore, what is the importance of these 30-year revelations for today and tomorrow? Firstly for the present. If Tory and Labour politicians were prepared to lie and cheat Scotland in the 1970s why should anyone believe a word they have to say about Scotland in 2005 or in 2007? Then for the future.

    There is as much oil and gas in the waters around Scotland as has been exploited thus far. – Another 30 plus billion barrels of oil, another £200 billion of revenues. We have a second chance to transform our economic prospects and we must seize it with both hands. Of course, I can understand London politicians who deprecate the ability of Scots to fully govern themselves.

    It is a tactic employed by Westminster towards many countries for generations, for centuries. However, how do we excuse the politicians from Scotland to whom it seems second nature to run down the ability and potential of their own country? The truth is out there because we have published it. Now we must never let them forget it – not now, not ever.

    It is still Scotland’s oil.

    As McCrone predicted and as Stewart Hosie has demonstrated this week the extent of oil and gas revenues would propel the Scottish economy into chronic surplus. We are launching an economic offensive. Our opponents are discredited – their past has caught up with them. The present demonstrates a strong financial platform for independence.

    But what really matters is the future. What matters is moving the Scottish economy onto a strong growth plane. The failure to grow the economy over these last 25 wasted British years. It is why we are loosing population. It is why we have not just blighted streets but blighted lives in Scotland.

    Off our East coast is independent Norway with oil growing at 3 per cent a year. Off our West coast is independent Ireland growing at 5 per cent a year. If we had grown at the rate of independent Norway over the last 20 years we would be £5,000 a head richer. If we had matched the growth rate of independent Ireland we would be £20,000 a head richer.

    What we need is the economic strategy to unlock that potential, to be among the most competitive countries in the world, to match the growth of the other small independent European nations. If we were to do that, it would mean an independence bonus of an additional 19 billion in the economy by 2015, or £4,000 per Scot.

    When Nicola and I stood for election a year ago, we put forward a proposal to reduce business rates to below the levels of England. I know it was influential. How do we know?

    Well one of Mr McConnell’s henchmen left his comments on our manifesto on a Scottish Parliament photocopier. “Should we pre-empt this?” the note said. Of course when he finally got round to doing something Mr McConnell’s main concern was to brief that this initiative was nothing whatsoever to do with his Liberal Deputy who was told nothing about it. Now Mr Stephen says it was all down to him.

    That’s their story and who needs Ballymory when we have McConnell and Stephen – the Scottish Executive? Actually it was nothing to do with either of them. Lacking ideas of their own the were just pinching SNP policy.

    Listen guys you don’t have to talk to each other. I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to talk you either. Just keep reading Nicola’s lips to get your ideas.

    In the General Election we published a plan to Let Scotland Flourish -how to give our economy a competitive edge in the modern world. It has seven key policies to lift the Scottish growth rate. We intend to develop that further over the next year and make it a centre piece of the campaign for 2007.

    One of our proposals is to give Scotland an edge not just in business rates but in corporate tax – to reverse the long process of loosing headquarters and decision making centres from Scotland.

    More than 20 years ago, I was a young economist working for the Royal Bank of Scotland. There were takeover bids for the Bank from Standard Charter and Hong Kong Shanghai. They were kicked into touch by the Monopolies Commission as being against the Scottish public interest.

    Last week I attended the opening of the new world headquarters of the Royal Bank now the 5th largest Bank on face of the planet. It will provide opportunities in Scotland for thousands of young people to pursue careers to the very top of their chosen profession, and yet if it had not been for that decision of 20 year ago, there would have been nothing to celebrate. Gogerburn would be but an empty field.

    In the next few weeks, bids will emerge for Scottish Power our largest industrial company headquartered in Scotland. If it disappears into the maw of a company, which already owns Power Gen south of the border, then its headquarters functions will also disappear.

    No one argues that it is possible in the modern world to protect every business from takeover. However, no normal country allows its key strategic companies to disappear without considering the public and competition interest. The Germans do not allow it and neither do the French. For Scotland, this is our biggest industrial company. Energy is our strategic resource.

    The Scottish Executive sit on their hands – helpless, hopeless and hapless – with as much control over things that really matter to Scotland as King Canute had over the tide. Scotland has now just a handful of world reach companies headquartered in Scotland.

    We pledge at this conference to fight them until we have the economic edge of independence which will bring many more to join them.

    In the general election, we gained our first seats from the Labour Party at a Westminster election since 1974. This year we have started to win by elections at local level across Scotland. Our aim for 2007 is to win seats across Scotland from Labour, the Liberals and the Tories. Some people say it can’t be done. I say yes it can.

    We have to gain 20 seats first passed the post and then others from the list. What we do will be determined by our own efforts. Mind you we will be greatly helped by our political opponents. Labour once had the longest suicide note in political history. Michael Howard is engaged in the longest resignation note in political history.

    Charles Kennedy wants to turn his party into a Tory Party although the delegates – in best tradition of the Liberals – are not sure. I have the solution for both parties. It is not too late for another entry into the Tory leadership contest. Kennedy is the remedy for the Tories.

    And we don’t even need a crystal ball to say what a Liberal / Tory coalition look like. Just ask the thousands of Council workers in Aberdeen who were sent letters telling them that their wages were to be cut by a Liberal/Tory Council.

    Delegates to win in 2007 we have to have confidence in three things – ourselves, our programme and our country. Firstly, in ourselves. This year we have rediscovered the will to win. Stewart Hosie in Dundee, Angus Brendan in the Western Isles, local government seats the length and breadth of the country. Remember there are more people in Scotland who would vote for this Party than any other. All we have to do is to demonstrate that we are worthy of that support.

    Secondly, confidence in our programme. We are a social democratic party. That means we match and marry economic efficiency with a social programme, which shapes the public purpose. Our economy can be the new Celtic tiger not the Caledonian pussycat. Our public services can be made to work efficiently and our ideas to do that are flowing through this Conference agenda.

    Our belief in social and international justice can find expression through our political institutions. We judge the temper of our people correctly – Scotland wants a party which uses both the head and the heart.

    Thirdly and most importantly importantly confidence in our country. Unionism depends on the notion that somehow our nation of Scotland is incapable of making the big decisions. – war and peace, taxation, international aid – issues like Iraq, tax credits, the betrayals since the G8.

    What exactly is it about Westminster’s handling of these issues that we are meant to admire? The truth is that Scotland is good enough, big enough, and talented enough to be independent.

    We are not going to allow our potential as a people to be measured by the mediocrity of the Scottish Executive. We are not going to allow our nation to be traduced and misrepresented by the mendacity of Westminster. And we are not going to allow our country to be a dumping ground for nuclear waste of the next generation of nuclear missiles.

    Our political strategy is clear – clear as crystal. We intend to win the elections of 2007. We intend to demonstrate to Scotland that we have the competence and credibility to run Scotland and run it well. We intend to offer the people of this country – within the first term of office – the opportunity to move forward to independence.

    We need the freedom for our country to match the generous heart of our people – the generous heart we saw after the Tsunami. We need the power to capture the opportunities of renewable energy power and the hydrogen economy. We need the ambition not just to march to make poverty history but to have a Government, which lives that dream.

    In the summer I paraded with the Sir William Wallace Free Colliers to the Wallacetown monument -they have marched every year since 1861. Back then when the miners were looking for a hero to symbolise their struggle for freedom from the serfdom of the coal owners they chose Wallace and they chose wisely. 700 years ago Scotland’s greatest hero gave his life for that freedom.

    We are not required to make that sacrifice – only invest our votes, our hopes and our time. But we are not an ordinary political party nor is our mission the ordinary stuff of politics. Our immediate aim is to rescue the politics of this country from the mediocrity of an Executive with – as someone said recently – the attention span of a goldfish.

    But our objective is to break the grip of the London parties over Scotland – not just the political grip but their unionist mindset of defeatism , can’t do and second best. Forget the old excuses about lack of confidence. We aspire to lead into a new age of responsibility for Scotland.

    Scotland needs Independence, self determination and self respect. And right now Scotland needs the SNP.

  • Alex Salmond – 2004 Scottish National Party Conference Speech

    alexsalmond

    Convener – fellow Scots.

    This is a speech I never expected to be making.

    I never thought to have the privilege of being, once again, the leader of this movement.

    But let’s get one thing absolutely clear

    I didn’t accept this challenge in the hope things might work out.

    Nor did I listen to those of you who were kind enough to ask me to return just for the dubious pleasure of exchanging pleasantries with Mr McConnell.

    I sought the leadership of this party because I share your frustration and the anger of every thinking Scot.

    We campaigned, shoulder to shoulder, for Home Rule because we believe in Scotland.

    We celebrated devolution because it promised to usher in a new era of politics

    But instead, we have seen our Parliament devalued by a government, which doesn’t understand the very concept of public service. Which dulls the expectations of our nation and which seeks to bore the electorate into submission.

    So to anyone who still doubts why I sought leadership once again let me make it plain.

    I’m back to turf out the over promoted Labour machine politicians who demean the Scottish Parliament.

    I’m back to rid Scotland of small-minded, managerial administration and deliver a vision capable of touching the soul of Scotland.

    And I’m back to give the message direct to the Labour Party in Scotland –

    Your time in government is coming to an end.

    Conference

    What I intend to do today is to lay out exactly what we can achieve as a party and as a movement for Scotland over the next few years – and how we intend to go about it. .

    But let me first pay tribute to John Swinney. I happen to think that John was badly treated by the press and poorly served by some in this party.

    He is a better man by far than all of his critics combined.

    Nicola and I – all of us – owe John a democratic debt for the one member, one vote election, which galvanised the SNP over the summer.

    All of us here thank you, John, for everything you have done and in particular for that crucial and essential reform.

    And I would like to thank the party for the huge mandate, that Nicola and I received.

    We intend to harness that mandate to make the changes required to allow the SNP to renew our challenge for political leadership in Scotland.

    But let me make one thing clear.

    Nicola and I campaigned as a team, we will lead as a team and we will win as a team.

    And that team approach extends throughout the party. Every single one of us shares responsibility for the party’s shortcomings and our successes.

    We are all now collectively responsible for whether the SNP – indeed whether Scotland – succeeds or fails.

    We have a substantial task in hand – I know that – you know that and I will need the help of the whole party – all of you – to succeed.

    But I have to say I comfort myself by looking at the state of our opponents.

    Charles Kennedy started the week by lambasting the government over health cuts in Scotland – good thing too –

    The only problem is that he was attacking the Scottish government – his own government – that is the one his party props up

    Charles wants to bring down a Lab/Lib government and replace it with a Lab/Lib government!

    Strikes me that if he wants rid of Malcolm Chisholm or any other hopeless Labour minister then all he has to do is to tell his troops to vote them out of office.

    Nicola said on Wednesday that she will force the matter to the vote in the Scots Parliament so they will soon have their chance.

    Of course, if they are not prepared to do that – if they vote to keep their ministerial Mondeos rather than to save the health service – then people at the coming election can conclude that every liberal vote is not a vote for Charlie’s angels but for Labour’s little helpers.

    Then there is Michael Howard. The only thing that has upset him recently is not being invited to the republican convention in New York.

    Just think of it the leader of the Tory party is the one man on the planet – who is too right wing to be allowed to meet George W Bush!

    Those who the gods seek to destroy, they first render ridiculous.

    No wonder David McLetchie is a part time leader.

    Best to keep his hand in at the law for after the next Scottish elections.

    However, for the art of looking ridiculous none of them hold a candle to Mr McConnell

    Forget the pin stripe kilt – did I actually say that?!

    How can anyone forget the pin stripe kilt?

    Never mind snubbing the D Day veterans – or his cultural minister – that’s right Frank McAveety is his minister of culture – nipping out for pie and beans in the canteen.

