UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Mark Lowcock – 2012 Speech on The Future of International Development

    Below is the text of a speech made on the 16th October 2012 by the senior civil servant, Mark Lowcock, who works at the British Council in New Delhi.

    Mahatma Gandhi once said: “the future depends on what you do today.”

    So in looking at the future of international development, I want to start by looking at where we are today.

    I turned 50 this year. My 16 year old son asked me which 50 years in human history I thought to be the best in terms of the quality of human lives. I said, why, the last 50 years of course.

    Then I thought for a bit and said no, actually, it is the next 50 years that are going to be the best. Which made him feel a lot better but also led me to thinking about the pace of development in the last 5 decades, and how different our lives now are from those of earlier generations. There is no getting away from the fact that there has never been a luckier, healthier or more prosperous cohort than us.

    Human beings have been on the planet for roughly 150,000 years. Until very recently, almost everyone’s human experience was concentrated solely in obtaining enough food, heat and light simply to sustain an existence.

    100 years ago, there was only one country – it was Sweden actually – that had achieved an infant mortality rate below 10%. 175 countries have now brought their infant mortality rates below 10%, and 130 below 5%.

    In the last 50 years, global life expectancy on average has risen from 47 years to 67 years.

    The 3G smartphones on sale for less than 5000 rupees in Nairobi today enable a Kenyan to access more information than was in any library in the world 20 years ago – and to do so 24/7.

    I enjoyed reading this summer a book by Mark Tully – (I believe one of the more successful UK exports to India!). It was called India: The Road Ahead or Non–Stop India, as it is called here. It brought home to me just how far India has travelled in my lifetime.

    Mark Tully presents a range of compelling stories from all across this diverse country – not just illustrating the well-known economic miracle, but also the pace of change on social issues such as caste. The numbers speak for themselves.

    India has progressed from a literacy rate of 28% in late 1961 to 74% in 2011

    India’s share of global GDP has doubled – from 2.5% in 1980 to 5.5% in 2010

    India has increased life expectancy from 26 to 72 years in 60 years: 1950 to 2010

    India has raised the rate of growth from below 1% in the 1940s to around 3% in the early 70’s to over 6% in 2010’s.

    And India has reduced poverty – from nearly 90% living in absolute poverty in 1940s to 51% in 1977-78 to just over 30% at present.

    The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

    And both here in India and across the rest of the world changes have been happening faster than seemed possible even 20 years ago. In the mid-1990s in the Overseas Development Administration, I was periodically tasked with writing briefing papers for John Vereker, then the Permanent Secretary, for meetings he attended with his counterparts in the OECD on the state of global development. These meetings ultimately led to the agreement of the International Development Targets. The IDTs then became one of the key building blocks for the Millennium Development Goals.

    When they were first proposed in the 1990s, the MDGs were widely thought too ambitious and aspirational to be taken seriously. The pundits thought that halving the proportion of people living under a dollar a day, sending every child to school, reducing under-5 mortality by two thirds and maternal mortality by three quarters, all by 2015, was pie in the sky.

    As we now know, the sceptics have been confounded. The halving poverty target was achieved 5 years early. And not just because of progress in China or other parts of Asia. Even in Africa, by 2008 most people in Africa, for the first time since measurement began, were judged to be living above the extreme poverty line. The clean water target was also met 5 years early. Access to basic education has improved dramatically. Infant mortality has plummeted.

    So when my Prime Minister said in New York last month that the international community should aim to abolish extreme poverty within this generation, our generation, these were not just aspirational words. Abolishing extreme poverty within our lifetimes is absolutely within our grasp.

    Future challenges

    I’m not saying this will be easy. The figures speak for themselves:

    2.5 billion people still lack access to improved sanitation facilities

    1.2 billion people still live in extreme poverty

    Every fourth child under 5 is underweight

    Over a quarter of a million women still die in pregnancy and childbirth each year from completely avoidable causes.

    Globally, we in the OECD at least, face the most difficult financial and economic outlook since the 1930s. We have lost momentum, sadly, in dealing with climate change and environmental challenges. We need to get that momentum back. We have seen major changes in many parts of Middle East and North Africa. We need to make sure those changes lead to real improvements in people’s lives. And we continue to face extensive challenges in preventing and dealing with the aftermath of conflicts.

    Beyond 2015

    So I am not saying that all the problems are solved. That is why I feel so passionately that the process that has now started in the United Nations to work out a new set of global development goals should have the same level of aspiration and ambition. The MDGs have provided a powerful focus for shared international action for the last 15 years. But after 2015 we will need a new framework, building on and taking forward the MDGs.

    The UN has set up a very thorough consultative process to help shape this framework. The different UN agencies will lead consultations on different themes. There are country-based consultations in 50 countries with a leading role for civil society. And the Secretary General has established a High Level Panel co-chaired by the British Prime Minister, the Indonesian President and the Liberian President.

    The panel has some of the top thinkers of our time – including Abhijit Banerjee – a very distinguished Indian economist who is very familiar to this audience. This panel had its first meeting in New York in September; its second meeting will be in London next month. And its task is to report back to the UN General Assembly next year.

    Britain doesn’t yet have a fixed position on what these new goals should be. We want to hear what other countries have to say. We have listened to those who say that the formation of the Millennium Development Goals was driven too much by the Global North – with not enough input from the Global South.

    But British Ministers have articulated some ideas as a contribution to the debate. At the end of the first panel meeting last month, David Cameron said five things:

    The objective of the new framework should be the ending of global absolute poverty.

    We should not get rid of the Millennium Development Goals. We should urge countries to complete and achieve the MDGs

    We must look at the causes of poverty, not just the symptoms of poverty

    We should consult the poorest in the world and ask what it is that they want

    We must be bold and ambitious. If we write a complicated report we won’t be held to account for the conclusions that we reach. We want something simple and straight forward, with time-bound targets that everyone can understand, that can unite the world and that the politicians of the world and the leaders of the world can be held to account over.

    The third of those points I’d like to dwell on – about looking at the causes not just the symptoms. Some people say that the current Millennium Development Goals framework – with its strong focus on access of poor people to basic services – has not focused enough on the underlying causes of poverty, the underlying enablers of progress.

    For some people that means a need to pursue the human development agenda in greater depth – to look at education quality as well as access. For others it means focusing more on environmental sustainability, resource scarcity and climate issues. We agree with all that.

    But when our own Government talks about the underlying enablers of development, they also increasingly talk about the importance of open economies and open societies, what David Cameron sometimes refers to as the “golden thread of development”.

    The idea of open economies goes a lot wider than free trade. It includes the idea that citizens should be free to provide for their livelihoods; to access goods and services, as well as infrastructure connecting them to markets; to trade their skills and capital and pursue investment opportunities; and to contribute to a thriving private sector.

    That economic governance should be transparent, credible, and stable – and include effective taxation as well as appropriate regulation.

    That the costs of doing business should be reduced and the risks of investing minimised, including through legal protection of property rights and contract enforcement. There is strong evidence behind the idea that open economies support progress – not least the impact in India that Nandan Nilekani talked about of the economic liberalisation here in the 1990s. The idea that open societies are good for development is perhaps less frequently articulated – but it is easy to believe when visiting the capital of the world’s largest democracy.

    The idea is about societies where all people have the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of their gender or their identity.

    Where they are free to exercise choice, to express their voice, to challenge, and to secure change in how they are governed.

    Where there is stability and absence of war, where people feel safe and have access to justice.

    Where states have capable institutions, deliver responsive public services, are accountable to the public and tackle corruption and manage resources effectively.

    And where the rule of law is respected, transparency promoted and an independent media protected.

    While some of this may be controversial in some quarters, one thing which is very clear from the last decade is that the countries getting left behind in the pace of progress are those enmeshed in conflict or suffering from chronically poor governance. Organisations like my own see an increasing proportion of our resources and efforts spent in such countries. The new post-2015 framework has to reflect the reality of that in some way.

    Ideas and visionaries

    The history of human progress is built upon ideas. From the time that the first human (my guess is that it was a woman) had the idea of rubbing flints together to light a fire – development has been driven forward by ideas and innovation.

    Nandan Nilekani of course is someone who personifies the big idea. As he says in his book – it is ideas that lead economic and social policy, rather than the other way round.

    As one of the visionaries behind India’s IT revolution – he has of course demonstrated this in practice. One of the books I read this summer was a pacy page-turner called One Night in a Call Centre by Chetan Bhagat. Ah – I can see that many of you have read it too. As I was musing about the idea of young Indians just outside Delhi would be sorting out refrigerator problems for Americans in the Mid-West – it struck me that this was the stuff of science fiction when Nandan, Sam and I were all little boys!

    Most of these magnificent ideas come from private individuals in the private sector. Another of the most inspirational books I have read this year (I must be giving the impression that all I do is read books – I don’t – or at least not as much as I’d like to!) was called Infinite Vision – about an idea that one man in South India had.

    I am sure most of you are familiar with Dr Govindappa Venkataswamy, or Dr. V as he is called. He defied all business logic when he founded a small clinic with a big aim of curing blindness. Today the Aravind Hospital is the largest single provider of eye-care anywhere in the world. Every day it sees 1,200 patients and the doctors perform over 200 operations. It has grown into a network of eye hospitals that has seen 32 million patients over 36 years and performed more than 4 million eye surgeries, most of them ultra-subsidised or absolutely free. For about 50 Rupees (about one US Dollar), a patient can get three eye tests in three months. The business still defies logic – and yet it is going strong and amazingly self-reliant.

    In my quarter century of work working on international development, I have come across other such inspirational stories – of big ideas that started small and have improved the lives of some of the poorest people in the world.

    Mo Ibrahim – who has helped a whole generation of Africans leapfrog into the mobile age – joining them up and also expanding access to banking and finance in a way that the formal banking system never could.

    Mohammad Yunus – who demonstrated that the poor are as credit-worthy as anybody else.

    And India’s very own Verghese Kurien – who died a few weeks ago – who used the cooperatives model to engineer India’s White Revolution – taking India from being a milk-deficient nation to the largest milk producer in the world.

    These people are the heroes – the architects of the new age of global development.

    The new architecture of development

    And that new global age brings with it a new global order. An order which no longer follows the tired old rules of the rich and the poor; the donor and the recipient; the first world and the third. It is a world in which countries like India, China and Brazil are reasserting their presence at the forefront of global progress.

    One of the snippets I picked up from Nandan’s book was that at one time India and China accounted for over half the global GDP. As Jim O’Neill – who came up with the term BRICS – observed recently: “In 2011, China’s nominal $GDP rose by 1.3 trillion, equivalent to creating an economy the size of Greece every 11½ weeks and an economy the size of Spain in not much more than a year. The BRIC countries collectively contributed around $2.2 trillion, not too far off the equivalent of another Italy.”

    To conclude then, I would like to offer a few reflections about what this changing world means for development organisations like mine:

    First we need to clarify that business we are in.

    I see three major business lines:

    First, a focus on faster progress on the MDGs in those Low-Income fragile and conflict-affected states in which none of the MDGs have yet been met. There is a few dozen countries for which this is true.

    Second, tackling global public bads: finally eradicating polio, tackling pandemics, and dealing with problems created by ungoverned spaces – terrorism, organised crime and the like. All countries in the world suffer the effects of these “bads” and official development assistance and organisations like DFID can help deal with them.

    And third, more tentatively, there is the issue of what we can do as development agencies to help tackle poverty in Middle Income Countries.

    Second, we need to do in agencies like mine is to change our offer.

    And improve it. 20 years ago, aid was a key element in the external financing and public expenditure plans of many countries. Thankfully, that is less and less so now. Trade flows, remittances, and foreign direct investment have all over the last decade grown much faster than aid. So have domestic tax revenues in virtually every country. The role of donors now is not so much to fill financing gaps across the developing world:

    We need to focus on the toughest problems (like the continuing challenge of child nutrition).

