UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2013 Speech on Scottish Independence

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael on 13th November 2013.

    It is a pleasure to be here in Inverness today – as an MP of 12 and half years I’m used to making speeches, but this is my first key-note speech as Secretary of State. In terms of where and when to make it I gave only one wish for my speech it was not going to be in the central belt!

    It is an enormous pleasure for me to be here in the city of Inverness, capital of the Highlands. This is a city that has seen enormous growth and change over the decades and is now home to many businesses in a wide-range of fields, but which is still identifiably a Highland community in its feel.

    This seat is home to my friend and colleague Danny Alexander, I have been privileged to work closely with Danny over the years and we have both been Ministers in this coalition Government and he has become an enormously influential politician.

    When Danny tells people in Government to listen they do – and Danny takes every opportunity in his job to speak up for the Highlands.

    Now in Cabinet a boy from Colonsay sits across the table from a boy from Islay who represents Orkney and Shetland – two island men both represented at the heart of this Government.

    Proud

    I am very proud to take up the role as Secretary of State for Scotland particularly at the current time. Right from the start I got to see how quickly the labels get put on you on this job.

    Their labels as a ‘bruiser’ or any of the rest of it are all a predictable part of how the press covers politics: plenty of reminders of what I look like dressed as a Viking warrior for the Up Helly Aa (and I can let you into a little secret – it’s not an outfit I wear every day) to being described as a ‘supposed Scot’: all in the space of four weeks!

    The latter description was, I suspect, designed to provoke. It certainly did tell us something about this debate – that I’m not alone in experiencing.

    Not content with trying to divide the UK, the supporters of independence also seek to divide our fellow Scots – depending on their voting intentions in the referendum.

    I tell you this – once you start mixing up politics and patriotism you can quickly get into dangerous territory.

    I am proud to be a Scot and come from a family that as far back as we can trace, have always lived in Scotland. My father is a native Gaelic speaker and as a child and a young adult I competed at local and national Mods.

    I was educated in the Scottish state sector and studied Scots Law at the University of Aberdeen and qualified as a solicitor in Scots law. I have held a commission as a Procurator Fiscal Depute – one of the great ancient offices of the Scottish legal system.

    Since 2001 I have represented a Scottish constituency in the House of Commons. I look forward to Hogmanay as much as Christmas Day. I drink malt whisky and I’m partial to the occasional tunnocks teacake.

    What else do I have to do for these people to regard me as a “true” Scot as opposed to being a “supposed” one?

    Scottishness

    No one has a right to question my Scottishness or anyone else’s come to that.

    Polls would suggest that most people in Scotland want to remain part of the United Kingdom. Many others do not.

    A few weeks ago, in yet another effort to have a debate about the debate rather than having the debate itself, Alex Salmond called on David Cameron to debate independence. He wanted, he said, to see the Prime Minister “argue against Scotland”. Not, you note, “against Scottish independence” but “against Scotland”. In the nationalist mindset it seems to be the same thing.

    Let me be clear: You are not a better Scot if you support independence. Nor are you better if you don’t.

    Being a part of the UK doesn’t undermine our Scottishness – our identity as Scots is not and never has been at threat.

    This is not a debate about patriotism – It is a debate about whether or not we should continue to work together across the United Kingdom, or whether we should go it alone.

    A lot of airtime gets devoted to what independence would mean for Scotland – and rightly so – there are plenty of questions, I’ll return to just some of those later.

    But before we make a choice about our future, we need to understand what it is we have right now as part of the United Kingdom.

    The nationalists like to take us right back to 1707 and even further to Bannockburn. Don’t get me wrong – history is important: but our recent history is just as important as the more distant. That recent history has been one of collaboration, of partnership, of working together.

    Best of both worlds

    I’m not going to turn this speech into ‘the greatest hits of the UK’ – but I will say this: we have achieved a great deal working together. And I don’t think those of us who believe in a strong Scotland within a strong United Kingdom spend enough time talking about that.

    So next time someone asks ‘what has the UK ever done for me?’ I want you to remember this….

    Together our economy is stronger and more secure.

    We have a domestic market of 60 million individuals rather than just 5, 4.5 million companies rather than 320,000 – with no boundaries, no borders, no customs, but with a common currency, single financial system, and a single body of rules and regulations.

    I am in no doubt: businesses right across Scotland have no wish to change this system.

    I put it like this: we have a stronger place in the world with a great and wide network of embassies and diplomatic offices across the globe – supporting our businesses overseas and looking after Scots abroad.

    As part of the UK we are a major player on the international stage: with significant influence in the EU, UN, G8 and other international institutions. We can and do make a real difference to people in other parts of the world in times of trouble, as our work in the Philippines is showing right now.

    Benefits of the UK

    At home the benefits of our United Kingdom can be seen not just in the make-up of families like mine and many others right across the UK, but also by the more than 700,000 Scots who live and work in other parts of the UK and the 30,000 people who travel between Scotland and the rest of the UK each day to work. All of us benefit from a common passport, tax and national insurance system, meaning that people as well as goods and services can move freely.

    Where it makes sense to have decisions taken in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament responsibility has been devolved to Holyrood. It is a constructive and positive approach. Devolution within a United Kingdom really does give us the best of both worlds.

    Week two of the job and the crisis at Grangemouth petro-chemical plant landed on my desk. That illustrated well what the best of both worlds gives us: working together John Swinney and I could bring together the resources of government to secure the future of the plant more effectively than we could working separately.

    That is why at the start of this year we embarked upon a detailed programme of work to examine Scotland’s position in the UK today and to make clear the choices that would face all of us if the UK family were to break up.

    These papers have been detailed and evidence based and together set out a detailed case that shows every part of the UK makes a valuable contribution and that together we are greater than the sum of our parts.

    When we go to the polls next year we’ll be asked the question: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’. We’ll be asked to put our cross in a box saying yes, or a box saying no.

    That simple act – will be replicated right across Scotland from the highlands and islands, to the borders; in our great cities and our rural communities.

    Each of us will be asked the same question. And when we answer – we will all do so on the basis of what is best for us as individuals, for our families and for our communities, now and in the future.

    And the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom can be seen in our future as much as our past:

    There are the challenges we already know about: by pooling our resources we are better placed to meet some of the demographic challenges that we will face in the future: funding pensions through contributions from the working populations of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland is more sustainable than simply trying to fund our ageing population in Scotland alone: you don’t need to be an expert economist to work that one out.

    Then of course there are things that we can’t predict:

    Fifteen years ago the idea of broadband roll out across the UK, including our remotest areas would have sounded like a pipe-dream.

    And yet here we are, with UK wide funding helping to join us up and bring us all closer together. Twenty per cent of the UK broadband budget is being spent here in Scotland – that’s more than our fair share – and we can do this because we pool our resources across the UK.

    We need to ask ourselves: what will the next broadband be? And will it be more sustainable to fund it by clubbing together as the UK or doing our own thing in a separate Scotland?

    It is this past, present and future United Kingdom that we need to think about when we go into the polls next year.

    White Paper

    But right now attention is turning to the Scottish Government’s White Paper which will be published in just less than two weeks. And rightly so.

    This is after all a long awaited document.

    Whilst we have published our analysis – on the legal implications of independence, on financial services, on the economy, on the challenges of an oil fund, or on the currency – what we’ve so often heard in response is ‘wait for the White Paper’.

    The First Minister tells us that this Paper will resonate down through the ages and Nicola Sturgeon has said it will answer all the questions – boy does it need to.

    But before we get to the detail let’s start with ‘The ‘why?’. Why do the nationalists want independence?

    Since signing the agreement with the Prime Minister over a year ago to ensure that we would have a referendum, the answer to ‘why’ seems to have become less clear, rather than more.

    In the few areas where the Scottish Government have sought to offer any answers, they – ironically – seem obsessed with UK wide solutions. According to them:

    We will leave the UK…but have a shared currency and keep the Bank of England working as lender of last resort;

    We’ll leave the UK…. But continue to share a UK welfare system;

    We’ll leave the UK….. but still get UK warships built in Scottish yards;

    We’ll leave the UK…but still share a single set of financial regulations….

    The logic of the Scottish Government’s position has left many scratching their heads in puzzlement. But in truth it is just part of a pattern we see from the Scottish Government: They are doing this to offer false reassurance. Independence would prove very different in practice and they know it. Right now all they are proving is that they are prepared to say anything and promise everything to try to win votes.

    But let’s be generous and leave that most fundamental question of ‘why become independent’ to one side for a moment.

    The Scottish Government have another duty in the White Paper: to explain how independence would work and what it would mean. This is an important decision for us all. The details matters. We cannot be offered a prospectus of ‘it will be alright on the night.’

    Now we know that for many issues all the White Paper can do is provide a wish-list of what the Scottish Government might like to secure in negotiations:

    An independent Scotland would need to sit down at the negotiating table with the rest of the UK – who would then be a separate state from us.

    Sit down with the member states of the EU and the Allies of NATO to thrash out an enormous amount of very important detail.

    In each case an independent Scottish state would be pursuing its interests, just as the other states would pursue their interests.

    So the Scottish Government should take the opportunity in the White Paper to tell it straight about the fact that many important issues will need to be negotiated and they need to be upfront that there can be no guarantees in advance.

    Fundamental questions

    But that does not excuse the First Minister and his team for dodging some fundamental independence questions that they can answer.

    The White Paper must be frank on a few fundamentals of independence if they are serious about bridging the credibility gap that exists with their plans.

    Today I am posing three very straight-forward questions that need to be answered if people in Scotland are going to get any closer to knowing how independence will work and what it might mean for them.

    Let’s start with the pound in our pocket. Or, to be precise, the UK pound sterling in our pocket.

    This is fundamental.

    The First Minister is fond of saying that the pound is as much Scotland’s as it is the rest of the UK’s. It is now, but if Scotland decided to leave the UK, we would also be leaving the UK currency.

    Public international law is clear: the UK would continue. The UK’s currency would continue and the laws and institutions that control it like the Bank of England would continue…for the continuing UK

    But if Scotland became an independent country, we would need to put in place our own currency arrangements; new currency arrangements.

    Currency union

    The First Minister says he wants a currency union with the rest of the UK.

    The UK Government – and plenty of others – have pointed to the challenges of currency unions between different states. You only need to look at the Euro area to see that everything can appear fine in year one, and how quickly circumstances can change.

    And there are plenty of examples of currency unions that have failed. When Czechoslovakia broke up the Czechs and Slovaks tried it. It lasted 33 days.

