Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2016.
I want to add to the very moving tributes to Jo. I got to know Jo after the 2010 general election, when she was elected to chair Labour Women’s Network, which she did for four years. She would regularly burst into my office with that extraordinary energy she had and tell me all that they were doing to help Labour women get elected to Parliament to give women a bigger voice in the party. So many of the Labour women here in this Chamber today who were elected in 2015 and who are so deeply mourning Jo’s loss were women whom, under Jo’s leadership, Labour Women’s Network helped and supported.
Not long after she had her son, she came to give me one of those regular briefings, and, of course, the baby came too—I remember it because she literally did not stop kissing him all the way through the meeting. When she had her daughter, she was still there for the women who were trying to become candidates—texting them support, phoning to commiserate if they did not make it, urging them to try again. Her feminism—her solidarity with other women—was a thread that ran through her and all her work in her community and for humanitarian causes. She always said to me emphatically that her children were her priority above everything. But there was no dividing line between Jo’s maternal heart and her great political heart. Her children will grow up to know what an amazing woman their mother was. She is such a great loss to our politics; and an irreplaceable loss to her family, to whom we send our heartfelt sympathy.
Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2016.
Today we mourn the terrible loss of our friend and colleague Jo, so tragically murdered as she went about her constituency duties last Thursday. The life has been taken of a truly exceptional woman, whose goodness and passionate dedication to humanitarian values has inspired us all. I knew her as a friend, but how unbearable must it be for those who mourn her as a daughter, sister, husband and, above all, as their beloved mum, whom they used to visit for tea each week in Portcullis House.
I first met Jo 10 years ago in London, when we marched against injustice in Darfur, and on two visits to al-Fashir in Darfur, where she helped develop a central humanitarian role for Oxfam. The Leader of the Opposition, as he then was, and I stayed there with her and other humanitarian workers and witnessed her crucial role for Oxfam in supporting women and children and securing water for thousands of refugees in the El Salam and Abu Shouk camps. She gave me the green wristband—I wear it still—to ensure that we remembered the desperate people caught up in what President Bush rightly described as a genocide. It is among her many friends and colleagues in the international humanitarian and development family all around the world, of which she was such a respected and experienced member, that she will be mourned and remembered as a staunch friend of the most desperate and deprived in our world and as a campaigner against injustice.
When she entered this House just 13 short months ago, she rapidly used her deep knowledge to champion the dispossessed. She was Labour to her fingertips, but restlessly dismissive of party political manoeuvring, which she saw as a barrier to progress. Making common cause with a crusty old Tory, she and I became co-chairs of the all-party Friends of Syria.
And she was brave: her energy and effectiveness were an inspiration. We invited ourselves to tea with the Russian ambassador in his London residence. With clever charm but steely determination, this five-foot bundle of old-fashioned Yorkshire common sense dressed him down for his country’s cruelty and cynicism in Syria. I do not believe the Russian ambassador will easily forget that visit.
I think there are many things Jo would want us to remember this afternoon. May I mention just two? I do not believe she would want this vile and unspeakable act to change the open and accessible relationship we enjoy with our constituents. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] All of us take the advice of our local police in protecting those who work with and support us. Thankfully, the record shows these attacks are as infrequent as they are disgraceful. Secondly, Jo would want us in this House to redouble our efforts to resolve the greatest catastrophe of our age: the crisis in Syria, where the lives of more than 11 million people have been ruined while the international community has shown itself disorganised, ineffective and supine.
I mourn Jo today as a friend and as a colleague, but most of all I mourn for her as a mother, whose two gorgeous children will now have to chart the shoals and eddies of life without the love and support of their wonderful, lovely mum.
Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP for Leeds West, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2016.
I stand here today to honour a friend and a colleague. Along with shock, anger and grief, I have very many fond memories of Jo. Jo and I knew each other for around 10 years. I have known her husband Brendan for longer than that: we first met at a Labour student conference about 18 years ago, and it was through Brendan that I first met Jo.
I remember Jo and Brendan coming round for dinner at my and my husband’s house in London and our visiting them on their boat—first in Ladbroke Grove and later in Wapping. I remember worrying that I had drunk too much wine early in the evening, until I realised that it was the boat that was swaying and not me.
I remember talking with Jo about her future shortly after I became an MP. She was thinking about standing for Parliament and spent a day shadowing me in my constituency of Leeds West, talking to constituents about their problems, campaigning with local party members and attending meetings. By the end of the day, a lot of people were not sure who was the MP and who was doing the shadowing. Jo had a way with people—a way of relating to people from all walks of life. She had a real way of doing that.
Jo’s main hesitation about a parliamentary career was her young family. She worried, as many of us do, about whether she could be a great MP and a great mum at the same time. But when the opportunity came up to represent her home seat of Batley and Spen, Jo felt a special responsibility to step up and do what she could for the place where she was born, grew up and went to school—the place that Jo called home.
Jo wanted to make the world fairer, more equal, more tolerant and more generous. We all have better instincts and deepest fears. Jo appealed to our better instincts—our sense that, as she said in her maiden speech, what we have in common is greater than what divides us.
On Friday morning, less than 24 hours after Jo was killed, I sat in a coffee shop in Batley just a few minutes away from where Jo had been murdered. A woman came over to me and said that she had not known Jo, but that Jo’s death had made her want to be a bit more like her—a better person, a better mother, a better daughter, a better wife. It is ironic that, having travelled to some of the most damaged, war-ravaged places in the world, Jo died so near to her home. But she died doing the job she loved, in the place she loved, representing the people she loved. Her mum and Dad said to me that Jo would not have changed a thing. She lived the life she wanted to live. And yet, in her Mum’s words:
“She had so much more that she could have done”.