    We need to concentrate on promoting science, technology, innovation and ideas and building the evidence on whether they work.

    We need to help build the skills, capabilities, and institutions which help countries succeed.

    Third, in improving our offer, we need to keep our eyes firmly on the big development challenges.

    Just to pick two – we must retain our focus on girls & women – and increase our focus on climate change.

    I am sure you know that last week (October 11th) was the first International Day of the Girl. DFID has staked a lot (reputation, money, and also hope) in the belief that the benefits of investing in girls and women are transformational – for their own lives and for their families, communities, societies and countries. India also has a vision – as seen in the raft of new and innovative investments to get girls into secondary school, and the impressive development impacts now becoming apparent from India’s reservations for women in local government.

    Climate change. I know that there is a suspicion that the UK and Europe want countries like India to constrain their growth to tackle climate change.

    That is entirely wrong. Yes, tackling climate change is important, but so is India’s growth and development.

    Not only will India’s growth continue to underpin impressive reductions in poverty, it is also a driver of global prosperity.

    The issue is not constraining growth but how we accelerate growth, in a greener and cleaner way.

    Fourth, we need to sustain and increase aid volumes.

    Official aid globally has increased from $60 billion a year a decade ago to $120 billion now. Which is part of the reason, incidentally, why development progress has accelerated over the last 10 years. But aid budgets in some countries are under pressure. In Britain, the Coalition Government has decided that despite the global downturn we will press ahead with plans to spend 0.7% of our national income on development. And next year we will reach this longstanding UN target, the first G8 country to do so.

    Fifth, we need to focus more rigorously on the results we are delivering and the costs we are incurring in doing so – to make sure that we are spending aid to maximum effect. When I talk about results, I mean not just the longer term policy and system changes we aim to promote, but the hard facts of what immediate outputs we are buying through our aid programmes. We in DFID published our annual report last month, which set out the contribution we made in 2011/12:

    We distributed 12 million bed nets to protect people against malaria

    Gave 12 million people access to financial services so they can work their way out of poverty

    Vaccinated over 12 million children against preventable diseases

    Supported 5.3 million children to go to primary school – more than the total number of children in the UK primary school system

    Reached 6 million people with emergency food assistance

    Improved hygiene conditions for 7 million people.

    It’s absolutely right that we should tell our taxpayers in this specific way what their aid is buying.

    And sixth, we need to become more transparent and accountable

    to our stakeholders – both the taxpayers who pay our bills, and the clients for whose benefit we work. Publishing our results is a key part of this.

    But so is using all the resources of modern technology to ensure that people can check what we plan to do, whether it offers value for money, whether we achieve it, and whether what we are doing to put things back on course when they go wrong. It is the right thing to do.

    “Publish What You Fund”– an international NGO – has just published its annual international aid transparency rankings – and I am happy to report that DFID is at the top of the 72 organisations covered in rankings.

    My theme this evening has been the future of international development. I started by quoting Mahatma Gandhi saying how we build the future by what we do today. Let me end by quoting another great Indian – Mother Teresa – with a similar insight: “Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin.”

  • David Lidington – 2014 Speech on the European Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in London on 8th May 2014.

    Good afternoon. Guten tag. Grüß Gott!

    I’d like to welcome you to an area of London with stronger links to Germany than you might imagine.

    Over two hundred years ago, Pall Mall became the first public street in the world to be artificially lit with gas. And it was a German inventor we have to thank for that.

    Frederick Albert Winsor, using old musket barrels for his piping, lit the way to St James’ Palace to celebrate the birthday of George III, who was then King of Great Britain and Ireland, but also King of Hanover.

    Even today, the partnership between Germany and the UK, both titans in innovation, research and manufacturing, has remained one of the driving forces behind our continued prosperity.

    This partnership matters not just in terms of our bilateral ties, but also because of our two countries’ leading positions within the European Union.

    I have been asked here tonight to talk about British voters and how they see the EU, less than two weeks ahead of elections for the new European Parliament.

    And it may be of interest to you that underlying sentiment about Europe has been changing in Britain.

    Over a series of polls since March this year, more people said they wanted to stay in the European Union than to leave, reversing a pattern that had been in place for over four years.

    I think that part of the reason has to be the crisis in Ukraine that jolted us into re-examining the big questions about what our Union is for.

    As ten Member States celebrate ten years of EU membership, many have commented on the transformative changes in those countries’ economies. In Poland, for example, trade with the UK has trebled to £5.7 billion a year and incomes within the country have risen three-fold. A country that in 1989 had bare shop shelves and 500% inflation is now the sixth biggest economy in the EU.

    For the UK, it was certainly the promise of trade that drew us in to the EEC in 1973.

    But it’s about more than trade. When Chancellor Merkel came to London in February, she spoke movingly about her experiences 25 years ago.

    Chancellor Merkel said that for her personally, as for millions of people behind the Iron Curtain, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 had been a moment of incredible happiness. And that she had learned first-hand: change – change for the better – was possible.

    This “change for the better” is what people still look to the EU to achieve. In the wider world, and right now to Europe’s east, we are aware that it is not just Europe’s prosperity that attracts countries from outside. It is our shared values.

    The rule of law. A commitment to democracy. Freedom as a guiding principle. Order. Decency.

    These are values that we must protect.

    I think this chimes well with the ethos and objectives of the Baden-Baden Entrepreneur Talks. They seek to prepare a future generation of business leaders not merely for their roles in business, but also for their roles in society.

    Let me turn now to the situation in Ukraine.

    Russia’s actions have cast a chill across the whole of Europe, and recalled a time which we had hoped we would not see again.

    The people of Ukraine have lived together as a unified nation for the past 70 years. In a matter of weeks they will go to the polls to decide their future.

    We believe it is very important that those elections are able to go ahead without disruption and without interference from outside and we hope that President Putin’s statement yesterday leads to a change of direction from the Russian side.

    Up until this point Russia has done its utmost to disrupt this democratic process.

    We have seen provocation after provocation aimed at undermining Ukraine’s peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

    Over the weekend, German OSCE monitors and their colleagues were held by Russia’s proxies in Slovyansk – though, thankfully, they were later released. Journalists were detained and beaten, bodies found in rivers and a BBC journalist had to flee after having a gun put to her head.

    It is an enormous shame that it has come to this. The UK, alongside partners in the European Union and across the Atlantic, has expended a great deal of effort over the past twenty years to create what we hoped was a positive working relationship with Russian leaders.

    But Russia should be in no doubt that the international will is there to deepen the sanctions that are already hitting their economy hard if that is what we have to do. Some things are more important than pounds, Euros or dollars.

    I have been struck by the unity shown by the West in dealing with the crisis. When the values that we share have been confronted, we have taken a long look at our priorities and at who our friends really are. In the long term, this makes us much stronger.

    Over the next six months, there are two areas where I suggest we should focus this.

    First, we should look very closely at energy security. How can we diminish the dependency of European Union Member States on Russian gas? And, equally, how can we do so while maintaining our strong record on tackling greenhouse emissions, while not burdening citizens in Member States with higher bills?

    Second, we should seek to ensure that the European model remains a potent and a powerful force in the world. This means ensuring that we make the necessary reforms to bolster our economic effectiveness.

    Our strength in the world relies on the strength of our economies, and we should never take this for granted.

    This takes me back to the theme of the talk: what do British voters expect from the European Union?

    Well, as businesses, it is always good to focus on the figures.

    I mentioned at the start of this talk that in the UK, support for Europe had grown.

    According to a YouGov poll, at the end of April, 40% of British people would stay in the EU if they were asked to vote now, as against 37% who would choose to leave. Those figures have been much the same in every YouGov poll since March.

    Moreover, the same polls show if you reform Europe – making it more flexible, competitive and democratically accountable, then the number that would vote to stay in rises dramatically. Under that scenario, British voters by a margin of two to one would want to stay in.

    Business associations are even more positive towards the EU.

    In September, the Institute of Directors – based in this building – polled its members, and found that six out of ten would want to stay in an EU with improved terms of membership. So it is incorrect to say “Britain simply wants out”. That’s one myth.

    There is a second myth that it is only the British who are dissatisfied with the European status quo.

    Eurobarometer recently asked people in all 28 Member States whether they thought their voice counted in the EU.

    In 26 out of 28 Member States, including Germany, a majority of people did not think their voice counted. In the UK, the number was 74%. And in nine other Member States, it was even greater.

    There are other points of similarity. According to an Open Europe poll, seven out of ten Britons and six out of ten Germans think that national parliaments should be able to block proposed new EU laws.

    The third myth is that people in the UK are obsessed with Europe. They’re not. Surveys frequently ask the British population what they think matters to them personally. As of February, Europe wasn’t even on the top ten.

    What people do care about is not much of a surprise. The economy. Jobs. Pensions. Tax. Healthcare. Housing. Immigration.

    You will notice that many of these issues are within the lead competence of Member States, not Brussels.

    The United Kingdom’s position is therefore that the EU should change, and start concentrating on where it can best add value. Implementing policies at a European level which boost competitiveness, reduce regulatory burdens, improve the economy, generate new jobs, and in so doing, put more money into people’s pockets.

    So what is the UK doing?

    In January last year, the Prime Minister set out his vision for a reformed European Union, looking at what changes would benefit not just the UK but all Member States.

    He talked about reforms which would make Europe more competitive, in a world where emerging economies are quickly catching up.

    More flexible – getting rid of the old one-size-fits-all mentality and setting policies which take into account the diversity of 28 Member States.

    More democratically accountable – recognising that the default answer towards solving the democratic deficit is not “more Europe”, but that a greater role for national parliaments and governments can help.

    And what we see is a growing consensus among the Member States that yes, Europe does need to change; and yes, there is sense in the reforms we have proposed.

    On competitiveness, the UK and Germany are allies. As Chancellor Merkel said: “The European Union must become stronger, more stable and more competitive than it is today.”

    Seven EU leaders, including from the UK and Germany, alongside Commission President Barroso, got together last October to discuss how the EU can get rid of unnecessary regulation that burdens businesses and holds back growth and employment.

    On flexibility, British Chancellor Osborne and German Finance Minister Schäuble have set out how the Eurozone can develop a common fiscal and economic policy – with corresponding improved governance, but without disadvantaging non-euro countries.

    On democratic accountability, we agreed with the Dutch that where action is taken, it should be “Europe where necessary, national where possible”. Our very strong belief is that decisions should be taken close to the people they affect – as with the German Länder system. We’re not alone. For instance, Dutch Foreign Minister Timmermans has been vocal in articulating his support for national parliaments to have a red card through which they can stop EU legislation where it violates the subsidiarity principle.

    We are already making progress. But much more needs to be done.

    Though we are seeing tentative economic recovery in Europe, nobody can pretend that we are in great health.

    We have a duty to lead the way in shaping the reformed and competitive Europe our citizens – and our businesses need.

    The institutional changes taking place this year in Europe – elections in the European Parliament and a new College of Commissioners – give us the opportunity to start making those changes.

    If you look at Europe through the eyes of businesspeople, some of the answers are obvious.

    You need to keep down the overheads. Last year, the UK and Germany worked with partners to cut the EU’s budget for the first time. We need to be clinical in examining where we can reduce costs yet further.

    You need to knock down barriers to growth. Member states stand to gain billions from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: in Germany, the Bertelsmann Foundation estimated last year 181,000 new German jobs could be expected, as well as a boost in per-capita income across the EU of 4.68 %. So let’s make it happen.

    You need to seek new openings. The digital market is fragmented. Though 60% of EU internet users shop online, last year only 9% of Europeans did so across borders – surely this is an opportunity waiting to be seized. Meanwhile, full implementation of the Services Directive could add 2.6% to EU GDP – more than the GDP of Austria.

    You need to tailor yourself to your market. This means having European-level regulation when you need it – not to set the working hours of junior doctors in Baden-Baden, or to stipulate the kind of jug a restaurant can use in Birmingham. Let’s be very clear on when it is suitable for Europe to act, and establish that where it isn’t, it won’t.