    Let’s even excuse him telling the Scottish Opera staff they were sacked in a newspaper leak

    I want to focus on the one incident that proves Mr McConnell is unfit for office – the day he announce to the parliament during question time that he was waffling and sat down.

    Now I have seen many ministers in many parliaments and I’ve seen many ministers waffling but I have never heard of any one – far less a First Minister – actually declare himself to be a waffler.

    Usually you leave that to the opposition

    It is often said that Mr McConnell is no Donald Dewar – Donald Dewar?

    Jack McConnell is no Henry McLeish.

    Now delegates I want to say something about the position in Iraq.

    There will be no jokes from me about the Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair’s conduct puts him beyond the normal banter of politics.

    Like everyone else at this conference and throughout the entire country, I hope and pray for the safe return of Kenneth Bigley but like his anguished family, we fear the worst.

    However, I believe that this Prime Minister now operates outside the currency of debate, beyond the pale of decency.

    All Prime Ministers tell fibs – Wilson dissembled about Polaris on the Clyde, Thatcher massaged the unemployment figures every single month. But no leader – no Prime Minister – has lied about the reasons for going to war.

    I don’t just challenge his policies – I challenge his morality.

    18 months ago George Bush declared that the war in Iraq was over. On Sunday, Blair told us that the conflict was ongoing.

    18 months ago Blair told us that we had gone to war to uphold the authority of the United Nations Last week Kofi Annan told us that the conflict was illegal.

    18 months ago Blair told us that the Iraqi survey group would find the weapons of mass destruction. Now the group’s final report concludes that there were none.

    Now this is not a question of this Prime Minister – any Prime Minister – making a judgement call and just being wrong

    It is not a matter, as Blair would have us believe, of someone acting in good faith and making an honest mistake.

    This is a man who buried the intelligence that was inconvenient,

    Manipulated the information to suit his purpose

    And entered into a secret pact with the American president to go to war come what may

    In addition, as we now know from this last weekend, he even concealed the warnings from the very heart of his own government that the conflict after the war would be nasty, brutish and long.

    Blair once said that he would be prepared to pay the blood price for standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States of America

    But he hasn’t paid the blood price

    14,000 Iraqis, more than 1000 Americans, 66 British soldiers, 69 from other countries, hostages – these are the people who have paid and are still paying Blair’s blood price

    Nor has he stood shoulder to shoulder.

    Most of the time he has been on his knees.

    He has cosied up to the American president, thumbs in the gunbelt down at the ranch –

    The sheriff and his sidekick – the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

    But George W. Bush is not America no more than Tony Blair speaks for Scotland.

    And what loyalty does the Prime Minister show to those he sends into his war.

    The Black Watch are currently on their second tour of duty.

    As a regiment, it may be their last ever tour of duty.

    The Scottish regiments the finest infantry soldiers in the world. They fight Blair’s wars and he stabs them in the back while they stand in the line of fire.

    And so let me say this to conference

    This Prime Minister needs to be humbled in an election and next year we will take our case to the country.

    But this Prime Minister deserves to be impeached and we with others will present the case that he should be required to answer.

    What is impeachment – well let us describe it as a weapon of mass democracy- the final democratic deterrent against the abuse and misuse of executive power.

    This Prime Minister should be drummed from office and we will use each and every opportunity to remove him.

    It is a long way from war in Iraq to the Holyrood project.

    Iraq is about people dying while Holyrood is just about money – a building project gone badly wrong.

    However, there is one key connection.

    At the heart of the war in Iraq is the misleading of the Westminster parliament. And thus the people

    The real issue in the Holyrood scandal is the misleading of the Scots Parliament and thus the people.

    When the Parliament was told in June 1999 that the price tag was £109 million they voted for it by a wafer thin majority of just three votes

    The real price at that stage was over £200 million and the project totally out of control or as Fraser said it was “not in a viable and healthy condition“.

    There were three separate Holyrood plots

    Plot one was to conceal the costs to get labour through the 1999 election.

    Plot two was to conceal the costs to get the project through the parliamentary vote.

    Plot three was to conceal the costs to hand it over and then blame the hapless MSPs

    According to Lord Fraser, the key decisions were made under Westminster control by civil servants who are still under Westminster control – which makes Mr McConnell‘s claims that he is about to reform them absurd even by his standards.

    Civil servants may share the blame but it is ministers, politicians who are accountable.

    And the line of accountability should be thus.

    Let those who voted for this nonsense like the labour and liberal parties take the responsibility.

    And those of us who voted against it learn the lessons by making it impossible to ever again mislead our parliament with impunity.

    As for the building itself then it is time to move on.

    Whatever its origins there is now a building which feels like a parliament

    It is now up to all MSPs to act like parliamentarians

    Five years ago the MSPs were cheered into their offices in the mound. Now they must begin the long march back into public esteem.

    There are basically two explanations as to why devolution has been one big let down.

    Either there is something wrong with Scotland or there is something wrong with the leadership that Scotland has been getting.

    To put it simply either Scotland’s rubbish or labour’s rubbish.

    I prefer to think that it is New Labour who are the problem and new leadership is the answer.

    And so if we are to replace the Labour Party as the government of Scotland in 2007 then we have to present principle where there is none and vision where now there is only vacuum.

    Nicola and I have asked shadow cabinet members to develop our policy programmes for the election next year.

    We have to make progress next year to win in 2007, and we have to win in 2007 to move forward to Independence.

    To make progress we will demonstrate that only the SNP can be trusted with Scottish interests

    It is not only that SNP MPs work harder although we do.

    When the Commons Library compile the annual stats for which MP has asked the most questions or made the most speeches the only thing that changes is which of my colleagues comes out first and which of the Labour Party comes out bottom.

    But it is more than work rate. It is that we can always be trusted to represent and defend Scottish interests.

    Foundation hospitals south of the border were bad for Scotland but labour MPs voted them through

    Tuition fees south of the border were bad for Scotland but labour MPs voted them through

    Strip stamps were bad for a great Scottish industry but labour MPs voted them through.

    And the contrast when the SNP is moving forward is clear for all to see.

    Martin Sixsmith blew the whistle at the centre of the labour spin machine but in 1999, he was working for GEC.

    He has now set out the inside story of how it was fear of the SNP, which saved the Govan shipyard from closure in 1999.

    And therefore delegates if we can save Govan in 1999 then SNP advance can save the fishing industry and the regiments in 2005.

    We can make Westminster dance to a Scottish tune.

    But progress next year is to a greater purpose.

    When Mr McConnell became first minister of Scotland he said he wanted to do “less better”

    Some have criticised Blair for just wanting power – McConnell just wants office and position in a nation without power – it’s even less forgivable.

    What a rallying call that is to the nation. “Let’s do less better” – well he has managed to fulfil the first part of that boast

    He certainly does less.

    When the SNP brought to the parliament a debate the impending war in Iraq our opponents used their time on the same day to talk about dog fouling!

    When the SNP first forced the issue on Iraq the first minister chose not attend. He sent someone else to tell the people of Scotland that Iraq was a reserved matter.

    When we argue that, we have to save our fishing communities from disaster in the European constitution we are told to that that is a reserved matter.

    And when we join with Scots across the country in our outrage that children have been and can again be imprisoned, at Dungavel we are told again that it is a reserved matter.

    Well First Minister, Dungavel is about values, fishing is about communities and war is about conscience.

    And values, communities and conscience can never be reserved matters.

    They are Scottish matters and we demand a parliament with the power to do something about them.

    We intend to lift the ambition of Scots. – to set our sights on the Scottish horizon.

    We are building a programme to march that ambition

    We will develop an economic policy, which lifts the Scottish growth rate.

    We will restore the people’s faith in Scotland’s public services

    We will introduce the fresh air of democracy into Scottish institutions.

    And we shall restore this ancient land to its rightful place as a free and equal member of the community of nations.

    Now Mr McConnell says that growth is his top priority.

    In fact, he has as much control over the Scottish economic growth as Heather has over the weather.

    To make Scotland work we need a competitive economic environment, we need an infrastructure fit for the 21st century not for the middle of the last century and we need capital markets which allow Scots with ideas to bring their products to the international marketplace

    And the stakes are high.

    If the Scottish economy had hit the UK rate of growth over the last 25 five years we would all be £2000 better off.

    If we had hit the European level, each of us would be £5000 better off

    And if we had grown at the level of independent Ireland, we would all be £20,000 a year better off.

    One key to growth is infrastructure.

    We will establish a Scottish trust for public investment to launch a new age of improvement in Scotland.

    It will provide the financial mechanism to transform Scotland’s infrastructure into one fit for the challenges of today’s economy and tomorrow’s society.

    Provost William Smith used his opening speech to the conference to lobby us on dualling the A9. He is right. This is the capital of the highlands. It has two major road connections to the south and the east. One is a dirt track and the other is a death-trap and both are totally unacceptable.

    The trunk roads in the south west and north east of Scotland are a disgrace while central Scotland still awaits the linking of the motorway network.,

    We don’t even have rail links to our major airports or a bullet train between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

    In 1905 it took 1 hour to travel between Edinburgh and Glasgow. A century later we have improved by 12 minutes.

    The journey time should take 20 minutes.

    A few days back I received a letter from a liberal MSP asking how it could be possible to fund a bullet train between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

    Then her own party transport spokesman said he wanted one between Edinburgh and London.

    The Scottish Liberals really should try and keep up!

    Our country, this nation, found the right financial mechanisms to fund the westward expansion of America.

    Is it really said that we can’t do the same to transform Scotland?

    If McConnell and Wallace had been in charge of Glasgow in the 19th century they would still be waiting for running water in Govan.

    Of course, infrastructure is more than roads, railways and broadband. It is also providing the platform to exploit this country’s natural resources.

    Right now Scottish oil revenues are running at £8,000 million a year.

    That’s right £1,500 this year for every man women and child in the country and its all disappearing into the maw of the treasury, into Gordon Brown’s back pocket.

    And the oil and gas will flow for another 50 years.

    But delegates we have won the energy lottery again- this time in renewables. Scotland has 25 per cent of Europe’s potential wind power, 25 per cent of its tidal power and 10 per cent of its wave capacity.

    The Pentland Firth has been described as the Saudi Arabia of tidal power.

    And this is offshore potential.

    If a community owns an onshore wind farm or there is a perceived community benefit fine. But onshore wind will never meet the energy requirements of Scotland

    Just one offshore project could generate 5 times the electricity of all the onshore wind projects put together.

    So what is stopping this new Klondike – or as one company put it the “biggest single threat to viability” and the billions of investment and thousands of jobs that will go with it.

    What is stopping it is a proposal from Offgem, a government agency, after a period of grace, to charge generators in the north of Scotland £20 a kilowatt to connect to the grid while they propose to subsidise projects in London by £9 a kilowatt.

    That is a proposal from the national grid and Offgem. If you want to build a windfarm offshore in the Moray Firth they will charge you. If you want to build it on top of Big Ben, they will pay you.

    They should remember that offshore Scotland there is lots of wind. Around Big Ben there is only hot air.

    All of which proves there are three great lies in life. Darling I’ll respect you in the morning – the cheques in the post and I’m from the London treasury and I’m here to help Scotland. . The challenge for his party is clear. London government has filched thirty years of oil revenues.

    We shall not let them sabotage our future in renewables.

    An SNP Scotland will become the renewable capital of Europe.

    We want to see the nation prosper but the Scotland we seek is one, which defends the public interest, the common weal, the sense of community, which protects the vulnerable.

    To restore faith in Scotland’s public services we need to revitalise social democracy in Scotland.

