Category: Speeches

Michael Ancram – 2001 Speech at South Bank

Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Ancram, the then Conservative Party Chairman, on 6 June 2001.

So three very distinctive reasons why we are all here today on this platform. Not because of ideology, but because of ideals – individually expressed but actually shared.

Michael’s passionate belief in the responsibilities of the individual. Ann’s deep sense of vocation and duty. Francis’s dedication to the bonds of mutual obligation. All fundamental to the complex tapestry which is the Conservative Party. We have always been a party of diversity and breadth – and we still are.

Each of us has come a different path but we are all pursuing a common destination. I am a Conservative for all the reasons my colleagues have given, but there are some other reasons too.

I believe in that old concept of public service, of working for one’s community or one’s country not for what one can get out of it but for what one can contribute to it. It is a very Conservative concept, the concept of caring not because you’re told to but because it is an instinctively Conservative thing to do. The concept of undertaking public office not because it gives something to you but because you can repay something to the community which nurtured you. And into all this is naturally tied the whole concept of integrity in public life.

But these concepts are under threat today. Under threat from a new culture which seems to believe that public office is simply the reward for services rendered not to your country but to the party of government in whose hands lies the patronage.

Under threat from a political philosophy which believes that the state always knows best, and that we should be caring because we are told by the state to be caring – and how.

And under threat from the new political culture in which spin is more important than truth and where as long as you are not caught out – anything goes.

I genuinely believe that this new culture is a cancer which will eat away at the foundations of our democracy. I believe we must fight it and that is why I am a Conservative here today.

And I am a Conservative too because I love my country. I believe passionately in the United Kingdom. I am totally with Francis in his determination to defend it from the dangers of further integration into Europe.

But I am also determined to fight the threat that seeks to unravel it from within – the creeping growth of nationalism and of regional and cultural division which New Labour have set in train.

For me the United Kingdom is a most remarkable phenomenon, an extraordinary amalgam of different cultures and different traditions and indeed different nations. And these have come together through history with a common purpose and a common flag to create a sovereign nation which is far stronger than the sum of its various parts. This United Kingdom stands as an example to the world and to ourselves of how different, often very different, traditions and beliefs can – while retaining their distinctiveness – be voluntarily brought together into One Nation with all that that implies. It is that which we as Conservatives must fight to preserve.

We have always been and will remain the Party of and for the United Kingdom. Our unionism is real. And when that United Kingdom is under threat as it is today, then as a party we will fight with all the strength available to us to defend our country and all that it stands for. I will never be told that it is politically incorrect to love my country and to be proud of it. And that too is why I am a Conservative.

But there is one other reason which brings us all here together today. It is someone who throughout these last four years has never lost his sense of purpose and his clarity of vision. It is someone who in the face of political adversity and partisan hostility has never lost his determination or his sense of mission. He is a leader we are all prou d to serve.

Our leader – William Hague.

February 8, 2016
Francis Maude – 2001 Speech on Fighting for Britain’s Interests

Francis Maude

Below is the text of the speech made by Francis Maude, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 6 June 2001.

I was, almost literally, born into the Conservative Party. My father went into politics in 1950, having spent some of his prime years as a prisoner of war. I and my brother and sisters grew up believing that politics is a high calling; built on deep beliefs and high principles. In my family the idea that you went into politics for yourself was laughable.

So it was pretty easy for me to be a Conservative. My brother and I went to a direct grant school; a school independent of the state but where most of us were paid for by the state: a real public/private partnership.

I grew up with the notion that a strong society is one bound together by the bonds of mutual obligation; that the strong have a duty to help the weak. Family tragedy can bring home to you how much we depend on each other.

Is it bad that we have a hospice movement that is supported by the voluntary work of families and communities, rather than depending on the government?

I was proud to serve in Conservative Governments that were prepared to be unfashionable; that were ready to take on the received wisdom. We may not have got everything right but we always did what we thought right. We did what we did not for ourselves but for our country.

And I find it hard to understand why you would come into politics if you don’t believe in your country. I spent part of my childhood in Australia; and when I was on my sabbatical from politics in the mid-nineties I lived the global economy as an international investment banker. I know better than most how interconnected today’s network world has become. Britain can never be isolationist; can never turn her back on the world.

We must be an internationalist country, yes. But we must above all be a country. How can we remain a proud independent country if we have lost the power to govern ourselves? When we have become nothing more than a province of a United States of Europe?

In the sixties and seventies people like my father resisted the sad assumption that Britain was condemned to an inevitable decline. They fought the defeatist notion that the socialist ratchet was irreversible. It is for our generation to resist the sense that it is inevitable that we lose our power of self-government. It is for our generation to fight for the return of some powers from Brussels, to reject the idea that the ratchet of EU integration can never be reversed at all.

It is for our generation to fight for it. And we will.

February 8, 2016
Michael Portillo – 2001 Speech on Trusting the People

Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Portillo, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 6 June 2001.

As a very young man I was attracted to the Labour Party. The idea of high tax and high government spending seemed socially responsible. But over time I saw that Labour’s way didn’t work. The combination of the government’s spending more than the nation could afford, high taxation and devaluation just dragged the country down.

The greatest single difference between Labour and Conservatives is the same today as it has always been. Labour believes that society changes for the better because of what government does; we believe it is people themselves who bring about social improvement.

That’s why Labour talk of how much Government will take from the people and spend, and all their recruitment targets, as though the Government always spent our money well, and as though extra people could be recruited to public service like turning on a tap.

We believe in trusting people, their aspirations and instincts. Labour believes in government and bureaucrats, we believe in people.

Labour believes it’s compassionate and socially responsible to take money away from the people who earned it and spend it on their behalf. Well it depends. Not when Labour takes it from the poorest people. Not when it comes from hitting their pension funds. And not when the government complacently tolerates waste and inefficiency.

But worse than that, it’s not morally defensible if we weaken people’s resolve to take responsibility for themselves. We believe that our society is better if people believe that their first duty is to be independent if they can, and to build up their sense of self-worth. People who take responsibility for themselves are better able to take responsibilities for their families too, and more willing to recognise their responsibilities towards their neighbours and their community.

Those obligations to oneself, family, and community cannot be subcontracted to government. We believe that when a person has paid his taxes that is not the end of his obligations towards others, but the beginning. And indeed the greater your success in life, the greater is your personal obligation to put something back.

A society that overtaxes and penalises success, leads people to believe that once they’ve paid their taxes, they’ve done their bit. A society that overtaxes the poor leads them to believe they can never escape poverty by their own efforts.

A society that forces too many into means-tested benefits deepens the poverty trap and embitters those who tried to be prudent and thrifty.

Whether Britain can compete in the coming decades will depend on whether we free people from excessive tax and regulation. Whether we have a society of which we can be proud, depends on whether we can convince more people of their inalienable responsibilities.

Under Labour we are headed in the wrong direction: away from the responsibility society towards the dependency society.

Our approach to public services also rests on trusting people. When we say that we want head teachers to control all the school budget, that’s not just because we think people close to the ground make better decisions than those in distant bureaucracies. It’s also because when you trust someone, when you give them the power of initiative and authority, you bring out the best in them. They flourish and exceed all expectations even their own. I saw what a head teacher in a grant-maintained school could achieve with children from underprivileged homes, who learnt self-esteem and the value of hard work.

Labour has always believed in centralisation, but New Labour’s control fetish has made it still more intolerant of diversity. Uniformity is the enemy of improvement. We passionately believe freedom and diversity deliver progress.

Governments must not be resentful of, or hostile to diversity. We can only walk when we allow one foot to move in front of the other. The other foot then catches up and passes by. And it is only by allowing those with good ideas to edge ahead, and helping others to catch them up, that our country can move forward.

Governments without a deep-rooted commitment to freedom and diversity, are Governments wedded to mediocrity. Public services will never get better under Labour because they believe Government is the only engine of improvement. They are incapable of letting go: incapable of trusting people. Labour is intellectually timid, too bound up in ideology. Conservatives will be the party of progress and reform.

February 8, 2016
William Hague – 2001 Speech on Two Britains

Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 6 June 2001.

Thirty days ago, I began this campaign by saying we would show the nation a better way.

We have done that. We have set out how we will bring taxes down, how we will hit crime hard, how we will bring discipline, standards and choice to schools in every town and city, how we and we alone will keep the Pound. We have shown how we will deliver lower taxes while safeguarding spending on the vital public services.

Labour by contrast has ducked and weaved on tax and spending. They promise more money for services but refuse to say where it will come from. They cloak their plans for more stealth taxes on petrol on National Insurance on pensions in weasel words and arrogant evasions.

We have spelt out what it means to be genuinely tough on crime. Our support for the police will be as unflinching as our hostility to criminals. They will serve the sentence they are given, they will not be released on to our streets to offend again before they have served even half their time. Labour has had nothing to say about crime short of promising new police officers when they can’t even keep hold of the ones they’ve got. We have demonstrated how our schools can become places where children learn, where teachers teach and where heads are given the responsibility and authority to lead.

Labour can only repeat the mantra of ‘education, education, education’ while we put forward practical plans to deliver discipline, standards and choice to everyone.

We have shown we can make Britain a safe haven instead of a soft touch, by introducing reception centres that will speed-up the claims of genuine refugees. Labour and their Liberal allies have tried to avoid the subject and have offered no alterative plans of their own.

We have set out our plans to rescue the countryside, by ensuring that proper help is given to the rural businesses and farmers hit so badly by foot and mouth. All Labour have to offer are further attacks on our rural way of life

And we have shown how Britain can be in Europe, not run by Europe, how we can play our full part in the EU without surrendering our independence or our currency. Labour meanwhile plot to scrap the Pound without telling us how much it will cost, at what rate we would go in to the Euro or how a referendum in which they would set the question and determine the funding could ever be a fair one.

Issue by issue we have made and won our case. We have put forward answers that Labour have been unable to question and raised questions that they have been unable to answer.

I am proud of the campaign we have fought. I am proud of what my colleagues have said and done. I am proud of the campaign you have fought. We alone have set the agenda in this campaign.

But elections are fought on more than just issues alone. They are also about values, beliefs and commitment – the iron in the soul of a political party that can see it through bad times as well as good.

We have shown that iron. What a contrast to New Labour. What a contrast to Tony Blair’s endless convolutions that lead him to praise Margaret Thatcher in one breath and try to bury her in the next. Unlike him and them, we know who we are and we know what we stand for.

We have never campaigned to pull out of Europe.

We have never campaigned for higher taxes.

We have never campaigned for greater union powers.

We have never campaigned to scrap our nuclear deterrent.

But I will tell you who has, Tony Blair. No belief is too important for him to abandon it when circumstances dictate, No policy is so essential that Labour will hold to it no matter how temporarily unpopular it may be. No value is too central for it not to be jettisoned when the going gets rough.

That is not my way, nor is it the way of the Conservative Party.