    And you need to advertise your strengths. From July 2014, the reduced roaming charges for customers using their mobile phone in another EU country will represent savings of 90% on the 2007 prices. That’s a good example of the kind of cost-cutting, growth-enabling policy the EU is good for. So let us concentrate on more of those sorts of policies.

    I know that in the United Kingdom, we have a very vocal debate on the European Union.

    This is healthy. Recent events in Ukraine have made us all the more aware of our shared values…

    … and all the more aware that these are values which need to be protected and strengthened.

    The EU reform agenda is more relevant than ever.

    And I am confident that Britain, Germany and our European partners will rise to the challenge, work together, and set in motion strategies for growth and prosperity which will benefit the whole of Europe.

    Thank you very much.

  • David Lidington – 2013 Speech on the European Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, made in The Hague on 16th December 2013.

    Thank you to Open Europe and Teldersstichting for the invitation to speak here in The Hague.

    I am particularly delighted to be here during the 200th anniversary of the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

    It’s an important anniversary for the Netherlands. But, marking as it does the [British] Royal Navy’s rowing ashore of King Willem I, it is also one of many landmarks in UK-Netherlands cooperation.

    I’ll not make any mention of the country from which the Netherlands had just been liberated in 1813 – I don’t want to spark a right of reply from any French diplomats that may be in the audience…

    2014 will be a major year for the European Union.

    In May we have European Parliament elections, and later in the year, a new College of Commissioners.

    There has been a lot of talk about the elections being between pro-and anti-Europeans. I am clear that the choice should not be between the status quo and extremism. Everyone knows that the EU is in need of reform. So this election should be about solutions.

    Today I will consider four key aspects of this agenda:

    – working at the right level

    – addressing democratic legitimacy

    – finding the correct role for the EU’s institutions

    – and fairness for Eurozone ins and outs.

    Reform is not anti-European. Trust in the EU is at a record low. The figures on public support for the EU show it to be what our Prime Minister has repeatedly called “wafer-thin”. In the Netherlands, Eurobarometer reports that 56% of people think the EU is going in the wrong direction.

    We need to reform the EU if it is to regain the trust of its citizens.

    We hear this echoed across Europe…

    Commission President Barroso has said that “We will not go back to the ‘old’ normal, we have to shape a ‘new’ normal”

    Your Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans, has written that “Monnet’s Europe needs reform to fit the 21st century”

    European Parliament President Martin Schulz says “I’m an enthusiastic pro-European, but I think the EU is in a catastrophic situation”

    And in Italy Prime Minister Letta is clear that “we need to reshape the Union”.

    The next year gives us a window of opportunity to shape a new Europe. Many in the UK and the Netherlands already share similar pragmatic beliefs in making the EU work better – on improving democratic legitimacy, heightening respect for subsidiarity, unlocking barriers to growth and having a more focused Commission.

    Let me begin with “working at the right level”

    The phrase which has reverberated the most with me this year has come from the Netherlands:

    “European where necessary, national where possible”.

    In Britain, ‘subsidiarity’ is not a word often reached for in political discourse, despite it being a remedy to a widely recognised problem. So this slogan helpfully translates the principle into words that resonate with the public.

    Encouragingly, we have also seen increasing acknowledgement – at least on paper – that the EU should focus on where it can add most value.

    The Presidents of both the European Council and the Commission have reiterated this; and to be fair there has been some progress.

    In October, for example, the Commission launched REFIT, a programme designed to streamline legislation – an issue close to the hearts of national leaders in the UK, the Netherlands and beyond.

    So it has been especially disappointing to see this principle undermined all too frequently by the Commission focussing on things which are best left to Member States. We all have our favourite examples; I’m not going to list them here. But each new example adds to the view – held by many in Britain – that the EU comes across as too meddlesome, bossy and interfering. This is a genuine problem.

    The exam question is, therefore: How do we ensure that the principle of subsidiarity becomes part of the European mentality and reality?

    First of all, I suggest, we must strive to work for the right balance.

    The Dutch Subsidiarity Review has been especially helpful here, in raising the right questions at the right time. In our Balance of Competences review, too, we are undertaking a deep and balanced analysis of the impact of EU competences. We must ensure the ideas which spring from both these exercises are taken forward.

    This is not about “cherry-picking”, “clawing back”, or any other of the phrases with which people have tried to undermine this approach.

    The goal is rather to create a European Union which is more modest – and more effective.

    Dutch PM Mark Rutte recently said in London that the EU is “a practical partnership…a means to increase prosperity, employment and security” – I think that hits the nail on the head. That means that Europe has to focus on where it can make the biggest difference.

    This can work well in both directions: it acknowledges the adaptability that has been such a consistent strength of the EU.

    As twenty-eight countries working together, we have quite a voice. We can harness that and we have done: on a trade deal with the US, patents, Iran, climate change; on the big issues where action at European level carries more clout than individual countries going solo.

    Equally, the decision on reforming the common fisheries policy – approved by the European Parliament last week – proved that many things need not be done at a European level to be effective. One size does not fit all.

    Ensuring that we have this balance right needs constant attention. Our Task Force on better regulation (and if you’re curious what I mean by “better”, “less” isn’t a bad place to start) is one strand.

    Of course, regulation per se is not A Bad Thing. The days when twenty-eight European countries made twenty-eight different regulations on the same issue are over and thank goodness for that.

    But we will not be in any way shy of making the case for upholding subsidiarity, avoiding competence creep, and making sure the growth we need isn’t stifled by unnecessary regulation.

    My second point is that we need to address the democratic deficit.

    I talked a few minutes ago about the gap between theory and practice in the workings of the European Union.

    This was shown particularly starkly a few weeks ago, when the Commission brushed off the yellow card presented by eleven national parliaments, including those of the Netherlands and the UK, and pressed on with unreformed plans for a European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

    For a start, this was based on an unacceptably narrow and inflexible interpretation of subsidiarity.

    But it was also symptomatic of the disconnection between the EU and its people.

    Let us remember: the yellow card was introduced in the Lisbon Treaty so that national parliaments could play a greater role in EU decision-making.

    Remember, also, that leaders across Europe agree that national parliaments are a main source for democratic legitimacy and accountability. Well, I am afraid that on November 27 democratic parliaments were given a bit of a slap in the face.

    All of us can agree that if a football player is issued a yellow card but fails to heed the words of the ref, a red card surely follows. So that’s one solution, as outlined recently by Foreign Minister Timmermans.

    But let’s not stop there. The Dutch Tweede Kamer report said that national parliaments should have more time to scrutinise Commission proposals and to opine on issues beyond subsidiarity and that it should take fewer reasoned opinions to trigger a yellow card. The so-called “strengthened yellow card” is a proposal we fully support.

    One thing, however, is crucial. Giving national parliaments more say in decision-making works both ways…

    So if people are talking about red cards and yellow cards, why not complete the traffic light and also think about a green card?

    This would allow parliaments to propose new initiatives to the European Commission. This has been thought about in Denmark as well as in the Netherlands, and it is certainly something we would support.

    So there are some solutions here. As with the recent free movement of people discussion, the Commission needs to show through the card system that it is engaging with the genuine and legitimate concerns of national parliaments. Over the next few months I will look to discuss further with my European counterparts how we can take this agenda forward.

    Let me turn now to finding the correct role for the European institutions.

    Institutions matter. They, and the people who set their agendas, underpin what the EU does and also how it does it.

    We must therefore ensure that we have the balance between the institutions right.

    These are clearly set out in the Treaties – but, in practice, some EU institutions are more adept than others in exploiting the grey areas…

    The European Parliament’s power has increased significantly following successive Treaty changes. Some EP members believe that the candidate of the dominant political party should automatically be selected as President of the Commission.

    We, however, do not see the inevitability of this linkage and expect the European Council to assess the merits of all candidates including, but not limited to, those endorsed by the European political parties.

    The Council must ensure that the Treaties are upheld and that the institutions maintain the roles accorded by the Treaties, including in the appointment of Commission President. We regard this as vital to maintaining the independence of the Commission, and its accountability to both co-legislators.

    We also believe that the European Council should be more active in setting out the strategic direction for the Commission. It is not enough to set out goals and conclusions. You also need to monitor them to ensure that the priorities European leaders have agreed are actually implemented. The General Affairs Council is well placed to monitor progress and ensure that the objectives agreed by EU Heads of State are actually delivered.

    I read Frans Timmermans’ article setting out the idea of a more focussed Commission with interest. We agree there are areas where the Commission just doesn’t need to get involved. And we will explore precisely how the Commission’s structure can change to make it sharper and more effective. Certainly, a European Governance Manifesto is an approach we welcome.

    My final point is that we must protect the integrity of the Single Market, as well as the “rights” of Eurozone-outs as the Eurozone integrates.

    Wherever I go, I get a lot of sympathy for our reform agenda. But it’s fair to say I also hear voices clearly wishing this would all go away.

    I’m pretty blunt with them. It wasn’t the UK that changed this game. The fact that we seek a fair set of structures is due in no small part to developments in the Eurozone and what that has meant for the EU. It is clear to me that the Eurozone needs to have the right governance and structures in place to address its current challenges. We are merely seeking pragmatic solutions to problems.

    This is a hugely complicated issue and I can’t pretend we have all the answers. One thing which is clear is that we can’t tell you what to do.

    However, I won’t lie about our own interests, and those of other Eurozone-outs.

    We need any new arrangements to work fairly – for those outside the Eurozone as well as for those within it. This means working closely with partners inside and outside the Eurozone to find solutions which work.

    We achieved this in the first element of banking union through the double majority voting system and negotiations are ongoing as we speak on the second element. We will continue to work creatively with all EU partners to ensure the interests of the EU-28 are upheld.

    We see our case for reform as a positive one. The measures I have outlined – working at the right level, addressing democratic legitimacy, finding the correct role for the EU’s institutions, and making sure that the system is fair for all 28 Member States – will, I believe, help shape the better Europe we all need.

    Although in the UK and the Netherlands we are working closely on reform, we are not lone crusaders. Leading figures across Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament are suggesting pragmatic approaches to finding solutions. For us in the UK, with David Cameron’s commitment to a referendum in 2017, – as for the whole of Europe – now is the time for the EU to demonstrate that it is determined to work for and with the will of its citizens.

    I will finish with a word on Treaty change. I know that there are many (in the political classes at least) who are worried about the prospect of Treaty change. To them I say two things.

    First, that what we are primarily interested in is results. Many of the reforms that we are proposing can be achieved without Treaty change. At the same time the needed changes to the Institutions should rightly be embedded in the Treaties and we are merely reflecting the reality of the scale of changes underway in the Eurozone – look for instance at the debate around banking union over the past couple of weeks.

    Second, I think fears about Treaty change are really fears about referenda. I understand those fears. But in the UK it is clear that support for EU membership is so wafer thin that it will only be resolved through that kind of public decision. So while having the debate may be scary for some, it is the responsible thing to do. I would be far more worried about the consequences of ignoring the reality than I am about facing up to it.

    Next year, as I said, we have a window of opportunity to get the right structures in place for the European Union. We must not miss such a chance.

    We are not apologetic about trying to make the EU work better.

  • David Lidington – 2013 Speech on Scottish Independence

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, at Edinburgh on 28th June 2013.

    Thank you for that kind introduction. It is great to be back in Edinburgh.

    I have spent the day so far meeting members of the Scottish Parliament, and representatives of Edinburgh’s business and academic communities. And always, the discussion has been on what independence would mean for people and businesses in Scotland.

    With less than 450 days to go until the referendum, it is right that the focus should shift from rhetoric to reality, and that people throughout Scotland should take a good hard look at what the options mean for them. Scotland is faced with a choice between staying within the UK, or leaving and going it alone.