    We pay social democratic levels of taxation, we spend social democratic levels of funding but we do not have social democratic levels of service.

    Take the crisis in the health service. The health service should not be run for the convenience of the health boards, or the consultants or the government.

    It is not the Health Boards’ health service or Malcolm Chisholm’s health service it is the people’s health service

    In order for Scotland’s health service to function, it requires a national strategy but it also needs public confidence and support at local level.

    That is why we will make health boards elected to prevent them being the lickspittles of central government

    But we will go further. People despair that the current consultation process is a sham.

    We say that when a closure is threatened then petitioners should have the ability to call a time out.-

    To stop the process while it is examined properly to make protest count.

    We have to engage real people in a real democracy

    Real democracy doesn’t begin and end with a parliament. It begins and ends with the people.

    In the summer Nicola and I caused a stir when we suggested allowing the public the opportunity to nominate one subject for debate in the parliament each week.

    Vested interests were outraged. How could we possibly trespass on the preserve of parliamentarians and their right to choose to debate dog fouling and hedge rows.

    Well it ain’t the politician’s parliament. It is the people’s parliament and it is time – well past time – to let the people in.

    So we now intend to go further. Not only should there be direct nomination of subjects for debate but the petitions committee will be charged to bring forward, where appropriate, legislative proposals from the best supported petition each year which then can be put to the MSPs for debate and decision.

    A new economic policy for Scotland. Revitalised social services a real citizen’s democracy.

    These are the building blocks for inspiration and success

    But they are set in a context – and that context is this ancient land as a full and equal member of the community of nations.

    Devolution is yesterday’s news. It has not responded to today’s reality never mind the challenges of tomorrow.

    Independence is about equality.

    The same rights – the same responsibilities as other nations.

    The right to choose between war and peace.

    The right to choose between stagnation and economic progress.

    The right to choose to live in a society which protects those who stumble along life’s path.

    The responsibility to ensure that the distinctive contribution of Scotland is not silenced or ignored in the councils of Europe and the world.

    And our responsibility. To defend and have faith in the idea of Scotland.

    In ancient times the city of Sparta had no walls – it didn’t need any The people were the walls of Sparta – its defenders its strength and its faith.

    At this particular moment, you – all of you – the people are the walls of Scotland – its defenders, its strength and its faith.

    Faith that we can build a better future.

    Faith that we can transform this nation.

    Faith that our ambitions of today will become tomorrow‘s reality.

    Equality, responsibility, Independence.

  • Alex Salmond – 1987 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    alexsalmond

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Alex Salmond in the House of Commons on 29th June 1987.

    You have called me to speak at rather an apt time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been watching with interest this evening and counting the relative strengths of the Scottish Nationalist party and Plaid Cymru, on the one hand, and the Scottish Conservative contingent, on the other. As the debate has worn on, the relative strengths have to-ed and fro-ed. At the moment, with five hon. Members on our Benches and only two Scottish Conservative Members, we have the most satisfactory result of the evening so far.

    I confess that I have been playing my game of spot the Scottish Tory for some time. Their number has been as low as one and as high as seven during this debate, but for most of the time there have been four Scottish Conservative Members in the Chamber. For some time, I thought that the Secretary of State for Scotland had laid down his particular 40 per cent. rule on his own contingent of hon. Members.

    My first duty is to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, who was known in the House and elsewhere as a robust character. He came to the House late in life, but I know that he played a full part in its debates, and I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing him a long and happy retirement.

    Banff and Buchan, the constituency for which I now have parliamentary responsibility, is a constituency of robust characters, as one would expect from an area that depends for its livelihood on fishing, farming and oil and the industries related to them. My constituency has robust characters who work with their hands and get their faces dirty. They are involved in producing, making and catching things. They are people engaged in the manufacturing and primary sectors who are the real creators of wealth. If Government policy was orientated more to the primary and manufacturing sectors of industry, rather than to the rentier economy produced by the Conservative party, the long-term health and welfare of this country would be better served.

    I shall examine in turn the problems facing the three basic industries of my constituency—farming, fishing and oil. I notice that a good deal of attention was paid in the Gracious Speech to the problems of the inner cities, and I welcome Government initiatives on that serious problem. However, in Scotland we do not have a serious inner city problem. In our major cities we have problems on peripheral housing estates, but we have, too, an enduring and extremely serious problem in our rural communities. I do not think that the Government realise the extent to which the decline in farm income is causing such problems for the rural areas and I hope that they will turn more of their attention to that as the Session progresses.

    Conservatives claim that theirs is the party that reduces business taxation. If that is so, I hope to hear soon that they intend to abandon their plans to levy additional taxation on the fishing industry in the form of light dues—the dues paid for navigational lights. At the moment, the Government propose to remove the traditional exemption from light dues from the fishing industry while retaining that exemption for the owners of yachts and pleasure boats. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would be very relieved to hear that, but I think too that he would join Opposition Members in arguing strongly that we should not impose an additional tax on working fishermen while those who own pleasure boats and yachts remain exempt. Light dues, which relate to a public service concerned with public safety, should continue properly to be met from the public purse.

    We have heard some interesting remarks from the Secretary of State for Scotland who, since the turn of this year, has ascribed all the problems of the Scottish economy to the decline of the oil industry in Scotland. That is a remarkable feat, given that Scotland has lost 180,000 manufacturing jobs since 1979.

    If the Secretary of State thinks that the impact of the oil downturn has been so serious in Scotland—it has cost us 30,000 jobs—why was it that the Government argued so forcibly for, welcomed and encouraged the decline in oil prices, which has caused these grievous burdens for the Scottish economy? Since 1979, successive Chancellors have received from the Scottish oil industry in revenue terms and in 1987 prices the sum of £70,000 million—approximately £14,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Those Chancellors have been very sure that that should not be Scotland’s oil revenue, but, when it comes to a downturn in the industry, there has been no doubt that Scotland should have the job losses. For these three industries—farming, fishing and oil—I will argue at every opportunity in the Chamber, and I will argue for a stronger defence of their welfare.

    I move on to the political position facing Scotland and the reaction of Scottish Members to the Gracious Speech. Without doubt the Gracious Speech is interesting not for what it contains about Scotland but for what it does not contain. There is no sign that the Government will make any concessions to Scotland following their massive defeat at the polls. That position was encapsulated by the Secretary of State who, in an interview on Scottish television last week, said that the Gracious Speech is the same as that which we would have had if the Conservative party had won 72 Scottish seats instead of 10. That betrays the arrogance and contempt with which the Conservative party now proposes to treat the Scottish electorate. in its view, it does not matter what we in Scotland say or do, how we vote, how we think or how we learn from our experience of the policies under which we suffer. That position is not sustainable in the longer term. How long it is sustainable will depend on the level of opposition from Opposition Members.

    A number of questions have been asked about the importance attached to self government by the Scottish electorate. If the election results do not provide a convincing answer to that question, I have here the results of an opinion poll commissioned during the election campaign. The Conservative party has an interesting and geographically split view of opinion polls. It believes in them in England when they show that it is winning, but it does not believe them in Scotland when they show that it is not winning.

    I remember earlier this month when this opinion poll was released. I was sitting in a television studio with Mr. Michael Hirst, who did not believe the contents of the opinion poll. The results of the poll showed that the majority of Scottish Conservatives were about to lose their seats, although the Secretary of State for Scotland had said that such opinion polls were unreliable, that this could not happen and that the Conservative party in Scotland would increase its representation. In fact the poll has been proved correct in its analysis of how many Scottish Conservatives would lose their seats.

    It also asked people how important they regarded the setting up of a Scottish assembly. No fewer than 62 per cent. thought that it was very important or quite important. Only 25 per cent. argued that it was not very important or not at all important.

    We take opinion polls as we find them, but it is an incredible proposition from a party reduced to such a rump in Scotland, as a result not just of this but of a series of elections, to argue that it has the divine right to interpret the wishes of the Scottish electorate more than any other party, or particularly the party that won the Scottish election—the Labour party.

    Like many new Members I am engaged in moving home, and as I was clearing out some of my files I came across some yellowing pages of newspaper cuttings from the period immediately before and after the general election of 1983 in Scotland. In them, a number of Scottish Members of Parliament were making the case that the rights of Scotland should be respected—a case with which I agree. They were called “Labour’s new dogs of war,” and they included the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). They argued that, by their efforts, they could impose the will of the Scottish people on the House and that they would manage to extract for the Scottish people a measure of Scottish devolution. We are now four years on and the dogs of war not only have not bitten very hard but have lost their bark.

    I scrutinised with some interest the speech made by the hon. Member for Cathcart on Thursday, in which he came up with the incredible proposition that the Conservative party has half a mandate in Scotland. His argument was that the Conservative party has a mandate over such sectors as the economy and United Kingdom matters, but does not have a mandate over specifically Scottish Office issues such as education. It is an incredible argument that the Conservative party has the right to destroy the Scottish economy but does not have the right to destroy the Scottish education system. It is not a case of half a mandate. The Conservative party either has or has not a mandate in Scotland.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr Wigley) has put the case for the rights of parties coming up from the people. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has argued eloquently why the Conservative party has no mandate in Scotland. For the benefit of Tory Members, I shall repeat it. The Tory party does not have a mandate in Scotland because Scotland is a nation and as such has a right to determine its own political destiny.

    I will repeatedly argue for independence for Scotland within the context of the EEC. I recognise that that is not the majority view in Scotland, although opinion poll evidence shows substantially more support for that position than for the position favoured by the Tory, party—the status quo. Scottish people have the right to choose the amount of devolution or self government that they want. Therefore, I am prepared to argue that, because the Labour party won the election in Scotland, it has the right to insist on its plans for the Scottish people being put into effect.

    The basic question is: how will the Conservative party be made to do this? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in his quick-fire speech, was long on description of the condition of Scotland, but short on what he and his colleagues are going to do about it. The most with which he threatened the Conservative party was a few late nights for the reduced band of Scottish Conservatives. Incidentally, I am told that in Labour party circles at the moment the hon. Member for Garscadden is considered as something of a radical. If he is a radical, I wonder how conservative the rest are. I do not know what he does to Tory Members, but if I were in their position he would not frighten me.

    The same applies to the eloquent address of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). He cannot convince the Conservative party, Scottish Conservative Members or the Secretary of State for Scotland, by argument or appeal, to change their position. The Scottish Conservatives are a lost cause. They have lost their ability to argue their case before their fellow countrymen and women.

    I find remarks about the largesse of the London Treasury to areas such as Scotland, Wales and the north of England amazing, as Scotland has an annual surplus of revenue over expenditure of £3.5 billion. I cannot, therefore, take seriously the idea that Scotland is subidised by the London Exchequer.

    I hear other remarks about the history and geography of Scotland which make me realise why so much of the Gracious Speech is devoted to the English education system. I suspect, however, that, in looking at the state education system in England, English Conservatives are looking at the wrong sector for additional education on economics, history and geography. I seriously suggest to Conservative Members representing English constituencies that the nations of Scotland and England have a close and long history. Sometimes it has been a troubled history but it has always been a close one. At this juncture in our affairs, when there is a dramatic political divergence between Scotland and England, and indeed between England and Wales, would it really hurt them so much to concede a little justice to the Scottish nation?

  • Peter Luff – 2011 Speech to the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Peter Luff, made at SS Great Britain in Bristol on Thursday 19th May 2011.

    Introduction

    Thank you Jonathan for that largely kind introduction, and for inviting me tonight to a totally memorable event.

    It is a genuine pleasure to be with you.

    Tonight is a celebration of the vital work of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors.

    I’m acutely conscious that you are the experts and that my job is to provide some colour.

