Blog

Keith Simpson – 2016 Speech on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Below is the text of the speech made by Keith Simpson, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in Westminster Hall on 10 May 2016.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) in his place, replacing my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is away on maternity leave.

The aim of this short debate is to draw to the attention of colleagues and the public the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Apart from the maintenance of war cemeteries and memorials of two world wars, the commission is crucial to all the commemorative ceremonies for the first world war. I should declare an interest at the outset: I am one of two parliamentary commissioners represented on the commission. The other is the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is in the Chamber and hopes to catch your eye, Mr Streeter.

In many respects, we are enclosed by history. Today, for example, at this very moment 76 years ago, the Labour party, meeting in conference, was deciding whether or not to support Winston Churchill as the leader of a coalition Government. One can imagine the atmosphere among parliamentary colleagues on 10 May 1940, with Nazi armies invading the low countries and France. We are here to look at another anniversary. Almost 99 years ago, on 21 May 1917, the Imperial War Graves Commission, as it was called then, received its royal charter, which established its remit and gave it sole responsibility for graves and memorials to the then dead of the imperial British forces in the first world war.

Nothing was preordained about the establishment of what became the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Its creation was largely the work of a formidable, motivated man called Fabian Ware—a man who had been working with Lord Milner in South Africa, who was an intellectual, who became editor of The Morning Post and who had a wide range of friends and contacts in the British establishment. In 1914, too old to serve, Ware commanded an ambulance unit in France and became aware of the sheer numbers of casualties, on a scale that Britain had never faced before. The British armed forces lost approximately 3,500 men at the battle of Waterloo —one of our biggest losses. We had suffered about 80,000 casualties by Christmas 1914.

Ware was concerned about what was going to happen to the dead, and he persuaded the general headquarters of the British armed forces in 1915 to establish the Graves Registration Commission, which he was to run. He made certain that the dead were buried or commemorated as near as possible to the battlefields where they fell and, most significantly, not repatriated. There was enormous pressure, particularly from the parents or families of reasonably wealthy people, to bring—where they could be found—the bodies of their sons, husbands or cousins back home. That was going to be impossible on such a scale. He was only too aware that many of the dead, when they could be found, had no means of identity whatsoever.

During the course of the first world war, and in the establishment of the royal charter, Ware negotiated with allied and enemy countries for land where the dead were to be buried. Most significantly of all, he established that there was going to be no distinction by rank. Crudely speaking, pre-Victorian army officers got individual burials; other ranks were dumped in a great big pit. The only distinction was going to be by religion—Christian, Jewish or Islamic. That would be marked on the headstone. Of course, those of the Islamic faith would have their own cemeteries carefully laid out.

There was a lot of opposition to that, mainly from the families, and there were heated debates here in Parliament at the end of the first world war. Ware outmanoeuvred them all. In the establishment of what we all know now as the cemeteries and memorials that are so distinguishable for the British and Commonwealth experience, he used a whole series of distinguished experts: Edward Lutyens; Herbert Baker; Reginald Blomfield; Rudyard Kipling, who had lost a son, Jack, and was deeply traumatised, and who established much of the terminology of the commemoration; and Gertrude Jekyll, who advised on the landscaping and the gardens.

The final thing I will say about Ware is that he placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that it was the Imperial—we would now say Commonwealth—War Graves Commission. It was not just about the British; it was about the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Canadians, the South Africans and, above all, the Indians, who made the biggest commitment to our cause in two world wars. I am part of the commission, and our work today is supported by member Governments of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and, above all, the United Kingdom. Each of those countries contributes a sum in proportion to the number of graves it has. The United Kingdom contributes 78%, which comes from the budget of the Ministry of Defence. The annual budget is approximately £70 million, which works out at roughly £40 per commemoration per annum.

I pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of the commission’s approximately 1,300 staff—most of them gardeners and masons, and most of them locally employed—who care for this vast range of memorials and gardens. Many of them are the second or third generation who have worked for the commission. Many of them continued to maintain those sites under the most appalling difficulties in the second world war, and more recently in war zones. I will come to that in a minute.