    As Minister for Europe, I from time to time meet people who remember the referendum campaigns of the 1970s, both on Scotland and on the European Union. And people ask why we have these issues have been opened up once more. But my own view is that there is no point in ignoring questions of such magnitude where they remain unresolved. People here in Scotland will make their decision on 18 September next year.

    This is democracy in action, and I believe that it is right that people should have the opportunity to decide their own future. But I don’t agree that if the vote here for independence, then “everything will be much the same on Day One… only better”. This, to me, is a casual and complacent assertion that underestimates the size of the task involved and the associated costs.

    So rather than making sweeping statements and counter-claims, I have six straightforward questions. And I would ask you to consider whether you think you have heard credible answers to these questions so far in this debate. The first is what happens with EU membership if Scotland becomes independent? There is no precedent for the break-up of an existing member of the European Union, so no one knows for certain. But Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, who is surely an authoritative voice on this issue, has said that an independent Scotland would be regarded as a new country seeking accession to the European Union for the first time.

    Independent legal opinion sought and published by the UK Government says that the remaining nations of the United Kingdom would be seen as the continuing state, retaining the UK’s international rights and privileges and its EU membership. In the face of that evidence, the Scottish Government has now admitted that membership would not be automatic and that negotiation would be required. The task facing an independent Scottish Government would then be to win over 28 member states, each of which would have a veto. This includes those countries that are anxious about the unity of their own nations, cautious about setting precedents and with little motivation to make the journey smooth for Scotland.

    The second question is what would happen to the pound? Under the terms of the EU treaties, all new EU member states are expected to make the legal and political commitment to adopt the Single Currency. The United Kingdom and Denmark have the right to keep its own currency, but Mr. Barroso said in November that no new member states would be allowed to opt out. The Scottish Government knows that the pound is popular, but recent experience has shown that being in a currency union without other kinds of integration is less than straightforward. There is no guarantee that the UK and Scotland would be able to come to an agreement on a currency union. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said he thinks it’s unlikely that it could be made to work. And even if it could be agreed, it would require a newly independent Scottish state to accept significant limits on its economic sovereignty and to submit its budgetary plans to Westminster for approval.

    The third question relates to Schengen, the agreement that abolished passport and immigration controls for almost all the EU member states. Would an independent Scotland join? As defined in the Treaties, all countries seeking accession to the EU are expected to join the Schengen area. There is no automatic right to opt-out, and no legal grounds to suggest that membership is anything other than obligatory. If an independent Scotland were to join Schengen, then control of its borders would be out-sourced to Europe’s periphery. The one border that Scotland would have to secure would be that with England, drawing a line between Scottish businesses and their main trading partners.

    The option that is favoured by the Scottish Government – to remain in a Common Travel Area with the UK and Ireland – is not on offer to new member states. It would be a significant new opt-out demand that would expend considerable negotiating capital with no certainty of success and which would, again, require the unanimous agreement of each Member State.

    The fourth question is what would happen to the payments being made to the EU budget if Scotland became independent? Now the Scottish Government itself has said that an independent Scotland would be a net contributor to the European Union. But suggestions that Scotland would retain its share of the UK’s rebate appear to stand on very shaky ground. At the EU budget negotiations in February, the UK was able to defend its rebate but this was a hard-fought fight against the entrenched interests of other member states.Legal opinion received by the UK Government is clear that an independent Scotland would not get a share of the UK rebate. Scotland would have to negotiate such arrangements from scratch and it would be very difficult to secure any similar deal.

    So if a new independent Scottish state were let into the EU, the default expectation must be that Scottish taxpayers would see their payments to the EU rise significantly.

    The fifth question is who will stand up for Scotland’s interests in Europe when it comes to negotiations on financial service or energy or fisheries or agriculture? The Scottish Government’s position is that this can only be done by those who care for Scotland alone. Their assumption is that an independent Scotland would negotiate as a small state, with its bargaining power amplified by a flood of goodwill.

    Now it’s true that the UK Government now negotiates on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. And by doing so, it brings to the table its considerable weight within the EU and experience and its extensive diplomatic network.

    We have a track record of using our position as one of Europe’s biggest economies; with the third largest population; membership of the UN Security Council, G7, G8 and G20; and 40 years of forging alliances to fight for all the UK’s interests in Europe. We also have one of the most inclusive arrangements anywhere in the EU when it comes to devolved administrations participating in the making of decisions. Scotland has benefited from the UK’s strong voice in Europe. UK ministers – not least the Prime Minister – have forgone sleep and hotel beds, negotiating hard through the early hours. And they have delivered on issue after issue.

    On the EU budget, we secured the first ever cut in the long-term budget, which will benefit taxpayers in every part of the United Kingdom. On financial services, we have secured safeguards for British firms – in Edinburgh as much as London – on the Single Supervisory Mechanism and on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive. On fisheries, we achieved a deal on discards that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation welcomed as a “practical plan”. The Offshore Health and Safety Directive, agreed shortly before the 25th anniversary of Piper Alpha, the world’s worst offshore disaster, won praise from Oil & Gas UK. And on Tuesday morning in Luxemburg, I bumped into Environment Secretary Owen Paterson – who was somewhat bleary eyed – a third of the way through gruelling negotiations on reform to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

    The mandate that Owen Paterson helped to secure this week is a breakthrough that offers greater clarity and certainty to Scottish farmers, and a reassurance that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament will have the freedom to deliver a common agricultural policy here tailored to the needs and circumstances of people in Scotland. And last night – again in the early hours – the Financial Secretary to the Treasury Greg Clark secured a deal on resolving troubled banks that will protect taxpayers around Europe. When it comes to negotiations, in general what we find is that small nations with similar interests to our own look to the UK to take the lead.

    And in the heat of a debate in which national interests are at stake, you don’t want to be relying on just goodwill in the corridors of Brussels. It’s a commodity particularly in the small hours of the morning are in very short supply.

    My sixth question is about the UK’s security and its wider role in the world. As the Minister with responsibility for NATO, I am taking a close interest in how the defence and security elements of the debate are unfolding. You will have seen the latest reports from independent experts on the defence capability of an independent Scotland. Are you genuinely confident about the answers that the Scottish Government has given on NATO membership? NATO membership is not automatic. It is a matter for the North Atlantic Council to determine, as has been pointed out by NATO itself.

    And even though the SNP has reluctantly changed its view on membership, the response from NATO is that an independent Scotland would still need to apply. Outside experts, such as the Scotland Institute, have said that the SNP position assumes automatic entry and imposes conditionality on NATO. And the Scottish Government has to accept that NATO membership is not a done deal. Every NATO member, whether it possesses nuclear weapons or not, needs to sign up to the Strategic Concept which states in terms that NATO will be a nuclear alliance for as long as these weapons exist.

    And this is not something that can be fudged or brushed under the carpet.

    Those are my questions. I don’t pretend to be dispassionate about the answers. I care a great deal about the choice that people in Scotland will make. I also don’t want to suggest that independence only cuts one way. I am quite clear that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, it would be a loss for all sides.

    Both Scotland and the UK would be diminished – in our global standing, in our future economic prospects and by erecting barriers that would cut across the long-standing ties of friendship and family between us.

    So I want to use the remainder of this speech to set out the positive case for what we can achieve in Europe if we stay together. First let me knock down the suggestion that the only way Scotland can remain a member of the EU is if it votes for independence. That is just not true. In January, the Prime Minister set out clearly his vision for Europe – a Europe that is more competitive, more flexible, more open and more democratically accountable. His goal is to reform the EU into a body in which the British people will feel comfortable, and then to hold a vote in which we settle the question of Britain’s membership once and for all – a vote in which the Prime Minister made clear, he wants to campaign, heart and soul, to remain in the EU.

    The background to the Prime Minister’s speech was five years of undeniably tough times in Europe. The speech has sparked a major debate about Europe’s future, and this is a debate that we are helping to shape. The Eurozone has been in an extended recession. One in four young people is unemployed. Countries across Europe have had to slash spending, and not just in southern Europe. Sweden is looking at cutting pensions and sickness benefits, as is Denmark. Finland is under pressure to raise the pension age.

    In that European context, Britain has been holding its own. We have an economy that is starting to recover. We have remained attractive for investors. UN figures released this week showed that we have held onto our position as number one in Europe for foreign direct investment, which rose by 22% last year at a time when investment worldwide fell by 18%. And businesses created 1.3 million private sector jobs across the UK since 2010. Our employment rate is above the EU and Eurozone average, and higher even than the employment rate in the United States.

    But we urgently need to tackle competitiveness in Europe because the EU is central to our future prosperity. It is forecast to be our main market for the next ten to fifteen years.Now the Scotch Whisky Association can tell you that the French drink more Scotch in a month than they do cognac in a year. But Europe matters for other Scottish exports too: seafood, agricultural products; wind and wave technology; machinery; equipment; oil and gas; and as a source of students for Scotland’s top universities.

    And sometimes hidden amidst the gloom in the world’s biggest marketplace, the EU, are opportunities for Scottish firms. This year’s Global Connections Survey showed that Scottish exports to the EU rose by 14.7% in 2011. Take a firm like Jaggy Nettle from the Borders, which got a grant from the UK Government to go to Milan Fashion Week, and now sells its clothes in luxury boutiques alongside labels like Prada.Europe is also the source of about half the UK’s investment stock. Last year, Spain’s Gamesa chose the port of Leith for a new wind turbine manufacturing plant in an investment worth £125m, and France’s Chanel bought up the Barrie Knitwear cashmere mill in the Scottish borders.

    But while Europe remains our biggest market place, we live in a world that is changing rapidly. In China, there are now over 160 cities with populations of more than one million people. They include Edinburgh’s twin city of Xi’an and Glasgow’s twin city of Dalian. There are twice as many people living in these two cities alone as there are in the whole of Scotland. UN figures released this month forecast that the global middle class will number over three billion by the end of the decade, over half of whom will be in Asia.

    This is an opportunity for all of us as it’s the global middle class that wants the exports that UK firms produce. Working together, our EU membership is helping us to win better terms for trade across the world in the developed and emerging economies alike. We need to focus on this challenge. We cannot afford to stand still.

    And we are winning support from other member states because they can see that the reforms we are seeking benefit all of Europe and not just the United Kingdom alone. To take a single example, at the G8 summit in Lough Erne this month, we helped to launch negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the world’s biggest ever trade deal. The benefit to the UK from this deal between the EU and the United States would be up to £10 billion a year, the equivalent of £380 per family in the UK.

    For Europe, the figure is £100 billion and for the US £80 billion. Success with this trade and investment partnership will bring concrete benefits for businesses in Scotland, for which the US is the largest international export market – the destination for £3.5 billion of goods and services every year.

    The Wall Street Journal said the deal was, and I quote, “a major political coup” for the UK, but recognised too the effort that had gone into these talks. It noted: “They didn’t come about by accident: they were the result of months of diplomatic effort by British officials”. I would add by British Ministers too, especially the Prime Minister who has worked hand in hand with Angela Merkel in pushing for the deal with other European countries.

    In summary, I would like to ask each and every one of you to weigh up the options very carefully ahead of a referendum. We know that a vote for independence is a vote for uncertainty, with its attendant risks and costs. And we know that no one is forcing the Scottish people to go down this path. I can say in all sincerity that people throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland want our centuries-old Union to continue. And when it comes down to it, the vote next September will have the greatest impact on Scotland’s young people, the majority of whom want to stay in the UK according to the most recent polls.

    Independence would close off an avenue of opportunity for those who are self-confident enough to use the double identity they have as British and Scottish to make their way in the world – as countless Scots have done before them. Some will have ambitions that lie mainly or wholly in Scotland, but there will be others that want to test themselves against a wider field.

    …Politicians who could measure their stature against Disraeli, Lloyd George or Keir Hardie, with the ability to inspire and lead 63 million British people. I am reminded here of Gordon Brown, an MP from a Scottish constituency, of others with a Scottish heritage such as Tony Blair and Harold Macmillan, who led the whole of the United Kingdom.