    Or, to paraphrase a former war-time Director of Naval Construction, Sir Stanley Vernon Goodall, in response to rather a dull draft from his assistant: you provide the facts, and I will impart the enthusiasm!

    And I am as enthusiastic about the quality of military and civil service advice.

    And the facts speak for themselves: credible and confident professional engineering leadership has been at the heart of major British naval projects since 1883.

    In large part, that has come from the Corps of civilian staff represented by the RCNC.

    In preparing for tonight, I had my attention drawn to a 1955 debate in the House of Commons on recruitment to the RCNC.

    Hansard records that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Simon Digby, accepted MPs’ concerns that more could be done to attract people to the Corps, but noted that only one person had resigned since 1951, “and that was to do the same job in Canada”!

    But although smaller in number today, the quality and dedication of RCNC members remains as high as ever.

    And so thank you for all that you do to support the Defence of this country, and the effectiveness and safety of those who fight on its behalf.

    Brunel / SS Great Britain

    Sadly, in the modern age, the truly noble work of the engineer is often confused with the vital craft of the mechanic.

    Now it’s in danger of becoming a cliché, but engineering must re-claim its position as an honoured profession in the eyes of the public.

    An architect may have designed Sydney Opera House, but it took an engineer to build it.

    And just look at the grand surroundings in which we find ourselves in here tonight. And my thanks to everyone involved in organising this event.

    Tonight, we celebrate the RCNC on the SS Great Britain – my thanks to everyone involved in giving us this rare treat. It was the first ocean liner to have an iron hull and a propeller, and it was designed of course by the great Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

    Brunel is my hero, and in my view the finest civil engineer of all time – and the personification of the Franco-British partnership! For those who don’t know, his father was French.

    Now he possessed that rare combination of creativity and innovation, technical brilliance and commercial flair.

    And so he changed the world.

    As Jeremy Clarkson put it when he nominated Brunel as the Greatest Briton: “Brunel put beauty into the beast of the industrial revolution, which made Britain great.”

    His boldness and determination to succeed often led him to actually ignore the risk to his own life.

    As another author put it, Brunel was “in love with the impossible.”

    It is Brunel whose name is forever linked with the Great Western Railway, connecting Bristol with London – a route on which so many in this room spend so much of their working lives.

    And, of course, it was Brunel who built Florence Nightingale’s hospitals and delivered them to the Crimea in record time – the outstanding UOR of the 19th century! And this ship as well served as a troop carrier in that war.

    It was Brunel, too, who invented an iceberg-warning device for his ships.

    And what ships they were.

    Without Brunel – literally and metaphorically – where would we be tonight?

    Equally, for all his many triumphs down the years, Brunel experienced failure too.

    His atmospheric railway was ultimately unsuccessful, and his infinitely superior broad gauge – the 100% solution – was defeated by the inferior narrow gauge – the 20% solution!

    But this evening our subject is ships.

    So I’d like to reflect on some lessons from naval construction history which continue to impact, both the Corps today and my role as a Defence Minister.

    Lessons From Naval Construction History

    Britain has a proud maritime history.

    The seas have been – and continue to be – central to our island nation’s influence, prosperity, and security.

    As Sir Walter Raleigh put it:

    “Whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself.”

    Britain’s omnipotence has sadly long since passed.

    And yet as you rightly emphasise Jonathan, our wealth still relies on international trade with over 90% of that trade, by value and volume, being transported by sea.

    The Royal Navy has been at the centre of our national life for centuries. Today it has a unique role in promoting and protecting Britain and its interests – and yes, one of the old and original threat – piracy. The RN is central to our future national security and, to quote the SDSR, to delivering an adaptable posture with flexible forces.

    And this means that the proud maritime legacy of this country, and of which I am strong supporter, has a positive and resilient future under this Government.

    This also means that the Corps must continue to play its vital role.

    Because naval construction – and the seas our vessels sail on or under – test man’s skills as much as ever.

    Now, as some of you, I’m sure, know, the Corps itself was founded in the wake of the catastrophic loss of HMS Captain during its acceptance trials due to design faults.

    It was a time when the great struggle between the ‘wood floats, iron sinks’ traditionalists and the supporters of ironclad warships was at its height.

    It was a time when two hitherto fundamentals of naval warfare – sail power and broadside armament – were being challenged by steam and the turret ship.

    ‘Turn the gun, not the ship’ was the idea that drove a brilliant young, inventor, Captain Cowper Phipps Coles.

    And Coles generated a political, media, and public bandwagon in the face of Admiralty doubts about the Captain being top-heavy.

    In the event, the Captain sank along with 500 men, including Coles.

    The subsequent court-martial was a case of ‘I told you so’, aimed at presumptuous private designers who might in future seek to challenge the Navy’s monopoly in ship design.

    The project had gone ahead despite the advice of the Chief Constructor for the Admiralty, E J Reid, and it had been a failure in almost every respect – save one: Cole’s turrets would feature within 12 months on the newest ironclad – the mastless Devastation – was acknowledged by the Admiralty who paid royalties to Cole’s widow for use of his design.

    It was a time of public concern over safety; the efficiency of government’s acquisition processes; and a time of rapid organisational and technological change within the Royal Navy.

    Plus ça change.

    It’s one of the timeless paradoxes of engineering that success encourages engineers to enhance performance and reduce costs.

    Wanting to create more elegant, optimal designs, the engineer moves away from traditional standards sometimes – sometimes – unintentionally eroding safety margins.

    Not surprisingly, these innovations, exacerbated by overconfidence, can lead to failures.

    Failures in turn lead to increased attention to reliability and safety, pushing the pendulum in the other direction.

    Now, as you said Jonathan, today, our work takes place in the shadow of the tragic Nimrod crash in 2006, and the subsequent damning Haddon-Cave report.

    It’s entirely proper that safety is our overriding concern, but we must also be mindful of that pendulum.

    Our work also takes place in the context of transformation in Defence, including our approach to acquisition.

    Now the people at Abbey Wood have not received the praise and thanks they deserve, but they – including many of you here tonight – can among other things take great satisfaction from the numerous lives that have been saved by their work.

    Everything we do is based on the legitimacy given to us – or rather entrusted to us – by the British people.

    And they’re not listening when we tell them that we deliver the vast majority of our equipment and support projects to performance, time, and cost.

    They’re not listening when we say that over 80% are delivered to time, and nearly 90% to budget.

    They’re simply not buying our story when the commentators understandably focus their often grossly inaccurate reports on extremes and ‘the things that go wrong’.

    So, to win the confidence of the taxpayer, we must be frank about our shortcomings, forthright about our strengths, and fearless about the changes we need to make if we are to support current operations and build the Armed Forces of tomorrow.

    Historical Parallels With Acquisition Today

    That said, we should remember that many of the challenges we face are no different to those faced by our predecessors.

    Long Lead Items

    For example – and I think I’m indebted to Admiral Lister for this – there is nothing more established in naval construction than the principle of buying the long lead items in good time.

    I’m told the oak for HMS Victory was purchased 15 years before construction began.

    Off The Shelf

    Or the question of buying off the shelf or modifying off the shelf.

    It reminds me of the LST (Landing Ship Tank) Maracaibo Class during the Second World War.

    Churchill demanded ships that could land tanks – themselves not yet built – on beaches anywhere in the world.

    This was physically difficult because it would require an ocean-going ship of limited draught.

    And it was psychologically difficult because it was likely to demand writing off the ships after their first assault.

    The solution was the conversion of Maracaibo oilers, because of their shallow draught.

    In turn, this required ingenious new bow disembarking gear, as suggested by the Director of Naval Construction’s department.

    When launched in Sunderland in July 1941, it became the first ever landing ship designed for tanks – the ingenuity of an urgent operational requirement before we ever invented the UOR.

    The chief sacrifice was speed – only 10 knots against the 17 knots which specially designed later ships could sustain.

    But the value of an adapted off the shelf purchase was clear.

    Modular Construction

    And their modular construction, which Bob and I were discussing over dinner.

    Still in World War II, the first motor launches – “A” Type MLs – were built after the Fairmile organisation approached the Admiralty. They proposed pre-fabrication by saw-mills and furniture makers in London, and then sending the units to selected yacht builders for assembly.

    The scheme was so successful that the subsequent “B” Types were constructed in the same way – and we have learnt the lessons today with the carriers.

    80% Solutions – Nothing New

    And those B types show that the utility of an 80% solution over a perfect one is nothing new as a classic capability trade was made.

    The re-designed boat needed higher speed and was first designed with three engines.

    But a shortage of supply from America prompted a reduction to two engines and lower speeds.

    However it also meant a 50% increase in the number of boats built.

    Innovation

    And innovation has been a permanent feature of naval construction.

    Writing in 1966, in the introduction to the splendid “British Battleships 1860 to 1950” by Oscar Parkes, Earl Mountbatten of Burma said,

    “We are now in an interim age in which the aircraft carrier has already replaced the capital ship and the task force the line of battle. With the advent of the atomic age the guided missile launcher will replace the gun turret and the nuclear reactor the boiler furnace. Ships of the future will thus be different in shape as well as function; and the revolution thus represented will be just as fundamental as the change from sail driven wooden walls to steam driven iron-clads.”

    The Value Of Sailors

    Now, Mountbatten’s prophecy has not yet been entirely fulfilled, I’m sure he would have agreed that above all, there’s one lesson from history that we forget at our peril – the value of sailors.

    Parkes himself captures it well:

    “But when the wars were over and we came to size up the eternal value of things, it was not the ships but the men who had won.”

    Conclusion

    How true.

    But it’s not just those who do the fighting who should be counted among the men who had won.

    Without the high levels of professional, technical, and managerial competence of Corps members down the ages, the very survival of this country – and its prosperity – would almost certainly been put at too great a risk.

    It continues to this day as we build the Royal Navy of the 21st century.

    Yet I know that work of the Corps has all too often gone unheralded.

    So here, in this great monument to British maritime engineering and architecture, I’m proud to say thank you for all you do on behalf of the nation, and for the men and women of our Armed Forces.

    The toast is: “the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors”!

  • Caroline Lucas – 2013 Speech to Green Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Lucas to the Green Party conference on 14th September 2013.

    I’m really delighted to have my own chance to welcome you all to Brighton and Hove.

    I think I’m pretty safe in saying that it’s the first time where we have the chance to be hosted by the local Member of Parliament and by the Leader of the City Council.

    I can’t tell you what pride and pleasure that gives me.

    And I’m sure some of you are already looking forward to doing the same in your own towns and cities.

    And that it won’t be too many more years before we meet in London or Norwich, Lancaster or Bristol, and as well as hearing from Councillors about what they have achieved, we also have the local MP to talk about how they are fighting for the Green cause in Parliament.

    And perhaps today is also the first time that Conference has been addressed by a suspected criminal.

    For I am here, of course, on police bail.

    There may even be a delegation from the police here in the hall today, to make sure we all behave.

    But if they are, I think we should be pleased.

    If the police believe that Greens pose a threat to the established order of things – where big business can ignore local democracy and trash our natural environment at will – then we must be doing something right.

    And they are welcome to take down this message in their notebooks.

    We will continue to use every peaceful avenue we have to ensure that fracking is no longer able to pose a profound threat to our climate.

    And we will continue to work alongside the hundreds of communities across the country, in their struggle against it too.

    It is always such a pleasure to have the chance to address Conference.

    There is no more thoughtful, or challenging, or supportive audience anywhere in politics.

    We are democratic. Our members are in charge. You make the policies. You set the priorities. And you are the guardians of our values.

    It is this, above all else, that sets us apart from the other political parties.

    When I am asked about the Green Party by other politicians – and as our membership and our influence increases, there is more and more interest in who were are and what we do – then this is often the point they can’t get.