Our core beliefs in freedom, justice, and tolerance, of respect for the individual, decency, a reluctance to meddle and interfere and above all our fierce belief that a country is happiest and most prosperous when the people and not the politicians rule have stood the test of time.

That is why in this Election we are clear about what we want.

We want people to keep more of what they earn, to be self-reliant and independent, to plan for their future.

We believe our society is stronger when people have the authority and responsibility to shape their own futures and those of others.

It is why we set such great store by upholding the rule of law and defending those who work hard and play by rules.

It is why we will fight to keep our country as a self-governing nation with the ability to control its economy.

These are the same principles I joined the Conservative Party to defend all those years ago, the principles I stood up and spoke for when I was 16, the principles I am proud to put forward as leader of the Conservative Party today.

They are principles not learned from books or seminars or pollsters, but forged from the people I grew up with, the community we shared and above all the family whose love and support has always been unconditional. They are principles that have never changed and never will.

I grew up in the 1970s, a decade torn by industrial strife and inflation. A decade when people seriously questioned whether Britain was even capable of being governed. In Rotherham, politics was never very far away because the evidence of the government was everywhere from the council estates where a lot of my friends at school lived, to the nationalised pits and steelworks that their fathers worked in.

But whether they were miners, factory workers or small businessmen like my own dad, they were decent hard-working people with standards who wanted their children to have a better life than they themselves had had.

We all went to the same schools, used the same family doctors and hospitals and wanted the same things, but it wasn’t a Labour Government, the supposed people’s party that made it possible to fulfil those ambitions. It was because of Conservative Government that my friends and neighbours eventually saw a real improvement in their lives.

Slowly but surely better jobs and more opportunities came the way of our country as the Conservatives ended union tyranny, brought down taxes, and widened home ownership. For the first time in decades there was a real sense that we were no longer the sick man of Europe.

The people I went to school with are now doing many different things. They own their own homes, they save for their pensions, they enjoy wider choice in their lives. Many now have families of their own. I took my own route to Oxford, business school in Europe and leading the Opposition. But the values we shared then are the same values we share now: pride, directness, generosity of spirit and, if I’m honest, a certain stubborn streak.

A lot of them voted Labour at last election. They did do in spite of their values not because of them. They did so because they wanted what their own parents had wanted for them: better schools for their children, better hospital care for their families and because they believed Tony Blair when he said he would keep their taxes down and make their streets safer.

So imagine first their disappointment, when he broke those promises, and then their anger when he blamed them for his own failure to deliver. His attack on the forces of conservatism and his attempt to heap all the ills and evils of the 20th century on the heads of decent people must rank as one of the most ill-judged political comments of all time.

Tony Blair may have retreated in the face of the Women’s Institute and others, but they still remember, we still remember. And tomorrow the world will find out that the forces of conservatism are on the march.

I have met them by the thousand during my Election campaign.

They are farmers laid low by a foot and mouth outbreak which has lasted longer and bitten deeper than it need have done because of the dither and delay of this Government.

They are the small businessmen and women crippled by Labour’s taxes and new bureaucracy.

They are the teachers, the police, the doctors and the nurses who have been weighed down by red tape and political interference when they simply wanted to do their job.

They are the market traders I met in Smithfield this morning who shouted at me ‘Whatever you do William, win’. Or in many cases, ‘Go on William, wipe the smile off his face’.

They are down-to-earth people who in a quiet way love their country and are privately appalled by Labour’s plans to scrap the Pound and to undermine Britain’s independence.

Above all they are people who don’t always think of themselves as Conservatives, who don’t always vote Conservative, but who are in the end the backbone of this nation.

Tomorrow they have a choice. And tomorrow, I know they will be marching with us. They know the stakes are too high to risk another term of Labour Government. They know that, above all, because of Mr Blair’s plan to scrap the Pound and surrender to Brussels, this could be the last General Election in Britain when we can still run our own affairs in this country.

Because tomorrow is a choice not just about who will run this country for the next five years, but about the country that their children and grandchildren will inherit.

I am in no doubt about the kind of country people want.

They want a Britain that is in control of its own destiny and a society where they can be in control of theirs.

A Britain whose streets are safe for families and the vulnerable; not a Britain safe for convicted criminals.

A Britain where basic values and discipline are taught in our schools and where doctors and nurses, police and teachers are respected for what the work they do; not a Britain where the rule of law is denigrated and the people running our public services are demoralised.

A Britain where people keep more of what they earn and are encouraged to be independent the better to help themselves and others; not a Britain where families and retired people are taxed and taxed again until they are left depending on the state for their very existence.

An independent Britain with its own currency; not a Britain so lacking in self-belief that it gives up the right to run its own affairs or its own economy.

These are the two Britains on offer, and tomorrow is the last chance to choose between them.

The more widely I have travelled, the more people I have met during these last 30 days, the more I am certain of the kind of Britain the vast majority of people want.

So if you have had enough of arrogance and spin and broken promises, if you want a Government that offers you only what it can deliver; I say vote for what you value.

If you have had enough of higher taxes and creeping dependency, if you want a Government that values self-reliance and believes you can spend your money more wisely than it can, I say vote for what you value.

If you have had enough of being told that we should be ashamed of our history and cannot govern ourselves, if you want a Government that believes in the future of our country, I say vote for what you value.

Vote Conservative tomorrow and on Friday we will begin the work of making this nation once again the equal of the people who live in it.

Vote Conservative tomorrow and Britain will again be a place we can all be proud to call our home.

February 8, 2016
Edward Timpson – 2014 Speech on Adoption Support

Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Timpson at Somerset House in London on 13 May 2014.

Thanks Sheila (Durr, Chair of the London Adoption Board), it’s good to be here.

Just a month ago, I was pounding the streets of London in the marathon, sporting a T-shirt with the words “I’d adopt” on it in the hope that if that got just a few people thinking about the possibility of offering a child a loving home, then it will have done the job.

Because, with 6,000 children – and around 800 in London alone – still waiting to be adopted, we must take every opportunity to bring them and prospective parents together – and to be there for them every step of the way.

And the good news is we’ve made really important progress this year.

Progress

The Children and Families Act is sweeping away many of the identified barriers to adoption and there’s been a much stronger focus on wider recruitment and better support for adopters.

And thanks to your hard work and dedication – for which I’m naturally hugely grateful – we can see this determined drive from government beginning to pay off.

Adoptions are at record levels following a 15% increase between 2011 to 2012 and 2012 to 2013. There’s also been a 34% increase in the number of adopter approvals.

Huge numbers – over 96,000 people in 12 months – contacted the First4Adoption online information service that we fund – and whose phone number was splashed all over my marathon T-shirt. And over 6,800 of these people went on to look at an adoption agency’s website – a vital next step to becoming an adoptive parent.

We’re already aware of one couple who have gone from contacting First4Adoption to being approved as adopters and having a child placed with them. It shows what can be done if we all pull in the same direction.

Three new voluntary adoption agencies also opened last month with a commitment to attract over 300 adopters and offer hope to more children – just the latest advance in a massive £217 million push to improve the system and boost recruitment.

And there have also been welcome developments on adoption breakdowns. Professor Julie Selwyn’s recent report showed that far fewer adoptions fail than previously thought – around 3% as opposed to a 20 or 30% breakdown rate.

But this very timely and important research also reveals that we need to do much more to support adoptive families who are struggling with the fallout from earlier abuse and neglect – something I’ve seen first-hand, whilst growing up with my own 2 adopted brothers.

So there’s a lot to do, but also a lot of great work that we can build on.

Good work in London

And, the reason I’m here today is because, in many ways, London is leading the way.

Research shows that Londoners – particularly single women and those aged over 40 – are more likely to adopt than people anywhere else in England. Londoners are also more likely to contact First4Adoption’s phone line than any other group.

And this is in the face of many of the same challenges as other parts of the country, particularly when it comes to finding matches for BME children.

As we know, black children spend, on average, a year longer waiting to be adopted than white children. I know that this is as unacceptable to you as it is to me – which is why, through the act, whilst continuing to recognise its clear validity as a factor to be taken properly into account, we’re ending the undue emphasis on finding an ethnic match between adopters and children whose chances of being adopted diminish with every day they have to wait.

And we can see some really excellent and innovative practice beginning to tackle this and wider recruitment challenges head-on.

Like Redbridge’s partnership with the children’s charity Coram, which, with its keen focus on reducing delays and on tracking children’s progress right through the process, has sent adoptions through the roof – by an astonishing 175% – and, in the process, attracted a wider pool of adopters.

Southwark too has excelled with its Find 40 Families campaign to attract BME adopters, driving up the number of adopters by 50% since its launch a year ago. A fantastic achievement.

Traffic to its website has also soared by 70% through a combination of work to raise awareness and myth-bust in local communities along with imaginative approaches to publicity – for example, by adding personal touches to its website, such as profiles of children waiting to be adopted.

We’re keen to do all we can to support these kind of inspirational ventures and see many more children gain from the wonderful gift of adoption.

Adoption reforms

Which is exactly what our adoption reforms aim to do, with a strong focus throughout on boosting recruitment as well as support for adopters at every stage.

There’s no question that the 2 things go hand in hand. People are far more likely to consider adoption if they’re confident they can count on good support – not just in the early days, but years down the line if needed, which I know from my own family, can often be the case.

So, through the act, through the new Adoption Support Fund, the new Adoption Leadership Board, chaired by Sir Martin Narey, as well as through the significant funding we’re injecting into the system, we’re simplifying and improving the process every step of the way. And, crucially, giving prospective parents much more choice and control over the support they get.

So what does this mean in practice? For adopters, it means they’ll get much clearer information about their entitlements, the same pay and leave rights as birth parents and will no longer face the ‘cliff edge’ of support provided while the child was in care suddenly being withdrawn.

We’re also giving them a more active role in finding a match by opening up the Adoption Register. We’ll start testing access to the register in the summer to see how this might help adoptive families come together much more quickly. And how it might highlight, at an earlier stage, what support is needed.

Adoption Support Fund

And this support is about to ramp up as families access much-needed therapeutic services through the Adoption Support Fund.

Last year, I announced that we’ll be contributing £19.3 million to help kick off this new fund. I launched this during a visit to the highly impressive Family Futures in Islington, an adoption support service where I met several adoptive families and heard from them how successful therapeutic interventions had been the difference between them sinking and swimming.

In fact I’ve recently received a letter from one of the parents I met on my visit updating me on the terrific progress her son is making after years of, as she put it, “firefighting.”

It’s one of the main reasons why we’re currently working with 10 local areas, including Lewisham, to trial a smaller version of the fund and using the insights gained to shape the national fund, which will be fully up and running in 2015.

We’ll also be testing personal budgets, with the input of social workers to really put adoptive families in the driving seat – families, for whom, these vital therapeutic services have often remained out of reach, despite their potential to change lives.