    The bottom line is that a currency union may not be in the interests of Scotland or the continuing UK and it is highly unlikely to be agreed – not because of any malevolence, but because it wouldn’t work. It would be very foolish for anyone to vote for an independent Scotland on the basis that they will get to keep the pound. It’s high time that the Scottish Government stopped claiming that a currency union is a given and instead answer this first question: will the White Paper set out a credible Plan B on currency?

    Pensions are another fundamental building block of any state. The UK and other developed countries are facing rising pension costs because of ageing populations. Independent forecasts by the ONS confirm that the demographic challenge Scotland faces is greater than the rest of the UK. We will have more elderly and retired individuals receiving pensions compared to those of working age who are paying taxes.

    So my second question is will the White Paper set out how much more pensions will cost each of us in the future if we leave the UK and leave behind 90 per cent of the people that are currently paying into the larger UK pension pot?

    Price tag

    Finally, the overall price tag of independence is something we never hear anything about. John Swinney’s private paper to his Cabinet colleagues said a new tax system alone would cost more than £600m each year. Setting up a new Scottish state from scratch will not be cheap. The White Paper must tell us how much it will cost us to set up.

    But in truth it’s not just the one off set up costs we need to think about.

    In public we see the Scottish Government promising more and more ‘goodies’ for an independent Scotland. But people aren’t daft: we know that every goodie has to be paid for.

    So I want to know how much we are expected to pay to go it alone as an independent state. Rather than making empty promises, the White Paper has to tell us how an independent Scotland would fill the black hole.

    OK – I’ll admit – that’s more than three questions – trust me I could ask plenty more.

    But what I’d really like to hear are the questions you want to see answered when you open up the White Paper.

    Because this must not be a document that Governments alone pour over – as much as Alex Salmond might like it, this isn’t a debate between the UK and Scottish Governments.

    Indeed despite the approach of those SNP members who question the right of ‘supposed Scots’ like me to speak out, this is a debate that each and every one of us has a right to be involved in: we each have a voice in this debate.

    I hope to hear yours.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2005 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael in civil liberties to the Liberal Democrat Party Conference on 22nd September 2005.

    If there is one issue which defines us as a party then surely it is liberty. For us to defend the right of the individual to live his or her life without undue interference from the state is as instinctive as it for Messrs Blair, Blunkett and Clarke to attack it.

    Let us be clear. Being in favour of civil liberties is not about being “soft” on anyone. It is not about being soft on terrorism any more than it is about being “soft” on the anti-social behaviour that blights the lives of so many people in city centres and housing estates the length and breadth of our country. As Jim Wallace who was a formidable justice minister for four years in Scotland made clear yesterday, the liberty to bully abuse and intimidate your neighbour is not a civil liberty and those who do so will get no comfort or succour from this party.

    To be fair, the New Labour government started well. The passing of the Human Rights Act incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into our laws was a major advance in protecting our freedoms. We supported that when they did it and we continue to support it today. What has become clear since, however, is that they had no idea what they were doing at the time. Since New Labour passed the Human Rights Act they have had little to say on the subject apart from lambasting and abusing the judiciary every time they implement it.

    It is already clear when we return to Westminster in three weeks time we shall face another onslaught from a government determined to take control of every aspect of our lives. In the aftermath of the London bombings on 7th July the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary sought to establish a consensus on the measures that were needed to be taken. They were right to do so. Just as Mark Oaten and Charles Kennedy were right to respond positively as they did.  As ever, however, New Labour’s authoritarian instincts are kicking in. They now seek to push the boundaries of that consensus. Let me promise you this, conference, if a consensus ever emerges at Westminster that supports three months detention of suspects or the creation of new offences as vague and problematic as the glorification then that will be a consensus that will emerge without us. We shall not be part of it.

    I have no doubt that we shall be misrepresented.  I have no doubt that we shall be abused. I have no doubt that we shall be accused of all manner of things. And do you know what?   I really don’t care. If we can not defend liberties as fundamental as these then what is the point of being in parliament? This is what I was elected by the people of Orkney and Shetland to do. Just as they elected Jim Wallace before me and Jo Grimond before him.

    If civil liberties and human rights are important then they are important for everyone, regardless of nationality, race or religion. Just because someone has come here as an asylum seeker or has been brought here by a people trafficker to work in the sex trade or some other part of the black economy does not diminish their entitlement to fair and dignified  treatment by the state. That is why the government must now ratify without further delay the European Convention on the Trafficking of Human Beings. Even before that, however, there are changes that can and must be made now.

    The recent publicity in Scotland surrounding the practice of dawn raids being made on the homes of families of failed asylum seekers  has shocked all right thinking people. The children’s Commissioner in Scotland has been unambiguous and absolute in her condemnation of it and she was absolutely right to do so. I wonder how many of those people who voted Labour in 1997 or again in 2001 or 2005 did so because they wanted to elect a government that would send immigration officials into a family home early in the morning to take children from their beds. It traumatises children. It demeans us all because it is done in our name by our government. It is barbaric and it has got to stop now.

    Conference, we are to be asked to delete the part of this motion that asks us to deplore the planned introduction of compulsory identity cards and a national identity register.  I do not yet know why and I shall leave those who urge us to do so to explain their reasoning. I have to tell you, however, conference that I had the honour of leading for this party on the standing committee examining the ID Cards Bill. We went over that bill line by line and clause by clause. I have learned more about computerised identity databases and biometric information since May than I would ever have believed possible, let alone desirable. If I didn’t deplore the introduction of identity cards and the national identity register before I started that process then I certainly did by the time I finished it.

    Conference, be quite clear. The introduction of identity cards is about a lot more than the issue of a piece of plastic to help us get access to our public services. It is in fact a fundamental rewriting of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The bill which is currently going through parliament places massive amounts power in the hands of the government to obtain hold and share information not just about who we are but also about where we have been and what we have done.

    No doubt we shall be told that if we have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear but those who hold that view fail to understand the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state. It seems to assume that it is for the government to ask the citizen whether he or she has something to hide and that the citizen is somehow  answerable to the government. In a liberal society it is the other way round. The government is answerable to the citizen. The citizen should only have to justify themselves to the state if they are shown to have done something wrong.

    The only saving grace about the government’s plans to introduce ID Cards is that you just know they are not going to work. The government is going to buy a computer system that will hold three pieces of biometric information about every citizen in the country, install card readers in every public office in the country, retain records of when and when that service is used. Aye right. I’ll believe it when I see it. This is the government that after years of trying has still not been able to buy a computer for the Child Support Agency that will work out 15% of an absent parent’s salary. Something most of us would call a calculator. The operation of identity cards is going to be a massive but as yet unquantified cost to the tax payer – or more likely the people who are to be compelled to have them. The LSE calculated that the cost to the individual required to pay for an identity card could be as much as three times the government estimates of £93. The best part of £300 for the privilege of having the government keep tabs on you. Conference if we do not deplore the erosion of our civil liberties then surely waste of public and private funds on this scale is something to be deplored.

    History will record that this New Labour Government tried to rob us of some our most valuable freedoms. Let history also record that it was the Liberal Democrats who resisted and stopped them.

  • Greg Clark – 2012 Speech on City Deals

    gregclark

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Greg Clark, on 29th October 2012 in London at the City Deals Wave Two Launch.

    I would first like to thank the Centre for Cities for hosting today’s event.  I can think of no better organisation to help us announce the Government’s plan for unlocking the economic potential of UK cities. Like me, the Centre for Cities is committed to decentralisation, ensuring that cities are given the opportunity to develop bespoke solutions to local economic issues. As the Centre’s Chief Executive, Alexandra Jones, has said previously, the introduction of City Deals represents “the biggest shift in central and local government relations for decades.”

    Today the Government is launching the second wave of City Deals. Building on the success of Wave One we are inviting a further twenty cities to bid for a City Deal. But before I go into the detail of today’s announcement I’d like to reflect on the success of Wave One, the principles behind Wave Two and the process I am launching today.

    It would be fair to say that people were at first sceptical about City Deals. In fact, the motto of the Royal Society, in whose magnificent hall we stand today, ‘Nullius in verba’, which roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’, pretty much summed up people’s reaction when we launched Wave One ten months ago. And yet now Wave One has exceeded all expectations.

    I think the figures speak for themselves. The deals agreed earlier this year will create up to 175,000 jobs and 37,000 new apprenticeships.  But what has been achieved is about more than simply numbers. It is about no less than a transformed relationship between national and local government, in which cities, not just Whitehall, have the right of incentive over new policy.

    I am delighted these deals have been agreed and I am committed to ensuring they are implemented with vigour.

    Why City Deals?

    To prosper, and for people to realise their ambitions, we need to grow. We need the right macroeconomic environment – a sound economy with low interest rates – and the right microeconomic conditions – competitive taxes, labour laws that are flexible and workforces that have the right skills.

    But, or course, growth doesn’t take place in the abstract , at a national level. It happens in particular places, where new businesses locate and take on people, or existing businesses expand and increase their sales. Our cities have a particularly important place in this. In fact, I believe that the drive for growth – for Britain’s economic future – needs to be most energetic in our cities.

    There’s a good reason for that. As the Harvard economist, Ed Glaeser, has recently argued “cities are our greatest invention”. They lower transport costs, help us share knowledge and spark innovation. As the world becomes ever more complex, the role of cities in bringing people together and facilitating collaboration will become increasingly important. Cities are the building blocks of the global economy.

    Cities are where things happen. 74% of Britain’s population lives in a city or its surrounding area. And they account for 78% of all jobs. Take the 20 urban areas assembled here today for the second wave of City Deals. Their assets include 2 of the top 10 universities in the world, one of the largest concentrations of oil and gas and process and marine engineering industries in Europe, and the heart of Europe’s automotive industry, including its most productive plant. In short, the cities represented here today can count on global assets and huge growth potential.

    And yet too many of our cities haven’t done as well as those in other countries. Even in the supposed boom decade leading up to 2008, the number of private sector jobs in Nottingham and Birmingham actually fell.

    In England, Bristol is the only one of the eight largest cities outside London that has a GDP per head above the national average – while in Germany, every single one of the eight biggest cities outside Berlin has better than average GDP per head. In other words, German cities are the engines of national growth, generating wealth and prosperity, pulling the rest of the country behind them. Most of England’s big cities have not been doing the same – yet.

    So that is why this Government introduced City Deals.  For our economy to operate at its potential our cities must achieve their potential.

    So now to extend them

    If the Government had decided to stop, having done deals with only the biggest cities, then I believe we would be failing in our task of putting urban policy at the heart of our economic growth agenda. Instead, we are pushing forward by opening up discussions on a second wave of City Deals, potentially benefiting more than 7million people, and signalling this Government’s desire to promote growth across the country.