The work of the commission is vast. We commemorate 1.7 million individuals and maintain their graves and memorials at more than 23,000 locations in 154 countries across the globe. That is a vast scale. We also have to pay tribute to the host countries. Some, such as Belgium and France, willingly gave land. Others are the inheritors of the old British and French empires. We have to imagine, at times, how we would feel if we had vast cemeteries within our constituencies of Egyptian, Iraqi or Nigerian graves from a war that had been fought over our territory. There is an important sensitivity here.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

My right hon. Friend rightly references the symbolism and sensitivity of some of those cemeteries. There is also the extraordinary Commonwealth war graves cemetery in Gaza, which I think I am right in saying has been tended by the same Palestinian family since it was put up, now presumably almost 80 years ago. It contains Christian, Muslim, Jewish and even Hindu memorials. It occupies a large amount of land in a tiny place that is very short of space. During Operation Cast Lead, an Israeli tank broke through the walls and damaged some grave stones. Eventually, construction materials were allowed back there, and the first thing they were used for was the reparation of those grave stones. It is a great testament to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which he serves so well.

Mr Simpson

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which leads on to the fact that, even as we speak, the commission is working in Iraq—it used to be able to work in Syria—rebuilding cemeteries that have been destroyed by either war or ISIL/Daesh extremists, who see them merely as symbols of Christian occupation.

Indeed—if I may use what the Army used to call a visual aid—I have two photographs taken in Beirut. The first, from the 1980s, is of the cemetery almost completely destroyed; the second is of the cemetery lovingly rebuilt to the previous standard. We should remember, as I am sure all colleagues do, that at the end of the day we are dealing with individuals, either with a known grave or with their names on a giant memorial like those at Ypres or Thiepval. The memorials are for the families and also, now, for people who merely have an interest—I know that many colleagues are fascinated by the people behind the names.

We should also remember—in the words of Michael Caine, not a lot of people know this—that more than 300,000 Commonwealth servicemen and women who died in the two world wars are commemorated here in the United Kingdom. Their 170,000 graves are to be found at over 13,000 locations. In addition, some 130,000 missing Navy, Merchant Navy and Air Force casualties are commemorated on the great memorials at Chatham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Tower Hill and Runnymede. A forgotten element is that nearly 30,000 men and women of the Merchant Navy, unsung heroes and heroines, were killed. Most naval people, of course, have no known grave.

Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)

May I commend the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission at Shorncliffe military cemetery just outside Folkestone? It contains the graves of 550 servicemen. Of those, 471 are from the first world war and 300 are the graves of Canadian servicemen. The Canadians’ sacrifice is commemorated by the people of Folkestone on Canada day every year.

Mr Simpson

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The old military historian in me makes me think that the Canadians are the least boastful of the British empire and Commonwealth contributors to the two world wars. We tend to forget that one in four members of Bomber Command were Canadians and that most British Army battalions in Normandy had Canadian officers and NCOs on loan because we were so short of experienced people.

Here the commission is trying to do a lot of education through local communities and schools. Many of the 130,000 people who are remembered in the United Kingdom are not in major cemeteries. Sometimes they are at the end of a municipal cemetery, but many are in the cemeteries of largely Church of England graveyards. For example, my county, Norfolk, has 471 graves from two world wars and my market town of Reepham has three graves, two from 1918 of Reepham-born soldiers, who probably died from Spanish influenza, and one from 1941 of an RAF volunteer reserve sergeant from Great Yarmouth.

I commend the commission, which, over the last five or six years, has established a really superb website, which is idiot-proof. I am an analogue man, as my son frequently reminds me, but I can use it. People can look there for individuals and locations, and it is possible for colleagues who are interested to trace people who may be buried in their constituencies.

The commission is supported by the United Kingdom Government. I pay tribute to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We have to work closely with the Department to help to deliver on many of the anniversaries—for example, the Jutland anniversary at the end of this month and that of the battle of the Somme at the enormous memorial at Thiepval at the beginning of July. The commission provides equal support to our Commonwealth friends in Australia and New Zealand who served at Gallipoli, our Canadian friends who served at Vimy ridge and our Indian friends who served on the western front.

The commission goes out of its way to provide a high-level service all year round. Because people are impressed by the quality of that service, maintaining it is very arduous. People expect to go to a cemetery and to see the lawns beautifully tended with all the horticulture laid out. There is a massive programme to replace some 12,000 individual gravestones a year as they are degraded by wind, weather, sand and sometimes military action.

We will shortly remember two big battles. One is Jutland at the end of this month. The memorials to Jutland are on land, although the overwhelming majority of seamen who died went down with their ships. Some were injured and brought to the United Kingdom but died in hospital. There is the memorial at Thiepval for the battle of the Somme. The ceremonies on 1 July are but the entrée—the battle lasted another three to four months. It is symbolic because that was the day people think the British Army suffered its greatest losses: some 19,000 men were killed in action and another nearly 40,000 wounded. In fact, we suffered worse casualties on 21 March 1918 when the Germans broke through, but that has been lost as part of our memory.