Adoption Leadership Board (ALB)

Better support is also a big focus for the new Adoption Leadership Board, which Mark (Owers, CEO, CVAA), of course, manages.

It’s early days for the ALB, but I’m confident that the board will thrive under Sir Martin Narey’s leadership and will galvanise real improvements by bringing together local and central government, the voluntary sector and academics as never before.

Its success will rest, in large part, on effective regional boards. London, with its regional set-up, is especially well-placed to take this forward. Indeed, the London model has been discussed at Adoption Leadership Board meetings and is likely to form the blueprint for boards in other regions.

Andrew Webb at the ADCS is currently setting these boards up. Each will have a designated lead ADCS member for the region, representatives from the voluntary sector and a ‘sponsor’ from the national board.

Universal services playing their part

It’s also, of course, vital that universal services like education and health play their part. Adoptive families rely on them as much as specialist services.

An Adoption UK survey from last year, for instance, found that two-thirds of adoptive parents felt that their children faced specific challenges at school due to past trauma and neglect.

And it’s with this in mind that we’re providing extra support for adopted children through our education reforms.

From 2014, children adopted from care will be eligible for the pupil premium plus and for free early education under the programme aimed at the most disadvantaged 2-year-olds.

This comes on top of our move to extend priority school access to children adopted from care.

And I can announce today that, from now on, this will apply to all children adopted from care, not just those adopted under the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

We’ve issued new guidance about this and have asked admissions authorities to apply it with immediate effect. We will amend the School Admissions Code at the earliest opportunity.

There’s also significant work underway to improve the understanding of adopted children’s needs among health professionals. Their support is critical for adopted children, given their known high level of mental health needs.

So it’s great to see pioneering approaches like the work being done at The Maudsley, where specialist services are provided for young people who are fostered or adopted. These are highly rated by parents who report improved relationships with their children, a reduction in difficult behaviours and improved wellbeing – things we want to see many more parents achieving through improved support.

But there’s clearly more to do.

Which is why we’ve commissioned the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to produce clinical guidelines on attachment.

And why we’re encouraging national and local health service commissioners to consider adopted children’s needs when developing integrated services for vulnerable groups.

Adopted children are now recognised as a key group by the NHS Commissioning Board and in statutory guidance on Joint Strategic Needs Assessments and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies – which are important steps forward.

Improving the access that adopted children – indeed all children – have to CAMHS is high on the agenda across government at the moment and we’re working closely with the Department of Health to see what more we can do.

I have to say that this is a particular priority for me, as is ensuring that social workers are well-equipped to meet the needs of looked after and adopted children.

Which is why we commissioned Research in Practice (RiP) to produce new training materials for social workers who work in these areas. These are currently being rolled out and are now available on the RiP’s website – so would encourage you to take a look.

Conclusion

So we’re on the right track. And, together, are overturning expectations of what can be achieved when the ambition and commitment is there.

But we need to keep up the pace and continue to push the boundaries to drive up performance even further.

Adoption scorecards that show how long it takes for each local authority to place children for adoption are vital to this endeavour.

As is access to real time performance data by region – and I’m hugely grateful to the north London consortium of local authorities for helping the Adoption Leadership Board develop its new data collection arrangements to provide continued focus and insight into what works and how we can do better.

Because it’s only by continuing to inspire, support and challenge each other that we can really raise our game – on both adopter recruitment and also improved support for adoptive families.

I know just how critical this support is from seeing how my elder adopted brother Oliver continues to struggle with issues stemming from the mental and physical abuse he suffered before he came to live with us, over 30 years ago, as a 6-year-old foster child.

In those days, therapy was neither well-known, never mind easy to access. And while Oliver has gained a great deal from his adoption – as we all have in our family – I’m sure that these issues wouldn’t be affecting him as much if he’d had the therapeutic support he needed.

Which is why I’m so determined to ensure that other adopted children and their parents get the help they need, when they need it.

They deserve our utmost support, so let’s continue to work together to make sure that’s exactly what they get.

Thank you.

February 7, 2016
Alistair Carmichael – 2014 Speech at All Energy Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael, the then Scottish Secretary, in Aberdeen, Scotland, on 21 May 2014.

It’s a pleasure to be here today at the start of the All Energy Conference.

This is a fantastic opportunity to get together at the UK’s largest renewable energy gathering – to share experiences, see new technologies and celebrate the success of this ever-growing industry.

Because as we all know Scotland is fast becoming a world energy hub – not just in oil and gas, but in renewables too.

Scottish renewables are now providing enough electricity to meet roughly 40% of Scotland’s consumption. A third of all renewable generation in the UK is now in Scotland.

The latest figures show that between the third quarter of 2012 and the third quarter of 2013, renewable electricity generation is up 20% on the previous 12 months.

Together we are now around half way to our ambition of meeting 30% of the UK’s electricity needs from renewables by 2020.

And our prediction is that with the framework we are putting in place, we’ll do even better than 30%.

Investment

Between January 2010 and February 2014, we saw private sector investment in large scale UK renewable electricity projects exceed £34 billion. This investment supports over 37,000 jobs.

Over £14 billion of this is in Scotland, supporting around 12,000 jobs, here at home.

And our reform of the Electricity Market will ensure the UK remains a leading destination for investment in the electricity sector and could support as many as 25,000 jobs in the power sector in the UK.

This record is in stark contrast with the rest of Europe, where renewables investment halved between 2012 and 2013.

The UK Government is committed to supporting and investing in our renewables technology to make sure that we retain our position as Europe’s renewable investment hotspot.

Projects such as the Dorenell Wind Farm in Moray which is estimated will generate at least £93 million in direct benefits for the Scottish economy.

And The Speyside Biomass Combined Heat and Power Plant at the Macallan Distillery, which would represent an inward investment of £60 million to the local area.

I am delighted to confirm today that the Eskdalemuir Working Group has progressed very well. Through constructive discussions, the MoD’s concerns on wind farm development have been met and opposition to the project will be removed, opening up extra capacity for renewables deployment.

Renewable potential

And for the first time we have created a tailored strike price for Scottish Islands which will help to unlock their renewable potential as cost effectively as possible, and increase the likelihood of a number of Scottish offshore wind projects coming forward.

As MP for Orkney and the Shetlands I can tell you that enthusiasm for exploiting renewables potential on the islands is very high.

The UK Government is currently in talks with Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles ‘our islands out future’ campaign in recognition of their incredible potential and to overcome obstacles to development.

This whole positive picture, right across Scotland is down to your hard work – and collaboration.

The Energy Act 2013 – supported by all parties in the UK Parliament: Labour and SNP as well as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has put in place the legal, financial and political framework that is designed to last.

Not just for the next few years, but it reaches out ten, twenty, thirty years into the future. Certainty, stability, predictability.

Going green

By creating the world’s first low carbon electricity market, we are going green at the lowest cost.

Demonstrating that carbon reduction and economic growth can go hand in hand.

Let me be crystal clear, the government’s commitment to renewables as part of our diverse energy mix is undiminished.

But to succeed we need to keep showing that this vision of a competitive low carbon market isn’t an ideological, or even just an environmental one. We can keep energy bills as low as possible as we decarbonise.

We need to provide certainty, stability and fair returns for investors, generators and suppliers

So the positive case for Scotland’s energy future in the UK is the protection of the integrated market. Sharing support, sharing benefits and sharing costs.

Scottish renewables, just like renewables in other parts of the UK, are an integral part of our vision for a low carbon future.

Investment, consent, construction and generation.

Scotland – a world-leading renewables hub. The United Kingdom – the best place to do business.

February 7, 2016
David Davis – 2016 Speech on Brexit

Below is the text of the speech made by David Davis at Institute of Chartered Engineers in London on 4 February 2016.

It has been over 43 years since Britain joined the European Economic Community. For all that time there have been calls for Europe to reform. For Europe to be more democratic, more competitive, more functional. And for Britain to lead that reform.

The result? If anything Europe has become less democratic, less competitive and more dysfunctional. And Britain has become more side-lined.

The EU has been in decline for some time now. There is no change of course in sight. The risks involved in staying are clear for all to see – low growth, high unemployment, and waning influence.

In 1975 the EU was the bright future, a vision of a better world. Now it is a crumbling relic from a gloomy past. We must raise our eyes to the wider world.

The UK has been a persistent advocate of reforming and modernising the EU.

Even a decade ago there was hope of radical reform, as the EU expanded from 15 nations to 28. Some thought the new members, only recently independent themselves, would shift the EU away from its centralising, statist destination, and towards a more democratic, more trade-focussed direction.

The hope was that Europe would become ‘wider, not deeper’. With hindsight, this hope now looks ridiculous. The siren calls for ‘more Europe’ have only increased.

The UK also proselytised for a ‘two-tier’ or ‘two speed’ Europe, with a loose decentralised group around a more centralised Franco-German core. With the Eurozone, we now have a de facto two-tier Europe, but one that works to the detriment of the non-Eurozone countries.

Centred on Germany, the EU’s largest and most powerful nation and the paymaster of Europe, the Eurozone constitutes a dominant majority.

This is downright dangerous. The core Eurozone countries will not accept any curtailment of the decisions they need to make to save the Euro. At the same time, the non-Eurozone countries cannot accept decisions that are against their interests, imposed on them by the Eurozone core.

It will only lead to conflict, conflict that can only be prevented by veto procedures that would be unacceptable to either side.

Economic growth on the continent has ground to a halt. Since the turn of the century, the EU has grown at a third of the rate of the global average, and the Eurozone has grown even more slowly than that. Europe’s share of global GDP is falling, as is its share of global trade. This trend is expected to continue.

When we last voted on our membership in 1975, trade with Europe was the vast majority of our total trade. This has fallen since then, and in 2008 the UK started to trade more with the rest of the world than with Europe. The fact is that Europe is becoming less and less important.

The Euro has become a destroyer of jobs. Unemployment across the continent is running at almost 10%, with youth unemployment double that at 20%. For individual countries, these figures are even worse.

Greece and Spain are suffering from youth unemployment rates of nearly 50%, and Italy almost 40%. Unemployment is destroying the prospects of a whole generation of young Europeans.

The Euro is an experiment that has failed. In its short life it is already responsible for sovereign debt crises in several European countries, high unemployment, and dramatic trade imbalances across the Eurozone.

But then the European project has been a litany of failures. From economic catastrophe, the collapsing single currency experiment, a poor record on increasing trade, the damage done by merging home affairs, to the undoubted foreign policy failures.

Then there is the Schengen Zone. The passport-less travel area once held up as the pinnacle of European integration is crumbling before our very eyes. The migration crisis that has brought more than a million refugees to Europe’s shores, with many more expected to come, is a stake in the heart of a borderless Europe.

The strength of any policy can only be judged by how it copes with crisis. Schengen, just like the Euro, is failing under the pressure.

Even with justice, the EU causes conflict.