    First the next biggest urban areas:

    • The Black Country
    • Bournemouth and Poole
    • Brighton and Hove
    • Coventry and Warwickshire
    • Hull and The Humber
    • Leicester and Leicestershire
    • Plymouth
    • Preston and Lancashire
    • Reading
    • Southampton and Portsmouth
    • Southend
    • Stoke and Staffordshire
    • Sunderland and the North East
    • The Tees Valley

    Just think of their strengths. Plymouth; home to the largest naval base in Western Europe and one of the largest marine and maritime clusters in England. Sunderland; home to Nissan’s super-productive car plant. Coventry; home to Jaguar’s corporate and research headquarters. The Tees Valley; the UK’s fourth largest port, with strengths in petrochemicals, steel and process industries.

    We are also extending city deals to fast growing cities. The Centre for Cities, in its Private Sector Cities report in 2010, said some of England’s cities “have been creating thousands of new jobs in the private sector, but need to be expanded further to help businesses and workers take advantage of the opportunities being generated.”

    So, in addition to our biggest cities, we are extending an invitation to some of our fastest growing cities.

    • Cambridge
    • Milton Keynes
    • Norwich
    • Ipswich
    • Oxford
    • Swindon and Wiltshire

    Wave Two won’t be identical to Wave One. Each city and their Local Enterprise Partnership will be invited to put forward a proposal that addresses a significant local economic issue requiring a transformative response. The big challenge here will be identifying and prioritising a specific local challenge that needs to be addressed and coming up with a tailored plan to deal with it. Every place is different. Unique, in fact. So come forward to us with a proposal that reflects that uniqueness – that takes a new direction at solving a problem that is holding back your area.

    We also want to ensure that cities have a suite of powers that give them the flexibility to respond to local challenges as they arise. Bespoke arrangements will, therefore, be complemented by a ‘core package’, consisting of measures that will devolve significant powers and functions to all cities that go on to negotiate a deal with Government. This will capitalise on the progress we have made so far, demonstrating our commitment to the devolution of powers from central to local government, if local areas are willing to offer significant reform in return.

    Another difference is that there is now a competitive element. We are inviting 20 cities to put forward an initial proposal. We will use this to assess your appetite to do a deal; and that you are thinking boldly about how you might unlock growth in your city.

    We are therefore having a three month period to determine which cities are ready to proceed. Selected cities will then go forward to work with us to develop and negotiate proposals over the following months.

    Cities will need to make a case for new investment and powers, with a clear evidence base and a strong economic rationale. You will need to show how new flexibilities will benefit local people. And you will need to demonstrate how you would manage budgets, and hold yourselves accountable to residents. Every deal is a two-way trade. We expect you to be ambitious in your asks of Government, but you should expect the Government to be equally demanding in return. There must be significant benefits and credible commitments for both parties.

    You will, of course, shortly receive detailed guidance on the process but the priorities for me are:

    One.  Governance. I have already covered this, but you must demonstrate strong and collaborative governance across your economic area. We have already encouraged local leaders to think and work together in ways that reflect their true economic geography. We want to see this approach continuing so that the decisions necessary for the growth of the area as a whole can be taken quickly and effectively.

    Two.  Doing more with less. The Government is looking for proposals that can create new jobs and growth and that will drive better outcomes with the same, or fewer resources. If you can demonstrate to us that you can achieve better outcomes with the same or fewer resources why would we not say yes?

    Three.  Your ability to harness significantly greater private sector input, expertise and resources.  Where urban policy does not involve the private sector it is much more likely to fail.  So ensure that your LEPs are at the heart of your proposals, make sure you test your ideas with local business leaders and above all demonstrate to us how your proposals can unlock private sector investment. We know that the public sector resources are limited so we need to make sure those that we do invest get as much leverage as possible.

    Four.  I want you to be under no illusions, this will be a tough negotiation with difficult decisions required along the way.  We therefore need to know that you are as committed as we are. Your ability to demonstrate your readiness to put resources into delivering the deal and your willingness to take on risk is crucial to you moving forward.

    Five. Propositions should address a clearly defined economic problem. My advice would be to not come back to us with a shopping list of projects that you have dusted off the shelf.  Instead, take the time to have another look at your evidence, focus in on a particular economic problem and start to think about what you, by working across your functional economic area and with specific empowerment from central government could achieve. Your proposed solutions should be of significant scale and cannot be achieved through existing mechanisms.  They should also demonstrate how they will support the government’s objectives of reducing regulation, create well functioning markets and promote an enabling environment for business and boost private sector growth and investment.

    A hundred years ago there was no question that the future of every one of our great cities was driven by the initiative of the leaders and people of those cities. Yet during the last century, year by year, the power has ebbed away from the City Hall to Whitehall.

    I am determined that this Government will turn that tide and once again restore initiative, power and – through that- prosperity to our cities, and through them, to our country.

  • Greg Clark – 2012 Speech on the Financial Sector Restoring Trust

    gregclark

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Greg Clark, on 17th October 2012.

    Good afternoon,

    I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today about how banking and financial services can be restored in their reputation as an industry upon which Britain can depend and of which we will be proud.

    The financial services industry is of fundamental importance to this country, not only to people in this room and in the City of London, but to all of us in Britain.

    I’m thinking of the two million people in this country who are employed – directly or indirectly – by financial services.

    The ‘City of London’ is often seen as a piece of shorthand but more than two thirds of those people work not in the square mile, or even greater London, but in the rest of Britain. Over 200,000 jobs in the North West and in the Midlands, and over 150,000 in Scotland.

    The overwhelming majority of those members of staff are not the high rollers of popular imagination, but ordinary working people holding down respectable jobs on modest salaries in which they work hard to take care of their families.

    Furthermore, their effort pays a big chunk of the taxes that support our public services on which we all depend on. Even in the recession, some sources estimate that financial services contributed one pound out of every eight pounds of government revenue – that’s about £1,000 every year for every man, woman and child.

    Then there’s the value of the services provided directly by the industry: 50 million personal bank accounts, 11 million mortgages; hundreds of billions of pounds of loans to small and medium-sized businesses; UK financial managers are responsible for £3.2 trillion in financial assets.

    And it’s not just the provision of these services that is important – it is the efficiency and the inventiveness with which they are provided. A vigorous, competitive, well functioning financial sector keeps the costs of capital low – and that counts for a lot.  For instance, if mortgage rates are one per cent less than they otherwise would be, that saves homeowners about £12 billion a year.  And that’s to say nothing of the higher returns that come from getting money into the most productive assets.

    The financial services industry is Britain’s biggest exporter – generating, last year, a £37 billion surplus from overseas trade – a surplus comparable to that of Luxembourg, Switzerland and Germany combined, and providing us with the vital foreign exchange we need to import goods and services without borrowing more from the rest of the world than we already do.

    So when I say that the financial services industry matters, I mean that life would be unimaginable without it.

    The foundation of this industry – probably more than any other – is trust.

    Think about it this way: how many people in your life would you trust with all of your money?

    Not that many, I’m sure. And yet every day, tens of millions of us place our trust in a bunch of complete strangers, confident that they – or rather you – can be trusted with our financial security now and for the rest of our lives.

    That’s why there is – correctly and obviously – such an intense interest in what you are doing. It could hardly be otherwise: if there is a scintilla of doubt that the people trusted with our money may not be totally sound, the consequences are calamitous.

    That soundness is something we take for granted. But for most of human history – and still in many parts of the world – it is a rare and precious commodity.

    Building a reputation for trustworthiness was therefore instrumental in Britain’s success as a major trading nation.

    The goldsmiths who took over the nascent business of banking during the 17th Century were able to do only because the merchants who banked with them knew that their gold would be safe – safer, certainly, than it had been in Royal Mint when it was seized by Charles the First! Two centuries later, when their successors saw the opportunity to make the move from trade to the financing of trade, they knew that honesty was the bedrock on which their new business would be built.

    As the years went by, the importance of trust has grown further as the sums became larger and the leverage greater.

    One of my abiding memories from childhood was on a trip from Middlesbrough to London when I went to see the Stock Exchange. Looking down on the trading floor – this was before Big Bang – I was struck by the force of that great motto Dictum meum pactum – my word is my bond.

    Trust remains the essential condition for the functioning, let alone the prosperity, of the financial services industry today. Ordinary working people rely on you to help them negotiate every stage of their lives. Businesses depend on you for their very growth and survival.

    This is why the events of recent years – and recent months – have been so shocking and so corrosive.

    We all remember the scenes of 2007 when tens of thousands of people queued up outside the branches of Northern Rock, fearful that their bank could no longer be trusted with their money.

    And that was just a precursor to the worldwide financial crisis of 2008, when many of the world’s largest financial institutions teetered on the brink of collapse, forcing governments around the world to step in and bail them out.

    At a time like this – when the banks are still recovering, and the crisis in the Eurozone continues, the importance of trust is greater than ever.

    And yet we have had exposed the scandal of LIBOR in which people in positions of great trust attempted manipulate what The Economist called “the most important figure in finance”, in order to achieve personal or institutional gain.

    We have had small businesses conned by their banks – which they thought of as their longstanding partners and advisers- into buying products that were worthless to them but were a nice little earner for the wolves in shepherd’s clothing on the other side of the deal.

    We have seen the recklessness of reputable financial institutions operating products and in markets of such complexity that even those in charge didn’t understand them.

    Ordinary working people have been shocked to discover that they have been unwitting participants in these events – discovering, too late, that it was actually their own money in savings and taxes that had been put up for others to play with. When they read of bonuses that exceed in a year what they can earn in a whole lifetime, is it any wonder the mood is black?

    Of course, in this, United Kingdom financial services are not unique, or even the worst offenders. From the US subprime mortgage bubble, to the near collapse of Société Générale at the hands of a rogue trader, trust has been shattered around the world.

    But the fact that these scandals have happened in other jurisdictions is of absolutely no comfort.

    In a world where trust is in retreat, it is incumbent on this country to provide a haven of confidence and security. But this won’t happen unless we merit higher standards of trust than apply elsewhere. The reputation of the City of London is a precious national asset built up over centuries. We are the temporary stewards of its reputation, and we have a responsibility to hand that reputation on to future generations whole and intact.

    The overwhelming – and urgent – imperative, then, is to rebuild trust. Trust is not secured by any single contributory factor, but by the interaction of several, including effective regulation; meaningful sanctions; clarity of structures; well-aligned incentives between principal and agent and, most of all, an all-pervading culture of integrity.