When people go to look at the Somme cemeteries, as many colleagues have, it is not just about the individuals who are buried there; it is about the reflection of British and empire society at the time. People look at the regimental cap badges and the memorials to the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders. The overwhelming number of soldiers who served on the Somme were volunteers, either pre-war regulars or Territorials. A number, not all, were in pals battalions. They were recruited from factories and businesses in Sheffield, Exeter, Glasgow and Liverpool and wore those parochial British badges with great honour. It is important that the commission delivers the best quality of remembrance at the commemorations, recognising that its cemeteries and memorials are usually the centrepiece for the commemorations that follow.

The commission is doing a lot of continuous work dealing with what we call the memories of forgotten soldiers, particularly and rightly, the role of the Indian armed forces in two world wars. A pilot project, “India Remembers”, is important not only in its own right but because we are only too well aware that young people under 18 may not know what happened. I remember the first world war, not that I was there; my two grandfathers talked to me about it. However, if you are 18, it is as far away as the wars of the roses. We must recognise that many children from the Indian subcontinent whose parents now live in the United Kingdom are detached from the contribution of the Indian armed forces in two world wars, not least because those forces were seen as much as a weapon of repression as armed forces defending democracy. A lot of work is rightly going into recognising that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does not take a view on the interpretation of history. It tries to present the facts and the opportunities for others to look at.

Behind every headstone and name on a memorial is a person. I was lucky enough, in the early 1970s, to be able to go on visits with first world war veterans and then, in the late ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, with second world war veterans. When I was working with the British Army, it used battlefield tours—or, as they were known, bottlefield tours—as a teaching method. One that I have never forgotten was to Normandy in 1995-96, when we took a whole series of middle-ranking young, thrusting Army officers on a battlefield study of the breakout from Normandy. We had two veterans with us. Major Bill Close, MC, was a pre-war private soldier, commissioned on the field of battle, who participated in Operation Goodwood, the attempt to break out through the German lines at Caen. At the time of the visit, he was aged about 88. Also with us was Oberstleutnant Freiherr Hans von Luck, who had been commanding a Panzer Grenadier regiment and trying to kill Bill Close outside Caen.

The most moving aspect was when we took those two old gentlemen, first, to the British Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery. Bill Close stood in front of the graves of his tank crew, who had been brewed up—11 tanks were brewed up under him in the course of the second world war—and we could see that he was looking not at gravestones, but at men’s faces. Half an hour later, we went to the German cemetery, where Hans von Luck stood in front of the grave of his adjutant, whose wedding he had been to in Paris; he was recalled to arms when the allies attacked. Once again, he was looking at that.

I therefore commend the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Frequently, its staff are the worker bees. I know that they are appreciated by hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, but I thought it right and proper that we should draw attention to the work of the commission at this time of anniversaries.

May 11, 2016
Harriett Baldwin – 2016 Speech at City Week

Harriett Baldwin

Below is the text of the speech made by Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the Oval in London on 10 May 2016.

Tomorrow I will have been the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for exactly a year. So it is great timing to be here at City Week on my first anniversary as the City Minister.

It’s a job I’m very proud to be doing. I have the privilege to be minister for industry that directly employs over a million people with jobs around the country, is worth around 7% of our GDP, and contributes over £60 billion in tax.

Over 2 million people are employed indirectly, with over two-thirds of the jobs outside the M25.

So when I first took up the role last May, I was determined that this industry should be strong and healthy with excellent standards of conduct, and play its part in the UK’s economic recovery to the full.

I had 4 main aims for the industry.

I wanted it to be an industry that was strong and stable.

One that could compete with the best financial centres in the world.

One that provided the best possible services to people at every stage of their lives.

And one that moved on and learned from mistakes made in the past, and earned the trust of the public once again.

Well it has only been a year, but I think together we’ve made some genuine progress on all of these aims and I’d like to talk through some of my own personal highlights over the last year.

Firstly, we’ve definitely taken some real strides in helping this industry become more stable and secure in preparation for whatever the future may bring.

Sound financial regulation is a key part of that and just last week, we received royal assent on the Bank of England Act which further empowers the Bank of England to lead the way on this and work with us in the Treasury to make sure we are fully prepared for any unforeseen shocks.

We’ve also raised the bar for the standards of staff conduct in the industry with our Senior Managers and Certification Regime– something which the Act will make sure all authorised financial services firms are delivering.

And through our recent reforms, we’re helping small and medium sized firms across the UK get better access to finance – and from a lending market which is far more diverse and competitive.