Jo was struck down much too soon. So it now falls on all our shoulders—the woman I met in a Batley coffee shop, Jo’s friends, MPs, all of us—to carry on Jo’s work: to combat and guard against hatred, intolerance and injustice and to serve others with dignity and love. That is the best way we can remember Jo and all she stood for.
But lastly, let me say this. Batley and Spen will go on to elect a new MP. But no one can replace a mother.
Below is the text of the speech made in the House of Commons by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 20 June 2016.
We are here today to remember an extraordinary colleague and friend. Jo Cox was a voice of compassion, whose irrepressible spirit and boundless energy lit up the lives of all who knew her and saved the lives of many she never ever met. Today, we grieve her loss and we hold in our hearts and prayers her husband Brendan, her parents and sister, and her two children, who are just three and five years old. We express our anger at the sickening and despicable attack that killed her as she did her job serving her constituents on the streets of Birstall. Let me join the Leader of the Opposition in his moving words praising Bernard Kenny and all those who tried to save her. Above all, in this House we pay tribute to a loving, determined, passionate and progressive politician, who epitomised the best of humanity and who proved so often the power of politics to make our world a better place.
I first met Jo in 2006 in Darfur. She was doing what she was so brilliant at: bravely working in one of the most dangerous parts of the world, fighting for the lives of refugees. Her decision to welcome me, then a Conservative Leader of the Opposition, had not been entirely welcomed by all her colleagues and friends, but it was typical of her determination to reach across party lines on issues that she felt were so much more important than party politics. Jo was a humanitarian to her core—a passionate and brilliant campaigner, whose grit and determination to fight for justice saw her, time and time again, driving issues up the agenda and making people listen and, above all, act; drawing attention to conflicts in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; helping to expose the despicable practice of rape in war; her work with Sarah Brown on cutting mortality in childbirth; her support for refugees fleeing the war in Syria. Quite simply, there are people on our planet today who are only here and alive because of Jo.
Jo was a committed democrat and a passionate feminist. She spent years encouraging and supporting women around the world to stand for office, long before she did so herself. When she was elected as an MP, just over a year ago, she said to one of her colleagues that she did not just want to be known for flying around the world tackling international issues, but that she had a profound duty to stand up for the people of Batley and Spen, and she was absolutely as good as her word. As she said in her maiden speech, Jo was proud to be made in Yorkshire and to serve the area in which she had grown up. She belonged there, and in a constituency of truly multi-ethnic, multi-faith communities, she made people feel that they belonged too.
Jo’s politics were inspired by love, and the outpouring and unity of the tributes we have seen in the past few days show the extraordinary reach and impact of her message, for in remembering Jo we show today that what she said in this House is true—and I know it will be quoted many times today:
“we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
This Wednesday, as the Leader of the Opposition said, would have been Jo’s 42nd birthday, and there will be a global celebration of her life and values with simultaneous events in New York and Washington, London, Batley, Brussels, Geneva, Nairobi and Beirut. She should of course have been celebrating her birthday by hosting her traditional summer solstice party. It reminds us that behind the formidable professional was a loving and fun mother, daughter, sister, wife and friend, with a warm welcoming smile and so often laughter in her voice. Jo brought people together; she saw the best in people and she brought out the best in them.
A brave adventurer and a keen climber, Jo was never daunted. When most people hear of a place called the Inaccessible Pinnacle, they leave it well alone. Not Jo. She did not just climb it; she abseiled down it, and did so despite a bad case of morning sickness. It was her irrepressible spirit that helped to give her such determination and focus in her politics, too. A Conservative colleague of mine said this weekend:
“If you lost your way for a moment in the cut and thrust of political life, meeting Jo would remind you why you went into politics in the first place.”
There have been so many moving tributes in the past few days, but if I may I would like to quote someone already mentioned—the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern):
“We mourn your loss, yet know that all you stood for is unbreakable. We promise to stand up, even though we are broken. We promise that we will never be cowed by hate.”
May we and the generations of Members who follow us in this House honour Jo’s memory by proving that the democracy and freedoms that Jo stood for are indeed unbreakable, by continuing to stand up for our constituents, and by uniting against the hatred that killed her, today and forever more.
Below is the text of the speech made in the House of Commons by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, on 20 June 2016.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tributes to Jo Cox.
Last Thursday, Jo Cox was doing what all of us here do: representing and serving the people who elected her. We have lost one of our own, and our society as a whole has lost one of our very best. She had spent her life serving and campaigning for other people, whether as a worker for Oxfam or for the anti-slavery charity, the Freedom Fund, as a political activist and as a feminist.
The horrific act that took Jo from us was an attack on democracy, and our whole country has been shocked and saddened by it, but in the days since the country has also learned something of the extraordinary humanity and compassion that drove her political activism and beliefs. Jo Cox did not just believe in loving her neighbour; she believed in loving her neighbour’s neighbour. She saw a world of neighbours and she believed that every life counted equally.
In a very moving tribute, Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International, said:
“Her campaigning on refugees, Syria and the rights of women and girls made her stand out as an MP who always put the lives of the most vulnerable at the heart of her work.”
Her former colleague at the Freedom Fund, Nick Grono, said:
“Jo was a powerful champion for the world’s most vulnerable and marginalised.”
She spoke out in support of refugees, for the Palestinian people and against Islamophobia in this country. Her integrity and talent was known by everyone in this House, and by the community of Batley and Spen, which she proudly represented here for the past year. It was that community in Batley and Spen that brought her up, as well, of course, as her wonderful family, with whom we share their grief today.