    The system of regulation that we’ve had for the last decade was found wanting. It missed the risks to the financial system as a whole by concentrating on the individual sources of risk in isolation, and did that in a way that suborned flexible and intelligent monitoring to bureaucracy and form filling. It made the FSA responsible for delivering both prudential and conduct regulation, which require different approaches and skills.

    That is why the Financial Services Bill, currently before Parliament, establishes a new Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England to monitor overall risks in the financial system, identify bubbles as they develop, spot dangerous inter-connections and stop excessive levels of leverage before it is too late. And we are creating two separate organisations, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulatory Authority, with mandates clear as to their different tasks. In both cases, the regulators will be asked to exercise judgement and intelligence, rather than providing mere repositories of data.

    There has been some debate about whether one of the objectives of the new regulator should be the competitiveness of the financial services industry. Adair Turner has said that it is not the role of the regulator to be the cheerleader of the industry.

    I think that he is right. But that is not to say that the regulator does not have a role in competitiveness. In a world of diminished trust, a properly functioning, credible regulatory regime can be a source of competitive advantage.

    Second, sanctions. Most people expect things to work in a certain way. If someone breaks the law, they should be punished. When the crime is serious, they should be locked up. This should be as true for criminals who steal through financial manipulation as it is for those who break-and-enter. Indeed, just as sentences handed down to those who were convicted in last year’s riots reflected their contribution to the breakdown in the confidence and security enjoyed by ordinary working people, so must a similar premium apply to those crimes which destroy trust that so many people depend on.

    Third, simplicity. The right response to a complex world is not to multiply complications, but instead to seek to simplify. That injunction applies to directors and senior managers as it does to policy makers and regulators. If you don’t know what is going on in your bank, you should be bringing about changes in the scope and structure of your operations so that it is always within your grasp.

    The ring-fencing of banks’ retail from investment banking operations, as recommended by Sir John Vickers and his colleagues on the Independent Commission on Banking, will simplify banks’ structures and so make them easier to resolve without recourse to the taxpayer.

    Simplicity goes hand in hand with transparency. The more people who see and understand what is going on, the more they can have confidence that they are not being bilked. I see some positive steps here. I am pleased to say that the five largest UK banks have agreed to continue the voluntary disclosure of the pay of the top eight executives, in addition to the existing mandatory pay disclosures in respect of directors on the board, in advance of European legislation in the years ahead.

    Fourth, incentives. Reckless risk taking in banking – and mis-selling in wider financial services – have usually been associated with incentives for individuals which divorce them from the interests of the shareholders, consumer and taxpayers that they exist to serve. That’s why the Government has taken strong action to curb these practices. Under the FSA Code, up to 80% of bonuses must be deferred or paid in shares, thus limiting cash to 20% of the bonus.

    Martin Wheatley, the UK’s principal conduct regulator, has warned that at individual salesmen and women must never be remunerated in a way that is at odds with the interests of their customers. And to protect taxpayers, we have supported the FSA’s review of bankers’ bonus and dividend distribution plans to ensure that they are consistent with the required capital levels needed for them to be able to lend to families and business, and to protect taxpayers’ interests. I deeply regret the failure of industry leaders not to have acted earlier of their own accord on the matter, requiring the regulatory safeguards that I have described.

    The fifth, and, to my mind, the most important, contribution that can be made to the rebuilding of trust is cultural. The vast majority of the people working in financial services have taken pride in being part of an industry whose traditions are those of integrity, sobriety and responsibility. For most of our lives, to work in a bank – at whatever level, in whatever capacity – was to be marked out as someone of real standing in the community.

    It outrages me that the millions of people who have lived and breathed those values throughout long and devoted careers should have to endure the injustice of the damage to their reputation by being linked inadvertently to a reckless few.

    Earlier today, I announced to Parliament the Government’s response to Martin Wheatley’s review of LIBOR. He did an outstanding job and we support – and will immediately act on – every one of his recommendations. They are totally consistent with every element of the 5-pronged approach that I have set out to you this afternoon; including stronger and more explicit regulation; new criminal sanctions for abuse; a phasing out of many of the reference rates currently used to achieve a sharper focus on the more liquid sections of the LIBOR market; a removal of the potential for incentives to distort the behaviour of submitters and the creation of a new code of practice to which everyone involved must adhere.

    The Government will play its part to make the necessary regulatory changes in the Financial Services Bill and I expect all institutions involved to make swift and decisive progress towards fully implementing the Wheatley recommendations in a way that promotes business continuity and legal certainty.

    During the weeks ahead, a cross-party Parliamentary Commission, established under the chairmanship of Andrew Tyrie, will consider the question of standards in the banking industry. I look forward to hearing the recommendations of the Commission early next year.

    The leadership of this industry – which comes together in this Association – has the duty to set the tone from the top: to have, and to promote, a clear view of the ethos you collectively insist on, to challenge anyone who, by falling short of that, imperils the standing of the industry as a whole. The same is true of every individual firm that makes up the membership: every chairman, every chief executive, every board member has a responsibility to ensure that every employee – whatever their role – is in no doubt about the purposes of their bank in deserving the trust of their colleagues, customers, their shareholders and the general public. This is the moment for the leaders of this industry – many of them new – to place themselves at the vanguard of this movement for reform.

    I know that this has already influenced your discussions today – and Anthony Browne’s proposal of a Banking Standards Board is one suggestion to address the task ahead – although it could only work if it had teeth and credibility.

    There is, I am conscious, an irony that some of the discoveries that have undermined trust in financial services in this country have come to light because – however much they can be improved – our systems and institutions are more transparent than those in many other countries. But that is nothing to regret. Our international reputation for probity and strength brings with it a more exacting set of demands to justify the benefits that it brings.

    I am a friend of the financial services industry in this country – but a critical friend. In my view that is better than the only alternative – not the uncritical friend, but the hostile enemy.

    When I met Antony Jenkins, the new Chief Executive of Barclays, I asked him what, in his view, the purpose of Barclays Bank is. He replied that the Bank’s purpose is to make the lives of its customers easier. That seems to me to be the right direction.

    I will stretch every sinew to – with you – make certain that the people of this country have total confidence in the system of finance that serves them, employs them, supports them with taxes and is a source of pride and excellence the world over.

    Britain needs you to succeed, and I for one am determined that you will.

  • Louise Casey – 2014 Speech to Women’s Aid Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Louise Casey, the Director General of Troubled Families, on 5th March 2014.

    Good morning everybody. I’m very pleased to be with you today and honoured to have been asked to address you at this important event. Thank you Polly for inviting me.

    I head up the Troubled Families programme for government, a programme to turn around the lives of 120,000 families where kids aren’t going to school, where youth crime and anti-social behaviour are a problem and where parents are out of work.

    Before taking on this role, I did other jobs on victims, crime, anti-social behaviour and homelessness for governments of different persuasions.

    Some of you will know me from the voluntary sector and I have had a long association with Women’s Aid and others from the sector represented in the room today.

    I know times are hard, austerity measures are tough and I can see that many colleagues out there are struggling.

    I know that you are doing very difficult jobs in difficult circumstances and so I hope you’ll take what I have to say today as an important recognition of the work you do day in day out.

    I’m glad that you’ve given me the chance to share with you some reflections, having spent 2 years in this job listening to troubled families from cities to shires and to the workers who help them change.

    It would be true to say that I rarely have a conversation with troubled families where domestic violence does not feature.

    Most troubled families I meet, yes, they are families where no one is working, where children don’t go to school, where there is anti-social behaviour and crime.

    They are also, in many cases, families where parents themselves grew up with violence, families where mothers have fled violence only to end up with another controlling man.

    Whether domestic violence is the cause or the symptom, what I have learnt from listening to them is that:

    – their problems are multiple

    – their problems layer one on top of the other

    – and their problems are intergenerational

    When I listen to troubled families, they nearly all talk about:

    – a history of physical violence and sexual abuse, often going back generations

    – the involvement of the care system in the lives of both parents and their children

    – parents starting to have children very young and being unable to deal with them

    – those parents in violent relationships

    – and the children going on to have behavioural problems

    – leading to exclusion from school, anti-social behaviour, crime and worklessness

    These are families on the edge in every way – on the edge of eviction, on the edge of custody, on the edge of care.

    What shocks me more than their problems in a way is the normalisation of those problems – the matter of fact way they accept what has happened and is happening to them, because it is ‘normal’ in their experience, it was ‘normal’ when they were growing up.

    A few months back, I met a woman called Linda, 28 years old, 3 children from 3 different fathers.

    Her 14 year old girl out of school, committing crime, hanging around with older men who did not see her as a child.

    Her 13 year old sister not in school enough and too much at home or on the street and following in the footsteps of her sister.

    Finally, Linda had brought an 8 year old into this world with another man and endured 8 years of violence at his hands, witnessed by that 8 year old child and the 2 teenage girls.

    Linda had been caught for shoplifting and other thieving and was under a probation order. Family intervention got involved when she stopped turning up to see her probation officer.

    When I met her, I asked her how she ended up there and she told me she’d experienced violence and abuse throughout her childhood. She had her first child at 14, a series of violent partners, she got addicted to drugs.

    Taking Linda, a woman who has lived a life of abuse, who is from a family of abusers and simply categorising her as a shoplifter and dealing with her shoplifting would not get us anywhere.

    Helping her deal with domestic violence was central to her recovery. Now, the violent man is out of her life, she’s off drugs and all 3 kids are back in school.

    Last week, we sent out a survey to all 152 local authority troubled families coordinators asking them about domestic violence.

    Within hours, I had responses from 55 councils – that shows me for a start, it’s a big issue for them.

    By the end of the week over 100 of the 152 had replied. Every single one of them said that they use domestic violence as a local criteria for including families in the troubled families programme.

    In this survey, we also asked about the levels of domestic violence in the families being worked with in the troubled families programme.

    Four in 10 said that domestic violence is an issue in more than half of their cases. For some it’s a problem in more than 3 quarters of the families they work with.

    So, in turning around the lives of 22,000 families which colleagues in local areas have done so far, we have learnt a lot through this process, that these families are best helped with family intervention, but as part of that, the domestic violence must be dealt with.