From the faulty European Arrest Warrant, that has led to innocent Brits being detained for months overseas in terrible conditions without trial, to the slow steady creep of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we are increasingly finding that our justice system is incompatible with the one on the continent.

So the problems facing the EU are mounting up. Economic stagnation, high debt, high unemployment, high regulation, ineffective foreign policy and failing internal policies.

This is the backdrop to the Government’s renegotiation of our term of membership.

Government’s Negotiation

The Government has four strands to its renegotiation:

• economic governance, ensuring that the Union operates for the benefit of all 28 members;

• competitiveness, and a target to cut the regulatory burden for business;

• sovereignty, and an opt-out for Britain from ‘ever closer union’;

• and finally immigration, and the proposed ‘emergency brake’.

This renegotiation is a once in a generation opportunity. Unfortunately, the Government has spent ed this opportunity on demands are so unambitious as to be a waste of time.

The concessions outlined by the Prime Minister on Tuesday will have little, if any, impact on the nature of the EU. They will do almost nothing to address the very issues that the Government itself has identified.

Take immigration.

265,000 people migrated to the UK from the EU in the last year. Many of them from poorer, Eastern European countries.

Such high levels of migration are to be expected given the enormous wage differentials across Europe. There are 6 EU members where the average wage is less than a third of the UK’s minimum wage, and a further 8 countries where it is less than half.

Given such incentives, it is surprising that more people are not making the journey.

This has consistently been a top issue for voters for over a decade.

The Government’s answer? That an ‘emergency brake’ system be put in place, that would allow member states to partly deny in-work benefits to new arrivals for up to four years.

But the big caveat is that it would be necessary to prove that services were under strain, and secure the approval of a majority of other EU states.

It is rumoured that a French negotiator told his British counterpart that they were, “happy to give the British anything they wanted, so long as it was nothing of substance.” He must have had the emergency brake in mind when he said it.

When you look at the figures, it is clear that even should the measure be introduced, the emergency brake will have no impact whatsoever.

This is for two reasons.

The first is that very few EU arrivals claim in-work benefits in their first four years.

In the first year after arrival, only 10% of EU nationals claim tax credits. This number jumps to around 20% by the fourth year.

Thanks to: Michael O’Connor & Stronger In Numbers

This is because 50% of migrants from the continent are single and childless, with a further 25% not single but also childless. This means that 75% of EU migrants will only be eligible for very low levels of in-work benefits, if at all.

By the time the referendum takes place, a single earner without children on the minimum wage will be entitled to less than £10 per month in tax credits.

Not even with a very generous leap of imagination can anyone believe that the loss of this amount would dissuade people from coming to this country.

The other problem with the brake is that the Government’s own policy to dramatically raise the minimum wage in the form of the national living wage will have the effect of abolishing in-work benefits.

By 2020, when the living wage is due to be £9 per hour, and the personal tax allowance has risen further, in-work benefits will be minimal. And the minimum wage in this country will be an even greater multiple of the average wage of the poorest EU members.

The Government has said that ‘no calculation has been done on how much the proposed brake will cut EU immigration’. This is hardly surprising given the number will be very close to zero.

Then there is the matter of Parliamentary sovereignty.

The primary reason that I believe Britain should vote for Brexit is not economic, it is political.

It is so that the United Kingdom, the first great liberal democracy of the modern era, the fifth largest economy in the world, can recover control of her own destiny.

The renegotiation does not call for any repatriation of powers. It offers no confirmation of Parliament’s sovereignty. All the Government has demanded is an exemption from ‘ever closer union’, and the Government’s proposed ‘red card’ system to block unwanted laws.

Given the ‘ratchet’ nature of the European Union, the exemption from ‘ever closer union’ is not worth the paper it is written on. And the ‘red card’ proposal is worth even less.

The ‘red card’ system only operates on draft laws, only works if there is a ‘subsidiarity’ argument, and needs the agreement 55% of EU Parliaments.

This is the much the same as the old ‘yellow card’ system, that was also unworkable and which William Hague previously claimed is too difficult to satisfy.

Just consider: a blocking minority in the European Council is 35%. If this 35% cannot be reached, then it is inconceivable that there will be simultaneous rebellions in 15 European Parliaments on the same issue.

The red card is not, on any interpretation, a parliamentary veto. It returns no power to Parliament, does not help us protect our national interests and offers no protection from EU lawmakers.

On the Government’s calls for greater competitiveness, there has not been a single year that has gone by without European council meetings concluding with rallying cries to cut regulation and increase competitiveness.

Yet year after year the regulatory burden increases and Europe’s competitiveness declines. No specific regulations have been identified to be culled. No pro-competitive measures have been unveiled.

There is no reason to think that President Tusk’s almost detail-less commitment to greater competitiveness will be any different to all the other commitments that have gone before.

In summary, the Government’s renegotiation boils down to a few vague measures that either won’t have any effect, or will change so little as to not be worth the effort.

The most common reaction from the press and the public seems to be, “is that it?”

We have squandered our only opportunity to gain any meaningful reform for Europe.

Given the disastrous direction of Europe, its 40 year long inexorable and irreversible trend to more centralisation, and the lack of meaningful change, in my view the safest option for Britain is to leave.

It is not just that exit from Europe is nothing to fear. For Britain to remain as a member of the European Union would be to bind us to an institution that is creating a slew of unnecessary risks, would be to forgo control of our own destiny, and to give up on real opportunities to improve the lot of our people.

Economic Consequences of Brexit

So given that the safe course for Britain is to leave, it is vital to set out how we will leave, and what sort of relationship we can expect once we do.

There are some who are nervous of laying out in detail how we see it playing out. I am not.

This is the biggest question we will face in a generation. It is our democratic duty to make the consequences clear. The options are very good ones. And you cannot beat something with nothing, even if that something is membership of the creaking edifice that is the EU.

In 2006 Professor Patrick Minford assessed that the net effect of the EU on costs and competitiveness was so detrimental that departure from it was likely to prove beneficial even if all the government managed to negotiate in Brexit was WTO terms of trade – ie. the minimum legally possible.

At the time I thought that was an optimistic view of Brexit. However, that was before I took a hard look at the numbers.

The starting point is to ask what benefits we derive from our membership of the EU, namely trade, investment and access to global markets.

It has long been claimed that membership of the EU increases trade, and with it wealth and welfare, among its members.

Well let us just assess how accurate that is.

Now understanding and explaining movements in trade is difficult. They can be effected by bank crises, oil shocks, global disruptions like the collapse of the Soviet empire, new members joining the community, new competitors and so on. The best way to assess whether we got an advantage from entering Europe is to compare our export performance into Europe against that of a comparable group of similarly developed competitor countries who did not enter.

This exercise has been done by Michael Burrage in an exercise for the Civitas think tank. He took the European export performance of the UK and measured it against the European export performance of a group consisting of America, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Norway, and Switzerland.

The three graphs below show this performance in three distinct periods. Before entry into the EU, then after entry in what you might think of as the Common Market period, and then in what might be termed the Single Market period.

Given that the stated intent of the Single Market was to improve on the trading performance of the Common Market, you would expect our performance to get progressively better in each graph. The actual facts are illuminating. Red is the UK, black is the OECD group.

Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas

Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas

Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas

The first graph shows how, prior to our entry into the European Community, we actually performed worse than our non-EU OECD competitors, at least until we were about to enter when we had a sudden sprint.

Then, as the second graph shows, once we were inside the Common Market, our trade with Europe performed better, as you would expect.

The final graph is the most telling. In the Single Market period our exports grew if anything slower than our OECD competitors, despite our membership. During the Single Market period, despite all the costs incurred, the treaties signed, the regulations implemented, despite all the controversies of the European project, our performance in selling to Europe was worse than our competitors outside the EU.

Why is this?

There are two possible reasons. One is that the burden of the Single Market bureaucracy handicapped us against our competitors. This is almost certainly true to some extent, but the far bigger reason is that during the common market period there were high external tariff around Europe.

Trade tariffs during the 1980’s and 1990’s were far higher than they are today, before they were reduced by the World Trade Organisation and its predecessor the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Our success in the 80s and early 90s was the result of being inside a trade protectionist barrier, and little else. That is now largely gone, and with it we are now at a disadvantage to our global competitors.

World Bank Data

Foreign Direct Investment

Another benefit that we have supposedly derived from our membership is increased foreign direct investment in our economy.

It is certainly true that at the beginning of the Common Market period there was a spike in foreign investment in this country.

However, since the barriers have come down we have received far less foreign investment than either Norway or Switzerland, both outside of the EU, even once we have accounted for their oil industry and financial services.

Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas

So there seems to have been no discernible benefits to our trade or to foreign direct investment.

The final supposed benefit of our membership is how the EU ‘increases our influence on the world stage’, and increases our ‘clout’, allowing us to secure more favourable trade terms across the world.

Put to one side how our adding our ‘clout’ has not improved the EU’s dreadfully weak foreign policy.

We can test out how well that ‘clout’ has served our interest if we look at the EU’s performance on trade agreements.

When negotiating trade agreements with other countries, the EU has to balance the interests of the 28 different member states. This has had dire consequences for the UK.

To start with trade agreements negotiated by the EU take a very long time to conclude. We still don’t have free trade agreements with China, India or the US. The talks with India have been ongoing for almost a decade.

Our interests are not well represented in trade negotiations. The majority of free trade agreements that have been successfully negotiated by the EU are with North African or South American countries, with far more historical and cultural links to Mediterranean countries than to us.

The only Commonwealth country to enjoy a free trade agreement with the EU so far is South Africa, and that has more to do with Nelson Mandela than the UK’s ‘clout’. Other than that the first will be Canada, which is just pending.

This is all a function of how marginalised Britain’s interests are within the EU. It is no surprise than we have been outvoted in the Council more than twice as often as any other country.

The consequence of this is that these trade deals are not tailored to our requirements.

Much has been made of how hard it would be for a single country to negotiate successful trade deals on its own. But if we compare the EU’s trade deals to those that Switzerland have negotiated, with its small population and limited global influence, then we see something interesting.

Thanks to Michael Burrage and Civitas

Switzerland have seen an increase in growth rates in trade as a result of two thirds of their free trade agreements. The UK has only seen an increase in growth rates in trade from one third of the EU’s free trade deals.

So little Switzerland, with its population of 8 million, is able to negotiate better trade deals for itself than the EU does on our behalf.

Does anyone seriously believe that Britain, the fifth largest economy in the world, would not be able to negotiate by itself at least as successfully as Switzerland?

Just as damning is that the majority of these trade agreements do not include services. Services account for over three quarters of all the UK’s economic activity. They have provided much of our economic growth in recent years, as well as most new employment.

Our creative industries, our financial services and legal services are some of the best in the world. It seems certain that they would be included in any trade deal negotiated by the UK.

So on trade, on investment, and on access to overseas markets the benefits we have supposedly derived from the EU are far less than commonly understood. They may well be negative.