    Surely, they say, you can over-ride what the members want. Surely you can prevent discussion on topics you don’t like. Surely you can put the frighteners on people, or use a block vote to push them out of the way.

    No. We aren’t like that.

    We alone trust our members. Ourselves.

    And that is the principle we take out to the people.

    We don’t spin you a line.

    We don’t pretend you can party on forever, and the earth will keep providing.

    We don’t claim that the poor are better off, if you take their benefits away.

    We tell the truth.

    Perhaps that is why, when political engagement is on the wane, we are growing.

    There are now more girl guides than there are members of all the political parties put together.

    Greenpeace is larger than the Conservative Party. The Women’s Institute has more members than the Labour Party. Yet the Greens are continuing to grow in membership each and every year.

    And in talking about our success, I can’t help but mention our leader, Natalie Bennett.

    I’ve seen her grow into the role, and make it her own. A style that is winning praise.   And substance, too, in her campaigning work and her energy in driving forward the party locally and nationally.

    Now, as leader, it fell to Natalie earlier today to salute the achievements of party members up and down the country.

    Community campaigning, election victories, breakthroughs where we’ve never won before, and putting our policies into action on behalf of the people we are here to serve.

    That’s one duty as leader that I miss.

    But there is one achievement that I cannot stop myself from mentioning.

    A bigger challenge than being elected as MP. Or even of becoming a Peer of the Realm.

    A bigger responsibility. And it’s right here in Brighton and Hove.

    There can be few more difficult jobs in this country, at this time, than running a Council.

    And it’s been a tough year for the Council and the local party here in Brighton and Hove. They’ve taken some hard knocks. Learned some painful lessons.

    But think what they’d had to deal with.

    We’ve had some pretty choice ministers in charge of local government down the years.

    Nicholas Ridley. John Prescott. Michael Howard.

    But nothing, nothing, compares to Eric Pickles.

    What’s his plan? Dump everything on local authorities.

    Give them none of the tools or the resources they need to care for local people. And then call it localism.

    He’ll tell your Council they should ban speed bumps. He’ll override local democracy and impose new developments, roads, even nuclear waste dumps. You name it.

    All in the name of localism.

    Imagine his fury that there is one local authority that won’t toe the line.

    They know that their job is to serve the people of Brighton and Hove.

    No-one in this city voted for Eric Pickles. They didn’t vote for swingeing cuts or for a cap on local taxes.

    Eric Pickles, remember, is the man who said it was reasonable for MPs to claim for 2 houses because they sometimes had to work late.

    You tell that to the fire fighters, the social workers, the teachers and all the other council staff, in Brighton and Hove and up and down the country, who work late, serving their local communities.

    Two homes? They are lucky if they can meet the rent or the mortgage payments on one home, because Pickles and his friends are imposing real-term wage cuts, and slashing benefits.

    Eric Pickles tells Councils that they need to balance their books. He lectures them about good housekeeping.

    Yet his own department, Communities and Local Government, ended last year overdrawn to the sum of £217 million pounds. On an unauthorised overdraft. And was fined as a result.

    The truth is, no-one shows more hostility to local government and local democracy than Eric Pickles.

    And when you think his colleagues in power include George Osborne, that’s frankly some achievement.

    But that isn’t the only cause of the crisis in local government.

    We have a political elite who have decided that the axe must fall hardest on those in the greatest need.

    On those with the least political clout.

    And that means local councils and the people they serve.

    The money can be found to replace Trident, but not to keep our libraries open.

    It can be found to speed the wealthy between London and Birmingham, but not for the rural buses that people who don’t drive depend upon.

    It can be found to build new prisons, but not treat the underlying causes of crime, such as addiction and unemployment.

    Local government is responsible for the basic services that every civilised community needs.   Meals on wheels. Public toilets. Care homes.

    Not the fashionable ones, perhaps.

    Not the ones that make good photo opportunities. Not the ones that their friends in big business see as the profit centres of the future.

    If you spend your time in the company of people from News Corporation, British Aerospace and Vodafone, then mending potholes, maintaining street lights or caring for the elderly must seem a bit beneath your notice.

    But that’s why we’re here, isn’t it?

    Because people are getting a raw deal from politics, and we want to do something about it.

    For people now, the vulnerable, hit by government cuts from one side, and ripped off by unscrupulous businesses on the other.

    For those who have no-one to speak for them – the prisoners held without trial in Guantanamo – we think again of Shaker Aamer, held without charge or trial for over 11 years.

    For the communities in Africa blighted by hazardous waste, the communities in Asia and Latin America pushed aside to make way for mines and ranches to feed the West’s extravagant lifestyle.

    For everyone who cares about the natural world, for everyone alarmed that 60% of species have been declining over the last 50 years, and wants it to be protected for them and their families.

    For those to come, whose future is being wasted by government and businesses, who, like 18th century rakes, seem intent on squandering our human inheritance, encouraging the rest of us to consume with no thought for the morrow.

    And for those in other countries too – those who are already feeling the impacts of our rapidly warming world through flooding, drought and sea level rise.

    Securing a safe climate means leaving at least two thirds of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Unburnable carbon.

    A rapid shift to renewables and a redoubling of energy efficiency is also about tackling fuel poverty, creating good jobs for our young people, and the prosperity and security of 7 million UK citizens.

    If you are Labour, saying that we’re on your side is nothing more than another slick marketing slogan.

    For us, it’s the reason we’re in politics.

    Much of the time we’re putting the alternative that Labour no longer wants to provide.

    The alternative to austerity.

    The alternative to zero hours contracts.

    The alternative to Trident.

    The alternative to a rail system that allows private shareholders to profit while passengers pay some of the highest fares in Europe.

    We won’t always get it right.  But we’ll always try and do the right thing. Not swayed by big business or block votes or the Daily Mail.

    That’s what sets us apart.

    And why we are needed more than ever.

    All of us have the chance to contribute to this cause

    For me, it’s been through the privilege of being able to represent in Parliament the people of Brighton Pavilion, and all those who support our values or who need our voice and our support.

    Sometimes it’s working behind the scenes.

    Publishing a Tax and Financial Transparency Bill to crack down on the half a million companies that evade taxes each year.

    Protecting small businesses from unfair energy contract roll overs and from high business rates.

    Being an advocate for the mother fleeing domestic violence, not seen as the main parent because she is too afraid to insist she get child benefit and therefore now being hit by a crippling reduction in housing benefit thanks to the cruel bedroom tax.  A woman who is desperately seeking work but cannot afford the price of a pair of tights to wear to interviews.

    Sometimes, my role is more visible.

    Speaking out about against the media’s sexism, and being challenged in parliament for the “inappropriate” act of wearing a No More Page 3 t-shirt.

    Calling out the Government for its mean and miserable act of removing the link between benefit levels and inflation

    Getting companies who promote illegal weapons of torture ejected from the DSEi arms fair – and, of course, campaigning for the whole thing to be shut down.

    Sometimes my work is cross-party. Like backing community pubs or opposing the badger cull.

    And often, it’s about raising issues that few other MPs want to support and where Labour and the Coalition have similarly dirty track records.

    Like speaking the truth to power on the scandal of undercover police targeting legitimate protest groups. On secret Courts and the erosion of our personal liberties.

    And telling the truth about the scale of the challenge of climate change.  Not saying what we think is politically palatable.

    But saying it, as it is

    I couldn’t do any of it without the support of my amazing staff, to whom I pay tribute again here and now

    And I know that when I am joined in the House of Parliament by Jenny Jones, the collective Green voice that is every one of you, every member of our Party, will be heard even louder.

    And increasingly, we’re filling the gap left by the Liberal Democrats too.

    Who would have thought, just a few years ago, that the Liberals would be part of a government that was introducing secret courts, where you are tried using evidence you can’t even see, let alone challenge.

    Liberals supporting a government that pays for lorries to drive around with ‘foreigners go home’ painted on the side.

    Liberals backing the bombing of Syria, without waiting for the United Nations to try and co-ordinate an international response.

    This is the vampire kiss of this coalition.

    You offer yourself to Count David, and before long you are one of them and you’ve sold your soul, and grown fangs of your own.

    The way the 3 main parties have become so similar in their policies and their values over the years means that the outcome of the next election is hard to predict.

    But whatever else happens, it is a key moment for the Green Party.

    2010 was a historic achievement.

    The culmination of the work of thousands of people over decades.

    And we have to repeat that achievement again in just two years time.

    It won’t be any easier.

    We have Labour desperately targeting Brighton Pavilion.

    They don’t like the idea of the Greens joining them on the national stage.

    It gives people too much of a choice. It shows that you can stick to your principles and still get elected. They don’t like that.

    So we have to be honest.

    Those years of steady progress that we have made are at risk. Single seats on councils.  Then Council groups.  Then The European Parliament. The London Assembly. And now the House of Commons.

    If we don’t redouble our efforts, we may find ourselves going backwards.

    We aren’t after power for ourselves, but it matters for those we represent.

    And it matters now more than ever.

    We have a government that is intent on demonising the poor and vulnerable. That is tearing up the idea of society and of our inter-dependence.  That is taking us towards environmental catastrophe.

    This is worse than the Victorian era. It is not just about substituting personal charity for the welfare state.

    The Government is saying that the poor do not deserve help from the state or from individuals.

    Instead, people are encouraged to despise those who have less.

    And so you have the grotesque spectacle of boys from Eton lecturing others about how to get on in life.

    But where is the alternative?

    Labour are still dancing to Thatcher’s tune.  Private sector good, public sector bad. Enterprise is better than solidarity.

    But in many ways, when in power they went further than Thatcher ever dreamed.

    She did not kill our National Health Service – but it is Labour’s market reforms have paved the way for the Tories’ break-up of the NHS.

    The state now spies on its citizens in ways undreamed of under Thatcher. But where are Labour to protest about the trampling of our basic liberties?

    And most shaming of all, we see Labour MPs – heirs to the party of Nye Bevan and Clement Atlee – failing to properly challenge the Tories all-out attack on the  welfare system.

    So it is time that we as Greens restated some basic principles about our country.

    First, we are all in it together. We can’t have a society based on the haves casting off the have-nots, who are then marginalised, demonised, even criminalised.

    Successive governments have gone after the enemy within. Miners. The unemployed. Trade unionists. Asylum seekers. Scroungers.

    But to exclude others is to lessen, to tarnish ourselves. No-one is outside the pale. They are us. Our friends. Our work colleagues. Our neighbours.

    Second, we are one nation.

    We cannot have a metropolitan and home counties elite writing a set of rules for themselves and their neighbours, and another set of rules for the rest of the country.

    We see communities being asked to do the dirty work for the rich. To take the nuclear waste. To put up with the fracking.

    This is wrong. It is unfair. It is, dare I say it, unpatriotic.

    For this is fracking at the national scale. Breaking up the land, taking the profits, and leaving local communities to pick up the pieces.

    This is the politics of selfishness.

    It seeks to free those with wealth from the responsibilities that go with the privileges. And in the end it is the millionaires and the billionaires who gain the most.

    This is why we stick to our belief – that fair is worth fighting for.

    It’s not just a slogan.

    For us, fairness is not a buzzword from a focus group. We know what it means. We believe in it.

    And it’s a fight we can win.

    Electorally. In Brighton and Hove and across our country.

    Morally. Our values are shared by so many people, who may not be members or supporters.

    Now we must do more to show all those who see that our country is heading in the wrong direction, that they are not alone.

    It is like a march, or a demonstration. We hold our banner high, but we are proud to march alongside others, under other banners, who share the same cause.

    We each have our role.

    Ours is to give our cause a voice in politics.

    No-one else can do this but the Greens.

    We have two years until the next election.

    Two years to show this to all those who share our values, in communities up and down the land.