    …Diplomats who want to make their careers in a diplomatic network with 267 posts in 154 countries and twelve territories worldwide.

    …Soldiers, sailors and aviators who could command the world’s finest military in operational missions around the world.

    …Scottish economists who want to tackle global poverty via the G8, the G20 or the world’s top economic bodies.

    …Businessmen and women who may well be based in Edinburgh or Inverness, but who are equally at home in London or Cardiff, and who can call on UK Trade & Investment’s export support in more than 100 markets.

    …And athletes who – after the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow next year will want to represent Team GB at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games.

    By working together, we can provide that support and help the next generation to prosper.

    My belief is that the people of Scotland should have the opportunity to have the best of both worlds. We should help each other out as family and friends do.

    That is our common purpose within the UK, and that is what should be our joint endeavour over the coming years.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • Richard Lochhead – 2011 Speech to SNP Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Lochhead to the 2011 SNP Party conference in October 2011.

    Delegates,

    It is great to be back in my favourite Conference location.

    I only say that of course because it’s the closest to beautiful Moray, an area that I am hugely honoured to represent in Parliament.

    And oh boy! Parliament looks different today!

    Conference, when I have trouble sleeping, I used to count sheep

    I can assure you, we have a lot.

    But I have a new game since May – I count SNP constituencies!

    Though sometimes this has the wrong effect, and I have to ask my wife if I’m already dreaming.

    Our stunning success is of course perfectly real.

    And I see faces in this hall who have been fighting our cause for much longer than I.

    On your hard work, and that of others before you, we can now build something great.

    We are here, not because of individuals, but because we are a team and we have a positive vision for our nation’s future.

    Delegates, I was immensely proud of our election campaign.

    The other parties talked about what Scotland’s can’t do, about what our people can’t achieve.

    In contrast, we talked of a future rich in possibilities.

    And now Labour’s post-election debate is all about how to beat the SNP and return to office.

    They think the solution is to modernise their internal structures and regulations.

    CONFERENCE, PERHAPS THEY SHOULD START BY MODERNISING THEIR ATTITUDE TO SCOTLAND.

    Our debates at this Conference are, and always will be, not about our own future but about our nation’s future.

    CONFERENCE, THIS PARTY’S OBJECTIVE IS TO SERVE SCOTLAND, NOT TO BE SELF-SERVING.

    That’s why we won such a resounding mandate in May.

    Whether it was the streets of Glasgow or the crofting townships of the Western Isles, we fought for every acre, and earned every vote.

    And rural Scotland is now a sea of yellow.

    And we thank our rural communities for placing their trust in the SNP – and we will not let them down.

    In Government, we are continuing to build a better society and working for all of Scotland.

    Because that’s our vision.

    I cannot even begin to describe my pride and honour for being a member of the Referendum Cabinet.

    Not because of one day in our lives, sometime in the near future.

    But because of all the days that will follow, and the future we will bequeath our children

    Our nation is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and a talented people.

    And that combination can deliver a bright future for future generations.

    But to secure a better future, we need to act today.

    Yet, today, I can see a Parliament and Government in Scotland that takes decisions that are good for Scotland and has the support of the people.

    But I see a Parliament and a Government in London that is holding us back and has no popular mandate.

    And Conference, that has become clearer than ever before to communities here in the north of Scotland who want to protect our seas.

    Because the Tory Government is dismantling our maritime rescue services.

    And there are doing this with the backing of their Scottish henchmen – known in these parts as the Liberal Democrats!

    So now our emergency tugs are being removed from Scottish waters.

    It does not stop there – the same UK Government are also downgrading our coastguard.

    We are a maritime nation being governed by metropolitan penny-pinchers.

    The UK takes many billions from our oil resources but will not spare the few millions to make our seas safe.

    Conference, a Scottish Government would never undermine the services that protect life at sea and precious marine environment.

    Our emergency tugs should stay – our coastguard stations should be saved – our waters should remain safe!

    Responsibility for maritime safety should lie with the Scottish Parliament.

    Have the Lib Dems already forgotten about the heavy price they paid at the elections for betraying Scotland’s trust.

    And Conference, their betrayal on the Crown Estate is unforgivable.

    It has been an article of faith that the Liberal party in Scotland wished to put control of the Crown Estate in the hands of the people.

    That body belongs to a by-gone age and should now be made accountable to Scotland and our communities.

    So Michael Moore, stop doing the Tory Party’s dirty working north of the border –

    SUPPORT OUR CALL FOR THE SCOTLAND BILL TO GIVE CONTROL OVER THE CROWN ESTATE TO OUR PARLIAMENT.

    Conference, we face serious issues, which require serious politicians who can help us prepare for the big challenges of the 21 st century.

    You know yesterday I joined local MSP Dave Thomson is visiting the Scottish Ploughing Championships taking place in the Black Isle.

    Watching so many of our farmers using the skills passed down by their forefathers, which they in turn will teach their sons, reminded me of the vital role played by our food producers.

    Be they the men and women who plough, sow and harvest our land,

    Or who grow, or catch, the seafood for our plates.

    The growing world population brings billions more mouths to feed, at a time when climate change means there is less productive land available.

    But in Scotland, we are blessed with an abundance of natural resources that allows us to produce some of the world’s best food.

    So our challenge is to safeguard our natural resources but make the most of our advantages.

    And we need to support the industries that can help us to do that.

    I’ve just returned from EU talks in Luxembourg where negotiations got underway on Europe’s new farming policy.

    UK Ministers tell us we need them to deliver a good deal for Scotland.

    Yet, successive Tory and Labour UK Governments left Scotland stuck at the bottom of Europe’s league for rural development funding.

    And with the fourth lowest level of farming payments in the whole of the EU!

    Conference, that’s the real cost of letting London speak for Scotland.

    But now the EU is proposing to help countries that have received poor financial deals in the past close the gap in the future.

    Delegates, do you know that if Scotland were an independent member state that could mean over 1 billion pounds extra for our farmers over the course of the next few years?

    Now that’s what I call a substantial independence dividend for Scotland!

    THAT’S WHAT I CALL A GOOD REASON FOR SCOTLAND HAVING OUR OWN PLACE AT THE TOP TABLE IN EUROPE!

    And as the referendum approaches, our opponents tell us that we are better off being part of a large member state.

    WELL, WE SAY, WE’LL BE MUCH BETTER OFF BEING A MEMBER STATE IN OUR OWN RIGHT, PROMOTING SCOTLAND’S INTERESTS IN EUROPE ON THE GLOBAL STAGE,

    RATHER THAN BEING PART OF A LARGER MEMBER STATE THAT ACTS AGAINST SCOTLAND’S INTERESTS.

    When Scotland is a member state, we can negotiate in our own right, influence the agenda, pursue our priorities, and work with European colleagues to the big issues of the day.

    You know this is now my fifth year of attending EU meetings to represent Scotland.

    And I can tell you there is much warmth and affection for Scotland.

    Delegates, Europe will welcome with open arms an independent Scotland to the top table.

    BUT MICHAEL MOORE IS IN THE NEWS TODAY CLAIMING THAT INDEPENDENCE WOULD DIMINISH OUR PRESENCE ON THE GLOBAL STAGE.

    WHAT A JOKE!

    IN FOUR YEARS, OUR FIRST MINISTER ALEX SALMOND HAS DONE MORE TO ENHANCE SCOTLAND’S INTERNATIONAL PROFILE THAT THE COMBINED EFFORTS OF EVERY UK MINISTER IN THE LAST FOUR DECADES!

    And we need that international voice to represent our fishermen as well as our farmers.

    Our fishermen, who have been beaten up, but not unbowed, by the despised Common Fisheries Policy.

    A new fishing policy is at long last being renegotiated in the coming months.

    But despite having the bulk of the UK fishing fleet, we are not allowed to speak for these men and their families in Europe

    Let me tell you that last week I requested to speak at the Fisheries Council where the topics under discussion had far more relevance to Scotland than any other part of the UK.

    And guess what, once again, the UK Government said no!

    It’s a silly policy defended by a silly coalition that puts pettiness before principle.

    So, we say to David Cameron, enough of your rhetoric and empty promises, drop the paranoia, and give Scotland our rightful place in these vital negotiations that lie ahead. But we will continue to devote all our energies to persuade Europe to rip up the worst aspects of its fishing policy.

    A policy that:

    – has wrecked livelihoods and decimated communities

    – forces fishermen to discard valuable fish stocks in the name of conservation.

    – delivers micro-management in Brussels when we need local management in Scotland.

    CONFERENCE, WE WILL STRAIN EVERY SINEW TO RETURN FISHING POLICY TO SCOTLAND – WHERE IT BELONGS.

    Conference, our food producers need our support and we need them to put food on our tables.

    Scotland’s larder is in great demand at home and abroad and is outperforming the rest of the UK.

    Sales of our produce across these islands are up by a third since we took office.

    Food exports have exceeded £1bn for the first time, up by 50% since 2007.

    Scotch Whisky exports are rocketing and now sit at £3.5bn.

    That’s success supported by SNP policies.

    And to keep up the momentum, we not only protected our food and drink budget against a background of Westminster cuts, we more than doubled it to over £14m.

    Because we need to encourage success.

    There is not one model, but a thousand.

    Like stars in the sky, our land should be dotted with points of light.

    Places where individuals and communities have forged their own success.

    And we can build success on the natural resources our planet has gifted to Scotland.

    Our land, water, wind and waves.

    We need to safeguard them.

    That’s one reason why we need to tackle climate change.

    And can I say that I am delighted to work alongside Stewart Stevenson , our Minister for the Environment and Climate Change.

    We are already two thirds of the way to our 2020 target of reducing emissions by 42% and Stewart is the right man to drive forward our ambitious agenda.

    And one way we are doing this is through our successful Climate Challenge Fund which we are funding to the tune of over £31m in the next there years.

    345 communities have now received support.

    So empowering our communities to take control of their own destinies is what we want to achieve in Government.

    Conference, we have to consider how we will harness our resources for our children and grandchildren

    I am proud of the progress Holyrood has made – from the Land Reform Bill of 2001 to the boom in renewables in 2011

    But we are far from finished.

    We need to seize this day, this moment in history, and ensure we are masters of our fate.

    Not passer-bys as one of the richest environments in the world is exploited by others.

    So we are going to take steps to ensure that the people of Scotland enjoy the benefits of the wealth of natural resources on their own doorstep.

    At the heart of our rural development policy will be measures to help communities own more of these resources and benefit directly from their use.

    We want to build resilient and self-sufficient communities.

    And ensure our communities lead our efforts to tackle some of the big challenges that lie ahead:

    Energy, water, and food security, biodiversity and climate change.

    Land and water are more than just resources – if you have access to neither, you are denied your fundamental rights

    SO I LET ME ASSURE YOU TODAY THAT WE WILL OPEN THE NEXT CHAPTER IN LAND REFORM – THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF SCOTLAND.

    We will do what it takes to release land for communities for economic development.

    And that’s we took the decision to establish a New Land Fund to help communities take ownership of their own land.

    And we will do much more.

    Our people deserve to gain more from every turn of the turbine blade and the hum of the power cable and we will bring forward proposals to achieve that as well.

    CONFERENCE, NATURE HAS BEEN GOOD TO SCOTLAND BUT WE MUST SECURE THE BENEFITS FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND.

    Delegates, we are building a new Scotland, fit for the future.

    Where Scotland is thriving.

    With a growing rural economy, people of all ages living and working in the countryside, creating low carbon businesses.

    There’ll be a boom in remote-working, taking advantage of new investment in broadband.

    Communities will be more self-sufficient, getting clear benefits from their local assets, whether land, people, skills or energy.

    A Scotland where we grow and eat more of our own food, where we breathe clean air, enjoy our spectacular environment, are surrounded by pristine, rich seas contributing to our good health and happiness.