I have a strong belief that ensuring the future strength and success of this sector relies and depends upon us fully realising the potential of women in this industry.

In fact, that’s not just a belief. The OECD have estimated that equalising the role of men and women in the labour market could increase GDP by 10% by 2030.

So I’m hugely proud of our work on this over the past year – and I must thank Jayne-Anne Gadhia, CEO of Virgin Money, for the review she did on this which led to our Charter for Women in Finance, which already has some of the biggest financial firms in the business signed up.

And I’d urge anyone here today who isn’t signed up to it, to go away and look into doing so.

Another priority for me was for the UK to remain the most competitive financial centre in the world. Which is why I was delighted when the Global Financial Centres Index ranked us number 1 last month – again.

We have a strong legal system, skilled workforce, excellent professional services, a language used for business across the world, and a good time zone.

But we know we cannot afford to be complacent in such a highly competitive industry.

That’s precisely why we re-launched the Financial Services Trade and Investment Board last year.

It’s a partnership between government and industry which looks at what more we can do to keep that number 1 spot and keep delivering jobs and growth across the UK.

The board has certainly been busy, focusing its attention on seven different priority initiatives which have high potential for growth – such as investment management, insurance, capital markets or technology.

Another focus for the board has been forging deeper links with key world economies like the US, India and China. In fact one of my favourite moments last year was to visit China and see for myself just how successful our efforts have been – whether it’s in helping our firms get more access to the Chinese market, or deepening the links between our capital markets.

And one last thing I’d like to mention which is really giving us the edge worldwide, is our FinTech industry. We already have a booming industry in this and we want to help this grow. That’s why we’ve working closely with the Financial Conduct Authority to help firms navigate the regulatory side of coming to market, including by creating a safe space – we’re calling it a ‘regulatory sandbox’ in which businesses can test innovative products and services with customers before undertaking the full authorisation process and costs that entails. And I’m delighted this came on board and opened for applications just yesterday.

The Financial Conduct Authority has also set up a support service to help guide firms through the regulations in place to become an authorised firm.

And we’ve also been working hard to develop partnerships overseas – with Eileen Burbidge as our Special Envoy. But why does all of this matter? This isn’t just about our national prosperity. For me, it is hugely important that we enable financial services firms to deliver the best possible services for the people of this country.

Over the last 12 months we have reached some major milestones in that.

Take, for example, our review of the financial advice market. This taught us that there was a real gap in the market for customers who didn’t have huge sums to invest.

Well, we think the UK can do better. We want there to be affordable and accessible advice out there for everyone working to achieve their aspirations, and at every stage of their lives.

So we’re taking forward all of the recommendations that came from our review, and working to make sure that whoever you are, it’s easy for you to get the quality, professional advice you need about how you can make the most of your hard earned money.

Government has also taken important steps to make saving as easy as possible.

Our government-backed products like the Help to Buy: ISA, with over 400,000 accounts opened, have already proved really popular and we’re continuing to expand the range of such schemes available – such as the new Lifetime ISA for under 40s we announced at the last Budget, or our Help to Save for people on lower incomes.

We’re also replacing the Money Advice Service with a new, and more effective body – a reform which goes hand in hand with our merger of the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise – putting an end to the confusion people had about which body to turn to.

And speaking of pensions, we also know it’s not easy keeping track of your pension pot – that’s why we’re working with industry to create a pensions dashboard to allow people to see their pensions online in a single place.

Together with our changes to automatically enrol people on pensions, and our introduction of a new allowance to help people pay for pension advice, we hope to make it much more straightforward for people to plan effectively for their retirement.

Financial Services not only play a leading role in our economy, they play a leading role in people’s lives. They help you buy a house, plan for a family, save for your retirement.

That’s why it could not be more important that companies in this industry are trusted. That means that it’s vital that this industry learns from the mistakes of the past and rebuilds public confidence.

The UK’s financial system is far more resilient than it was before the financial crisis.

Major banks’ capital ratios have more than doubled since 2009.

We’ve abolished the tripartite system of regulation.

We’ve put the Bank of England firmly in the driving seat for managing a crisis.

We’ve created the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority – soon to be committee – to be the City watch-dogs.

And we’re taking on the issue of ‘too big to fail’ to protect the economy without the financial sector relying on bail-outs from the taxpayer. That includes a ‘ring-fencing’ regime, whereby banks separate their riskier investment activities from their retail banking.