    Can I explain quickly what I mean by family intervention. It is:

    – a dedicated worker dedicated to the family – someone who the family knows by name and who is alongside them helping them to change; not making an assessment, going away and sending them a letter 6 weeks later

    – that dedicated worker needs an assertive and challenging approach – they don’t go away when the door is closed in their face or back off when a family won’t engage

    – that dedicated, assertive worker needs to look at what’s really happening for the family as a whole – but in situations where there is violence or coercive control, looking at what’s happening for the family as a whole may mean actually helping to get him out of the house or rescuing her to a place of safety

    – the worker gives practical hands-on support – so in 1 family I met the breakthrough with the mother came when the worker sorted out beds for the kids and a skip for all the rubbish in the garden, which included all the internal doors in the house

    The mother then told her that the reason the doors were all off their hinges and dumped in the garden was because the kids had asked for them to be taken off. Although the man was now gone, following years of violence in the house, they were terrified of what went on behind closed doors.

    And the mother was overwhelmed. You could classify this as a domestic violence case mental health case, you could classify it as an anti-social behaviour case, you could classify it as a rent arrears case.

    But it was a troubled families case, where the mum and the family were living with a legacy of domestic violence and the bridge-building with that woman started with a practical solution and a skip.

    And finally for family intervention to work, other agencies need to agree to the plan for the family – specialist workers may need to be called in at the right time, but essentially, the mantra is 1 family, 1 plan, 1 worker.

    What is clear when talking to families and to workers is that 5 factors of family intervention I’ve just described are underpinned and made possible by the relationship built by the worker with the family.

    This is something you may see and do in your day to day work.

    Good workers start not with a long list of agencies’ requirements but by finding out where the family want to start.

    They are curious about their lives, their past, their interactions with each other.

    It’s striking that families often say, ‘nobody had ever asked me that before’.

    Nobody had asked the right question before that meant the mother opened up about the abuse in her past.

    Nobody had ever elicited before the level of the violence from her current partner.

    Good workers go into people’s homes and uncover what’s really going on.

    We know that when troubled families cases are referred, they are not always referred because of domestic violence. We find that out once the worker has gone in. It is only by working with the family that we find out is really happening.

    Violence has not been reported and the signs of violence have not been put together: the police callouts logged as non-crime; the child out of school because they don’t want to leave their mother; the regular visits to GP complaining of unspecified problems, or repeat sleeping pill prescriptions, anti-depressants, or hair falling out.

    As one troubled families co-ordinator said that while more than 3 quarters of their cases involved domestic violence they rarely know about it until after they’ve started work with the family – they uncover it once they’re in the home.

    Sometimes that’s because data isn’t shared. Sometimes that’s because women keep violence a secret, for fear of losing their children; or because when they did make a disclosure, the right help wasn’t there.

    Sometimes that’s because the consequences of facing up to a violent relationship – leaving with all that this entails – are just too much.

    Problems with money, problems with housing, problems having to uproot your kids. As one local coordinator of domestic violence services said to me the other day, ‘the thing is, there can be so much to lose when they leave’.

    And they’re afraid. They’re afraid if they stay and they’re afraid if you go. The fear is overwhelming.

    That’s where the right intervention from the right person at the right time comes in.

    So one worker talked to me about a family where she only ever saw the mum. ‘Where’s their dad?’ she asked. ‘Oh, he’s upstairs, he doesn’t come down in the day’. And yet it was obvious he was a controlling influence in the house – the kids were told they’d be sent up to see him if they misbehaved. There was a sense of fear.

    It is not that family intervention workers are ‘jacks of all trades’, they are masters of one – the relationship.

    Good workers are both kind and tough.

    I’m always struck when I meet these families that so many, if not all, of the influences in their lives are negative – they are so isolated.

    The relationship with the worker is not a friendship; it is more like a life buoy in a storm, until they can be pulled to a place of safety and away from a place of danger.

    And that’s what a refuge is too of course. It’s not just commissioning bricks and mortar. It is more than a roof over someone’s head.

    Maslow’s hierarchy of need shows us that basic needs for food, shelter and safety must be met first, then we can hope to improve someone’s self-esteem and relationships with others.

    The key therefore to all of this is the relationship, the human interaction.

    It is not when someone is told they must change, but when someone comes along with the skill to make them feel they want to change.

    I don’t want to make this sound easy – none of this is easy.

    Not for the mother, not for the families, not for the system.

    Nearly 2 years ago, I met a young woman who I’ll call Carly. Carly had been with a violent partner for years. He had actually been imprisoned for violence towards her in the past, but she hadn’t left him. They had a 6 year old child together and she was expecting a second child.

    Both her 6 year old and unborn child were on the child protection register.

    I’m quoting now from the worker who first came into Carly’s life at this low point. She said:

    Carly bore the whole responsibility for the relationship and the protection of the children absolutely fell to Carly.

    She was told what she needed to do but not how to and she was left to do it all. It was Carly who had to keep him away when he came out of prison, it was Carly this and Carly that and it was about making sure it was achievable because you know, it’s one thing saying you must not allow him into your property, but if he wants to come to that property and put a brick through your window he is going to come and do that.

    There was a day when they were doing activities with the child and Carly had a black eye and when asked what happened, she said she fell or something and I just went over and said, ‘you’re lying’.

    I said I can go and find out whether you’re lying because you must either have been to hospital or the police were called. And because by that time we had a relationship, I could challenge her. And then we talked about what her options were.

    And we said we’re not leaving you to the wolves, we aren’t leaving you.

    So for Carly, having that worker alongside her, knowing she wasn’t going to be ‘left to the wolves’, gave her the courage to leave that violent man, the strength to stay away for good and the determination to be a good mother to her children.

    A year after I first met Carly, I went back to see her again. She looked like a different woman. Her children were off child protection, they were thriving and she was thinking about her future in a different way – she actually joked with me that she wanted to become a family intervention worker, so important had that relationship been to her.

    But it wasn’t easy, not for Carly and not for the worker.

    I’m quoting again from Carly’s worker:

    It is uncomfortable stuff we do – we have to put ourselves in an uncomfortable situation because that’s what we’re asking of the families.

    People working with these families may well be working in an ‘uncomfortable’ space. It’s not always a cosy, comfortable relationship. There has to be challenge as well as support.

    Serious case review after serious case review talks about a lack of challenge by professionals. It is not easy to ask the most uncomfortable questions or think the unthinkable. It wasn’t easy for Carly’s worker to say to her, ‘Look, I know you’re lying’.

    We have to ask ourselves does this parent have the capability, the capacity and the willingness to change?

    This isn’t easy for the system, but we’ve got to be tough where people won’t change. There’s a balancing act between the rights of the child and the rights of the woman and to be frank, taking entrenched positions doesn’t help.

    And within that, we must acknowledge that domestic violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women.

    We all know the statistics – women make up 89% of those who are repeat victims of violence. Two women die every week at the hands of their male partners or ex partners.

    So when I talk about violence in the wider context of the family, in no way do I want to divert attention from that reality. I’m not suggesting domestic violence affects everyone equally, regardless of gender.

    But what we are seeing in these families are the consequences of violence being left to fester:

    – the transmission of violence from one generation to the next

    – the effects on children as they grow up

    – and violence becoming the normal way of life

    In one case I know of, Debbie was the victim of domestic violence, and her children had witnessed their father abusing her. He had also lent her out to other men for sex.

    When the family intervention worker asked her about the past, Debbie said that growing up her partner had watched his step-father battering his mother, his mother was violent to her children and his brother remembers ‘battering a lad with a wooden handle’ at primary school; another brother had tried to strangle him.

    I’m not making excuses for this man’s violent behaviour – I’m trying to illustrate that violence is intergenerational and its destruction can spread throughout the family.

    It often doesn’t take long for the pattern of violence to start repeating itself. If nobody works with the mother to build her resilience, it may not be long before another controlling or violent man is in her life.

    If nobody works with the children to help them deal with what they’ve witnessed or been subjected to, by the time they move from primary to secondary school they are replicating the violence or doing it even younger to their brothers and sisters.

    If nobody works with the father, then he’ll continue to go on to do it others – not necessarily a subject for today, but one that we must come back to.

    We have to get to kids younger and we have to do something to change these families who are being destroyed by violence.

    That might start with empowering the woman, giving her the support she needs to end the violent relationship. But our response can’t end there – the children who have witnessed that violence deserve more.

    One very experienced worker put it like this, and again, I’m quoting:

    The number of children that I see who have reached the age of 14, 15 and it’s not ADHD, we’ve assessed that, there might be a social/emotional behaviour statement around the SEN side of it, but there’s not a learning disability or he’s not autistic.

    What this child is exhibiting are all the classic signs of post traumatic stress, because the houses that they’ve been living in have been like war zones.

    So I’m glad that local authorities are already using the local criteria to help those suffering from domestic violence through the Troubled families programme.

    Last summer, the government announced an expansion to our troubled families programme, seeking to extend help to a further 400,000 families from next year

    We know that domestic violence will be an issue in many of these families and therefore it will become a focus of the extended scheme.

    It is human interactions that are at the core of this.

    It is the behaviour of human beings that dictates what it feels like for a neighbour to live in a community, for a woman to live in a relationship, for a child to live in a family.

    Many of you, of course, are dealing with wider issues around domestic violence, but for me, the troubled families programme is about changing the most difficult families.

    If we continue spending all the resources we have been on the highest need families we will never have enough money for all the others out there who we also want to help.

    I say to you today, please support this programme because we have got a once in a generation opportunity to break the cycle.

    But it’s not without its challenges and one of those is the challenge of early intervention.

    Together we need to work out how we how we share data in the right way that helps women who present at their GPs suffering the signs of domestic violence, but do that in a safe and secure way.

    Together we need to work out how we get to those 6 year old boys already hitting out at school and the solution doesn’t lie in a prescription for Ritalin.

    Together we need to work out, how we get perpetrator programmes that work, how we track violent men once the woman’s left or got him out of the house to stop him starting again with another woman, in front of another 3 children.

    I know none of this is easy. Many of us in this room have been working in these sectors for years.

    There are a lot of people out there who think that we can’t change these families. Who think it’s just not possible.

    And could live with a country where the kids in the families never go to school, their parents never get a job and their lives are never improved.

    Well I don’t agree with that. I hope that you don’t either.

    So whether it’s colleagues from the domestic violence sector in the room today, those from the children’s sector, those from local government charged with delivering our own troubled families programme,

    We must stand together to tackle intergenerational disadvantage, abuse and violence.

    I’ll do whatever I can to support you in what you’re doing to help stop violence and abuse.

    And I hope you’ll support me in trying to help the most vulnerable and troubled families.

    And together we can give the children in these families chance of hope for the future.

  • Menzies Campbell – 2006 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Menzies Campbell, at the 2006 Liberal Democrat Spring Conference on 5th March 2006.

    Well I’m delighted to be here.

    For those of you don’t expect me to be here too long, I have a worrying statistic for you.

    The previous Ming dynasty lasted for 276 years.