    The message from this Conference is that independence makes economic sense, democratic sense and common sense.

    We have worked hard to get to where we are today but now we have to redouble our efforts in the run up to the referendum.

    Delegates, all of you, our Party and all our supporters today and those of the future:

    We are all history makers.

    Conference, let’s work to make our dreams reality.

  • Ken Livingstone – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ken Livingstone, the then Labour candidate for London Mayor, to Labour Party conference on 25th September 2011.

    If you’re from outside London you may wonder why this election matters.

    But with the size of London’s economy, the whole country benefits if London is run on Labour values of fairness.

    You may think, why does he want to stand in what the Tories clearly intend to be a brutal fight?

    Losing last time was tough.

    But these 3 years have given me a chance to listen and to see things in the way ordinary Londoners see them.

    London is a great city – but it is going in the wrong direction.

    Only a few years ago London was leading the world.

    Yet now the image of London is a city of civil disorder and violence on our streets.

    But unless we change City Hall nothing will change on our streets.

    Boris Johnson campaigned for the Tories to be in power and he got what he wished for.

    Unemployment is above the national average.

    Cuts to council funding are above the average for the rest of England.

    Rail, tube and bus fares are soaring.

    So I’m campaigning to put ordinary Londoners first.

    I see the impact on young people of Tory policies when I visit colleges and schools in London.

    The Tories say we must cut our national debt but they pile debt on our students.

    With London’s high cost of living, repaying those debts will be felt sharply by young Londoners.

    The next generation needs a champion in City Hall but Boris Johnson did not speak up.

    He didn’t lobby MPs against abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance.

    He praised plans for a private university with £18,000-a-year fees as “unambiguously good news.”

    Boris Johnson is the problem, not the solution.

    Tory Wandsworth wants to charge kids to play in their local playground.

    Boris Johnson thinks this is such a good idea he made the leader of Wandsworth his new chief of staff.

    That’s why I’m standing – to remove a Mayor who attacks the youngest in our society, smashing their aspirations with debts and cuts.

    Our campaign is about fairness – putting ordinary people first and defending their public services.

    I will stand up for ordinary workers who are on the sharp end of this Tory government, from teachers and nurses to pensioners.

    Boris Johnson stands for a privileged minority.

    He says anger over bankers’ bonuses is “whingeing”.

    He campaigns to cut the top rate of tax.

    He is the leading Tory in the country demanding a cut in the top rate of tax for the one per cent earning more than £150,000 a year.

    Not surprising really.

    Instead of sticking to the day job Boris Johnson has a second job on the Daily Telegraph, earning £250,000.

    He calls that salary “chicken feed”.

    And while fares are rising steeply the number of people on six-figure salaries at City Hall has nearly doubled.

    28 members of staff earn over £100,000, up from sixteen just three years ago.

    When the Guardian revealed the phone-hacking scandal Johnson dismissed the story as Labour Party codswallop.

    Even after the revelations that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked he still defended News International and praised Rupert Murdoch’s role.

    I’m proud that while Boris Johnson was defending Murdoch our Tom Watson fought to make sure Andy Coulson was forced out of Downing Street.

    This is about putting Londoners first. We need to cut crime not the police.

    Three police commissioners in three years has been a disaster for morale in the Met.

    As the Tories slash the police budget, crime will rise.

    But Boris Johnson started cutting police even before Cameron was in office.

    And after this election is over he plans to cut another 1,800 police officers.

    I don’t want my kids growing up in a city where police are down and crime is up.

    I don’t want the police overstretched when there are riots on our streets.

    We’re already taking this fight to Boris Johnson.

    We won the council by-election in Boris Johnson’s own ward in Islington. Where local people voted against Boris Johnson’s policy of cutting police sergeants from their local neighbourhood teams.

    Our candidate in that by-election victory was Alice Perry, one of our hardest working volunteers. Alice, thanks for beating Boris in his back yard.

    When I heard about the bombings in July 2005 I was in Singapore for the Olympic vote.

    I just wanted to get back to London.

    But where was Boris Johnson when the riots happened?

    He refused to come back to London.

    We had the crazy situation of Londoners having to demand their own mayor come back.

    And what personal example does Boris Johnson set?

    What is the difference between the rioters, and a gang of over-privileged arrogant students vandalising restaurants and throwing chairs through windows in Oxford?

    Come on Boris – what’s the moral difference between your Bullingdon vandalism as a student and the criminality of the rioters?

    Neither is an example I want for my kids.

    And then there are fares – which this January will rise by seven per cent.

    Johnson has done a deal with this government to increase fares by 2% above inflation every year for 20 years.

    A bus fare is up 56 per cent under Boris Johnson.

    A weekly zone 1-4 Travelcard costs £416 a year more.

    This just isn’t fair. People are right to be angry.

    And it’s our duty to speak for them.

    So this is what I intend.

    I will put ordinary Londoners first by protecting policing.

    Any cut to front-line police by Boris will be reversed.

    I will put ordinary Londoners first by backing Ed Balls’ plan for a cut in VAT not Boris Johnson’s tax cuts for the richest.

    Unlike Boris Johnson I am in it for London, not for myself.

    So I will freeze my salary and the salary of my senior staff for four years.

    And I will take only one salary – no moonlighting.

    I will press the case for students struggling to make ends meet.

    And our campaign will fight to defend our NHS.

    I want you to join our campaign for a fairer alternative.

    Over the last few months we have led the way with our online volunteer website yourken.org

    Tomorrow will see another step in that campaign.

    I will announce my plan for fairer fares and I’m going to do it by text.

    Our campaign will be the first to announce a key policy by text. So switch your phones on now.

    Behind me you will see our campaign text number.

    Text KEN to this number, 66007 and tomorrow you’ll be the first to hear how I will hold down fares.

    In every year in every part of London, inner and outer, fares will be fairer under me than they would be under a second Boris Johnson term.

    Let Boris Johnson defend his policy of high fares for Londoners and low tax for bankers.

    Everywhere he goes, my running mate Val Shawcross and our team of Assembly candidates will send our message to Londoners – Boris is making you less well-off and less safe, with higher fares and less police.

    Over this last year I have worked with Ed Miliband.

    I’ve watched him stand up to Rupert Murdoch and he won.

    Now he’s taking on the appalling unfairness of this government’s policies.

    If you want to see a fairer Britain, that means a Labour government under Ed Miliband.

    Since we elected Ed as our leader tens of thousands of people have joined us, enthused and wanting to see real change.

    A lot of us wonder if we can ever match the great achievements of our past like the NHS.

    But when I look at the problems we face

    Rebuilding our economy on fairer lines

    Being a bridge between Europe and America and the rising new economies in Asia and Latin America

    And tackling climate change, the greatest threat to our survival humanity has ever faced

    I know our greatest achievements lie ahead.

    And in Ed we have a leader, whose combination of principles and vision, mean we can make these changes.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2013 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, to the 2013 Labour Party conference in Brighton.

    Conference, this is a historic year for our commitment to international development.

    And I want to start by saluting you. Without your campaigning, your passion and your values there is no way the United Kingdom would have reached the historic landmark in 2013 of spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on overseas aid.

    It would never have happened without you. And it would never have happened without the leadership of a Labour Government.

    A Labour Government which tripled aid, transformed DFID into a world leading development agency and ensured the world wrote off debt.

    A Labour movement working with the decent majority of the British people in pursuit of social justice at home and abroad. That combination was unstoppable then and can be unstoppable again in the future.

    When the cynics say politics doesn’t make a difference. All politicians are the same. Remind them who created the National Health Service, who established Sure Start and who introduced the national minimum wage? And yes conference, who put Britain on the road to delivering its responsibilities to the poorest in the world. Labour, Labour, Labour and Labour again.

    Friends, too often we have allowed foreign policy to either be the preserve of an intellectual elite or fundamentalist anti-Europeans. Today, I signal our determination to take the fight and the arguments to the squeezed middle. That the interdependence and interconnectivity of the modern world is not a choice but a reality.

    People’s cost of living – their food bills, the costs of their fuel and the jobs which will be available to our kids and grandkids in the future are all influenced by developments way beyond our borders. That is why fair trade, energy security, tackling climate change and tax dodging are relevant to the everyday lives of people in our country.

    And to those who say we can’t afford to spend less than 1 penny in every pound on overseas aid, I say you are wrong. The One Nation Britain I love is a compassionate Britain, a Britain committed to fairness, a Britain which wants to see no child anywhere in the world left without food, a decent education or access to universal healthcare. A Britain where people give record amounts to Comic relief year after year in the good times and the bad.

    But also a Britain which understands our world is changing. We can’t allow short term austerity to undermine our long term national interests. Our aid recipients of today will be our trading partners of tomorrow. ‘One Nation One World’ is not a slogan but a living breathing expression of today’s interconnected and interdependent world.

    So Conference, what of the Tories?

    Of course, I welcome their decision to honour our commitment to 0.7. But the difference between them and us can be summed up in one sentence. “I didn’t come into politics to help poor people.” The chilling words not of some rogue right-wing Tory backbencher, but Justine Greening, David Cameron’s choice to be Secretary of State for International Development.

    Well, Justine I have a message for you this morning. I did come into politics to help poor people. So let’s bring this election on. And swap jobs as soon as possible.

    In only three years the Tories have squandered Britain’s world leading legacy on international development. David Cameron was unwilling to put the time in in the run up to the recent G8. This led to disappointing progress on the tax dodging which costs developing countries millions in lost revenue.

    Cameron has also failed to turn up for work at several key meetings where UK leadership on development could have made a real difference.

    And in typical Cameron style in retreat from the right wing of his party he has sought to face two ways. One day he says increasing aid is morally right, the next he panders to the right and makes false claims that in future it will be primarily used to plug holes in the defence budget or support business.

    A divisive Prime Minister leading a deeply divided party. For him, aid detox for the nasty party; for us, development an expression of our core values.

    Last year at Conference I asked Tessa Jowell to launch a global campaign to ensure investing in early childhood is put at the heart of the new post-2015 development framework. This summer Tessa and I visited Malawi where we saw for ourselves how in difficult circumstances and against the odds organisations like Sightsavers are offering hope to disabled children and their families.

    Today I can announce that Tessa is launching a global petition to mobilise people across the world to send a clear message to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that an integrated approach to the early years should be at heart of international development.

    If Sure Start and children’s centres are right for our kids then surely their underlying principles must be applied equally to the poorest kids in the world.

    And Conference, when we think about the poorest kids in the world let us reflect on what the children of Syria are facing today – witnesses to and victims of horrific violence.

    One million children made refugees; almost two million unable to go to school. That’s why it is so important that we not only do our part but galvanise other countries to step up to the plate and fulfil their responsibilities. Unfettered access for humanitarian agencies must now be the immediate top priority for the international community.

    Conference, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have made it clear Labour will apply iron discipline to the use of taxpayers’ money. This will mean a Labour DFID from East Kilbride to offices around the world will only invest in programmes which offer value for money, deliver change for the poorest and seek to support self-sufficiency and end aid dependency. We will always to be the first to respond to humanitarian crises.

    A tough independent inspection regime will inspect both DFID programmes and DFID offices. Where programmes aren’t delivering they will be ended, where offices aren’t performing they will be subject to special measures. And we will end the scandal of private consultants inspecting private consultants.

    We will work with business and NGOs to invest in the infrastructure and drive the cutting edge innovation deeloping countries tell us they need. But in return business will have to operate decent Labour standards throughout their supply chain, demonstrate a commitment to environmental sustainability and be transparent about tax and profits both at home and abroad.

    Conference, the horrendous collapse of Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh which killed over eleven hundred people should be a wakeup call to us all. Fair rights for workers, progressive trade unionism and decent jobs should be the hallmark of successful economies and civilised societies. They will play a central role in Labour’s progressive development policies for the twenty-first century.