    And above all, to show them that we can be re-elected here in Brighton and Hove.

    That their voice, our voice, cannot be stifled and silenced by the old politics.

    We have two years to produce another piece of history.

    That work starts today.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2010 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech in the House of Commons made by Caroline Lucas on 28th May 2010.

    Mr Speaker,

    I am most grateful to you for calling me during today’s debate.

    The environment is a subject dear to my heart, as I’m sure you know, and I’ll return to it in a moment.

    I think anyone would find their first speech in this chamber daunting, given its history and traditions, and the many momentous events it has witnessed.

    But I have an additional responsibility, which is to speak not only as the new Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion, but also as the first representative of the Green Party to be elected to Westminster.

    You have to go back several decades, to the election of the first Nationalist MPs in Scotland and Wales, to find the last maiden speech from a new national political party.

    And perhaps a better comparison would be those first Socialist and Independent Labour MPs, over a century ago, whose arrival was seen as a sign of coming revolution.

    When Keir Hardie made his maiden speech to this House, after winning the seat of West Ham South in 1892, there was an outcry.

    Because instead of frock coat and top hat, he wore a tweed suit and deerstalker.

    It’s hard to decide which of these choices would seem more inappropriate today.

    But what Keir Hardie stood for now seems much more mainstream.

    Progressive taxation, votes for women, free schooling, pensions and abolition of the House of Lords.

    Though the last of these is an urgent task still before us, the rest are now seen as essential to our society.

    What was once radical, even revolutionary, becomes understood, accepted and even cherished.

    In speaking today, I am helped by an admirable tradition – that in your first speech to this House, you should refer to your constituency and to your predecessor.

    David Lepper, who stood down at this election after thirteen years service as Member for Brighton Pavilion, was an enormously hard-working and highly-respected Member whose qualities transcend any differences of Party.

    I am delighted to have this chance to thank him for his work on behalf of the people of Brighton.

    It is also a great pleasure to speak about Brighton itself. It is, I am sure, well-known to many Members, if only from Party conferences.

    My own Party has not yet grown to a size to justify the use of the Brighton Centre, although I hope that will change before long.

    But I can say to honourable members who are not familiar with it, that it is one of the UK’s premier conference venues; and there are proposals to invest in it further to help ensure that Brighton retains its status as the UK’s leading conference and tourism resort.

    There are also the attractions of the shops and cafes of the Lanes and North Laine, the Pier and of course the Royal Pavilion itself, which gives its name to the constituency.

    And beyond the immediate boundaries of the constituency and the city, there is the quietly beautiful countryside of the South Downs and the Sussex Weald.

    Brighton has always had a tradition of independence – of doing things differently. It has an entrepreneurial spirit, making the best of things whatever the circumstances, and enjoying being ahead of the curve.

    We see this in the numbers of small businesses and freelancers within the constituency, and in the way in which diversity is not just tolerated, or respected, but positively welcomed and valued.

    You have to work quite hard to be a “local character” in Brighton.

    We do not have a single dominant employer in Brighton. As well as tourism and hospitality, we have two universities, whose students make an important cultural, as well as financial, contribution to the city.

    There are also a large number of charities, campaigning groups and institutes based there, some local, others with a national or international reach, such as the Institute of Development Studies, all of which I will work to support in my time in this place.

    I would like also to pay tribute to those wonderful Brighton organisations that work with women. In particular I’d like to mention Rise, who do amazing work with women who have been victims of domestic abuse.

    Many of my constituents are employed in the public and voluntary sectors. They include doctors and teachers, nurses and police officers, and others from professions that do not always have the same level of attention or support from the media, or indeed from politicians.

    But whatever the role – social workers, planning officers, highway engineers or border agency staff – we depend upon them.

    I’m sure that members on all sides would agree that all those who work for the State should be respected and their contribution valued. In a time of cuts, with offhand comments about bureaucrats and pencil-pushers, that becomes yet more important.

    There is also a Brighton that is perhaps less familiar to honourable members. The very popularity of the City puts pressure on transport and housing and on the quality of life.

    Though there is prosperity, it is not shared equally. People are proud of Brighton, but they believe that it can be a better and fairer place to live and work.

    I pledge to everything I can in this place to help achieve that, with a particular focus on creating more affordable, more sustainable housing.

    Brighton was once the seat of the economist Henry Fawcett who, despite his blindness, was elected there in 1865. Shortly afterwards he married Millicent Garrett, later the leader of the suffragists, a movement he himself had supported and encouraged.

    So he lent his name to the Fawcett Society, which is still campaigning for greater women’s representation in politics.

    The task of ensuring that Parliament better reflects the people that it represents remains work in progress – and as the first woman elected in Brighton Pavilion, this is work that I will do all that I can do advance.

    I said when I began that I found this occasion daunting.

    Perhaps the most difficult task is to say a few words about the latest radical move that the people of Brighton have made – that is, to elect the first Green MP to Parliament.

    It has been a long journey.

    The Green Party traces its origins back to 1973, and the issues highlighted in its first Manifesto for a Sustainable Society – including security of energy supply, tackling pollution, raising standards of welfare and striving for steady state economics – are even more urgent today.

    If our message had been heeded nearly 40 years ago, I like to think we would be much closer to the genuinely sustainable economy that we so urgently need, than we currently are today.

    We fielded fifty candidates in the 1979 general election as the Ecology Party, and began to win seats on local councils. Representation in the European Parliament and the London Assembly followed.

    Now, after nearly four decades of the kind of work on doorsteps and in council chambers which I am sure honourable members are all too familiar, we have more candidates and more members, and now our first MP.

    A long journey.

    Too long, I would say.

    Politics needs to renew itself, and allow new ideas and visions to emerge.

    Otherwise debate is the poorer, and more and more people will feel that they are not represented.

    So I hope that if, and when, other new political movements arise, they will not be excluded by the system of voting. Reform here, as in other areas, is long-overdue.

    The chance must not be squandered. Most crucially, the people themselves must be given a choice about the way their representatives are elected.

    And in my view, that means more than a referendum on the Alternative Vote – it means the choice of a genuinely proportional electoral system.

    Both before the election and afterwards, I have been asked the question: what can a single MP hope to achieve? I may not be alone in facing that question.

    And since arriving in this place, and thinking about the contribution other members have made over the years, I am sure that the answer is clear, that a single MP can achieve a great deal.

    A single MP can contribute to debates, to legislation, to scrutiny. Work that is valuable, if not always appreciated on the outside.

    A single MP can speak up for their constituents.

    A single MP can challenge the executive. I am pleased that the government is to bring forward legislation to revoke a number of restrictions on people’s freedoms and liberties, such as identity cards.

    But many restrictions remain. For example, control orders are to stay in force. Who is to speak for those affected and for the principle that people should not be held without charge, even if it is their own homes?

    House arrest is something we deplore in other countries. I hope through debate we can conclude that it has no place here either.

    A single MP can raise issues that cannot be aired elsewhere.

    Last year Honourable Members from all sides of the House helped to shine a light on the actions of the international commodities trading group Trafigura, and the shipping of hazardous waste to the Ivory Coast.

    There was particular concern that the media in this country were being prevented from reporting the issues fully and fairly.

    This remains the case, for new legal actions concerning Trafigura have been launched in the Dutch courts, and are being reported widely in other countries, but not here.

    Finally, I would like to touch on the subject of today’s debate.

    I have worked on the causes and consequences of climate change for most of my working life, first with Oxfam – for the effects of climate change are already affecting millions of people in poorer countries around the world – and then for ten years in the European Parliament.

    But if we are to overcome this threat, then it is we in this chamber who must take the lead.

    We must act so that the United Kingdom can meet its own responsibilities to cut the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that are changing our climate, and encourage and support other countries to do the same.

    This House has signed up to the 10:10 Campaign – 10% emissions reductions in 2010. That’s very good news. But the truth is that we need 10% emission cuts every year, year on year, until we reach a zero carbon economy.

    And time is running short. If we are to avoid irreversible climate change, then it is this Parliament that must meet this historic task.

    That gives us an extraordinary responsibility – and an extraordinary opportunity.

    Because the good news is that the action that we need to tackle the climate crisis is action which can improve the quality of life for all of us – better, more affordable public transport, better insulated homes, the end of fuel poverty, stronger local communities and economies, and many more jobs.

    I look forward to working with Members from all sides of the House on advancing these issues.

  • Tim Loughton – 2010 Speech to the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People’s Services

    Below is the text of the speech given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families, Tim Loughton, on 29th June 2010.

    Thank you, Sir Paul. And thank you Christine for inviting me to speak to you today.

    C4EO is doing some really interesting and important work, which complements a lot of thinking in Government Departments across Whitehall, particularly in these financially challenging times. So I think this is a very good opportunity to talk about that approach, what we can learn from each other, and how to put those lessons into practice.

    But first it might be useful to put the current situation in context, and say something about the challenges facing all of us in the coming months and years.

    (Outline of the financial situation – how we got here, need for financial restraint, etc.)

    Last week the Chancellor’s emergency budget set out the tough but fair measures that we need to take to tackle the country’s budget deficit and bring spending back under control, in I think a measured and realistic way.

    The scale of the fiscal challenge is huge, and that does mean there will be very real and unavoidable challenges – and the Department for Education is not immune from them.

    Many families will face the challenge of hardship.

    There will be a strain not just on resources, but on relationships too. As pressure on families increases, so too will the pressure on children.

    One child in five in this country is currently living in poverty, and two million children live in poor housing.

    And we know about the links between economic recession and the effects on mental health in the family and, increasingly, in children.

    As they look to us, and to you, for support in these difficult times, we have to ensure that our services offer them what they need in the best possible way.

    That’s why the coalition government has put the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility at the heart of our decision-making and our policies.

    We have already announced that we will protect spending on schools, Sure Start and 16-19 funding, while also announcing the introduction of a pupil premium that will allow us to tackle educational inequality by ensuring that additional money is provided to those who teach the most disadvantaged children. And we will refocus Sure Start on meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged families.

    But there’s no doubt the landscape has changed, and when we’re thinking about how to provide public services in future – whether that’s childcare places, safeguarding vulnerable children, or school IT projects – we need to look first and foremost at quality outcomes as well as value for money, and do all we can to make sure that we get the maximum bang for our buck.

    That means looking at outcomes rather than, for example, throughput.

    Because in the past I would contend, too much of what passed for evaluation of any particular process or project was often not much more than a measurement of quantity – how many young people were signed up for this or that particular scheme, for instance – rather than a thoughtful analysis of what each individual may or may not have gained from the project. Did it have a life-changing impact for them? How did it improve their life chances?

    So we have to be smarter, we have to think about how children have actually benefited (or not) from our policies and investment; about the timeliness of interventions, and whether departments and agencies have done as much cross-cutting work as they can.

    In the coming years, all of our interventions must be targeted on the people who will benefit most, and provided in the way that will help them best.

    So I am really switched on to good practice. Where is it? And how do we learn from it?

    How do we discover the best models for public services in times like these?

    At the heart of the new government’s approach is a determination to move away from a top-down, prescriptive approach, and to devolve more power and freedom to parents and professionals.

    Parents have the primary responsibility for raising children, and our policies should always recognise that. But even the best parents need support from time to time.

    So we need to make sure they have access to the professionals – whether state-provided or from the voluntary sector – who are experts in their respective fields.

    They are the people we need to trust, and it’s their experience we need to share.

    Thousands of them are already doing excellent work, and formerly as an opposition front-bencher, and in the first month in my new job, I have visited some great examples of local schemes that are really making a difference.