And last year we sold over £20 billion of financial assets, with the Lloyds trading plan, first sale of RBS shares, and the £13 billion sale of former Northern Rock mortgages. There is still more to do, but this has been a record year for privatisations.

So there is no doubt that we have come a long way in the last year, and I hope we will achieve just as much in the year to follow – so that I can come back to City Week 2017 and talk about all the success we’re seeing!

But there is a real risk to that looming on the horizon.

We have just weeks left before the country has its say on our future in the European Union.

And as the City Minister, I want to make it very clear where I stand on this issue.

Because it is my job is to see the financial services industry grow, not unravel. To stay on top, not lose out to the likes of Frankfurt, Paris or Luxembourg City.

For me, the evidence is clear. When it comes to the financial services in particular, our membership of the EU could not be more crucial.

Firstly, it means jobs for hundreds of thousands of people – you may have heard the Chancellor yesterday tell us that there are 285,000 jobs linked to our financial services exports to the EU. And if we were to leave, tens of thousands of people’s jobs may be at risk.

And whether you look at the firms which flood to this country to set up their European headquarters, or the huge amount of foreign direct investment we attract – more than anyone else in the EU at almost £150 million invested here a day over the last decade – these are things which are built upon our membership of the European Union.

In particular, they depend upon the EU financial services passport, which allows trade across the Single Market with less complexity and lower costs.

We are, quite simply, a less attractive proposition for financial services firms if we leave the EU.

And don’t imagine for a minute that the EU Commission will stop regulating financial services on 24 June – it is just that we would no longer have Lord Hill as our commissioner or a seat at the table.

So if you believe, as I do, that turning our backs on the Single Market of 500 million people, something those who want us to leave the EU are advocating, could be catastrophic for this industry, it’s really important that you speak up.

Whether that’s telling your friends and family, your employees, or the public at large, it’s really important that you share what you know.

That you explain what we risk if we were to leave – uncertainty for thousands of financial services firms in the UK, and the jobs of the people they employ.

So in short, and as ever, there’s a lot on, and a lot to play for.

In government, we’re working hard both to secure the UK’s reputation as the best place in the world for financial services.

We’re working hard to make the case to remain in the EU.

And we’re working hard to make sure that the industry keeps on helping people in the UK achieve their financial security throughout their lives.

In City Week we reflect on what has happened and what could happen in the year ahead.

Let’s choose the path of greater economic security, harnessing the power of financial services to help people with their goals, right across a single market of 500 million people.

May 11, 2016
Lucy Powell – 2016 Speech on Academies

Below is the text of the speech made in the House of Commons by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, on 9 May 2016.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. It is good to see that, despite her best efforts, this U-turn is getting the airing it deserves today. What she announced on Friday was a significant and welcome climbdown. However she wants to dress it up, dropping her desire to force all schools to become academies by her arbitrary deadline of 2022 is a key concession. School leaders should take it as a clear signal that the foot is off their throat and that they should not feel they need to jump before being pushed. In achieving this welcome move, I thank the broad alliance who joined us in making the arguments: the head teachers, who made their collective voice clear last weekend, parents, governors, teachers, local government leaders, and hon. Members from across the House, who made thoughtful and important interventions over recent weeks. Given the scale and breadth of the opposition to her plans and the huge sense of panic and upheaval that they caused school leaders, the Secretary of State might have shown a little more humility in her statement today. If I were her, I would at least apologise.

After the Secretary of State’s statement today, we are all left even more confused about what her policy actually is. She says that her aim remains the same, but without the means. Although she has conceded on the politically daft idea of forcing good and outstanding schools to become academies against their wishes, she still holds the ambition that all schools will become academies, but she failed to make a single decent argument as to why that ambition is desirable in the first place. Perhaps this is because, despite her claiming to be in listening mode, the Secretary of State has her fingers in her ears and is out of touch with heads, parents and teachers.
The Secretary of State has failed to address the serious concerns that have been raised. Where is her evidence that academisation is the panacea for school improvement? Where is the choice, autonomy or innovation in a one-size-fits-all approach? Is there sufficient capacity and accountability in the academies system to ensure that best practice, not poor practice, is being spread? Those questions remain as she seeks further powers to speed up the pace of academisation.

On school improvement, the Secretary of State must now take stock of the evidence. The Education Committee recommended that she do just that. Sir Michael Wilshaw found serious concerns in many chains. Research by the Sutton Trust found a mixed picture of performance in academy chains. There is no evidence at all that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement. Indeed, analysis published today by PwC shows that—[Interruption.] Government Members might want to listen to this. The analysis shows that only three of the biggest academy chains got a positive value-added rating and—this is quite startling—just one of the 26 biggest primary sponsors achieved results above the national average. While there is much excellence, the Secretary of State must not continue making dubious arguments about cause and effect without the evidence.