Her community and the whole country has been united in grief and united in rejecting the well of hatred that killed her in what increasingly appears to have been an act of extreme political violence. We are filled with sorrow for her husband, Brendan, and young children. They will never see her again, but they can be so proud of everything she was, all she achieved and all she stood for, as we are, as are her parents, as is her sister and as are her whole wider family.
Jo would have been 42 this Wednesday. She had much more to give, and much more that she would have achieved.
I want to thank the heroes who tried to intervene. Bernard Kenny, a 77-year-old former miner, saw the need and ran to Jo’s aid. He was stabbed and taken to hospital. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing Mr Kenny a speedy and full recovery—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Many shopkeepers and bystanders also tried to help, and administered first aid to Jo and Bernard, and there were also the police officers who made the arrest and the national health service paramedics who were on the scene so quickly.
In her maiden speech last year, Jo said:
“Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration…While we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 674-75.]
We need a kinder and gentler politics. This is not a factional party political point. We all have a responsibility in this House and beyond not to whip up hatred or sow division.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Prime Minister, and Rose Hudson-Wilkin, our wonderful chaplain, for accompanying me to the vigil for Jo last Friday at the Priestley statue in the centre of the lovely town of Birstall. We—all of us—were moved by the unity and warmth of the crowd brought together in grief and solidarity.
I have been very moved by the public outpourings since her death—the hundreds of letters and emails we have all received in solidarity with Jo’s family in their hour of grief—and by the outpouring of charitable donations to causes close to her heart, the White Helmets, HOPE not hate, and the Royal Voluntary Service. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I held a vigil outside our town hall, one of hundreds of vigils attended by tens of thousands of people right across our land who are so shocked by what has happened and want to express that shock and grief.
I also want to thank the other parties in this House, which have offered their sympathy and support at this very difficult time. We are united in grief at her loss, and we must be aware that her killing is an attack on our democracy. It is an attack on our whole society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) wrote recently,
“Jo’s life was a demonstration against despair”.
In Jo’s tragic death, we can come together to change our politics, to tolerate a little more and condemn a little less. Jo’s grieving husband Brendan said:
“Jo believed in a better world and she fought for it every day of her life with an energy, and a zest for life that would exhaust most people.”
Today, we remember Jo’s compassion and her passion to create a better world. In her honour, we recommit ourselves to that task.
Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May to the House of Commons on 15 June 2016.
The final Justice and Home Affairs Council of the Dutch presidency took place on 9 and 10 June in Luxembourg. The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire) attended the justice day and I attended the interior day.
Justice day (9 June) began with a progress report on the draft directive on the supply of digital content. The proposal aims to advance the growth of cross-border e-commerce in the EU by setting common rules for governing the supply of digital content.
The Council then discussed four files in which the UK does not participate: matrimonial property regimes; registered partnerships; the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); and the directive on protection of the Union’s financial interests. Ministers agreed general approaches on both matrimonial property regimes and registered partnerships, enabling negotiations with the European Parliament to begin. Ministers secured broad conceptual support on a number of issues relating to the internal functioning of the EPPO, and on the directive on protection of the Union’s financial interests, Ministers did not reach agreement on a number of compromise options. The presidency then presented a progress report on negotiations to extend the European criminal record information system (ECRIS) to third country (non-EU) nationals. The Immigration Minister intervened to support the principles behind the ECRIS proposal and to emphasise the importance of finding a suitable technical solution to data sharing.
Over lunch, the presidency facilitated a discussion on compensating victims of crime, focusing on improving co-operation and sharing best practice. The Commission committed to look at practical steps to support improved co-operation.
After lunch, the presidency sought a steer from Ministers on work to improve criminal justice in cyberspace. The Immigration Minister intervened to agree the importance of tackling cybercrime and to stress that best use should be made of existing tools.
Under any other business, the Commission informed Ministers that a code of conduct to combat hate speech online had been developed with the IT industry and the Commission will present an impact report to Council in December. The presidency also updated Ministers on outcomes from the recent EU-US JHA ministerial meeting on 1 and 2 June. Finally, the incoming Slovakian presidency presented its justice and home affairs priorities. The A points were then adopted.
Interior day (10 June) began with a discussion on the draft weapons directive, which relates to control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. Supported by other member states, I intervened to welcome the progress made, but underlined the potential to go even further in ensuring appropriately high standards of regulation. The presidency concluded that there was support for a general approach and trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament will now begin.
The Council then turned to the presidency’s data sharing road map. The road map contains a number of practical proposals aimed at enhancing data sharing between member states to enhance security and law enforcement, which reflects in particular proposals made by the UK and France. I fully supported the presidency’s prioritisation of this work to enhance internal security across Europe, particularly the sharing of data between Schengen and non-Schengen member states. Several member states supported both my position and the objectives and actions set out in the road map.
The discussion on the fight against terrorism focused on a paper from the European Counter Terrorism Coordinator (EUCTC) which made a number of recommendations to advance work to tackle the terrorist threat. I welcomed the role of the EUCTC in supporting member states in tackling terrorist finance, online radicalisation and firearms, and stressed the clear difference in mandate and competence between the work of Europol and that of the member state-driven Counter Terrorist Group (CTG). The CTG, which has provided a multilateral platform to enhance co-operation between independent European intelligence services, also gave a presentation.
The Council noted a report on the implementation of the renewed internal security strategy and the presidency updated Interior Ministers on the outcomes of the EU-US JHA ministerial meeting on 1 and 2 June, and the outcomes from the high-level meeting on cyber security on 12 and 13 May.