    There are successful projects in every part of the country. In Kent, for example, an Early Talk programme has been set up in Ashford, at low cost, to help children with speech and language difficulties to develop their communications skills early on. It’s a multi-agency approach, and it has resulted in over 90 per cent of those children making good progress in a mainstream primary school when in the past they would have needed specialist language provision. Poor speech development is often at the heart of poor learning, and the earlier it is detected and dealt with, the better a child’s chance of keeping up both educationally and socially.

    And Kensington & Chelsea’s ‘Virtual School’, with its focus on attendance and attainment, is improving the educational outcomes of looked after children and young people in the borough, and making real reductions in the number who are not in education, employment or training (NEET).

    Or there’s Tower Hamlets’ ‘Parents as Partners in Early Learning’ scheme, where a system for sharing information between parents, teachers and others involved with the child’s learning has resulted in a significant increase in children’s communication and personal skills.

    So there’s plenty of good practice going on out there. But there’s no point having a brilliant idea and not telling anyone about it. That’s why C4EO’s work on improvement is so important. It allows local authorities to use the best evidence and research to improve local practice and drive up standards.

    Because knowledge is power – power to do good – but only if you share it.

    Travelling about the country, I have been struck by the number of times I’ve heard about a scheme or initiative that’s achieving excellent results in addressing a problem in one authority – but which is completely unheard of in the neighbouring area.

    We need to be smarter about using and disseminating good practice, and in future I see an important role for government in facilitating best practice. For instance, my ministerial colleague Sarah Teather and I are looking at organising an event that gets together local authority lead members and directors to look at best practice, and discuss what might be transferable from one area to another. It needs input from both local authority elected members and officers, and I’d be interested to hear your views on how we take that forward.

    It won’t be a case of funding all the good schemes we hear about. What we will be doing is helping appropriate voluntary sector organisations to become part of the solution, by making it easier for them to work with statutory agencies.

    Families

    The Government believes that families are the building blocks of society. We believe that in order to build strong communities, we need to nurture and support families of all kinds.

    That doesn’t mean we think it’s Government’s business to lecture families about how to live their lives. That can be counter-productive. What we need to do is provide them with an environment in which they can thrive.

    That is why we are setting up a new Childhood and Families Task Force, to look at areas like parental leave and flexible working, the support we give children in the event of family breakdown, and how to help children avoid the pressures forcing them to grow up too quickly.

    The Task Force will be chaired by the Prime Minister, and again Sarah Teather will be playing a crucial role as our departmental representative.

    In recent years, services that take a ‘whole family’ approach to helping families with multiple problems have grown rapidly, and here again there is a great deal of excellent local practice we can learn from.

    In Westminster, for example, the Westminster Family Recovery project is addressing the needs and behaviours of the families who place most demands on the local authority’s public services – as well as having a high impact on the communities around them. By working intensively over a period of around a year with these families, the project aims to bring about long term inter-generational changes in behaviour. It’s an approach that is already delivering good results: for example, 50 per cent of children in families who have been part of the project for six months or more have shown an improvement in their school attendance.

    From a financial and effectiveness perspective, it has to make sense to concentrate a holistic solution on those families whose problems are taking up a disproportionate amount of professional time and resources.

    And in Suffolk, agencies are also doing excellent work in identifying and working with their ‘high demand’ and ‘high cost’ families. They have also carried out some intensive work looking at the needs of Young Carers. They are another neglected army of dedicated volunteers, and I went to their annual get-together at Fairthorne Manor last weekend.

    Early intervention

    If we are serious about addressing the problems facing us, and doing it with scarcer resources, then it’s essential we adopt new ways, smarter ways, of thinking and working.

    But one very old way of working – the ‘stitch in time saves nine’ principle – can also stand us in good stead. Early Intervention is a key component of providing effective, and cost-effective, services.

    At just 22 months, a poor child’s skills already lag behind those of a child of the same age from a better-off home. That disadvantage – if it is not tackled – will remain throughout life, with huge implications for choice of career, the limiting of opportunity, and even reduced life expectancy. A child born into one of England’s poorest neighbourhoods today will die (if nothing changes) seven years before one born into the richest.

    The stitch in time approach saves lives – sometimes literally.

    It often saves money too.

    For instance, it’s been estimated that a reduction of just one per cent in the number of offences committed by children and young people has the potential to generate savings for households and individuals of around £45 million a year.

    That’s why projects such as Action 4 Children’s Intensive Fostering are so interesting, concentrating the expertise of highly trained and motivated foster carers on teenagers on the cusp of the youth justice system.

    I am well aware of C4EO’s invaluable work on Early Intervention and cost-effectiveness, and we will study it closely as part of the work that we are currently carrying out on cost-effectiveness within the department.

    Incidentally, it seems to me that Early Intervention provides another argument against the reform of public services being driven by central government. If the solution to a problem has to wait until someone in Whitehall makes a decision, the chance for getting in early and sorting out trouble at its root is likely to have passed.

    And to encourage further that local approach, and to drive home the cost-effectiveness message, we will be investigating ways in which we can ensure that providers are paid partly by the results they achieve. That seems only right.

    Disparity of local authority outcomes – why are some LAs so much more successful than others?

    I believe that it’s only by sharing knowledge and expertise that we will be able to tackle the scandalous disparity of local authority outcomes.

    Why are some local authorities, with no more resources and with similar populations, so much more successful than others at improving outcomes for young people?

    Nottingham, Leicester and Haringey are all in the top 20 most deprived local authorities, but have all seen improvements in reducing both youth crime and teenage pregnancy recently. These local authorities have seen falls of between 15.9 per cent and 21.5 per cent in the rate of teenage pregnancies, compared to the average decrease nationally of 0.2 per cent, where overall figures remain stubbornly high.

    They have also seen falls of between 18 per cent and 62 per cent in youth crime. Stoke-on-Trent – also in that top-20 most deprived category – managed to achieve a fall in its youth crime rate of over 70 per cent between 2006-7 and 2008-9.

    What can explain those statistics? And why aren’t those results being replicated across the country? In large part it must be because less-good authorities are failing to learn from the best.

    And in a strange way, there’s an encouraging message there. It means there are authorities out there doing really great work. It means we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Using good practice developed in one area to help other areas improve their services is a cost-effective way of helping all children and families to achieve good outcomes.

    I’d like to give a plug here for the C4EO website. A good case study can be like gold dust, and C4EO’s rigorous process of validation means that the case studies on your website are a fantastic resource for others seeking to provide better services for their own communities, and great scope for peer mentoring between authorities, ADCs and LGAs.

    Conclusion

    All of us, whether in government or the voluntary sector, whether large organisations or individuals, need to work together to tackle the difficulties facing our country.

    That is what the Big Society is all about, and we shall be hearing a lot more about that. It’s all about empowering the sector, local communities and individuals to take the lead, to pool and share their expertise.

    And I believe that far from being helpless in the face of global processes, we actually have the solutions in our own hands. We have the resources in our local hospitals and schools and community groups to make this a better country.

    By identifying programmes and organisations that can actually deliver the results we want to see, and using an empirical approach rather than one that is ideologically driven, we can create a pattern for working more intelligently in future.

    In that spirit, over the summer we will be looking at how the Government can best support improvement in children’s services without stifling the very real innovation that’s at the heart of the best local authorities and their children’s services partners.

    I know C4EO and many of you here today will be monitoring our progress, and giving us the benefit of your experience. I look forward to working with you and hearing your views.

    Thank you.

  • Mark Lowcock – 2013 Speech on Ethiopia

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Lowcock, the Permanent Secretary at the Department for International Development, on 12th December 2013.

    Introduction

    Justine Greening, my Secretary of State, has made economic development –especially creating jobs to reduce dependency and improve the opportunities of the poor – 1 of the very top priorities for Britain’s international development programme.

    I am delighted to be able to discuss with you here today what that means in Ethiopia, and how Britain and Ethiopia can work together on this issue. And to be returning to a country I have visited regularly for nearly thirty years. My first visit was as a fresh-faced twenty-something in 1986 – I hope the economists amongst you can do the maths!

    Like my boss (and all good people!), I am an accountant who studied economics and went to business school.

    So I’m particularly pleased to be talking about these issues with an audience of economics and business students from the Economics and Political Science and International Relations Department, as well as policy makers and business people. I know this proud faculty can rightly consider itself 1 of the places of strength in teaching economics and business studies in Africa. Students from this faculty have become the bedrock of both the civil service and the private sector in Ethiopia. I know that when I speak today I am speaking to Ethiopia’s future movers and shakers.

    I am also delighted to be speaking to you in this new Eshetu Chole Building. I am sure you all know that Eshetu Chole was an esteemed Ethiopian economist whose knowledge, capacity and skill were of enormous pride to Ethiopians, and respected by other Africans.

    As well as looking at economic development, I am here in Ethiopia to discuss higher education and understand better how the UK might support your academic institutions. Both DFID and the British Council have supported linkages and knowledge transfer partnerships between Ethiopian and UK Higher Education Institutions. We are looking to do more, and I have just had the pleasure of meeting your State Minister for Higher Education, Dr Kaba, where we discussed this issue.

    And I know higher education matters greatly to Ethiopians. Indeed, your late Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, somehow found the time to study for an MBA at the UK’s Open University, while also running your country. He earned 1 of the best business degrees the Open University has ever awarded. No pressure on you then!

    But back to economic development.

    It’s always a source of wonder for me how much the country has changed. I know how frustrating it is for Ethiopians that views of your country are still shaped by the terrible famines of the 1980s. Too many people wrongly think that Ethiopia is still suffering in the same way.

    Yours is a country of incredible achievements and diversity. From the green and fertile plains of the highland regions. To the dry camel-filled Somali Regional State. From the almost supernatural landscape of the Danakil. To the jaw-dropping vistas of the Simien Mountains. Ethiopia as a country could not be more diverse. Its people could not be more diverse. And their needs could not be more diverse.

    But 1 of the things that has brought this most diverse of nations together has been the singularity of vision. Ethiopia’s success, over the past decade in particular, has been to maintain that vision. And turn it from a dream into a living, breathing, and forward looking reality.

    In the last 30 years life expectancy here has increased by 50%. Ethiopia is on track to meet most of the Millennium Development Goals. You have achieved the infant mortality goal 2 years early. Economic growth, in double digits, has been impressive. All the more so because, unlike other parts of the continent, it hasn’t been driven by commodities alone. Per capita income has doubled.

    On my last visit to Ethiopia, 2 years ago, I was privileged enough to spend a day alongside a young woman called Eyerusalem. She has a job breaking rocks for road building, but I was not very good at that. She earns money washing clothes for her neighbour, and I was even worse at that. And she collects water from the river, which I could not do at all – the container was too heavy and the rocks too slippery. Today Eyerusalem has a job in local government, earning 700 Birr a month – money which helps her to support both herself and her family. Her story illustrates how far – and how fast – Ethiopia has changed.

    On this visit I’ve had a very different but equally fascinating time. I spent yesterday looking at how economic development is changing Ethiopia. I spoke to farmers whose land tenure is being made more secure, to small shopkeepers benefiting from micro-finance in Addis’s outskirts and to workers at a state-of-the-art leather factory.

    I have heard first hand from a range of Ethiopian firms and foreign investors about the increasing attraction of Ethiopia as a place to do business. Drawn by Ethiopia’s sustained economic success, the size of its growing market, and its potential as a location for production, a range of industries are emerging that barely existed when I first visited.

    I have seen, for example, a successful vegetable producer, who exports produce to the EU. And I’ve met with a host of UK firms who are being drawn here, from leather glove makers, to clothes retailers to drinks manufacturers. This is both to their benefit, and that of Ethiopia, which stands to gain from their financial investment, creation of jobs and sharing of best practice.