The concerns about a “one-size-fits-all” policy, as expressed by Councillor Paul Carter, chair of the County Councils Network, still apply, as do those about “distant, unaccountable bureaucracies” expressed by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady). As Lord Kenneth Baker said, there are real issues on the capacity within multi-academy trusts to take on a new wave of academies. Today, the Secretary of State also failed to answer the key question of parents and their right to remain on governing bodies of academies.|

Perhaps the biggest concern we all have is about the Secretary of State’s direction and her fixation with structures not standards. While chaos reigns all around her, and while heads are dealing with what they describe as “very challenging times”, she wants to put all the energies of her Department into more structural change, for which there is little evidence, insufficient capacity and inadequate accountability. Would she not be better advised sorting out the utter chaos besetting primary assessment and standard assessments tests, ensuring the massively behind-schedule new GCSEs are delivered well and on time, dealing with the chronic teacher shortages she has caused or getting a proper strategy for local place planning? Alternatively, instead of simply doing the Chancellor’s bidding, perhaps she could fight for some school budgets, which are facing real-terms cuts for the first time in 20 years. We all want to see educational excellence everywhere, but the Secretary of State is presiding over a chaotic mess, dragging schools backwards, and her ambitions for further structural change are at best a distraction—at worst they will damage standards.

May 10, 2016
Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech on Academies

Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 9 May 2016.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on all schools becoming academies.

In our White Paper “Educational Excellence Everywhere”, published in March, I set out the Government’s vision of continuing the rise in educational standards in England during the rest of the current Parliament. We are committed to building on the reforms of the past six years, which have led to 1.4 million more children being taught in good and outstanding schools. However, we are not content to stop there: 1.4 million children is a start, but it is not enough. We must ensure that we deliver a great education to every single child, because we owe it to the next generation to give them the tools that will enable them to realise every ounce of their potential.

The White Paper was called “Educational Excellence Everywhere” for a reason. As I have said before, for me the “everywhere” is non-negotiable. In the White Paper, for example, we set out our plans for “Achieving Excellence Areas”, where we will focus specific resources on tackling entrenched educational underperformance. The White Paper also sets out how we want to see the teaching profession take responsibility for teacher accreditation, tackle unfair funding, build leadership capacity and set high expectations for every child, with a world-leading knowledge-based curriculum in a truly school-led self-improving system learning from the best from across the world and preparing the next generation to compete on the global stage.

It is the vision of a fully academised system that has attracted the most attention. Over the course of the last few weeks, I have spoken to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as to school leaders, governors, local government representatives and parents. It is clear from those conversations that the strength and importance of academies is widely accepted. There is a clear recognition of the case for putting greater responsibility for the school system in the hands of school leaders. Let me be clear: we firmly believe that schools becoming more autonomous and more directly accountable for their results raises standards. Academies are the vehicle to allow schools and leaders to innovate with the curriculum, have the flexibility to set the pay and conditions for their staff and bring about great collaboration with other schools.

We still want every school to become an academy by 2022. We always intended this to be a six-year process in which good schools should be able to take their own decisions about their future as academies. However, we understand the concerns that have been raised about a hard deadline and legislating for blanket powers to issue academy orders. That is why I announced on Friday that we have decided it is not necessary to take blanket powers to convert good schools in strong local authorities to academies at this time.

In March, a record high of 227 schools chose to apply for academy status, showing clearly where the momentum lies as school leaders, parents, governors and teachers across the country embrace the benefits that being an academy brings. Since then, we have also issued more than 104 academy orders to underperforming schools, meaning that the young people in those schools will soon benefit from the strong leadership provided by expert academy sponsors. That is why those who took to the airwaves this weekend to crow about a victory in their battle against raising standards will find themselves sorely disappointed. There will be no retreat from our mission to give every child the best start in life and to build an education system led by school leaders and teachers on the frontline, running their own schools as academies.

The Education and Adoption Act 2016 already enables us to rapidly convert failing schools and schools that are coasting, where they can benefit from the support of a strong sponsor. As a result, it is now easier to respond swiftly and effectively when schools underperform. Schools will not be allowed to languish unchallenged for years. As we set out in the White Paper, and as I have subsequently argued, the most pressing need for further powers is to boost standards for those schools languishing in the worst performing local authorities and to provide for schools in local authorities likely to become unviable. So instead of taking a blanket power to convert all schools, we will seek powers in two specific circumstances where it is clear that the case for conversion to academy status is pressing. In our worst performing local authorities, we need to take more decisive action so that a new system led by outstanding schools can take their place. Similarly, because of the pace of academisation in some areas, it will become increasingly difficult for local authorities to offer schools the necessary support, and there will be a need to ensure that those schools are not dependent on an unviable local authority.