Over lunch, there was a discussion on migration through the central Mediterranean route and the Commission presented its communication on external migration. After lunch, the Council discussed the implementation of the EU-Turkey statement of 18 March. Supported by the Commission, I intervened to ensure a continued focus in the Council on the effective and full implementation of the statement by leaders.
The Council then discussed proposals concerning the relationship between the Schengen states and Georgia, Ukraine, Kosovo, and Turkey. There was an exchange of views on these proposals and the Council did not agree a general approach on Georgia. The UK does not participate in these measures.
Next on the agenda was the European border and coast guard, where the presidency provided a progress update on negotiations with the European Parliament. The UK does not participate in this measure.
The Commission then presented its proposals to the Council on reform of the common European asylum system. Finally, the incoming Slovakian presidency presented its justice and home affairs priorities to Interior Ministers.
Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, in Liverpool on 13 June 2016.
Good afternoon everyone.
It’s great to be here in Liverpool.
It’s great to be at the International Festival of Business (IFB).
And it’s great to be kicking off the Blue Skies sessions.
Looking at the weather forecast I fear this is the only place we’re going to get blue skies today!
We’re here to talk about the future of manufacturing.
And it seems kind of appropriate that we’ve gathered next to the China and India suites.
Because within the past couple of decades both China and India have rapidly established themselves as major global manufacturers.
And that presents something of a dilemma for more traditional manufacturing countries like the UK.
Because developing nations often have a lot of factors on their side.
Cheaper labour, lower standards.
Raw materials on site.
And, sometimes, governments that are focused on economic success at the expense of workers’ safety and wellbeing.
Faced with that, it’s hard to see how British manufacturers can possibly compete.
We have higher standards.
Higher wages too, both secured over many years of development and growth.
And while we’re rightly proud of that, it translates into higher costs.
The way I see it, we have 2 choices.
We can get into a race to the bottom with the developing economies.
We can cut corners, costs and quality in order to get by.
Or we can do what Britain has always done.
We can innovate.
We can do things nobody else can do.
We can take our skills and our experience and our history and our heritage and apply it to the challenges of the future.
And make no mistake, the future is coming and it is coming fast.
Whether you call it Industry 4.0 or the Fourth Industrial Revolution, it’s impossible to deny that the way in which we live and work is undergoing a seismic shift.
People often talk about how nobody would have predicted a company the size of Kodak suddenly disappearing from view.
But the biggest changes aren’t going to be in what we manufacture so much as how we manufacture.
Where we manufacture.
Even who does the manufacturing.
From 3D printing to virtual factories to the internet of things, the old order is being turned on its head.
And I don’t want to see British manufacturers just responding to the changes and challenges the future will bring.
I want to see them shaping that future.
But before I get on to that, let me set one myth to bed once and for all.
I often hear people say that the UK is no longer a manufacturing nation.
That we simply don’t make things anymore.
That’s utter nonsense.
Our service economy has been an incredible success story and now accounts for something like 80% of British jobs.
But manufacturing is still going strong.
It contributed £168 billion to our economy last year.
In the past 10 years it has grown 2.5 times faster than the rest of UK PLC.
The sector spans almost 90,000 companies and provides work for literally millions of people.
And it accounts for half of all British exports.
The world wants what we’re making.
2015 was the most successful year ever for our £23 billion aircraft industry.
Delivery numbers are up 44% since 2010.
A new car rolls off a British production line every 20 seconds, with 80% destined for export.
So around the world people are flying on British-built planes and driving in British-built cars.
And the Australians are even throwing British-made boomerangs!
That’s right, the world’s biggest boomerang manufacturer is based in south-west London.
And our Aussie friends provide one of their biggest export markets.
Although there’s a chance they’re just exporting one boomerang that keeps on coming back!
But the world doesn’t just want to passively consume what we’re selling.
The world wants in.
Since 2010, foreign direct investment in British manufacturing has risen by 60%.
Now, I used to work in international finance.
And I know that investment on that scale is a massive vote of confidence in a country’s economy.
It’s not all plain sailing.
Unprecedented conditions in the international steel market have had a devastating impact on too many British communities.
But alongside the steel industry, the unions and politicians of all parties, we’re doing all we can secure the future of UK steelmaking.
That work is beginning to bear fruit.
The British Steel brand has returned to Scunthorpe thanks to Greybull Capital.
And bidders from around the world are keen to take over Tata’s remaining British assets.
People know that British steelmakers are the best in the world and they’re willing to invest serious money in the sector.
So British manufacturing has a proud history, and strong present.
And, most importantly, it also has a bright future.
As I said, that future doesn’t lie in a race to the bottom with developing economies.
It lies in using our unique capability to shape the future of a sector that we did so much to create 2 centuries ago.
That’s something we’re already excelling at.
Around 70% of all UK research and development (R&D) spending takes place in manufacturing.
This is a sector that’s used to pushing boundaries, used to experimenting.
Used to turning the blue sky thinking of today into the must-have products of tomorrow.
And I’m one business secretary who’s determined to play an active role in making that happen.
Now it’s not the job of government to come up with the ideas.
That’s not something politicians and civil servants are generally very good at!
And it’s certainly not our job to try and pick winners – to look at one company or one individual and throw taxpayers’ money at them to try and secure success.
But what we can, should, must do, is create the environment in which modern manufacturing can thrive.
That’s why, later this year, our national innovation plan will provide a clear framework for ensuring the UK is at the forefront of the fourth industrial revolution.