As I said, I was initially doubtful of Professor Minford’s assessment that we would be better off outside of the EU irrespective of the EU’s response. But he is very likely to be right.

Those business groups such as Goldman Sachs and the CBI, who have warned of catastrophe should we leave, are likely to be wrong.

It is not surprising that these business are making the argument to stay in.

At the end of the day these businesses are arguing for their own, very narrow interest. Indeed, I think we should all raise an eyebrow at the tremendous concern that these companies are showing for our national welfare, given that at least six of Britain’s ten biggest multinationals pay no corporation tax at all.

Nevertheless, we should pay attention to their concerns. They have huge sunk costs in distribution and supply networks, and worry about losing access to existing EU markets. And whilst they are not job creators or particularly good innovators, they still represent an important component of our economy.

Thanks to University of Aston

These businesses can relax. There is no doubt that such access would continue in the event of British exit. No-one can reasonably say that the UK would cease to have access to European markets.

The worst case scenario is that the UK would revert to trade on a World Trade Organisation basis, with tariffs imposed on our exports into the EU.
WTO Trade Position

Thanks to Open Europe

Let us leave aside cars and food for the moment. Everything else has relatively small barriers, and these are almost certainly negotiable down to zero.

If Europe wants to stick to trading on a WTO basis, they are very badly positioned to do so.

Everyone knows that the balance of trade is in Europe’s favour.

ONS Data

We currently import £59 billion more from Europe than we export. After Brexit we would be Europe’s largest export market, worth £289 billion in 2014, larger than China.

To see our importance to Europe, you only need to walk down the street. More than a quarter of all cars sold in this country are Mercedes, BMWs, Audis or VWs. And those are just some of the German brands. We are Europe’s second largest, and fastest growing car market.

This negotiation will primarily be about politics, and our European colleagues pre-eminently concerned about their national interest.

We are too valuable a market for Europe to shut off. Within minutes of a vote for Brexit the CEO’s of Mercedes, BMW, VW and Audi will be knocking down Chancellor Merkel’s door demanding that there be no barriers to German access to the British market.

And while they are at it they will be demanding that those British companies that they own will have uninterrupted access to Europe. We are talking Mini and Rolls Royce, owned by BMW, and Bentley, owned by Volkswagen. Premium brands with healthy demand across Europe.

And this is not just German cars. The same will happen with Shell and Unilever in the Netherlands, EDF, EADS and the viticultural trade associations in France, Seat in Spain, and Fiat and the fashion designers in Italy.

The pressure from European companies for a free trade deal between the UK and the remaining member of the European Union would be huge.

We have far more to gain than we have to lose, while the opposite is true for the EU. People have spoken, wrongly, about 3.3 million British jobs being ‘linked’ to our membership of the EU. Well there are over 5 million jobs on the continent that are linked to trade with Britain.

Thanks to Daniel Hannan

Access to our market is more important to Europe than our access to theirs.

To put it bluntly, the most powerful country in Europe needs this negotiation to succeed to the tune of a million jobs, on cars alone. The second most powerful needs it to the tune of half a million jobs, on wine and cheese alone. The first few months may be hysterical, but the leaders of France, Germany, Spain, Italy Poland and the rest know that the way to lose elections is to destroy your own industries. That is a powerful advantage for us.

And then there are the absolute benefits that Britain would gain. Our food imports would be cheaper outside of the common external tariff. We would be free to reduce our regulatory burden, making our businesses more competitive. We would be able to negotiate our own trade deals, opening up new markets.

And then there is the City.

The prevailing thought seems to be that the City would be damaged should we leave the EU. This is extremely unlikely, and it would be perfectly possible to negotiate proper protection for any significant areas at risk.

There are two obvious examples where the City might gain.

TTIP, the upcoming EU-US trade deal looks likely to exclude financial services, due to a tiff between American and French film makers, and American concerns about having to recognise .

Any UK-US trade deal would not omit one of the UK’s most important sectors.

And then is the Financial Transaction Tax. Within the EU we would face the circumstance where French bonds sold in the City would have to have the tax charged on them, and then remitted to the French Treasury.

Outside the EU, the city would be free to work as before, such as trading in euro-denominated bonds, while ensuring that it is free of the threat of an FTT, as well as being free of all the other stifling European legislation.

And any action taken against an independent City would de facto be also against New York and Hong Kong, which would be too stupid for words.

In total, it is easy to see Britain could be better off out, even on such terms. And this is the very worst case scenario.

Some people have suggested that we should look to Norway, or to Switzerland, to see what terms we can expect once we have left.

The idea that we have to fit our future into some Procrustean bed created for far smaller countries is nonsense.

The conventional options are laid out in the table, with a reminder of what they involve. We do not need to disappear into the details – always a problem with discussions on Europe – but let me outline what we should take from them.

The first one, EEA membership, often called the ‘Norway option’, works well for Norway but is not really appropriate for a major power like the UK.

Sometimes pejoratively described as ‘government by fax’, the balance of power looks to be squarely on the EU side. The disparity is exaggerated – Norway is represented on 200 EU committees, it does not have to accept every ruling, half its financial contributions are voluntary, and many of the EU’s regulations are copied from other international organisations’ requests – organisations on which Norway is represented and we are not!

Nevertheless, as it stands this model would not work for us. To make it viable it would need an arbitration court (not the ECJ), a dispute resolution procedure, and a number of other institutional changes. It would be possible to design and even negotiate such a structure, but it would take much more than 2 years.

The Swiss option, EFTA membership plus a host of bilateral treaties, is the best starting place and is informative in many ways.

It is not perfect for us however. It incorporates ‘free movement of people’ for the moment, although there is a clash coming on that, after a Swiss referendum was carried in favour of applying an emergency brake – a real one this time!

However, understand the comparative negotiating position.

Switzerland is a small country surrounded by the EU. Its trade is absolutely dominated by the EU – over 62% of its exports go to Europe. It runs a large trade surplus, and it is not big enough to be a critical market for any EU nation.

The negotiation between the EU and Switzerland in the 1990s was marked by some hostility after it rejected EU membership, and yet it struck a decent deal.

The optimum aim for us would be similar, but without the free movement of peoples. That would not be on the table. Essentially we would be looking for a full scale free trade agreement. And it has just been done by another country.

If you want a model of how this would look, go on the European Commission website and look at the Canadian Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement that the EU has just struck.

It eliminates all customs duties, which the EU website excitedly describes as worth €470 million a year to EU business. A similar deal with Britain would save it 5 times that on cars alone.

This would be a perfectly good starting point for our discussions with the Commission.

At the same time these negotiations are going on Britain will need to undertake a massive programme of simultaneous negotiations to negotiate free trade agreements with target countries that will be key to a more global approach.

Trade Targets

If you read as many assessments of Brexit as I have, you can easily come to the conclusion that each side of the argument tends to get exaggerated. I am certain that the catastrophic predictions of the Europhiles are simply nonsense. That is why Toyota, Nissan, Airbus, even BMW, Opel and Volkswagen have now said that Brexit will not hinder their investments in Britain, sometimes in reversal of previous positions.

On the pro Brexit side, too, there are a range of estimates from modestly to dramatically better off. The difference here depends most upon exactly what we choose to do with the country and its new found freedoms. The greatest improvements will come if we grasp the opportunities for free trade with both hands.

That means immediately seeking Free Trade Agreements with the biggest prospective markets as fast as possible. There is no reason why many of these cannot be achieved within two years. We can pick up the almost complete agreement between the EU and Canada, and if anything liberalise it. We can accelerate our component of the TTIP deal with the USA, and include financial services.

Diverting our current contributions to the EU will help to smooth the transition period following the referendum.

The most effective policy would be to continue, in the short term, all of the EU’s current spending within the UK.

This means continuing to support agriculture, separate from the Common Agricultural Policy, as well as continuing research grants and regional funding.

But this would not come near to accounting for our total contributions – around £18 billion gross and £9 billion net.

We should find a way of improving the global trade performance of our economy. The companies that find it hard to export are the small and medium ones, for obvious reasons. They do not have the huge international sales and transport departments of the biggest companies.

We could afford to fund a new Board of Trade, dedicated to helping British businesses create new links to countries with which we achieve trade deals.

The funding would be available to set up an office in every major commercial centre and capital, completely separate from the Foreign Office, staffed with experts who know the language, the customs and the regulations and are on hand to help British businesses develop links in the country.

Imagine an 0800 number and an email address where a small manufacturer in Lancashire can call Shanghai or Mumbai or Sao Paolo, and find out in English how to negotiate the import regulations, find a freight forwarder, hire a warehouse, translate a brochure, the simple things that stop too many small businesses from operating abroad. They may be small companies, but this is not small beer: I am talking a billion pound project here.

We must see Brexit as a great opportunity to refocus our economy on global, rather the regional, trade. This is an opportunity to renew our strong relationships with Commonwealth and Anglosphere countries.

These parts of the world are growing faster than Europe. We share history, culture and language. We have family ties. We even share similar legal systems. The usual barriers to trade are largely absent.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that we are a trading nation with global horizons. This is undoubtedly true. So it is time we unshackled ourselves, and began to focus policy on trading with the wider world, rather than just within Europe.

We would also have the opportunity to reform our economy, pushing through the changes necessary to create a dynamic, modern economy. Competitive tax rates, a competitive labour market, and effective, rather than burdensome, regulation. After Brexit we can put all that right without asking Brussel’s permission.

The European Union was a noble vision. It was borne out of Europe’s history. A history of war, conflict, tyranny and destruction.

Two world wars ripped Western Europe apart. It is an entirely understandable, indeed an admirable, response to such horror to want to break down national barriers and increase bonds between peoples and countries.

Spain emerged from Franco’s tyranny. Portugal from Caetano. Greece shook off the rule of the Colonels. And after the Berlin Wall fell, whole swathes of Eastern Europe rediscovered democracy and liberty.

Faced with such a history it is entirely understandable that the European Union came into being. It is a profoundly peaceful project, dedicated to protecting democracy across Europe.

But this history is not our history. Britain has its own proud tradition of fighting tyranny, of protecting liberty and democracy both at home and abroad.

For us, Europe has always been about trade. For the continent, it is about so much more. This does not mean either side is wrong. But the European Project is not right for us. The Global Project is.

February 6, 2016
David Cameron – 2016 Statement in Copenhagen

Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Copenhagen on 5 February 2016.

Thank you very much Lars, it’s very good to be here in Copenhagen today with you. We have a very good relationship, a very good friendship.

Our discussions have focussed on 3 issues: on our bilateral relations, on EU reform, and on the migration crisis.

And I just want to say a few words on each.

Bilateral relationship

Our bilateral relationship is particularly close. We are firm NATO allies – indeed HMS Ramsey is taking part in a NATO exercise here right now.

We also co-operate closely on counter-terrorism and in the fight against Daesh.