    I want to begin by acknowledging Chris Huhne and Simon Hughes, and particularly their generosity since the announcement of the result last Thursday.

    Innovative thinkers, gifted communicators and tenacious campaigners – and that was just when they were having a go at me.

    God help the opposition.

    They are formidable opponents, tremendous allies and it’s great to have them on our team.

    To the members of the party, I want to say thank you for giving me this chance to serve.

    I want to celebrate the enormous contribution of my predecessor, Charles Kennedy.

    Under his leadership the Liberal Democrats have become a much more powerful political force.

    With more votes and more seats at Westminster.

    Ever-greater influence in Brussels.

    Running more major cities than ever before.

    Charles has been the most successful leader in the liberal tradition since Lloyd George.

    And why? Because this party is serious about politics and serious about government.

    We’ve shown how well we can perform in local government, from parish councils to great cities.

    We’ve shown how we influence legislation in Europe and in the House of Lords.

    We’ve shown we are the driving force in Scottish Government and in Welsh politics too.

    And now my task – our task – is clear.

    It is to lead this party from protest, into power.

    A few short weeks ago every London-based commentator wrote us off.

    But the political obituary writers were rudely interrupted.

    By the very people the political establishment often forgets – the voters.

    Willie Rennie’s spectacular triumph in Dunfermline and West Fife has shown us the way.

    All the big guns came to Dunfermline. Brown, Salmond, Cameron.

    “Dave” came up for a day trip.

    But in his first electoral test, he didn’t just lose his tie – he lost his shirt.

    Gordon Brown masterminded the whole Labour campaign.

    He smiled, and showed us his lighter side.

    But for all the smiles, the voters said thanks, but no thanks.

    It’s ironic.

    David Cameron and Gordon Brown.

    One desperate to be Tony Blair.

    The other desperate not to be Tony Blair.

    Me, I’m just happy to be myself.

    We’ve had enough of Blairism.

    The country is crying out for a principled liberal democratic alternative.

    A principled liberal alternative has never been more needed than when there are people being abused and held without trial at Guantanamo Bay.

    The Prime Minister calls it “an anomaly”.

    Let me address him directly; Prime Minister, this is not an anomaly…

    This is an outrage.

    But under this government, the “anomalies” are becoming the norm.

    Schemes to keep citizens under house arrest,

    Identity cards.

    A Labour party member – a Labour party member – Walter Wolfgang arrested as a terror suspect for daring to heckle at the Labour Party Conference, taken into custody for shouting ‘Rubbish’ at the Foreign Secretary.

    I hope they don’t introduce that in the House of Commons – otherwise I will be joining him.

    And members of the public like Maya Evans arrested outside Downing Street just for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq.

    Who knows what this government would have done with Siegfried Sassoon, or Wilfred Owen, if it had been in office during the First World War.

    Once Westminster was the cradle of democracy.

    Under this government it is becoming the graveyard of democracy.

    And I’m not just talking about terror.

    Look at every department of state and I will show you bureaucracy and regulation, an ever-greater threat to enterprise, diversity and freedom.

    Our alternative is clear:

    – a greener, fairer, decentralised and democratic Britain

    – a Britain at peace with itself at home and admired abroad.

    So what of David Cameron and his Conservative alternative?

    Well if you know your Scottish history, you’ll know that down the centuries the Campbells have always got the better of the Camerons.

    And now Mr Cameron tells us he’s a liberal.

    Some liberal.

    This is the David Cameron who has told his Euro MPs to abandon the mainstream and join the extremists.

    This is the David Cameron who was Michael Howard’s ideas man? The man in the shadows on Black Wednesday and the author of the Tory manifesto of 2005 – the most reactionary, unpleasant, right-wing manifesto of modern times.

    And this is the David Cameron who supported the Iraq war and has just sent William Hague off to Washington to restore links with the hard right of George W Bush’s Republican Party.

    Forget neo-cons. This is a real con.

    During the leadership election, there were fewer differences between the three of us than there are between David Cameron on Tuesdays and David Cameron on Wednesdays.

    But he’s right in one respect. He knows that this country is turning to liberalism. And that’s why he’s been trying to steal our clothes.

    But the voters know better. Why go for an imitation when you can vote Liberal Democrat and get the real thing?

    And what about the oldest double act in town? Tony and Gordon.

    Remember 1997? So much promise and so many promises. Things can only get better.

    Better? Who would have thought the heirs of John Smith’s devolution would have created the most over-centralised country in the Western world?

    Who would have thought the guardians of Robin Cook’s ethical foreign policy would have become the standard-bearers for an illegal war in Iraq?

    Who would have thought the opponents of apartheid would become the apologists for rendition?

    After that, things can only get better.

    As for Labour’s record on civil liberties, it’s quite simply a disgrace. This government never tires of invoking terrorism and security threats to justify illiberal laws. No-one denies the reality of the threats we face, at home or abroad.

    But the legislation proposed by the Government would not have prevented the tragic loss of life we saw in London last year.

    Identity cards would not have helped.

    Nor would locking up British citizens for 90 days without trial.

    The right to due process and freedom from summary arrest are part of this country’s  proud traditions.

    Indeed they are revered throughout the world.

    We support practical measures that can defeat the spectre of terrorism – not the erosion of this country’s values. We should be relentless in the pursuit of those who perpetrate terrorist acts and unswerving in our commitment to uphold justice. That’s why we’ve argued if this Government wants real justice it should allow telephone intercepts to be used as evidence in court, as in every other Western nation.

    In the leadership campaign I talked of the need to wage war on poverty. Labour’s record on social justice is a sorry one. Where you are from, what your parents did, the school you went to: these determine your success in life more than ever today.

    Shelter estimates that one in twelve children is likely to develop asthma, TB or bronchitis because of poor housing.

    Yes, you heard that right – one in twelve children.

    Over a million children live in slums in this country.

    A Britain which tolerates this is not a liberal Britain.

    One of the biggest scars on our society is child poverty. It is worse today than when I grew up in Glasgow.

    A Britain which tolerates this is not a liberal Britain.

    I want the Liberal Democrats to be the party of opportunity, aspiration and ambition.

    Labour has promised welfare reform, but failed to deliver.

    Our party has a proud record of reform – yes and delivery too.

    People saw the difference when Lloyd George ushered in the state pension 100 years ago, and when Beveridge built the welfare state forty years later. Today it again falls to the Liberal Democrats to reshape our welfare system, to build a society secure against poverty, and create a system founded on opportunity and responsibility with incentives to work and to save.

    Over last the eight weeks, people asked me what my leadership would mean.

    Those commentators who said I would simply tread water for a while are in for a rude shock.

    I joined the Liberals because I wanted to challenge the settled orthodoxies of British politics. I still do. I intend to lead a party willing to think anew. A party willing to develop fresh ideas. A party drawing on enduring Liberal Democrat principles but ready to apply them in a rapidly changing world.

    That need for fresh thinking is even more acute today.

    Look around you.

    The pace of social, economic and environmental change is without precedent. Consolidation and caution will not be an adequate response, either for our country or for our party. Liberal Democracy cannot be a struggle between those who wish to modernise and those who do not. To be a Liberal Democrat is to be a moderniser.

    You showed courage and willingness to think anew yesterday, when you backed Norman Lamb’s proposals to give our Post Offices a future. Take that policy and sell it on the doorstep to the British people in these critical May local government elections.

    I am determined that under my leadership the Liberal Democrats will be at the cutting edge of debate and new thinking. Our policies must address the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Over the next 6 months, and before we meet again in Brighton, I intend to set out in more detail key challenges and policy directions on the major issues of British politics: the economy, the environment, welfare reform, better government, education and skills, crime and social policy.

    Our policies need to be thoroughly tested. They will be subject to new levels of aggressive scrutiny.  Labour and the Conservatives realise we are their principal opponent in all parts of the country. They will turn their guns on us. And we must be ready.

    As Richard Kemp said yesterday, opposing is not enough; our policies have to be fit for government. And that means when we campaign for greater localism we must be clear what we mean.

    All three main parties now speak the language of localism. We have New Labour’s double speak about “double devolution”. And we have David Cameron’s miraculous conversion to decentralisation. But in my experience the voters have long memories.

    They remember the sustained attacks on local government by the Conservatives and Labour. They know that only Liberal Democrats are credible when we advocate the reduction of excessive Whitehall power. But there’s more work for us to do.

    Our public services today are not accountable to the local people they serve. And I agree with the conclusions of the Power Inquiry. Last week it said that we need a shift away from the executive back to Parliament, and from central to local government.

    It is absurd that if a hospital operation goes wrong the first democratically elected person in the chain of responsibility is the Secretary of State for Health. But we need to explain in clear terms how localised school and health systems would work. We need to explain how we would move from central targets to local accountability.

    We need to explain how we would maintain national standards, while creating a climate that would allow local diversity to flourish.

    Let us be clear – localism necessarily means that things will be done differently in different places. Policies that work for the people of Harrogate may not work for the people of Haringey. That is acceptable if in each area there is full democratic decision making, accountable to local people, and free from interference by Whitehall.

    On taxation, too, we need to think afresh. The Tax Commission was established by Charles Kennedy to do precisely that. Too much attention has focused on our manifesto policy for a new higher rate of income tax on earnings over £100,000 a year.

    We should avoid becoming fixated on one tax rate. You cannot create a valid tax policy based on a single tax rate any more than you can have a valid defence policy based on a single weapons system. Nor can you create a fairer society without a fairer tax system.

    Here are my three principles for a new, fairer tax regime.

    First, the tax burden must be lighter for those on lowest incomes.

    Second, the tax system must provide incentives to companies and individuals to behave in a way that sustains our environment.

    Third, the system must be simple – it must support enterprise and must not stifle it.

    Fairer taxation will build an economy that’s more efficient and a society that is more just. We’re not going to spend more, when we can spend more wisely.

    I see no case for an increase in the overall tax burden in the present economic cycle. And if we are looking for areas to save money let me suggest some – the Child Trust Fund, identity cards – even the Department of Trade and Industry.

    And there is another area where we must embrace reform – and that is Europe. I am a passionate European, and always have been; Europe as the guarantor of our peace and prosperity.

    But the old ways of the European Union are no longer working. The European Union is now become much larger and more diverse. It is intolerable that decisions that affect the lives of every one of us are taken by Ministers meeting in secret. The veil must be cast aside. True friends of the European Union are true friends of its reform.

    When we see the return of old-fashioned protectionism at the heart of Europe, we must be the liberal voice for free, fair and open trade without which the EU will not survive. I want to see the nations of Europe open to each other, yes…  and open to the products of the poorest countries in the world too.