But our support goes way beyond that.
We’re also encouraging long-term investment and a dynamic economy with open and competitive markets.
That includes cutting corporation tax to 17%, slashing a further £10 billion of red tape, and investing £6.9 billion in the UK’s research infrastructure up to 2021.
We’re also making sure our young people have the skills they need to fill the jobs of tomorrow, for which job descriptions have not yet been written.
We’re developing digital skills capability.
We’re reforming the computing science curriculum.
We’re establishing a National Institute for Coding, and the new National College for Digital Skills.
And Higher Apprenticeships and Degree Apprenticeships are also helping to develop the higher level technical skills that manufacturers need.
Our High Value Manufacturing Catapult is helping smaller businesses access the R&D technology and knowhow they need in order to grow.
In its first 5 years of operation, around £300 million has been invested through the Catapult.
And in the past year alone it has worked with more than 1,600 private sector clients on over 1,300 projects.
Manufacturing is now a truly international industry, so this work doesn’t begin and end at the UK border.
I’m personally working with the World Economic Forum to shape the focus of its work on the fourth industrial revolution.
The G20 has established a new industrial revolution task force.
And the UK is leading an EU-wide project on the digitisation of European industry.
Now it’s no coincidence that the IFB is being held here in Liverpool.
This is a city whose reputation is built on creativity, innovation, and reinvention.
Whether it’s in industry or music or football, Liverpool is known throughout the world for doing things differently.
The Albert Dock, right next door, was revolutionary in its day, the first of its kind.
Today it’s home to Tate Liverpool and The Beatles Story, both showcases for groundbreaking creative talent.
Up on Prince’s Dock you can find the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership.
It has a vision to make the city region a global manufacturing hotspot with the smartest networks, talent, technology and investment.
So Liverpool is synonymous with innovation.
And if businesses are going to thrive in the global markets of the 21st century they have to embrace that spirit themselves.
That’s what this session is all about.
Over the next few weeks, each day will end with ‘Blue Skies’.
It’s an opportunity to hear from some of the great creative thinkers from all kinds of different fields.
The people who, as George Bernard Shaw put it, “dream things that never were; and say ‘why not?’”
There’s the first sailor to complete a non-stop solo circumnavigation.
The politician who ended apartheid.
The extreme adventurer who’s all set to become the fastest woman on water.
Thinkers and dreamers, sure.
But most important of all do-ers.
They’re the kind of people you’re going to be hearing from at Blue Skies.
And they’re the kind of people I want to be hearing from as Business Secretary.
My door is always open to blue sky thinkers who can help British industry thrive in the years to come.
Because Liverpool has long been inspiring the world.
And in the 21st century I want Britain’s manufacturers to do the same.
Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Cabinet Office Minister, at the National Digital Conference held on 15 June 2016.
It’s a pleasure to be back.
Today’s conference is all about how we make it to the future and given that theme it would be easy to start with a riff on the marvels of modern technology.
I could talk about blockchain, 3D printing, artificial intelligence or data science. I could talk about how I drove around my constituency in an autonomous electric car this weekend, going for miles without steering or touching the pedals.
But I’m not going to do that. Because everyone here knows that digital is the easy part of digital transformation.
The hard part is the transformation.
It’s easier to write new software than to rewrite an organisational culture. Easier to upgrade to the latest device than to upgrade to the latest skills. Old technology can be replaced but old habits die hard.
Put simply, innovation is easy but change is hard. You can see the truth of that both in the economy as a whole and within organisations, including government.
Today I want to touch on both. Let’s take the economy first.
Digital technology is inherently disruptive. And on the whole, technological disruption is good for our economy.
Consumers benefit from better, faster, more convenient, more responsive services, at lower cost, often for free.
At the same time, digital platforms have created whole new marketplaces, in which millions can trade on their time and talent.
The single parent who tops up her earnings selling hand-made jewellery on Etsy. The Uber driver saving up to open a restaurant – they too are beneficiaries of disruption.
Some say new technology is displacing workers. Throughout history people have said that technology would.
The problem for the techno-pessimists is that real wages are rising and employment is at record levels.
In fact, the more technology we have, the more productive we become.
This cuts costs and allows people to spend more of their money on other things, creating new jobs.
The problem for optimists like us is that people don’t live life in the aggregate. Nobody experiences the economy as a whole.
The challenge of technological disruption is that its effects are spread unevenly.
Just ask travel agents, checkout assistants, HMV employees or Blockbuster franchisees.
My argument is that we won’t capture the full benefits of all this innovation if we don’t help people to manage the change.
That means continuing to invest in basic digital skills, delivering on our commitment to support one million people to get online, driving forward our massive expansion of apprenticeships and getting all young people earning or learning.
It means tilting policy towards pay rises – as we have with the National Living Wage – so everyone has a chance to share in a growing economy.
And where a concentrated area is hit by a big change, like a sudden factory closure, it means being prepared to intervene: working with business to redeploy and retrain workers, working with local government to bring new business in.
So that’s the challenge for the macro-economy: supporting the disruptors and the disrupted, getting to the future without leaving anyone behind.
Now I want to turn to the challenge for our own organisations. Because to fully exploit the transformative potential of new technology we too have to change the way we work.
And as in the wider economy, change can be hard.
I want to set out three guiding principles, based on what we’ve learnt from the last six years of digital transformation in central government.
Start small
My first principle is to start small, because the best way to convince the naysayers is to build something that actually works.
The Government Digital Service (GDS) was deliberately conceived as an insurgent start-up bolted onto the Civil Service, not some grand Ministry of Technology.