And I saw for myself the bravery of Danish soldiers as our 2 countries served alongside each other in very close quarters in Afghanistan.

Trade in both directions between our 2 countries is worth £6 billion a year. And over 600,000 Brits visit Denmark annually.

We work very closely together in the EU. And again, as you’ve just heard with a similar outlook. We share a lot in common. Proud nations. But outward-looking.

EU reform

On EU reform, as you know, I’m working hard to secure reform in 4 areas – economic governance, sovereignty, competitiveness and welfare.

And on welfare, let me explain why the British people have concerns and what I’m trying to fix.

I support the principle of free movement and I greatly value the contribution that many make when they come to Britain.

But the challenge we’ve identified is the scale of movement we’ve seen from across Europe to Britain over the last decade and the pressure that has put on public services.

Now these are problems that we can share.

For example, I know as we’ve just heard that in Denmark you have concerns about paying child benefit for children not living here.

And that’s why the reforms I’m seeking can benefit other countries too.

I’ve now secured a commitment from the commission to address this.

So the text the Council has put forward shows real progress in all 4 areas, including on protecting the legitimate interests of non-euro member states, which of course is so important to Denmark too.

Now as Lars has just said, this deal must be legally binding. The Danish model – negotiated in 1992 – has set a powerful precedent for that. As the Prime Minister has just said, over 20 years later, it still stands.

But as I’ve said, there is still important detail to be nailed down if we’re to get a deal in February.

And that’s why the hard work continues.

Migration crisis

We’ve also discussed the Syria donors conference that I hosted yesterday with others in London.

And I want to thank your Prime Minister and the Danish people for the very generous pledge that you made.

I’m proud to say we brought together world leaders, we raised records funds and identified crucial long-term assistance through the creation of jobs and crucially the provision of school places for refugee children.

This will give those in desperate need real hope for the future. But this should only be the beginning.

The more we do to create the opportunity for people to stay in the region, the less likely we are to see them making the treacherous journey to Europe. A journey that has sadly resulted in so many deaths.

So we’ve had good discussions here today and I want to thank you Lars again for giving me such a warm welcome.

February 6, 2016
Nick Gibb – 2016 Speech on a Good Education

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, at Hild Bede College, Durham University on 4 February 2016.

Can I start by saying thank you for inviting me to come and speak to you today. It is a great pleasure to be back at my old college.

One thing that I miss enormously from my undergraduate days is the time to think, and the time to read. Ministerial duties permitting, I still try to carve out spare hours to enjoy a good book. Ever since becoming Schools Minister, I have been particularly entertained by passages in novels which address English schools.

Zadie Smith’s wonderful account of life in modern London, ‘NW’, features the protagonist Natalie Blake – an upwardly mobile Londoner who goes from her inner-city school to university, and then on to a successful career as a lawyer. Whilst seeking out a primary school for her son, she visits a medieval parish church which has been engulfed in the urban sprawl of north-west London.

A dedicated autodictat, we are treated to Natalie Blake’s stream of consciousness as she picks up and reads a leaflet in the church: “…present church dates from around 1315 … Cromwellian bullet holes in the door…”.

Natalie’s reading continues: “… the famous shrine of Our Lady of Willesden, ‘The Black Madonna’, destroyed in the Reformation and burnt, along with the ladies of Walsingham, Ipswich and Worcester – by the Lord Privy Seal. Also a Cromwell. Different Cromwell. Doesn’t say. This is where decent history GCSE-level teaching would have come in helpful…”.

On reading that passage, I wondered whether Natalie’s life is irretrievably held back by her inability to distinguish between Oliver and Thomas Cromwell? Perhaps not. But the situation described in this passage of the novel is indicative of a broader phenomenon: that the recipient of a core academic curriculum leaves school with an intellectual hinterland, which allows them to make sense of the world around them.

Since coming into government in 2010, our reforms to the A levels, GCSEs, and the national curriculum have focused on bringing a new level of academic rigour to English state schooling. And central to this mission has been elevating knowledge to become a central component of a good school education.

Had Natalie studied for the new reformed history GCSE, due to be taught from September 2016, she would have stood a better chance of knowing about both Oliver and Thomas Cromwell, thus having the knowledge to understand the historical significance of her parish church.

‘Knowledge’, I hear people gasp. ‘Surely education is about so much more than that. It is about creativity, problem solving, thinking critically, and inventing?’.

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly that a good education is about all those things. But each of them is dependent upon, and impossible without, a fundamental basis of knowledge about the subject in question. Put simply, a commitment to social justice requires us to place knowledge at the heart of our education system. And this is not a statement of opinion – it is a fact established by decades of research by cognitive scientists, as I shall soon explain.

It is an unfortunate fact, however, that many modern conceptions of education either ignore the importance of knowledge, or actively deride it. During the 1960s, it became fashionable amongst educationists to dismiss the accumulation of knowledge as a joyless anachronism: rote learning of unconnected facts, inflicted upon bored and unwilling pupils. School curricula were increasingly rewritten to focus not upon subject content, but upon skills and dispositions.

History became less about mastering the understanding of a period, and more about analysing primary sources. Foreign languages teaching moved away from learning grammatical structures and a wide vocabulary, and towards communication. And in maths, it was believed that memorisation of times tables and basic arithmetic at an early age could be bypassed by learning through real-life mathematical problems.

This philosophy endured and strengthened over the next half century, and had a marked effect on the quality of education that generations of children have received in Britain. For me, the crowning glory of this dumbing down was the 2007 rewrite of the national curriculum, which systematically expunged any mention of subject content, replacing it with references to ‘processes’, ‘concepts’, and with an overlay of ‘personal, learning and thinking skills’ such as ‘independent learning’ and ‘learning to learn’.

As Schools Minister, I have visited around 400 schools, watched thousands of classes, and seen countless examples of this philosophy in action. It always saddens me to see thrilling content of education, be it timeless literature, scientific wonders, or great historical events, being relegated to a backseat, so that these comparatively joyless ‘skills’ and ‘processes’ can come to the fore.

Now, I am sure that many here may be thinking back to their own recent education, and contending that you studied a core, subject-based academic curriculum at school. If that is the case, you should feel fortunate that you were part of a minority.

On entering government in 2010, we were concerned that nationwide only 31% of pupils were taking a GCSE in history. Only 26% of pupils were taking a GCSE in geography. Worse still, only 43% of pupils were studying a GCSE in a foreign language, down from 76% in 2000.

We saw that the majority of English pupils were not studying a combination of academic subjects which – up to the age of 16 – would be seen as entirely standard at most independent schools, and indeed in many foreign countries.

And even for those who did enter GCSEs in academic subjects, the examination content had been so watered down that it no longer represented a mastery of any given subject. A history GCSE could consist entirely of 20th-century topics; a religious studies GCSE could consist of just 1 religion, or very little religion at all; and around 90% of pupils entering the English literature GCSE delivered by 1 exam board answered questions on a single text: ‘Of Mice and Men’. Now, John Steinbeck is a great author – ‘East of Eden’ is my all-time favourite novel – but even I doubt this short novella was deserving of such overwhelming attention.

In addition, grade inflation had been allowed to diminish the value of our qualifications. From 2005 to 2010, the proportion of pupils achieving 5 good GCSEs increased year on year. But as Professor Robert Coe of this university showed, English pupils’ performance in international assessments and annual benchmarked aptitude tests showed no improvement at all.

This was the state of English education that we inherited on coming into government in 2010. Since then, our reforms have focused on raising the ambition of what pupils are expected to study at school, and putting subject content – which I believe to be the real joy of education – at the core of school life.

We have removed over 3,000 low-value qualifications from performance tables and introduced rigorous new standards for the technical and professional qualifications that remain.

We introduced the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) measure in 2010, which shows the proportion of pupils in a school being entered for a combination of GCSEs in English, mathematics, 2 sciences, history or geography, and a foreign language. Schools have risen to this challenge: the proportion of pupils entering this EBacc combination of subjects nationwide has risen from 23% in 2012 to 39% in 2015.

And due to a long process of examination reform which is only just coming to fruition, the examinations that children are taking are becoming more academically ambitious, not less. Since September, pupils have been studying the reformed English literature GCSE for the first time, including the study of both a 19th-century novel and a modern text. Instead of a strict diet of Steinbeck, pupils can read George Orwell and Jane Austen, Kazuo Ishiguro and Charlotte Bronte – and they will be reading the whole novel, not just extracts.

From September, the new history GCSE will be studied, which will supplement 20th-century global history with British depth studies, from the reign of King Edward I to the English Civil War and Restoration.

Our curriculum reforms also look to the future, as the school curriculum must adapt to incorporate the breakthroughs of the technological age. That is why we have introduced a new national curriculum for computing, which focuses on programming languages, computational thinking, and Boolean logic – making this country, I believe, the first in the G20 to do so. The old IT curriculum simply taught children to use programmes such as Microsoft Word: now, pupils are learning to code and create programmes for themselves.

This culture of increasing academic ambition is having a beneficial knock on effect for A level studies, where since 2010 there has been a 27% increase in pupil entries for further maths, a 15% increase in pupil entries for physics, and a 15% increase in pupil entries for chemistry.

Non-STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects are seeing similar increases at A level. Economics, up 29%. Religious studies, up 19%. Spanish and geography, both up 16%. Whilst for years, comments about ‘the youth of today’ have implied decline and disappointment, today’s youngsters will be better educated and better informed about the world than the generations preceding them.

In England, it has always been possible to secure a good education, through top comprehensive schools, grammar schools or independent schools. But it is socially disadvantaged pupils who have historically missed out, and found their life chances limited by the quality of education they received. Research by the Sutton Trust in 2014 showed that pupils eligible for free school meals who scored in the top 10% nationally at the end of primary school were significantly less likely to be entered for the EBacc than their wealthier peers who achieved the same level aged 11. Disadvantaged pupils – the very children most in need of an academic, knowledge-based curriculum – were the least likely to be given the opportunity to benefit from it.

It is the driving ambition for this government that a core academic curriculum should not be the preserve of a social elite, but instead the entitlement of every single child. Though there are some inequalities which schools cannot address, the unequal distribution of intellectual and cultural capital is one that they can.

But there remain many working within education who would challenge my assumption that a core academic curriculum is a valuable inheritance for all pupils. Such figures think it superfluous to know, for example, Oliver Cromwell from Thomas. I am sure many here will have seen the Royal Society of Arts talk by the educationist Sir Ken Robinson, now pushing 14 million views on YouTube. In his talk, he accuses the traditional, academic curriculum of being a relic of the 19th century, a ‘factory model’ of schooling, which squanders pupil creativity.

As his enormous popularity shows, Sir Ken Robinson’s views are superficially appealing. But I believe them to be profoundly wrong.

An educationist who has shaped my thinking on this more than any other is Daniel Willingham, professor of cognitive science at the University of Virginia. With reference to robust scientific evidence, he explains how the ‘thinking skills’ most prized by schools and employers – problem solving, creativity, inventiveness – are dependent upon considerable background knowledge.