We will therefore seek provisions to convert schools in the lowest performing and unviable local authorities to academy status. In some circumstances, that might involve the conversion of good and outstanding schools when they have not chosen to do so themselves. However, the need for action in those limited circumstances is clear, because of the considerable risk to the standard of education that young people in those schools receive, as the local authority is either unable to guarantee their continued success or support further improvement. We will consult on these arrangements, including the thresholds for performance and unviability, and I am making a clear commitment that the definition and thresholds of underperformance and viability will be the subject of an affirmative resolution in this House.

I would also like to reassure hon. Members in regard to concerns about how we protect small schools, particularly those in rural areas. I have already made it clear that no small rural school will close as a result of the move to have more schools becoming academies. There is already a statutory presumption against the closure of rural schools, but we will now go further. Where small rural schools are converting to academy status, we will introduce a dual lock to ensure their protection: both local and national Government will have to agree to a school closing before a decision can be made. There will also be dedicated support to help rural primary schools during the process of conversion, and a £10 million fund to secure expert support and advice for them.

While we want every school to become an academy, we will not compel successful schools to join multi-academy trusts. In order to share expertise and resources, we expect that most schools will form local clusters of multi-academy trusts, but if the leadership of a successful school does not wish to enter a formal relationship with other schools, we trust it to make that decision and will not force it to do so. Small schools will be able to convert to stand-alone academies as long as they are financially sustainable.

I began this statement by saying that our goal has not changed. This Government will continue to prioritise the interests of young people and getting them the best start in life by having an excellent education over the vested interests who seek to oppose the lifting of standards and the rooting out of educational underperformance. Those very same vested interests allowed schools to languish for years unchallenged and unchanged until the launch of the sponsored academies programme by the last Labour Government.

Our work to improve our education system will continue apace. We will continue to empower school leaders and raise standards. We will continue to hold high expectations for every child. We will establish a fair national funding formula for schools, so that young people everywhere get the funding they deserve. We will continue to work towards a system in which all schools are run and led by the people who know them best, in a way that works for their pupils, as academies. The reforms will transform the education system in our country and ensure that we give every child an excellent education, so that they have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. I commend this statement to the House.

May 10, 2016
Nick Gibb – 2016 Statement on Key Stage 2 Tests

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister for Schools, in the House of Commons on 10 May 2016.

With permission, I will make a statement about key stage 2 tests.

Last night the Department for Education was made aware of an issue involving the key stage 2 English grammar, punctuation and spelling test, which was mistakenly uploaded on to a secure website by Pearson. Pearson is the external marking supplier contracted by the Department to mark the tests.

At this stage, we know that the test was mistakenly uploaded at about 5 o’clock yesterday evening. It was uploaded on to a secure site, which was not accessible to anyone without approval from Pearson. Pearson was informed that the test was on its site by markers during the course of the evening, and removed the material from the site at 9.01 pm. The Department was separately alerted to the situation at about 9.30 pm by the media, and contacted Pearson immediately to establish the facts. Pearson’s records show that during the short period when the materials were live, 93 markers—all with the appropriate clearance—accessed the material.

It is worth emphasising that the only people with access to the site are contracted markers, all of whom are under a contractual obligation not to share sensitive information. I should also point out that it is standard and appropriate practice for key individuals to be given prior access to assessment material in order to ensure that the delivery of tests and marking of papers can occur in a the smooth and timely way. Some 23 senior markers had access to the material from 1 April, and 153 team leaders had access to the material from 11 April.

Clearly, in this system, it is essential that people in positions of trust can be relied on to act appropriately. Unfortunately, in this case, it appears that one person could not, and leaked the key stage 2 English grammar, punctuation and spelling test to a journalist. I have spoken to Rod Bristow, the president of Pearson UK, this morning to ask for a full explanation of how this mistake occurred. He has accepted full responsibility for the error and has committed to investigating the matter quickly and fully.