    I think that that the strides that you have made away from poverty and famine, towards development and shared prosperity, make Ethiopia 1 of the world’s great development success stories of the last twenty years.

    Theme of inclusive growth and managing transitions

    The theme of my talk today is what drives inclusive growth and how to best manage the transitions that growth may bring over the next 10 years.

    Why? Firstly, because Ethiopia is already booming. But Ethiopians know there is still much to do. I hope the keen young economists and business students among you, not to mention policy makers and business people, will be asking yourselves these questions. How can Ethiopia sustain its success? How can you adapt to the changes which will come in its wake? There may be useful lessons to learn from other countries. And others can learn from you too.

    Adjusting to the challenges that transformation brings is just as important as sustaining growth. I believe there is a saying in Ethiopia, ‘siroTu yetatekut siroTu YeFetale’. Just in case my attempt at Amharic is less than perfect, I’d better add the English version: ‘a belt fastened while running will come undone while running’.

    Secondly, because the UK’s partnership with Ethiopia needs to adapt and change too. This is our largest development programme in the world. We’re incredibly proud of the things we’ve helped Ethiopia achieve to date. We want to be here for the long-haul. But we would like our relationship to change over time from a donor-recipient one to one of import-export and equal partnership on the world stage, on issues that affect us all, like climate change, world trade and counter-terrorism.

    As part of this, we want to expand our work on economic development here. Mindful that in the long run it will be the private sector development that will lead the process of job creation and provide the tax base for social spending and public investment by future generations.

    We’re starting with new support on land certification, access to finance and helping make the leather, textile and horticulture sectors in Ethiopia truly world class. But we want to go beyond this. We want to help Ethiopia attract the private capital, technology and know-how it needs to achieve its ambitious growth targets. And end reliance on external support, potentially within a generation. I hope in the discussion after my talk, you’ll give me some ideas on where we can best help.

    Inclusive growth

    So, back to my first theme. What drives inclusive growth?

    Ethiopia has very clear ideas about where it wants to be by 2025, and the best way to get there. Now, every country grows differently, and finds its own path. But it’s worth reflecting on some of the common features of countries that have successfully transformed themselves.

    The Commission for Growth and Development, set up by the World Bank in 2008, did a good job of setting out some of these features. They looked at 13 success stories of sustained and transformational growth to see what feature they shared. They came up with 5 ‘ingredients’. With 9 of these 13 countries being east Asian, I think the ingredients have particular resonance for a country like Ethiopia.

    The first of these features highlighted by the Commission was integration into the global economy. Two aspects of this are particularly important. First is the willingness and ability to import ideas, technology, and know-how from the rest of the world. Second, these countries exploited global demand. They encouraged a specialisation that allowed them to excel in world markets. The 4 east Asian Tigers, for instance, saw their manufacturing exports grow from under $5bn in 1962 to $715bn in 2004.

    Ethiopia is moving towards this kind of integration. It has publicly set a target of joining the WTO. It has a rising export base, including diversifying from traditional crops like coffee into new areas like cut flowers. There’s a booming services sector, to which energy exports could soon become a major contributor. And foreign direct investment is being actively courted. This is an incredibly effective carrier of ideas and know-how, as well as bringing in capital resources. However, inward FDI flows have not yet matched the levels of other parts of Africa. Nor the levels associated with take-off in many of the Asian examples of dramatic transformation. More on this later.

    The second common feature of these high performing economies has been macroeconomic stability. Whilst some may have experienced periods of high inflation – Korea in the 70s, for instance, or China in the mid-90s – it’s clear that the countries of east Asia took action in the face of these episodes, even though this may have been unpopular at the time. They knew that inflation would deter savers and threaten long term goals. Equally, fiscal deficits rose and fell but were contained to ensure they did not pose a risk to savers and deter investors.

    Again, this reminds me of what I see in Ethiopia. The Government has recently taken action to get inflation back under single digits and there is not the history of macroeconomic instability we see in much of Africa. I admire the way my friend Ato Sufian, your Finance Minister, and others in your Government approach macroeconomic stability

    The third feature is a focus on the future and high saving and investment rates. A key pillar of the success of the east Asian tigers was their farsighted decision to forgo consumption today in order to pursue higher levels of income in the future. China, for instance, is famous for having saved more than a third of its income for over a generation. These savings rates are what facilitated the high levels of investment, both public and private, that characterised these countries’ development paths.

    Whilst savings rates have increased in Ethiopia in the last couple of years, they remain lower. Definitions vary but over the last 5 years they have averaged less than 10% of GDP. Whilst investment spending has passed a quarter of all economic activity. In some ways this appears to be an enigma. Ethiopia is 1 of the few countries in the world to have successfully raised incomes but seen private savings rates drop. This is possibly the biggest difference between Ethiopia and the east Asian tigers.

    Learning from Asia, a 2 pronged approach seems sensible. First, expanding financial services and new savings products. Great strides have been made here with the number of bank branches doubling in less than 2 years. Secondly, linked to my earlier point on macroeconomic stability, savers will need to be reassured that their deposits are safe through positive real interest rates. Savers might not want to defer spending today if inflation means those savings are actually worth less tomorrow.

    The fourth common feature of these 13 successful economies was the importance of property rights and letting markets allocate resources. Whilst they varied in the strength and clarity of property rights, in all of them businesses and investors could be confident their investments were secure.

    There was variation in the degree of state intervention. Hong Kong is as famous for its laissez faire approach as China has been for a more hands on role. But even with this hands-on approach, China knew that you can’t just celebrate and foster success. You have to allow failure when sectors and firms are not viable. To avoid wasting precious resources that could be better used elsewhere. And send important signals about what works and what doesn’t. All successful economies have examples of things they have tried but no longer do, for instance even Singapore experimented with import substitution before looking outwards.

    Looking east has already yielded results for Ethiopia. Whilst land remains the property of the state, improving the security of poor farmers’ land tenure through better certification helps give them the incentives to invest in that land.

    The Commission’s final observation was the importance of committed, credible and capable governments. For these high-growth economies, growth and poverty reduction is the overarching political priority. A long term vision that is well communicated is a common feature. Just as important is pragmatism about how this plan will be delivered, learning from mistakes and adjusting course as necessary. The Chinese premier, Deng Xiaoping, described it as ‘crossing the river by feeling for the stones’. A common theme in all 13 countries is a technocratic administration, a focus on delivery and an approach to policymaking that is driven by evidence and learns from mistakes.

    Your late – and widely admired – Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, with whom I had the privilege of several discussions on these issues – set out a clear vision for the country with the PASDEP and subsequently the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP). This, in turn, is about to enter a new phase as the Government charts its course from 2015 with a second GTP.

    These 5 ingredients are a useful way of looking at Ethiopia’s progress and future choices. I would add 1 more, related to the investment climate.

    Whilst the Growth Commission’s observations on prioritising future incomes through investment and the role of property rights are right, they only take us so far. It is also important to think about the way the world looks to those making those important decisions on whether to consume or invest – or often whether to invest in Ethiopia, or somewhere else.

    A key factor here is the investment climate: the rules, procedures and norms that underpin how business is done. For instance, how much it costs to register a business, how long it takes to pay tax and the likelihood of being asked to pay a bribe when you do.

    In many respects the world has changed profoundly since the east Asian ‘miracle’. The increasingly mobile nature of global capital flows and the proliferation of countries competing for the same investors have changed the landscape. Investors (both international and domestic) have more choice in where and how to invest. The process of offshoring labour intensive manufacturing from advanced countries to the Asian Tigers is winding down and competition in these sectors is fierce. We know about that in Europe!

    The complexity of managing and attracting investors to a modern and diversified economy also presents challenges. Trying to tailor arrangements for individual firms and granting them high level political access to help overcome obstacles is only manageable when you have just a few investors. There is a risk that the incentives and tailored measures set up for these first few investors eventually lead to a level of complexity and unpredictability that puts off others. Many east Asian countries found that special deals sooner or later had to be replaced with broad based reforms providing clarity and equity, as well as flexibility.

    Listening to the grumbles of your key investors is always revealing. I am told that the top constraints reported by Chinese investors in Ethiopia are access to finance, access to land, electricity and the time taken and unpredictability in paying taxes. Do customs and trade regulations also rate highly, and does it takes longer to clear customs here than in other places?

    Managing transitions

    And finally, let me say a word about managing the transitions that growth and development will entail.

    Some changes countries face are inherent to the process of growth and rising incomes. Some are external, driven by global factors or environmental change. I want to mention 4 ‘transition issues’, which Ethiopia might want to turn into advantages rather than risks.

    Demographic change is my first example. As with much of Africa, Ethiopia has a young population: 85 million today, set to rise to 150 million by 2050. And the median age of Ethiopians is already only just over 16. This youth bulge has often been called a ‘demographic dividend’, with the majority of the population in work, rather than needing looking after.

    But it also creates pressures for service delivery and pressures on the labour force tomorrow. At some 2 million new entrants to Ethiopia’s labour force every year, that’s more than the total number of people currently employed in the formal private sector.

    I guess I don’t need to tell all you students studying hard and trying to pick up marketable skills what this means. The private sector must take off, particularly in the manufacturing sector. And more people like you need to develop skills in manufacturing and services. To ensure it’s really a ‘demographic dividend’ rather than a problem.

    Second, and linked to both structural change in the economy and demographics, is urbanisation. Ethiopia’s population remains overwhelmingly rural. But urban centres are growing quickly. This great city has more than doubled in size since I first visited. Some smaller cities are growing even faster. Again, no country has advanced to middle income status without significant urbanisation.

    Cities are crucibles for innovation and specialisation. Clusters of similar businesses can emerge, driving competition and creating demand for workers with key skills. Over the last 5 years almost half the fall in poverty in Ethiopia has come in towns and cities or through rural-urban migration.

    But urbanisation also causes upheaval and change. Social networks, service delivery, transport links and issues of environmental sustainability need thinking through. I see signs of this foresight here in Addis Ababa in the construction of the light railway. I am hoping to visit it myself tomorrow. But is infrastructure being developed fast enough?

    There are significant opportunities in infrastructure for Ethiopia to draw on the finance and skills of the private sector. Public Private Partnerships, for example, have proved successful elsewhere in harnessing the private sector to help deliver objectives once the preserve of the public sector. Through the “Private Infrastructure Development Group”, DFID has helped stimulate such investment in other developing countries, using a mix of financial, practical and strategic support. We stand ready to do the same here.

    The third transition I want to highlight is perhaps the most sensitive, but 1 which I know is on people’s minds. As a country grows, and its population gets more educated, wealthy and urbanized, history suggests that ways for that population to express their views openly and freely get ever more important if stability is to be maintained.

    The final transition I want to highlight is increased reliance on domestic revenues and other sources of finance. This will also mean a reduced dependence on aid. Increasing revenues will be essential for protecting the delivery of basic services like education and health care. It will also help Ethiopia build a more comprehensive social safety net. Something which all middle and high income countries committed to social equality need.

    Conclusion

    Ethiopia has come a long way over the past 30 years. I hope to live to see equal – if not greater – levels of progress over the next 30. There will undoubtedly be bumps in the road and new challenges. The flexibility and creativity with which Ethiopia meets these challenges will be a sign of its true strength. Some– like the shift in demographics – can be foreseen and planned for. Others, like global volatility in food markets or oil prices, can’t. Hence the need to build in buffers now through social safety nets and strong macroeconomic policy.

    I want to finish by saying that the UK is in this partnership for the long haul. And as Ethiopia’s development accelerates, our support needs to evolve too. As I said earlier, we have begun our shift towards economic development already. As we get into discussion on what I’ve said today about Ethiopia’s growth and transitions, I hope you will tell me how you think the UK can best support you in this.

    Thank you.