And rather than tell GDS to go out and disrupt the entire public sector, we gave them a specific set of high volume transactions to transform.
The idea was to demonstrate clearly to the rest of government not just the technology, but the underlying methodology that made it work.
Agile working, user research, A/B testing, rapid iteration, data-driven feedback, real-time service improvements and so on.
Its delivered 20, usually, brilliant digital public services, and it’s also proved our point.
Now digital transformation is going from start-up to mainstream. GDS has been backed with £450 million in the Spending Review to drive forward the next phase of transformation over this Parliament.
Right across Whitehall and the public sector, digital transformation is a core part of everything we’re trying to do.
So that’s my first principle: start small and scale-up.
My second principle follows from the first, and it’s that digital transformation ultimately is business transformation.
Digital transformation is business transformation
No one here needs to be told that this agenda is not about replacing paper forms with websites.
Rather, it’s about recognising that you can’t redesign a service without redesigning the organisation delivering it.
Before GDS, government technology was really just contract management. Digital services were designed, built and delivered by other people, working towards inflexible contracts that locked us into ageing IT.
Now, by contrast, we’ve brought our tech architecture, project management and delivery in-house.
It means we control and understand our own technology, and, where we do procure through the digital marketplace, we have the knowhow to be an intelligent customer.
It also means we can do the common stuff once, then share it with everyone.
Tech has traditionally functioned in departmental silos with limited interoperability.
Yet we all have the same users and, ultimately, the same budget, so it makes much more sense to think of our technology as belonging to a single system.
It’s why we’re now building platforms for common activities, like GOV.UK/Pay for payments or GOV.UK/Notify for status tracking, which can be reused across government.
Crucially, this also means we can work to deliver more complex services, involving multiple departments, in a way that is seamless and straightforward from the point of view of the user.
In future it will be possible to set up a business easily online, for example, or tell government once that you’ve changed your address, or register for the government’s free childcare offer once.
This new way of doing things requires new skills.
We need more specialists for sure, but we also need the Civil Service as a whole to add digital to their skillset.
So our Digital and Technology Fast Stream is developing the tech-savvy leaders of the future, with a cohort of almost 100 graduates currently working right across government.
At the same time, we’re working with our most senior civil servants to ensure they are equipped with the skills, tools and vocabulary to lead this transformation.
But for me the most important aspect of business transformation is transforming the way we think about delivery.
In the past, government would launch a new service and then not think about it much until the minister was hauled up in front of the Public Accounts Committee to explain why it wasn’t delivering as planned.
Instead we’re now moving towards a culture of continuous incremental improvement, where service managers adjust the service in real-time, in response to user feedback.
Take GOV.UK/Verify, the new service allowing you prove who are online.
It’s now live, and already over half a million identities have been verified securely online. GDS have carried fortnightly user research, including in their user lab and in citizens’ homes as they use the service.
This has led to improvements that mean a new GOV.UK Verify user is almost twice as likely to successfully complete the process than they were a year ago.
Underpinning any transformation is the central role of data.
Which brings me onto my third point. We increasingly need to think of the role of data in delivering public services.
Data as a public service
Let’s take a very topical example: voter registration.
When the register to vote service crashed last week, within two hours we knew exactly what was wrong and we could fix it – because we had the data.
Each of our digital services has a page on the GOV.UK performance platform, allowing us to see how many people are using the service at any one time.
This meant we knew exactly how many people had been trying to get onto the system when it crashed.
Armed with this information, we were than able to make a case for emergency legislation to give people more time to register.
We’ve spoken for many years about evidence-based policymaking, but modern data science is making this a reality.
Interlinking disparate datasets is allowing for radically more targeted interventions.
Combining tax and education data allows us to see which courses deliver the best employment outcomes, for example.
The Digital Economy Bill will take this further forward, to ensure that shared information can improve public services reduce fraud and improve the statistics we rely on.
This is done in a way that supports privacy and strengthens trust but also ensures that society benefits from the opportunities of data science.
With a sensible data-driven approach, it will be possible, for example, to provide automatic discounts off the energy bills of people living in fuel poverty.
Or to deliver more timely interventions for troubled families dealing with multiple government agencies.
And where we’ve published government data in an open, usable format, people have discovered applications for it that we simply couldn’t have imagined.
Travel apps, property valuation software, food hygiene ratings for online takeaway platforms, footfall simulations for retail businesses, a service to check whether your bike’s been stolen – these are just a small fraction of the applications that have so far been engineered by third parties using government data.
Not only that, but the traditional accountability function of data has also been enhanced by digital technology.
Anyone can see our performance platform, how often a service is used and how it much costs per transaction.
In a data-driven world, our effectiveness as a government is a matter of fact rather than opinion.
So these are the principles that guide our approach to digital transformation:
– start small then scale up
– treat tech as the means rather than the end
– treat data as a public service in its own right rather than an afterthought
Yes change is hard, but in the end it’s worth it. The most exciting thing about technology is that it frees people up to focus on the most fulfilling parts of human experience.
We can digitise the drudgery and make public service more rewarding.
We can automate work and humanise jobs.
This is a huge agenda and a huge opportunity to deliver for the citizens that we serve.
Below is the text of the speech made by Dennis Skinner, the Labour MP for Bolsover, in the House of Commons on 23 April 1975.
I have not taken part in the referendum debate or, on a more general note, in the Common Market debate for some time. The arguments have been made over and over again. They have changed a little.