You may suppose that ‘thinking scientifically’ is a discrete skill, that when learnt can be applied to any new context, but this is not the case.

To give one of the many examples that Professor Willingham cites, in one experiment, eighth-grade pupils in America were given 2 tasks. In 1, they had to manipulate a computer simulation to keep imaginary creatures alive. In another, the pupils had to evaluate how the surface area of swimming pools was related to the cooling rate of its water.

Students were consistently better at thinking scientifically on the first problem, rather than the second – something that the researchers attributed to pupils’ greater familiarity with the relevant variables. In general, American eighth-graders are better informed about health and survival, compared to volume, surface area and cooling rates.

And it is a well-known principle that great inventions are made, not through a moment of pure inspiration, but through analogical thinking. The ‘eureka moment’ of any great invention occurs when existing knowledge is brought to bear in new contexts: the novel application of what is already known.

Alexander Graham Bell’s first diagrams for the telephone made explicit reference to the biological structure of the human ear. George de Mestral invented Velcro through looking at the tiny hooks of the cockle-burs which stuck to his dog’s fur when he was hunting in the Alps.

This insight, that complex thinking depends upon background knowledge, can be applied to any subject of study.

It underlies our recent announcement that all pupils will be tested on their multiplication tables at the end of year 6, an announcement which was strongly opposed by the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers. She expressed the classic anti-knowledge view, suggesting that number recall is not necessary for understanding mathematical concepts, and arguing that children today can always look up their times tables on their mobile phones.

Such a position is called into question by 5 decades of research by cognitive psychologists, which shows that pupils and adults who are able to solve complex mathematical problems, also have strong recall of their times tables and basic arithmetic. This should not come as a surprise – it is far easier to simplify the ratio 21:63 when you instantly recognise that both numbers are divisible by seven.

In 2013, a controlled trial was carried out where 195 first grade pupils in America who were struggling with mathematics were given 16 weeks of specific tutoring where they practiced their number knowledge. The pupils were then tested on areas such as word problems, simple arithmetic and 2-digit calculations. Compared to the control group who received no such tutoring, these pupils had a statistically signification improvement in all 4 areas tested.

Number knowledge tutoring does improve maths ability and the repeated practice of simple arithmetic helps pupils to solve more complex mathematical problems. Yet some educationists still insist that such practices are old-fashioned and unpleasant for pupils, and impoverish the education that our pupils receive. Little better exemplifies the unwitting cruelty of good intentions.

The anti-knowledge – and, I would argue, anti-evidence – position in education debates has, in recent years, been bolstered by the advent of the internet. One well known educationist shot to fame a few years ago with a popular TED talk, extolling the ability of pupils to learn independently from the internet. He asked in his talk: ‘if there’s stuff on Google, why would you need to stuff it into your head?’, and added ‘I decided that groups of children can navigate the internet to achieve educational objectives on their own.’

However, according to research from academics such as Professor Hattie, web-based education has so far been a great disappointment in raising education standards. This is backed up by international evidence from the OECD which shows that increased internet use in schools does not lead to higher academic outcomes. The 5 countries where pupils spend the least time using the internet in school – Poland, Japan, Hong Kong, Shanghai and South Korea – are all amongst the world’s highest achieving jurisdictions in international tests.

Now, I am a great supporter of the intelligent use of computers in schools, but it is mistaken to believe you can outsource your memory to Google and still expect to think well. Say, for example, you are reading an article about nuclear energy, and come across an unfamiliar term: radiation. So you Google it. But the first paragraph on the Wikipedia article mentions another unfamiliar term: particles. So you look it up, but the definition for ‘particles’ uses another unfamiliar term: ‘subatomic’. The definition of which in turn contains the unfamiliar terms ‘electrons’, ‘photons’ and ‘neutrons’, and so on and so forth in an infinite series of google searches which take the reader further and further away from the original term ‘radiation’.

It is no more possible to think fluently on a given topic with the help of the internet, than it is to talk fluently in a foreign language with the help of a bilingual dictionary.

As cognitive psychologists such as Daniel Willingham explain, the interaction between long-term and working memory is foundational to how we learn. Our working memory can only cope with between 5 and 7 new pieces of information at once. All other information must already reside within long-term memory for new information to be assimilated, or else cognitive overload is the result. This is precisely why it is so difficult for a novice to learn new information by browsing articles on the internet.

Many of us here will have a rough understanding of the structure of atoms, and the science behind radiation. We have known about it for so long, that we tend to take for granted. That, and so many other bits of factual knowledge that we draw upon in our daily life, reside in our long term memory because once, in the dim and distant past, a teacher took the time to teach it to us.

From talking to officials and teachers who have visited schools in the Far East, it is clear that countries such as China and Singapore have a pronounced pro-education culture. But I worry that in the West, we can have a tendency to disparage the importance of school. People like to quote great intellects, such as Mark Twain, who stated ‘I’ve never let my school interfere with my education’, or Albert Einstein who purportedly, but probably didn’t, say ‘education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned at school’. I could not disagree more strongly: a good education is transformative, and I am sure everyone in this room can think of at least one teacher who changed the direction that their life has taken.

When I defend the merits of an academic curriculum, I am often assailed with the same argument: ‘I learnt all about algebra at school’, or ‘I learnt all about atoms and radiation, and have now forgotten the lot. What use has it been?’ To that argument, I would have two answers.

Firstly, when knowledge recedes from instant retrieval in our memory, it still remains logged in our long-term memory.

This is shown by a cognitive principle is known as savings in relearning. Say, for example, that 15 years ago you gain an A grade in GCSE Spanish, but have forgotten it all in the intervening years. Ten years later, you find yourself working in Spain. You will have to learn Spanish again from scratch, but will it be easier second time round? Your intuition may say yes, and it would be correct.

This phenomenon has been confirmed by researchers in Japan. Japanese missionaries, who had spent time doing working in Korea up to 45 years previously, were tested on Korean words. They were then made to learn those that they did not get correct. At the same time, they were made to learn pseudo-words to act as a control. The former missionaries relearnt the Korean words much more quickly, even though the initial test suggested they had been forgotten. This shows that a residue of knowledge remains in the mind even when it can no longer be recalled.

But even if you never relearn content learnt at school, I would maintain that such content was not learnt in vain. Perhaps you are now firmly attached to your English literature degree, and resent all of those hours spent learning about enzymes, ecosystems and eukaryotic cells for your biology GCSE.

But at the age of 14, would you really have been in a position to decide where to specialise? Being exposed to a broad and encompassing academic curriculum at a young age is a great privilege, as it enables you to make an informed decision about which paths you wish to pursue later in life.

On this point, I often consider the novel ‘Of Human Bondage’ by Somerset Maugham. In a story based on Maugham’s own difficult youth, which was full of failures and false starts, the protagonist studies German in Heidelberg, he studies to be a painter in Paris, he works as an accountant and a dressmaker, before finally realising his calling to be a doctor.

In his first anatomy lecture at medical school, the lecturer tells the young students: “You will have to learn many tedious things, which you will forget the moment you have passed your final examination, but in anatomy it is better to have learned and lost than never to have learned at all.”

I think that Maugham was onto something. What is true in anatomy, is true in wider life. The lecturer was, of course, paraphrasing Tennyson’s famous couplet in his poem ‘In Memoriam’, that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

As such phrases demonstrate, great poetry has a remarkable ability to etch itself into the conversation of society. Thomas Gray’s poem ‘Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard’ is, I believe, one of the most moving poems in the English language. Its verses leant the title to both Thomas Hardy’s novel ‘Far From the Madding Crowd’, and Stanley Kubrick’s film ‘Paths of Glory’.

Much like Natalie’s visit to a medieval church in ‘NW’, Thomas Gray’s poem was inspired by an evening looking at a graveyard, which sets his mind wandering. In particular, he regrets the potential that must be squandered when people are brought up in poverty and in ignorance – this was 1751, a long time before universal state education. As he puts it: ‘Knowledge to their eyes her ample page | Rich with the spoils of time did ne’er unroll’. Gray suggests that within the country graveyard, there may be ‘some mute inglorious Milton’, whose lack of a good education forever left his potential untapped: ‘Full many a flow’r is born to blush unseen’.

It is this thought that animates me most as Schools Minister: the generations of school children whose potential was squandered by schools which never taught them the rudiments of literacy and mathematics, which never challenged them to read timeless works of literature, which fobbed them off with so-called vocational courses when they were more than capable of benefiting from a core academic curriculum or high-quality technical and vocational qualifications.

Our education system should be an engine of social mobility, extending opportunity to every young person, ensuring that they reach their potential.

We have already made significant progress in building an education system which delivers on that vision. But we have further to go, and you could help realise that objective. I think the final message I would like to give today, particularly to the undergraduates in this room, is of the joys of being a teacher.

I have always hated that lazy saying, ‘if you can’t do, teach’. My mother was a primary school teacher, and I am a profound believer that teachers have the power to change children’s lives.

The thought that always strikes me when I see an inspiring teacher, communicating the subject that they love with warmth and passion, is what a remarkable and difficult craft effective teaching can be.

Great teachers are masters of their subject, who tell stories, impart wisdom and inspire curiosity. They motivate, cajole and guide pupils to surpass their own expectations of themselves. And evidence suggests that teaching is finally gaining the status it deserves in this country.

In 2010, 61% of trainee teachers had an undergraduate degree at level 2:1 or above. This year, that figure is 74%. Crucially, in 2012 the proportion of trainee teachers with a 2:1 or above surpassed the national average of that year’s graduating cohort for the first time. The annual initial teacher training census shows us that the proportion of new teachers holding a first-class degree is at an all-time high.

To ensure that the calibre of teachers keeps on improving, we have expanded schemes such as Teach First, which this year has sent over 1,500 teachers to work in primary and secondary schools serving low-income communities in every region of England. Teach First is now the single largest graduate recruiter in the UK, a remarkable achievement.

Since 2010, we have put teachers in the driving seat of our reforms to improve state education in England. We have given schools, and teachers, unprecedented freedom to teach as they see fit, without an overbearing education bureaucracy driving their actions.

To this end, we have removed 21,000 pages of unnecessary school guidance, reducing the volume by 75%. In addition, teachers who believe that they are able to create something better within the state education system than the status quo, are now empowered to do so through the free schools programme, which is providing outlets for idealism across the country.

We are working to create a teaching profession which recognises talent and ambition, as well as time-served. We have funded targeted programmes to develop excellent teachers for challenging schools, such as High Potential Senior Leaders, currently delivered by Future Leaders. For bright and ambitious young graduates, a career in teaching now offers rapid advancement opportunities to rival any other profession.

I genuinely believe that there has never been a better time to become a teacher. So if you love your subject, and want to share that love with eager young minds, then there can be few better careers for you than teaching. And if you do not, then at least be thankful of the enormous privilege it is to be the recipient of a good education.