    Our party has always fought economic nationalism – and must now do so again in Washington, Paris and Brussels.

    To maintain our credibility, as the only truly liberal force in British politics, will also require changes in the way we organise ourselves.

    We have just had the most successful general election for over eighty years. We must build on that success – as we become more successful, so too we must become more professional. We must now modernise our organisation to sustain our growing presence throughout the country.

    I’m going to ask a team of our leading campaigners to draw on the latest techniques to make sure we maintain our lead as the most innovative campaigning party in British politics. Raising money, selecting and training candidates and agents, building and maintaining local parties, involving and including our members, communicating through a 24-hour media are all areas where we need new ideas.

    I will reform the way we support women and ethnic minority candidates. I am going to set up a special trust fund to provide them with financial support. I am going to ask every single Parliamentarian to mentor a woman and ethnic minority candidates – to give them the support and skills they need to get and elected. How can we represent this country if we are not representative of this country?

    We now have a wealth of youthful talent in our party. For the brightest and best of this generation are Liberal Democrats. Our new frontbench team will be more than a match for the Conservatives and Labour Party.

    I will draw on the many strands of our liberal democracy – social, economic, personal and political – to mark out distinctive territory in British politics. There is no conflict between economic and social liberalism. You cannot deliver social justice without economic success – and discipline.

    We can build a fairer Britain, not the means-tested, target driven, over-centralised country run by Labour today.

    Our unity must not come at the price of clarity. We must be clear and consistent in all that we say and do. We are moving out of the comfort zone of opposition politics. We must make three-party politics a credible reality.

    Under New Labour, politics has become managerial, not inspirational. The Conservatives have taken the same course, shunning conviction and desperate only to emulate a value-free Downing Street.

    Britain does not need a third managerial party. It needs a distinctive liberal democratic party. I will lead this party with a clear vision of Liberal Democracy.

    To empower people, and not the state; to promote social mobility; to nurture the aspirations of all individuals; to shape events in the wider world; to cherish our shared environment; to defend the cause of liberty, and to promote the radical reform of Britain’s tired political system – and that means fair votes for Westminster.

    To be the leader of the Liberal Democrats is to be the trustee of a great party, with so much to be proud of – but with so many dazzling achievements still to come.

    Let us pledge today that where we see unfairness we will challenge it; where we see injustice we will attack it; and where we see prejudice we will confront it.

    Together we must campaign as never before. Together we must become the rallying point for a new liberal democratic Britain. Together we will win.

  • Menzies Campbell – 1987 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech by Menzies Campbell in the House of Commons on 13th July 1987.

    I hope that it will not be thought presumptious or unduly prococious of the part of a maiden speaker to offer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my congratulations on your new appointment. May I express the wish of those on the Liberal Benches that you enjoy your appointment and occupy the Chair for a long time to come.

    I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me to make a maiden speech in this House. I do so attended with all the apprehensions to which maiden speakers are traditionally subject. In the spirit of that tradition, I wish to begin by referring to my predecessor, Barry Henderson.

    Barry Henderson served the constituency of Fife, North-East sincerely and conscientiously during the time he was its Member of Parliament. To me he was a courteous opponent, and he was gracious and generous in defeat. However, none of those qualities, admirable in themselves, was sufficient protection against the condemnation by the electors of Fife, North-East of the party of which he was such a loyal supporter. Some of the condemnation was especially reserved for the community charge, or the poll tax as it is colloquially described north of the border.

    I trust that we on the Liberal Benches may be forgiven some small self-indulgence from the realisation that the constituency that returned Mr. Asquith for so many years has once more returned a Liberal Member of Parliament.

    The House will be aware that within my constituency lies Scotland’s oldest university, founded in 1411. That university has a long noble tradition of scholarship in the arts and sciences, in teaching and research. The maintenance of that tradition is becoming increasingly difficult in the present climate. Research, in particular, is an issue of considerable controversy within that university. It is universally recognised within the academic community that research for its intrinsic merit is an essential feature of a vigorous and healthy university. It must surely be accepted that scholarship should not lightly be sacrificed to commercialism. However, that is an inevitable consequence of Government policies towards universities.

    Since 1980, St. Andrew’s university has suffered a cut of 21 per cent. in real terms in University Grants Committee funding. It has survived only by the skilful management of its investments and by a robust programme of recruiting foreign students who pay full fees. Obviously, that programme has been acompanied by a reduction in opportunity for students from the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may not be long before that institution is staring deficit in the face. One may think that that is hardly conducive to the role that is required of it during the last part of the 20th century.

    This debate is concerned with local government finance. Anyone who listens to those who are involved in local government on a day-to-day basis will readily accept that many of the difficulties that local government faces arise from the continuing reduction in central Government’s support for local government. In Fife, North-East, for example, if the housing support grant stood today at the same level as in 1979, the rents for council houses would be £6 per week less. Until that reduction in central Government support is halted, the pressure on local authorities will continue to be acute and damaging. To suggest, as appears to have been suggested in the House a few moments ago, that the community charge will bring a solution to the many problems of local government financing seems to ignore the fact that the community charge, of itself, will create its own difficulties.

    Of course, it is accepted that rates are universally discredited, although from time to time one feels that, as a means of raising local taxation, rates still enjoy some support from Labour Members. The replacement of one regressive tax by another is no solution. The community charge, or the poll tax, must be regressive and unfair; otherwise there would not be any need for rebates. If it were essentially a fair charge, there would not be any necessity to make allowances for those whose personal circumstances were such as to make them unable to pay. A tax that will benefit mostly those who earn over £350 per week is self-evidently unfair.

    We argue, as we have argued for a long time, that the only fair system of raising local taxation is by a local income tax based on the ability to pay. If ability to pay is recognised as the proper measure for raising taxation on a national, United Kingdom-wide basis, why is it denied that the same basis should be applied to local taxation?

    If the Government were to undertake to restore the level of central Government support to what it was in 1979 and to introduce a local income tax along the lines that we have argued, real progress could be made in the financing of local government. I look for that, but so far I have been disappointed.

  • Lynne Featherstone – 2014 Speech on Clean Energy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lynne Featherstone, the Development Minister, at the Royal Society in London on 1st May 2014.

    Thank you all for coming today.

    It’s fitting that we are here at the Royal Society today, because science and technology have crucial roles to play in understanding and addressing the impacts of traditional cooking on people and the environment.

    Improving access to clean energy for girls and women is one of my top priorities.

    At the Sustainable Energy for All Advisory Board meeting in New York last November, I launched a campaign on improving access to Clean Energy for Girls and Women and also agreed to serve on the Leadership Council of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. The campaign highlights the economic, health and safety benefits that clean energy access can bring women in particular – allowing them to study at night, have better medical care, earn more and feel safer on the streets at night. Without action to support clean and efficient cooking, the aspirations of economic empowerment and the entitlement to safety and health, cannot be met for girls and women across the world.   If girls and women are collecting firewood, they are not learning or earning, and so can’t meet their own potential or their families’. We also know that as women gather firewood, they can be at risk of attack. Most shockingly, and the clearest signal of the need for decisive action, is the new World Health Organisation estimate – which Maria has just confirmed – that over 4 million deaths in 2012 were attributable to Household Air Pollution.

    This increase, as we have heard, is due to a better understanding of the wide range of health issues that result from household air pollution – including cardiovascular impacts. And although many more men are affected by this issue than originally thought – household air pollution is still the second biggest cause of female mortality in the developing world, after childbirth.

    4.3 million is a very large number, and combined with the 2.6 billion people still relying on firewood, charcoal and coal for their cooking every day – we are talking about a public health crisis that is part of daily life across the developing world.

    It’s a sobering thought; millions of people are dying from pollution in their own kitchens, in the heart of their own homes.

    And so, it’s very important that today’s conference is a turning point, bringing together the latest evidence and providing the springboard for collective and effective action.

    Working together is critical.

    Consider Malaria – another endemic health problem, but one where international action, co-ordination and private sector engagement is saving lives. This shows what can be achieved. We need to emulate this success in the clean cooking sector, so that deaths from household air pollution stop rising and start falling.

    To make headway, and to achieve the Alliance’s target of clean cookstoves adopted in 100 million households by 2020, we need to learn from what has worked.     The success of the mobile phone market and the rapidly growing solar lighting sector has shown that market-based solutions can reach the poorest of consumers. Entrepreneurs are waking up to the potential of an enormous market of buyers keen for stoves that reduce the amount of money they spend on fuel and time they spend cooking.

    Last year I visited CleanStar Mozambique, a British firm which has built a business selling clean-burning ethanol fuel produced by local farmers to customers in Maputo. The difference this makes to the lives of women cooking on liquid fuel for the first time is tangible. I met a woman whose health improved so radically that she could let her daughter go to school, instead of needing her to cook for the family at home.

    Working with the World Bank and donors like Denmark and Norway, we are supporting clean energy entrepreneurs through the Climate Innovation Centres. These centres offer training and seed capital to clean energy and adaptation enterprises. Centres are already open and operating in Kenya and Ethiopia – while more are in the pipeline.    There is also now a substantial body of experience on the policies and incentives which can accelerate market shifts. We have seen a plethora of creative approaches emerge.

    In Ethiopia we are working with the Energising Development programme to pilot the first Results-Based Financing Facility for clean cookstoves. We hope that approaches like this can help incentivise market-driven scale up, which reaches the poorest consumers.

    But with the Sustainable Energy for All goal of universal access to energy by 2030 – and so many people still cooking on solid fuels, we need to pick up the pace.     This afternoon you will be hearing about DFID-commissioned analysis into how we can change cooking behaviour for the better. This kind of thinking is essential to inform the scaled-up approaches needed to transform cooking markets. And I know Radha will set out her vision in a few moments for how we get to clean cookstoves in more than 100 million households by 2020.

    As we increase our efforts, it is vital we make sure our support is effective.

    Transparent performance standards and testing facilities for cookstoves are essential. I will commit the UK today to follow up on the cookstove standards work which the Alliance is convening with UK help. We need to establish a minimum threshold for the stoves we support, to make sure they are effective, safe and sufficiently reduce smoke.

    What counts after all, is that these stoves make a real difference. Families need to see a new stove is worth their investment, not only saving them money and time but also improving their health.     The problem is clear, the solutions are within reach and you are all working tirelessly to ensure that they are devised to the best standards. But there is one more point to consider.