I wish to say a few words as a result of having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) speak about the way in which the European Movement is organising its funds. It is able to do what it is doing in sending letters to various bodies, particularly big business, because, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a unique situation. But we are attempting to conduct it along the lines of the normal general or local election techniques, and, haphazard though it may be, the people will expect, and they have every right to expect, that all the devices and methods used in a General Election will be used in this campaign. Already we are witnessing, as evidenced by the letter to which my hon. Friend referred, the way in which corruption and bribery can take place on a pretty grand scale.
One could argue that for some time people have been flown to Brussels and Strasbourg to try to win favours and influence people. One could equally argue that that is not in an election situation and to that extent it matters little. However, my impression is that, because the procedures laid down are not clear or as fundamentally as clear as in a General Election, this kind of practice will take place even after the Bill becomes law.
Therefore, the kind of capers in which the last Prime Minister indulged when, in halcyon days, he trotted round the marginal seats will pale by comparison with the way in which the media—and I refer to television, apart from the large national daily and weekly newspapers, which are at one on this issue—will combine to ensure that, if there is any chance of the people looking as if they will take Britain out of the Common Market, every means is used to convince them that what they are doing is wrong.
That is why I support the amendment, though not in the most forthright fashion, as I usually do—not that I am enamoured by the prospect of using taxpayers’ money for this purpose but because the campaign is so obviously unequal.
Some of the damage might be repaired if the amount granted to both sides were to be raised. However, no matter how much the taxpayer granted to the anti-Common Market side we could never match either in financial terms or in any other terms the amount of brainwashing and propaganda which are now taking place and which will continue to take place throughout the referendum campaign.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) Will the hon. Gentleman deal with a suspicion that I have about the real reason why he is using such strong language? It seems that the anti-Europeans, who forced the device of the referendum on the country, now fear that they will be defeated by it and thereby hoist by their own petard. The more hard core of them are now preparing excuses for failure and are using words such as “corruption” and “bribery” and accusing the media of brainwashing the public and are laying the foundations or preparing the way for another unconstitutional device.
Mr. Skinner I shall for my own perhaps eccentric and personal reasons continue to hold my views, whatever the result. They are not necessarily the reasons held by others on these benches. What concerns me is the point I am leading up to. In the course of the past couple of days I have had brought to my attention a letter which is somewhat dissimilar to that which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West but which provides clear evidence of the way in which the Commission will try to influence, bribe and corrupt not only the British people who will cast their votes but those within the media who have the opportunity, power and influence to get their message across to an even greater degree.
The letter is headed Diplomatic and Commonwealth Writers Association of Britain”. It has been sent to members only, but some kind person from the Gallery sent it to me. The letter says: The Commission of the European Communities. A very attractive offer of a visit—all expenses paid—to the EEC in Brussels has been made by our friend and colleague, Michael Lake. It is open to all full members of the Diplomatic and Commonwealth Writers Association. The facility begins with Lunch on Wednesday, May 21, 1975. I would guess that by that time the Bill will have become law.
I know a little about illegal practice, not necessarily corruption. I have looked at the Representation of the People Act on many occasions, long before I came to Parliament. I know what it is like to be riding in a vehicle that has a PSV licence and to be hounded by the police and by the Opposition over a period of many months because of a very slight misdemeanour of which I was eventually proved to be innocent. I know what it is like.
In this referendum it is not a question of riding in a vehicle that has a PSV licence and taking part in a local election campaign. This is a matter which, according to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and certainly according to hon. Members opposite, will settle the destiny of Britain, today’s children and future generations for ever and a day. There is some difference of view about that matter, but I will not go into that now.
The lunch which is to take place at 20 Kensington Palace Gardens—the Communities’ headquarters—will result in the party that takes part in this event being flown to Brussels followed by a discussion and a return on Friday, 23rd May. That is the kind of forum that is set for the people who will be writing all these glorious articles about why the British people should stay inside the Common Market. It is no different from the one that was organised by that company of which we used to hear so much, Clarkson’s, before it went bankrupt. It had all the writers that it could get hold of flown out to its holiday resorts in order that they could come back and write their articles in the nation’s Press and try to brainwash—
The Chairman Does the hon. Member mind if I deal with my point of order first? I hope the hon. Member from Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will now relate his argument more to the question of the amount of money to be given in aid.
Mr. Skinner You are a very kind man, Mr. Thomas—
The Chairman Mr. Renton, on a point of order.
Mr. Renton Thank you, Mr. Thomas. My point of order was the same as yours.
Mr. Skinner I have been listening to what has taken place in this debate, Mr. Thomas, before you came into the Chair, and I am answering many of the points which have been made in the debate. What I was saying in the analogy that I was drawing recently was that this is a device by which the British Press managed to get their point of view across. I have no doubt that unless what is happening is brought to the attention not only of the House of Commons—that matters little—but of the British people generally, it will continue unabated and at a pace which we have never experienced before. This referendum campaign is so unique, and people will think that they have got the licence and the opportunity to do what they like. Coupled with the kind of references made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West to the granting of tax relief—[Interruption.] Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered my hon. Friend, but I have the impression that the answer my hon. Friend read tonight, and which he showed to me earlier, is not as conclusive as some of us would like. Indeed, many of the Chancellor’s answers on these tax matters cannot be accepted because he is not the man who in the end will deal with the points that have been raised.
Mr. Ridley Why is the hon. Member complaining about one-sidedness in this matter? After all, the Trades Union C. Congress went to very great expense in inviting Mr. Shelepin here—
The Chairman Order. References to Mr. Shelepin are a long way from the point.