    In 2015 the world will come together to agree a new framework to replace the Millennium Development Goals.

    A framework which will apply equally to all countries. Where developed, developing and middle income countries have an equal stake in change.

    In the aftermath of the financial crisis and with the emergence of new economic and political powers such as China, India and Brazil this is a big opportunity to recast the values which shape our world. For us, business as usual is simply not acceptable. We want to see a focus on inequality, not just poverty, growth which is sustainable and benefits the poorest. Good governance which deals with the responsibilities of donors and multi-national companies as well as governments in developing countries.

    We have set out our vision for a new social contract without borders which brings together the world’s poverty reduction and sustainability objectives. Today I can announce we are mobilising global political change from opposition. We are in the process of developing a centre-left progressive coalition of politicians who share Ed Miliband’s belief that now is the time for radical change in the world, not tinkering at the edges. We favour big structural changes on tax, trade, climate change and inequality. We want to see an end to extreme poverty by 2030, but also an end to aid dependency with new relationships between nations built on reciprocity and shared values.

    In only 18 months we will be fighting an election in this country. The Tories will try to persuade the British public that international development is safe in their hands, that Britain’s role in the world is governed by cross-party consensus. Conference, don’t believe it. Our commitment is different, deeper-rooted in our history, broader in its ambition, and above all more firmly based on the values of social justice.

    When we come to the election, international development won’t be an issue we just tick off and pass by. It is an issue we will have to fight for.

    You see Conference, the difference between us and the Tories is we didn’t come into politics to explain the world as it is, we came into politics to change the world.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis, the Shadow International Development Secretary, to the 2012 Labour Party conference on 1st October 2012.

    Conference, I want to begin by thanking my wonderful team:

    Sir Tony Cunningham, Rushanara Ali and Ian Mearns, all of whom do an excellent job.

    But I know they will forgive me if I single out someone special. Someone who has never wavered in the fight for global equality and human rights.

    One of the leaders of a new generation of women who changed the face of our party.

    Conference, Glenys Kinnock may be leaving the frontbench but I have no doubt she will continue to be the strongest voice for those who are vulnerable and voiceless everywhere in the world.

    Glenys, on their behalf we thank you and salute you.

    Conference, it’s been quite a year. During the past twelve months I have had the pleasure of shadowing Jeremy Hunt, Andrew Mitchell and now Justine Greening.

    So I can tell you as a pleb with a ringside seat: these Tories may think they were born to rule, but as the British people now know, they aren’t fit to govern.

    I want to use my speech today to challenge the relentless attacks on development spending which are now coming from “the right.”

    But also to demonstrate if other countries match our commitment to aid and sign up to radical global change we could eradicate poverty by 2030 and reduce aid dependency.

    Conference, is it any wonder that the British people, so generous in their giving to good causes are conflicted when they think of the challenges facing the squeezed middle and public service cuts.

    We need to have the confidence to make the case and win the argument.

    We should absolutely clear in our response to those who argue for cuts to the aid budget.

    Why should the poorest in the world pay the price for the irresponsible, greedy behaviour of the top bankers?

    And a right-wing ideology which continues to advocate light-touch regulation and celebrate casino capitalism.

    First and foremost, our contribution to fighting poverty and tragedy is a moral imperative.

    But security, trade and migration also mean it is in Britain’s national interest.

    In an interdependent world to be a patriot is to be an internationalist. Not just for one fantastic Olympic Games, but always.

    Conference, it turns my stomach when I hear multi-millionaire Lord Ashcroft demanding that support for the world’s poorest should be slashed.

    The nasty party is back. It’s the same old Tories.

    Does this mean that the aid budget should be immune from the very real challenges we face in these difficult times?

    Of course not.

    That’s why we won’t be able to reverse the Government’s decision to cut the projected aid budget by 1.7 billion pounds.

    Although it should be understood that this is due to a reduction in Gross National Income, which in part is due to the failure of Tory economic policy.

    But it’s also why the Government should put right its broken promise to enshrine the link between 0.7 and GNI in law.

    This would ensure future changes to the budget, irrespective of whichever party is in power, would be permanently related to the economic state of the nation.

    And Conference, the critics would have you believe aid doesn’t work.

    It isn’t true.

    In one year under Labour, the Department for International Development helped train over 100,000 teachers, delivered almost 7 million bed-nets, provided 12-and-a-half million people with better sanitation and helped build or repair 4,500 km of road.

    UK aid saves lives and gives people the chance of a better future.

    We will support the Government if they honour our commitment to meet the 0.7 target by next year.

    But David Cameron is unable to provide leadership on development because the Tories advocate more of the same when what we need is radical change.

    The Tories believe in trickle down economics. We believe in the inextricable link between economic prosperity and social justice.

    The Tories view aid as charity. For us, development is the pursuit of social justice and human rights. Public-bad private-good drives their funding decisions.

    Delivery capacity, value for money, innovation and accountability will be our criteria.

    They are isolated in Europe. We need to have influence over an EU development budget which accounts for 20 per cent of UK spend.

    Conference, as Ed Miliband has said, we believe now is the time for big global economic and social change.

    Growth which is sustainable, companies that are both profitable and responsible, meaningful agreements on fair trade and climate change, universal access to free healthcare, compulsory education and social protection.

    Global human rights with no exemptions for our allies. Women’s rights at the heart of conflict resolution.

    Decent work, decent labour standards for workers everywhere.

    And Conference, no more hiding places for the tax dodgers who steal from the poorest people and poorest countries in the world.

    And yes Conference, if these changes were to be made we believe poverty could be eradicated and aid dependency reduced by 2030.

    Replacing paternalism with dynamic partnerships between north and south, developed and middle income countries.

    Conference, a different vision, different values.

    Tony Blair and Gordon Brown didn’t provide leadership on the MDGs, debt and 0.7 to detoxify our brand.

    They did so because it is who we are. Social justice and human rights are the very reason for our existence.

    They are why we are Labour. For this movement now and through history, social justice has no borders, only new frontiers to be conquered.

    That is why today I am delighted to announce the party which created Sure Start in Britain will also be the party which champions the case for prioritising early years development across the world.

    I have asked Tessa Jowell, the founder and first Minister for Sure Start and architect of our great Olympic success, to lead a global campaign to ensure an integrated approach to the early childhood years is at the heart of the new post-2015 global development framework.

    I am delighted that Sarah Brown, Global Patron of the White Ribbon Alliance who has achieved such amazing progress on maternal health, has agreed to support Tessa in her new role.

    If all the evidence demonstrates investment in the earliest years makes the most difference to our children’s lives, the same evidence must surely apply to the health, education and parenting of the poorest children in the world.

    Conference, as staunch defenders of development we must also be reformers.

    Like any Government Department DfID is not immune from waste or poor decisions.

    Also, the more we focus our resources in conflict-ridden and fragile states the greater the risks we are taking.

    We should be honest about that.

    My value for money test will be what difference is our spending making to the poorest and whether it is contributing to an end to aid dependency long-term.

    And the development community, including our world leading NGOs, should be as passionate about how we spend the hard earned money of donors and taxpayers as they have been in campaigning for 0.7.

    Even the most radical development agenda in the world will be seriously undermined by inadequate progress in the fight against corruption.

    To coin a phrase, it’s time to get tough on corruption and the causes of corruption.

    I am determined that from day one of the next Labour Government we will have an effective new anti-corruption plan for the UK and a strategy for building a new anti-corruption coalition around the world.

    I am delighted that Hadeel Ibrahim of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, renowned globally for shining a light on governance issues in Africa, has agreed to undertake a review on our behalf and to identify tangible action which will lead to real change.

    I am particularly keen UK diaspora communities have an input.

    The next Labour Government will be champions of development but also warriors for value for money and against corruption.

    Conference, I want to end by dedicating this speech to the women I met in Chad earlier this year.

    I felt a mixture of horror and admiration as I watched them beating anthills to extract the tiniest bits of grain to feed their family.

    They pleaded with me to make sure they would have enough food to give their kids one proper meal a day as yet another food crisis hit.

    They don’t get left from right, the different editorial positions of the Guardian and Daily Mail.

    They just want to be able to feed their kids.

    You and I joined this movement to change the world not explain the world as it is.

    So conference, for us, social justice will always have no borders, only new frontiers.

    Thank you.

  • Ivan Lewis – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lewis to the Labour Conference on 27th September 2011.

    Conference.

    I want to begin my speech today with some thank yous.

    To my brilliant team Gloria de Piero, Ian Lucas, Ian Austin and Ian Murray for their commitment and support during the past year. To Sophie, David and my constituency team for their endless patience and sound advice. But most of all to you.

    Those of us who sit at the top table of the Labour Party in Parliament should never forget the debt of gratitude we owe to the party activists, trade unionists and party staff who in every community in every part of this country are the heart and soul of this great movement.

    Conference, the history of the relationship between this Party and the Murdoch press is a complex and tortuous one. But what can never be complex or tortuous is the responsibility of politicians to stand up for the public interest without fear or favour. That is why today please join me once again in paying tribute to the courage and tenacity of Tom Watson, Chris Bryant and John Prescott for the service they have done to our country in exposing the phone hacking scandal. And let us also recognise that when the country reacted with revulsion to the news that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked while the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister dithered, it was our leader Ed Miliband who day after day provided the leadership which was needed and spoke for the nation when he said, enough is enough.

    Of course, we must wait for the police to do their work and the Leveson inquiry to report. But there are some lessons we should learn now.

    Firstly, never again can one commercial organisation have so much power and control over our media. In the period ahead, Labour will bring forward proposals for new tougher cross media ownership laws.

    Secondly, in Britain a free press is non-negotiable. It was brilliant investigative journalism primarily by the Guardian which forced a reopening of the police investigation when too many vested interests simply hoped it would go away. But with freedom also comes responsibility. Neither the current broken system of self regulation or state oversight will achieve the right balance. We need a new system of independent regulation including proper like for like redress which means mistakes and falsehoods on the front page receive apologies and retraction on the front page. And as in other professions the industry should consider whether people guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off.

    Thirdly, a message for Mr Murdoch. Your newspapers and Sky TV are popular with millions of British people. Some people in our Movement might find that uncomfortable but it’s true. However, and yes Conference, we should have said this a long time ago. Mr Murdoch, never again think you can assert political power in the pursuit of your commercial interests or ideological beliefs. This is Britain, Mr Murdoch. The integrity of our media and our politics is not for sale.

    And Mr Cameron, I believe in second chances too. So, let me give you another chance to level with the British people. Isn’t it time you and George Osborne came clean about why you appointed Andy Coulson in the first place and despite numerous warnings took him to the heart of our democracy at No 10 Downing Street?

    Conference, in just over a year Jeremy Hunt, has gone from rising star to the long list of wannabe former potential Prime Ministers. This Tory-led Government have decimated our world-leading school sports system, launched a concerted attack on public investment in the arts, threatened many libraries and are marginalising creativity in our education system. At a time when jobs and growth should be a top priority their VAT increase is bad for tourism, and delayed broadband roll out, bad for business.

    The height of their ambition for London 2012 is to deliver a successful event. In stark contrast to Labour’s Olympic legacy vision to deliver the biggest expansion of sports participation in our history.

    But Conference, criticising them is not enough. As Ed has said this week, we have to give people a sense of how we would do things differently. So let me give you some examples.

    The success of our creative industries is at serious risk due to global competition, the impact of the new digital economy and the policies of this Government. If these industries are to provide the British jobs of the future we need a government committed not to a helpline but an active, industrial strategy. Earlier this month, Ed and I launched Labour’s new creative industry network. The network will pilot a fairness pledge to encourage these historically closed industries to open up their internships, apprenticeships and jobs to people based on talent, not social background or family networks

    I am delighted to announce today that Channel 4, Virgin Media, UK Music, The Royal Shakespeare Company, The Advertising Association and the Sharp Project have agreed to sign up to this pledge. We hope many other businesses and organisations will follow suit and break down barriers which have no place in a 21st Century Britain.