    I trust that you all feel as strongly as me about taking on this crisis as previous cohorts of experts and campaigners have done with other global health issues. But to do this we must look beyond ourselves and spread the word. Your expertise needs the support of the wider world – of the public and politicians. So, whilst wishing you a successful and productive afternoon, if you take nothing else away from today, pass on the message, spill some ink.

    Gathered today are participants from many sectors, including health, climate, energy, business and many more. It is in our hands to find solutions – and to make the home not a place of danger and ill-health, but of safety and empowerment.

    Thank you.

  • Lynne Featherstone – 2014 Speech on South Sudan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lynne Featherstone, the Minister for Development, in Oslo on 20th May 2014.

    I would like to thank Norway and OCHA for hosting and organising this meeting at this critical time for South Sudan. My thanks to the Chairs, Foreign Minister Borge Bende and Baroness Amos.

    I am deeply saddened to be here today. In 2012, I made my first overseas visit as a Minister for International Development to South Sudan. The young country, born out of a proud dream and a lifetime’s struggle, faced enormous challenges.

    But there was a sense of possibility; a sense that South Sudan could invest in its people, generate opportunities, move forward with hope. I visited a training centre for young people and talked to a group of girls about their hopes and expectations – their desire to complete school and improve their lives.

    How far we are from that sense of hope today…

    Half of the population of South Sudan, are in need of humanitarian assistance.

    1.3 million people have fled their homes – 300,000 to neighbouring countries. There have been 5 months of egregious human rights violations. South Sudan is now, as a result, a country tottering on the brink of famine.

    These dire circumstances cannot – must not – continue.

    The agreement signed by President Kiir and Dr Machar on 9 May – a commitment to a ceasefire, political talks and unfettered humanitarian access – offers a way out. Commitments must result in tangible changes and improvements throughout South Sudan. A rekindling of hope will then be possible.

    I applaud the work that IGAD has done to mediate the negotiations.

    South Sudan must grasp this opportunity to move forward rather than backwards: towards development rather than destruction.

    We all need to be clear. The responsibility for the well-being of the people of South Sudan sits with the leaders of South Sudan. The road to a lasting peace will require difficult decisions.

    Leaders will be judged by history, and by the people of South Sudan, on the basis of the steps that they take to bring an end to the suffering that has been caused by this crisis.

    As a first step, this time, the ceasefire needs to endure. And immediate practical steps need to be taken to increase the speed at which aid reaches the people.

    Clearance through customs for humanitarian goods should only take a few days rather than almost a month. Their movement within South Sudan, whether by road or river barge, should also be facilitated and not obstructed as it has been too often over the last months.

    There should be an end to the looting of emergency relief supplies and respect for the safety and security of humanitarian assets and staff. Respect for International Humanitarian Law and protection – especially for women and girls – is also a critical responsibility of all leaders and their followers.

    Both sides need to ensure that there are no repeats of the horrendous human rights abuses that have been reported in Juba, Bor and Bentiu, and that those responsible face justice, not impunity. And I hope that the government will quickly set out its credible response to the UNMISS human rights report, including the proposal to establish a hybrid court.

    Through these difficult times the UK has stayed true in our commitment to the people of South Sudan. We have refocused our support to increase our emphasis on humanitarian assistance, while maintaining core development programming on health, education and food security.

    I call upon the government of South Sudan to increase the investment of its own resources in health, education and food security as part of its response to the looming crisis.

    Since the start of the crisis we have allocated almost £21 million to help meet humanitarian needs within the country and an additional £13 million to support refugees in the region.

    I want to acknowledge our partners and the excellent work that has been done by the Humanitarian Coordinator, the UN Country Team, UNMISS, the ICRC and international and national NGOs that are helping to support the people of South Sudan in their hour of need.

    I also want to acknowledge the generosity and safe haven shown by governments in the region to refugees from South Sudan arriving in their countries.

    But more resources are needed to scale up the response both inside the country and for refugees.

    Today I am able to announce a new commitment of £60 million, equivalent to around $100m, for the response within South Sudan.

    We will help to strengthen front line delivery, including protection for women and girls, through the UN and NGOs with particular attention on hard to reach areas. We will support the key pipelines, including through a £16m contribution to the World Food Programme. We will help to ensure that help reaches those in need through an investment in shared logistics.

    In conclusion, I would like to return to my conversation with the young girls in Juba in 2012.

    To me those girls – from across the country – represent the hope and future of South Sudan.

    Some shy. Some confident. But all supportive of each other. And all proud of the investment they were making in their own development.

    Girls like those are the future of South Sudan and they deserve better.

  • Lynne Featherstone – 2014 Speech at Education World Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lynne Featherstone, the International Development Minister, at the Education World Forum in London on 21st January 2014.

    Distinguished guests.

    The focus of this year’s conference – planning for the decade beyond 2015 – is a top priority for the UK’s Department for International Development. Global poverty reduction is what drives the work in my department and we’re really involved in the discussions on a global development framework to succeed the existing Millennium Development Goals. In the post-2015 framework, we want to see a set of compelling goals and targets that will catalyse the action needed to eradicate poverty within a generation.

    The next set of goals must also go beyond the MDGs and include accountable and effective institutions that avert the risk of conflict, provide a stable and peaceful environment for business to thrive, and ensure that all people have a voice in the decisions that affect them. We know education is fundamental to development: it underpins economic growth and more democratic and open institutions, it has transformative effects on the lives of girls and women and it enables people to live the life they choose. Today, I want to tell you what DFID is doing on each of the conference themes – measurement, reach and enterprise – to ensure education is a catalyst for development.

    Let me start with Reach. As a global community, great progress has been made at getting more children in school across the developing world. Out of school children have fallen from 105 million in 1999 to 57 million today. However just getting children into school isn’t enough. At least 250 million children cannot read or count, even after spending 4 years in school. DFID is committed to reaching all children with quality education as we approach 2015 and beyond.

    I’m passionate about our work to support people with disabilities. We know that data on excluded groups is difficult to pin down but according to some estimates, children with disabilities comprise nearly one-third of all out of school children. Of those in school, it’s estimated that 15% to 20% will have some kind of special educational need. The UK works to ensure that all children are able to complete a full cycle of quality education, and that includes children with disabilities.

    I’ve recently announced 2 initial commitments to step up our support. First to ensure all construction, directly funded by DFID, is fully accessible. And second, to work with partners to improve data on children with disabilities and special educational needs. Echoing the report of the High Level Panel on post 2015, we should not consider targets met unless they are met for all social groups, including those with disabilities. Every country, including my own, must work hard to ensure that no one is left behind.

    There are still 31 million girls of primary school age who have never been to school and the majority of these come from the most disadvantaged communities. Getting girls in school and learning is both right and a smart investment for development. An extra year of primary schooling for girls can increase their wages by up to 20%, most of which is likely to be reinvested in her family and community.

    In 2011, the UK established the Girls’ Education Challenge, the world’s largest global fund dedicated to girls’ education. This will reach up to 1 million of the worlds’ poorest girls to ensure that they receive a quality education to transform their future. It’s an exciting initiative and has been enthusiastically received by NGOs, charities and the private sector. The GEC’s programmes in Afghanistan, for example, are helping the Afghan government to rebuild its education system, continue its drive to enrol girls, and improve education quality.

    So with the private sector’s strategic involvement in the Girls’ Education Challenge, let me turn now to the theme of enterprise. For countries to grow out of low income status they need to address existing skills’ deficits, and make the most of their current growth potential. Skills, acquired at every level of education, play a critical role in a country’s economic and social development.

    When I have asked young people in the countries I have visited with DFID, what they tell me they most want on completing their studies is a good job. So we need to ensure that young people are learning job-relevant skills and have access to information on work experience and internships. We need to nurture the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.

    Education systems are not always very good at shaping today’s workforce, let alone the workforce of tomorrow, or making sure that the hardest to reach groups can progress through the system. That is why DFID is currently considering how best to invest and support important work in this area.

    Getting it right on skills is also important for business and enterprise to flourish. Companies need people with both specialist technical skills, and transferable skills like problem solving, that can be applied practically in a job. Higher education is the route by which technical skills in areas like engineering, agriculture, science, health and finance are acquired, and the sector is very weak in many countries. Failing to address this, equitably, puts a break on human potential as well as stalling an economy’s growth.

    Technology can play a big role in this – both in teaching and learning, and shaping the jobs of the future. We are already seeing evidence for this, but I am sure there is more to come. I think for all of us it is hard to predict what those future developments might be – but my interest is in making sure that the bright thinkers are incentivised to look at the developing world, as much as they currently look at the developed.

    Now to the final theme. Measurement. Without good measurement, good data, we are unlikely to develop the right policies to ensure that no one is left behind, to ensure that all girls and boys are learning when in school and to know how many engineers need training to drive a growing manufacturing sector.

    Improving data and measurement is a big challenge for the post-2015 development framework which is why the High Level Panel report called for a data revolution. Improved data on education will help countries and their partners to respond more effectively to the global learning crisis.

    As the leading bilateral donor in basic education, part of DFID’s response is to step up our efforts to support and strengthen data collection and data use in countries where we work. In parallel we have developed partnerships with the UNESCO Institute of Statistics, the PISA for Development pilot, and UNESCO’s Global Monitoring Report to help drive global education data improvements in the run up to to 2015.

    We need to act quickly to ensure learning can be tracked post-2015. UNESCO has a crucial role to play if we are to deliver options on learning targets and their measurement in the next 6 months. DFID has been part of the work of the Learning Metrics Task Force which is an initiative looking to catalyse and support this process under a UN-lead.

    Ultimately, the goal of this work is to better enable Ministries of Education and other policymakers to not only track how they are doing, but also to target policy changes that improve the learning experiences of all children and youth.

    Finally, DFID is a firm believer that our investments should be based on a strong evidence base. This is why I am pleased to announce to you all today that we are launching 2 major education research programmes through our Research and Evidence Division.

    The first of these programmes, in collaboration with our partners such as the World Bank, UNICEF and Children’s Investment Fund Foundation will focus on system level reform. Unblocking parts of the system that aren’t working offers huge potential to ensure government education budgets go further. The second programme, a partnership with the UK Economic and Social Research Council, will focus on improving teaching performance.

    We will deliver these programmes in partnership with our country governments and I am delighted to be meeting with several of the delegations to discuss our collaborations in education. We need to share the lessons from our programmes, policy reforms and innovations and use this evidence to understand what works to deliver an ambitious post-2015 agenda.

    The combination of research, evaluation and high quality programmes will help ensure all children – whichever country they are from, whatever their background – have the chance to fulfil their potential as productive citizens of the future. That is our mission, and I wish you all the best in your debates and deliberations over the coming 2 days.

    Thank you.