Mr. Skinner I do not wish to comment on the hon. Gentleman’s intervention except to say that there has been some talk of us doing our best not to get involved in personalities in this campaign but to concentrate on the policies which divide us. I believe that that is what we must attempt to do. These irrelevancies and red herrings which have been thrown about are not matters with which we should concern ourselves.
I wish to stress that in view of the sum of the disclosures we have heard, we are bordering very close to what could be described as standing four square against Sections 99 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act. Section 100 states, in respect of treating—and this refers to the letter which I read earlier— A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election”— and we must assume that this relates to the campaign— directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment or provision to or for any person—
(a) for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting; or
(b)on account of that person …”—
The Chairman Order. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman had finished reading that. He must relate the argument more directly to the amount of aid to be given.
Mr. Skinner On one side of the argument there is evidence to suggest that money is being used to try to influence people’s votes in the referendum. I am describing the way in which, as set out in the Representation of the People Act, such infringements can result in corrupt practices being proved. In respect of treating, this is conclusive. Therefore, it directly relates to the question of how much money should be allocated by the taxpayer to see that it is a fair fight.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead) Perhaps I may assist my hon. Friend on the matter of the letter inviting journalists and writers to Brussels. The European Commission may be wasting its money and ours. My hon. Friend will recall the well-known doggerel: You cannot hope to bribe or twist, Thank God, the British journalist. But seeing what he will do unbribed, There’s no occasion to.
Mr. Skinner My hon. Friend makes a better job of the argument than I do. I was just concluding paragraph (b), which says—
The Chairman Order. The hon. Gentleman need not continue to read it, because we are dealing not with how money is spent but with how much is to be contributed. The amendments are in clear language. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his argument to the contribution that shall be made.
Mr. Skinner The people who sent out the letter to which I have referred may well consider that the £125,000 apiece is enough, on the basis that they have plenty more. With respect, that is relevant to this argument. Therefore, we must ensure, whatever happens throughout the rest of this week and when the Bill becomes law, that the referendum is fought along the lines of General Elections or local government elections. Otherwise, many people will feel considerable doubt about whether it was a fair and balanced fight, in which each side had an opportunity to express its views through the media and elsewhere.
We believe that already one side has tremendous amounts of money at its disposal, even to the extent of having money from the taxpayer through the various grants made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, and possibly in tax relief. We believe that the balance is tilted to one side and that the only reparation we can make is to ensure that we obtain more money for our side, to reduce the present vast gap.
Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Farron, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 6 June 2016.
Thank you all for being here. And thank you David Cameron, Harriet Harman and Natalie Bennett for what I think you’ll agree is an unprecedented – and, frankly, pretty unlikely – showing of cross-party consensus.
We are about to face the most important decision of a generation, and one that that will determine the future of our country.
And the fact we’re all here today shows how important we all feel this is. I know, in Europe, Britain can thrive. Together we will be a stronger and more prosperous nation, creating opportunity for future generations, respected all over the world.
I believe in the positive case for Europe. But I cannot stand back and allow the leave campaign to guide us towards economic ruin, because of a campaign based on lies.
How betrayed will people feel if they vote to leave Europe based on the reasons presented by the Leave Campaign, only to see in the weeks, months and years that follow that those reasons were utter, invented rubbish?
You won’t find me saying this about the Prime Minister very often, but what he has just said is absolutely right.
It’s not just that the Brexit camp won’t say what sort of deal we’ll get – and what rules we’ll have to play by – it’s that they will literally say anything and everything.
The list of countries they have claimed we can emulate – Norway, Switzerland, Albania, Iceland, Turkey, Ukraine and all the others… A reminder of how absurd the Leave campaign has become, and that I really need to crack on with my Euro 2016 Panini sticker album.
But seriously, nowhere is Leave campaign’s con-trick more pronounced than when it comes to public spending.
Their big red bus says you can save £350m a week, and then spend it all on the NHS. A complete con. And they’re still driving it round despite the figure being rubbished by every economist under the sun.
And it’s not just the NHS this made-up, magic money is spent on. This dossier shows they have made two dozen different spending commitments.
Want more money for schools? You got it. Roads, railways, houses. Yep. Do you want to pay junior doctors more, increase welfare spending and slash the deficit all in one go? Of course you do.
You can even have more submarines if that is your thing.
How about abolishing prescription charges? Cutting your council tax by more than half? Slashing VAT – and your energy bills too while they’re at it.
They have even said they’d spend millions and millions filling in Britain’s potholes.
All of which sounds very tempting, especially that last one – filling in potholes is a cause very close to every Liberal Democrat’s heart.
But, if you add all these things up, it would cost £113bn.
One hundred and thirteen BILLION pounds.
Another clear as day example of one of their cons was just this week. On Saturday, they said by 2020, we can give the NHS a £100 million per week cash injection. On Sunday, they said we wouldn’t leave the EU until after 2020.
So where would this magic money come from?
They are literally making it up as they go along, trying to con the British public along the way.
And that’s not the end of it. Every major financial institution – from the Treasury and the Bank of England to the IMF, the OECD and the World Bank – not to mention just about every credible economist in the country, thinks leaving Europe will hurt Britain’s economy.
A few days ago the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that it would leave us up to £40 billion short in the public finances by 2020 – and that’s before all that extra magic spending.
It is a black hole at the heart of their spending plans of more than £150bn.
So they’ve got to come clean to the British public. Will they now disown these commitments and admit this is fantasy economics? That these are lies? That they add up to one, big massive con-trick?
That’s why the four of us are here together today.
There’s not much we all agree on, but we agree on this:
It’s time for the Leave campaign to come clean about what will really happen if we leave the European Union.