February 6, 2016
Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech on Britain’s Young People

Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, at East Wintergarden, Canary Wharf, London on 4 February 2016.

I’ve had the privilege to live and work in different countries and cultures all around the world.

And I’m not exaggerating or being trite when I say that the UK is, by far, the best.

It’s the most open, the most tolerant, the most diverse in every way.

My parents had very little when they left Pakistan for Britain.

This nation has given them so much.

It gave them a place to start again.

The opportunity to work hard and be rewarded for it.

The chance to make good on that most basic of ambitions.

To secure for your children a better, more comfortable life than your own.

So I have a lot of love for my country, and I never take it for granted.

But I’m not blind to reality.

I know things are far from perfect.

That the playing field is far from level.

And that equality before the law, equality on paper, does not guarantee fairness in the real world.

I first noticed it when I was a kid, in a Bristol playground, when I saw that people who looked like me were treated differently by some people.

Called different names, told different things, presented with different expectations.

Today, 40-odd years later, it’s impossible to deny that our tolerant, diverse, open society still has a long way to go.

Just look at the statistics.

Only 6% of MPs are from ethnic minority backgrounds, compared to 14% of the people they serve.

More than half of FTSE 100 CEOs went to private schools, even though only 7% of Britons do.

Not even a third of Britain’s local councillors are women.

Young black men are more likely to be in prison than in a top university.

And if they do make it into higher education, they can expect to earn 23% less than their white counterparts after graduating.

The first Race Relations Act was passed 4 years before I was even born.

But after half a century of equal opportunities legislation, race, class and gender still play an immeasurable role in people’s life chances.

And even if we could click our fingers and eliminate, overnight, all the explicit and unconscious bias in society, it wouldn’t be enough.

So much in our society depends on networks, on experience and on expectations.

On knowing people who have been there and done that.

On having someone pushing you in the right direction, telling you what is possible rather than what’s not.

It’s the kind of support that many people in this country take for granted.

But for too many of us, it is still sadly lacking.

And that’s why UpRising is so important.

Because it creates those networks.

It provides the mentors that more privileged individuals have always had access to.

It gives young people a positive message, the support and encouragement that has too often been denied them because of who they are or where they come from.

Above all, it gives them the confidence to go out there and fulfil their potential.

To follow their dreams rather than limit them.

And that’s not just morally sound, it makes good economic sense.

As Business Secretary I know that the job descriptions of tomorrow have yet to be written.

But I do know for sure that, if Britain is going to remain competitive, we will need our workforce to be diverse, innovative, flexible and mobile.

And that’s a perfect description of UpRising’s alumni.

I’ve been particularly impressed by the Emerging Leaders Network (ELN).

It reflects, far better than the House of Commons or the City boardroom, what modern Britain is all about.

And I was delighted to hear that many ELN members have set up their own companies.

A nice boost for the long term economic plan!

So I’d recommend to any aspiring young leader that they become a part of this network.

And I’d urge all the organisations here tonight to support it.

Because I know what a difference it can make when you find the right champion, the right mentor, the right inspiration at the right time.

I know it because I was lucky enough to find 3 of them myself.

I was born in Rochdale, but I grew up in Bristol in a place called Stapleton Road.

A tabloid newspaper – one based in a tower just over there! – once dubbed it “Junkie Street”.

They said it was the most dangerous road in Britain, “a moral cesspit”.

So when I was doing my O-levels and thinking about what to do next, my school was very clear.

I should leave at 16 and go get a low-paid, low-skilled job.

Not because it was the best thing for me, or because I wasn’t clever enough to do A-levels.

But because that’s what kids from Stapleton Road did.

We didn’t do A-levels.

We didn’t go to university.

We certainly didn’t set our sights on the FTSE 100 boardroom or the green benches of Westminster.

In the end I had to change school in order to be allowed to carry on with my studies.

And it was at my new school, the brilliant Filton Technical College, where I met the first of my great mentors.

A guy named Stan.

Stan taught economics, and he was great at it.

But he didn’t just teach.

He inspired.

People raised eyebrows when I announced I was thinking of going to university.

Voices all around me were saying I should quit while I was ahead.

Leave school at 18 and get a job in an office somewhere.

They said there was no point applying to university, I’d only be disappointed and dejected when I got turned down.

That people like me didn’t go into higher education.

Not Stan.

He encouraged me, he supported me, he wrote me references.

Above all he made me believe in myself, gave me the confidence to apply and to succeed.

So, thanks to Stan, when I was 18 I packed my bags and headed off to university.

The first Javid to ever do so.

And that was my first great UpRising.

I loved Exeter University, thrived there.

I made good friends, lifelong friends.

I studied hard, I had fun, I learned more about myself and more about the world.

But after nearly 3 years, when I started thinking about what to do next, the naysayers surfaced once again.

I’d become fascinated by international finance…

I wanted to go to London and work for one of the big city banks.

And people told me not to:

“Don’t bother applying Saj…”

“People like you don’t work in the Square Mile…”

“You’ll only be disappointed…”

And in many ways they were right.

I applied to all 5 of the major British merchant banks.

I was rejected by every single one!

I remember an interview at Rothschilds, I was full of excitement.

I walked into the room, and was faced with a panel of 7 old, white men in pin stripe suits.

It was the living, breathing embodiment of the old boys’ network!

One of the first questions they asked – after whether I’d gone to a private of state school – was what my father did for a living.

So I said “He used to drive a bus, now he runs a little shop selling women’s clothes”.

The panel didn’t so much answer as make a noise: “Ewww….”

And at that point I realised I probably wasn’t going to get the job!

Fortunately there were some more enlightened minds around, and I got a job with Chase Manhattan on Wall Street.

It was a brilliant place to work, mostly because of my boss, an American woman named Cindy.

And she was my second mentor, the next person I have to thank.

She showed me the ropes, she invested a huge amount of time in my career.

She wanted me to do well and she made sure I did.

When people ask how I got to be a vice-president of Chase Manhattan at the age of 25, I can answer with 3 words: “Because of Cindy”.

So that was my second great inspiration, and my second great UpRising.

Now I’d always loved politics, I have my dad to thank for that.

And by 2005 I was thinking about switching careers.

About becoming an MP.

A Conservative MP.

And yet again those voices came whispering back.

“It’s the Conservatives, Saj, they’re the whiter than white party…”

“They’ve been around since 1834, they’ve only got two BME MPs and have never had a single Muslim one…”

“People like you don’t get selected…”

“Know your limits, don’t overreach, you’ll only be disappointed.”

By now I was getting used to ignoring such advice!

I found a wonderful association in wonderful constituency.

And in May 2010 I had the honour of becoming the Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove.

A constituency that’s more than 95% white!

I was as shocked as anyone!

I remember driving home after the count, I turned to my wife and said “Laura, in your wildest dreams did you ever think I’d actually become an MP?”

And she looked at me and said: “Darling, you’re not in my wildest dreams.”

Received wisdom for new MPs says you should keep your head down, learn the ropes, find your way around.

Park any thoughts of promotion until you’ve clocked up a couple of terms on the back benches.

And the usual suspects were there once again, warning that people like me shouldn’t be too ambitious.

But the third person I have to thank saw things differently.

You might have heard of this one, he’s called George.

George Osborne.

He gave me my first real break in government when, in 2011, he invited me to become his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

A year later I joined his ministerial team at the Treasury.

And I continued working with him right up until I joined the Cabinet in 2014.

So he was responsible for my third great UpRising.

I’m still in touch with Cindy, I saw her last year.

I don’t know what Stan’s doing now, or even if he’s still with us.

If anyone at Filton knows where he is I’d love to thank him in person.

And as for George… I hear he’s doing quite well!

I can honestly say that if I hadn’t stumbled across Stan, Cindy and George when I did, I wouldn’t be standing here today.

And I am absolutely committed to making sure that the next generation don’t have to rely on being that lucky.

Now I know the world of politics is a pretty partisan place at present.

The dividing lines between right and left are starker than they’ve been for some time.

And it’s certainly not fashionable for an MP to praise a member of the other team.

But you know what?

Some things are bigger than party loyalty.

That’s why I cannot praise Rushanara Ali highly enough for her work with UpRising.

Rushanara, thank you so much, what you’re doing is just incredible.

And that’s why I was delighted to see the Prime Minister recruiting David Lammy to lead a review of perceived racial bias in the criminal justice system.

Last weekend you will also have heard the Prime Minister saying that he wants to tear down barriers of race, class and gender at our top universities.

In 2014 just 27 black students entered Oxford University out of an intake of more than 2,500.

And only 1 in 10 of the poorest white working class boys enter higher education.

That’s why we’re introducing a new transparency duty for universities.

It will highlight those universities where representation of ethnic minorities and those from disadvantaged groups are low.

And it will help schools, colleges and higher education institutions identify where more work needs to be done.

Of course, such challenges aren’t limited to the education system.

So tonight I can announce that we’ve asked Baroness McGregor-Smith – Ruby to her friends! – to lead a review of the issues faced by businesses in developing BME talent, all the way up to executive level.

Ruby has been there and done that.

Born in Northern India, raised in West London, she has worked her way up to become CEO of a £2 billion company.

She’s seen for herself the challenges that young BME people face.

She knows all too well how your background can be a barrier in too many workplaces.

And she’s shown us all how it’s possible for an Asian woman to succeed in modern Britain.

Ruby is an inspiration, a role model, and I wish her all the very best.

Because we have a claim to be the most successful multiracial, multifaith democracy on earth.

But our success isn’t enough if there are young people who don’t feel like there’s a fair chance for them.

Take that guy in the video we just saw.

He could see the towers of Canary Wharf looming over his estate.

But they may as well be on a different planet for all the contact he had with the people who worked inside them.

You shouldn’t look at people like me or Rushanara or Ruby and say it’s amazing that we’ve succeed in spite of our backgrounds.

You should be asking why more people with our backgrounds haven’t made it this far.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, author of the Little Prince, once wrote that:

Building a boat isn’t about weaving canvas, forging nails, or reading the sky.

It’s about giving a shared taste for the sea.

We can ban discrimination.

We can pass legislation.

We can guarantee equal rights.

But that alone is not enough.

If we’re going to deliver the true equality that Britain’s disadvantaged young people deserve, we can’t just open the doors.

We have to let them know they are open.

We have to give them the confidence and the means to compete with their more privileged peers.

We have to give them a shared taste for the sea.

So I applaud the work being done by UpRising to make that happen.

And I’d urge everyone here tonight, and everyone across the country, whatever their politics, to play their part in making the UK a fairer, more equal place.

One where everyone can find their own Stans and Cindys.

One where what you can do matters more than what you look like.

Where everyone has the chance to experience their own UpRising.

Because the UK is the best country on earth, and its young people deserve no less.

Thank you.

February 6, 2016