    Conference, we should be proud of Labour’s ground-breaking free admissions to museums and galleries. And proud of our great local, national and global arts institutions. This party should celebrate, not be embarrassed by cultural excellence. But we should be concerned that in whole swathes of our country north, east, south and west there are still too many communities which don’t have fair access to great theatre, live music, art, opera, history or heritage.

    Conference, cultural inequality offends Labour values. In the same way that every community expects fair access to education, the NHS and policing. We should ask how do we harness the excellence of our great cultural institutions to enrich the lives of all our citizens from the great metropolitan centres to the inner cities and rural communities. I am not arguing in these difficult times for more spending. But even after the cuts £542million is being spent via the Arts Council and National Lottery. As we shape new cultural policy for the future let us lead a national debate about what fair access to the arts and heritage should mean.

    Conference, in future I also want us to be radical in putting sport at the heart of our policy agenda. Sport is a health policy, an education policy, an economic policy and a community cohesion policy.

    Equally, it is time to ask some fundamental questions about the relationship between grassroots and high level professional sport. To use football as an example. The Premier League is a tremendous commercial success and in many ways has rejuvenated our national game. But can it be right that last year they turned over 2 billion pounds and top flight players are earning an average of 72 thousand pounds per week. While the Football Foundation’s funding which supports improvements to local pitches and changing facilities can only scratch the surface of need and is now being cut. Surely, not only the kids but the thousands of soccer and hockey mums and dads, volunteer coaches and organisers who are the hidden heroes of our grassroots sport have a right to ask how this can be fair. They have a right to expect our Party to ask those questions. We will not let them down. And can I also be clear, as we meet today in this great city of Liverpool, when Parliament resumes Labour wi ll stand shoulder to shoulder with the Hillsborough families in demanding the full disclosure of all government documents relating to that horrific tragedy.

    Conference, let me end by saying this. The first Labour Conference I attended was not as a special advisor but a steward. I was told to look out for any dodgy looking delegates. Believe me it was a full time job!

    I would never have dreamt that I would have the chance to serve nine years as a minister in a Labour Government and become a member of the Shadow Cabinet.

    But I didn’t join the Labour Party in order to join the establishment. I did so because I had a burning desire to help build a more just society. I didn’t want to explain the world as it is, I wanted to change the world. Twenty-two years on that burning desire is as strong as ever. We should oppose this Conservative-led Government when they are wrong with all the strength we can muster. But we must also be the party of change offering a different vision for a better future. That is what I intend to do.

  • Brandon Lewis – 2014 Speech to LGA Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Brandon Lewis, the Fire Minister, to the LGA Conference on 12th March 2014.

    I am delighted to be here with you today on the second day of the Local Government Association’s annual fire conference. I understand that yesterday’s sessions and workshops were informative, engaging and that the day overall was a huge success. I hope to live up to your standards for day 2 of the conference!

    Over the last 6 months you will have heard me say that the publication of the government’s response to the Knight review is imminent, and I can tell you today that it is still imminent.

    I have to say I was pleased to see that the sessions and workshops at this year’s conference have in the main been focused on the findings of Sir Ken’s independent review, Facing the future. I know you are eagerly awaiting the response, but the journey of travel will be very much outside of a document that will sit on a shelf. Transformation will be what you make it; it will be about more targeted prevention, it will be about better collaboration between and across services, with blue lights services and other public bodies, it will be about more flexible resourcing such as increasing on-call fire fighters, and it will be about better procurement – which I know you are already committed to.

    It’s been an interesting year and we’ve all seen some fairly interesting events. The first national firefighter strike in over 10 years and major flooding incidents across the country have tested fire and rescue authorities, and while there will be important lessons learned from the preparation for events, I believe that fire and rescue authorities across the board have responded very well to both the industrial action and the recent severe weather.

    I was pleased to see that there was almost a ‘business as usual’ service, during strike action and that many chief fire officers, if they spotted gaps, trained up resilience staff to fill them.

    I commend those who used innovative measures to boost their resilience – I was really impressed by those fire and rescue authorities who ‘looked outside of the box’ in improving their resilience. I particularly wish to commend those firefighters and support workers who continued to work and protect their communities. I received letters from some who, despite pressure from union officials, felt protecting thier communities was the right thing to do. They deserve our profound gratitude, and thanks.

    A further sustained challenge to the continuity of service was provided by the severe weather and major flooding incidents that began late last year and continued through the first couple of months of this year.

    Fire and rescue authorities from Northumberland to Kent worked with their partners to protect people in their communities from the potential devastation of an east coast tidal surge, evacuating homes, and, sending in boats and rafts to rescue people from flooded properties.

    More than 1,000 fully equipped fire fighters from across the country assisted with the flood response over December, January and February. They did an incredible job working in shifts to reduce water levels and help communities deal with the flooding. They gave support wherever and whenever it was needed and there were still plenty of fire engines in local areas to respond to non-flood emergencies.

    I wholeheartedly praise the great work that fire and rescue authorities across the country have done in supporting not only their communities through the sustained flooding events but also supporting other fire and rescue authorities. Fire and rescue authority staff should be congratulated on their professionalism throughout this period and thanks given to those who worked tirelessly and continuously at this time.

    While your response activity rightly grabs the headlines, it’s the work you do on prevention and protection that is the bread and butter, it is front line.

    Fire calls, fire deaths and injuries have fallen significantly over the past 10 years. I believe that this trend can and will continue downwards.

    You play an important part in achieving this and I know there will be more we can do to prevent fires and many other emergencies occurring in the first place. This means that fire prevention should not be a soft option when it comes to looking for savings. There are efficiencies to be made but the determination to address fire and accident risk, must remain at the forefront of each authority’s activity. While I know many of you are taking great steps to address this, there is still more headway in reducing the number of false alarms, which still account for over half of calls.

    This is why the government, in partnership with fire and rescue authorities, continues to run the Fire Kills Campaign. Today is too good an opportunity to remind everyone that 30 March is clock change day. So Tick Tock Test your smoke alarms and persuade as many people as possible to follow your example. Our latest analysis suggests you are at least 4 times more likely to die in a fire in your home if there is no working smoke alarm.

    Sadly more than half the people still dying are aged 65 or over. We are encouraging everyone to test for family, friends or neighbours who need help. As it’s Mother’s Day too, what better way to show you care. Please spread the Fire Kills messages via all the channels you have. In October, you supported the campaign through website reminders, tweets, press releases and in many other ways. One in 8 householders tested – let’s do even better this time.

    In the coming year we want to explore how we can reduce the number of deaths among older people. What other campaigns could include our simple testing message? What local services could help test and make sure that older people have enough smoke alarms installed to give them the best chance of escaping a deadly fire? Why do some people never test? Together we need to make testing smoke alarms regularly and installing them at least on every level, the right thing to do, the social ‘norm’.

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sir Ken for his thought provoking review – he is an expert in his field and I was delighted with the breadth and scope of his report. I am very grateful to him for starting a debate on the challenges and opportunities facing fire and rescue authorities. Sir Ken has set us all on a direction of travel, throwing out the challenge for radical and rapid transformation in line with public expectations.

    So rather than waiting for the government to publish its response, you, as leaders need to and want to get on and deliver. We do not have the answers, you as leaders of your sector are in the driving seat. And given the theme chosen for today’s conference I am pleased that the responsibility to transform is a responsibility that you seem to relish.

    And we as government will support you, starting with a £75 million fund available to fire and rescue authorities – on a bid for basis – to drive transformation.

    £30 million of the fund is resource funding, and £45 million is a capital fire efficiency fund. Both will be allocated on a bid for basis so that it can be put to use where it will make the most difference.

    I encourage you to bid for this fund. In particular I am keen to see bids that encourage some of the key themes in the Knight review; greater collaboration; initiatives that support improving local delivery; initiatives that increase on call arrangements; innovations that prioritise prevention and protection and ones which promote asset transformation.

    While I am not yet in a position to publish the government response to the Knight review, I thought I would take this opportunity to talk about my own personal thinking on the direction of travel. None of this will be a surprise I guess, it’s all of the things I have been talking about since Sir Ken published his review. My thinking picks up on some of the key challenges Ken mentioned.

    One thing is for sure, fire in rescue in 10 years time will be totally different from 10 years ago. The fall in calls generally means that there is now a great opportunity to significantly review both the number of on-call firefighters and on-call stations with a view to putting in place more modern and flexible arrangements. On-call firefighters are a vital and important part of how authorities deliver services and in times where call outs are falling, you as leaders must recognise the enormous potential they offer.

    Can you really afford not to review each station, and identify if that station or one of its pumps, can be devoted to on-call activity?

    Will you just keep doing the same thing hoping for a different outcome or will you transform your services in this way both in urban as well as rural areas?

    Sir Ken Knight highlighted the importance of collaboration with other local services in helping fire and rescue authorities to transform the way they run to meet the changing needs of communities.

    I firmly agree.

    Local collaboration between local services – including fire, police and ambulance – is the future of public service delivery, and I want to be in a position to award you transformation funding for innovative bids in this area.

    I believe that the relationship with the other emergency services is the most untapped route and needs to be pursued at all levels. The best fire and rescue authorities are already beginning to collaborate with police and ambulance services and local authorities – through co-location of stations and services, through sharing back office functions, including sharing senior staff, and through co-responding and joining up on service delivery. They are achieving better outcomes for the public and getting more from their resources in the process.

    For example:

    In Hampshire, fire, police and the council are joining up back office services and expect to save up to £4 million a year.

    In Merseyside fire and police are working together to create a new, combined command and control centre, saving them £3.5 million and allowing them to share information and expertise, and, ultimately, provide a more integrated emergency service.

    In Lincolnshire, fire and ambulance services provide an integrated service, with on-call firefighters delivering emergency medical support and transport. This is an extension of their existing excellent work and they have been awarded £500,000 through the recent Transformational Challenge Award.

    However, progress across the country is patchy and I want to make sure that every authority and community can benefit from collaboration. This good practice needs to become standard practice and the public need the emergency services to consider collaboration first in all they do.

    Alongside the transformation fund is of course the new police innovation fund, and I know that some of you have already received funding from the Home Office. From 2014/15 the next police innovation fund will incentivise transformation, collaboration and other innovative delivery approaches, including greater collaboration across forces and other emergency services.

    I want to see all of the emergency services working together to deliver world class services that match the needs of today and tomorrow’s communities – collaboration really is the future for local public services.

    A further area the Knight Report highlighted as being in need of greater collaboration was procurement. Sir Ken found widespread duplication of effort in the design, commissioning and evaluation of fire specific products and suggested that fire and rescue authorities should focus their efforts on improving procurement under these areas.

    Fire and rescue authorities should – without doubt – be exploring collaborative procurement with other fire and rescue authorities and emergency services to drive efficiencies – especially given that the requirements of individual fire and rescue authorities across England are not different enough to warrant going it alone.

    We are publishing the fire and rescue procurement aggregation and collaboration report, a joint research project with the Chief Fire Officers’ Association. The report found that there is a compelling case for collaborative procurement. The sector spends £127 million very year on fire and rescue specific products such as clothing and vehicles; that collaboration alone could achieve huge savings of at least £18 million.

    In addition if products were standardised more it is likely that even bigger savings could be realised and further potential efficiencies made not least if non-fire specific goods and services were bought together with other public bodies.

    Twelve months on from my last speech here we have a lot to celebrate; our collective success in making our communities safer from fire; the key role that fire and rescue authorities played in responding to the worst floods since 2007 and successful business continuity arrangements during severe weather and industrial action.

    We’ve also got a lot to look forward to, including the opportunities presented by transformation. I encourage you to use the success of the past year as motivation to tap into opportunities for reform and take steps that will make your fire and rescue authorities more efficient and more able to meet the demands of your communities in the future.