Specifically, I have asked Rod Bristow to look at two issues. First, how did the material come to be uploaded on to the secure site in error? This was clearly a mistake which should not have been possible. Secondly, I have asked that all records be examined and all information interrogated so that the culprit who leaked this sensitive information can be identified. I am satisfied that Pearson understands the seriousness of the issue and the need to take action quickly to provide clear and unequivocal answers to these two questions. Once I have this information, I will consider what action it may be appropriate to take. I will explore the full range of options available to the Department, including looking at contractual and other routes to seek redress.

I would like to reiterate that we have no evidence to suggest that any sensitive information entered the public domain before children started taking the test today, and the tests are going ahead as planned. My officials were monitoring social media and other platforms through the night and found no sign of materials being made available. The journalist in question took the decision not to publish the test papers and I am grateful to him for that. Although this is a serious breach—and I am determined to get to the bottom of how the error occurred—it is clear that the actions of almost every marker involved have been correct and proper, and that the integrity of the tests has not been compromised. Teachers and schools should have confidence in the content of the tests and in the processes underpinning the administration of the tests in schools and the subsequent marking.

I would like to make a few comments about the wider context of primary assessment. I acknowledge that there have been errors in the administration of tests this year. While it is important that we address those errors, they should not detract from the central importance of testing in the life of a school. Tests are an appropriate and essential way for us to understand how well schools are doing, and where more support needs to be targeted so that every child is given the best possible opportunity to succeed throughout their time in school and to get the best preparation for adult life.

We have taken clear action to strengthen the primary curriculum, to ensure that children today are being taught the fundamentals of literacy and numeracy that are vital for their future success. There are some who say that tests are inherently wrong, that we should not test children and that we are creating a regime that is overly stressful. I disagree. Yesterday, ComRes released a poll of 750 10 and 11-year-old pupils for the BBC, in which 62% of pupils responded that they either “don’t mind” or “enjoy” taking the tests. That is far more than those who said that they “don’t like” or “hate” taking the test. Altogether, more of the polled pupils reported that they “enjoy” taking the tests than “hate” them.

Testing is a vital part of teaching: it is the most accurate way, bar none, that a teacher, school or parent can know whether a pupil has or has not understood vital subject content. What is more, the process of taking a test actually improves pupil knowledge and understanding. As such, testing should be a routine and normalised part of school life. When the time for national curriculum assessments comes around, pupils should be entirely accustomed to the process. I would like to finish by reiterating that the key stage 2 English grammar, punctuation and spelling test remains valid and is going ahead as planned. Teachers, schools, parents and others should have confidence in the test, and it will remain part of the primary assessment system. I commend this statement to the House.

May 10, 2016
Nick Gibb – 2016 Speech on School Improvement

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for Schools, in Brighton on 5 May 2016.

Can I start by saying thank you for inviting me to join you today at your annual conference. It is an honour to be included on such an esteemed roster of speakers, though it is rather daunting to offer insights on leadership when followed by the likes of Charles Moore and David Starkey, biographers of Margaret Thatcher and Henry VIII respectively.

One of the advantages of speaking first, however, is that I can lay claim to all of the more obvious quotations about political and school leadership. It was Winston Churchill, in his memoirs ‘My Early Life’, who made the observation: ‘Headmasters have powers at their disposal with which Prime Ministers have never yet been invested.’

Whilst this may be true of an English public school at the end of the nineteenth century, it would not apply to English state schools for much of the twentieth century.

Up until the 1988 Education Reform Act, the budget for state-maintained schools was reserved for only a miniscule proportion of expenditure – exercise books and school stationery, so the cliché went. Decisions on school meals, school maintenance, staff training, and school insurance all lay with the local authority. Even something so crucial to a school as the recruitment, appointment, and payment of staff was decided by the local authority, not the school head.

Only during the late eighties, with the arrival of what became known as the ‘local management of schools’, could school hire staff as they saw fit. Only then did decisive and strong school leadership become a genuine possibility in the state sector.

Since the arrival of local management of schools, the trend in school reform has been towards greater school autonomy, and greater powers for heads. And this trend has significantly accelerated since 2010. Our government has been guided by the international evidence showing that high levels of school autonomy, coupled with strong accountability, is a consistent feature of the world’s top-performing school systems.

But one has to go further, and ask: ‘why are autonomous school systems superior to school systems characterised by centralised direction?’ My answer would be this. English state education was once characterised by uniform mediocrity, and a sense of resigned acceptance that it would forever be thus.

I remember talking to a consultant who in the early 2000s was asked to write a report on what could be done to improve London’s state schools. So, as any consultant would, he set out to find case studies of those high-achieving state schools within London which were delivering an outstanding education to pupils in disadvantaged circumstances. He returned empty handed: no such schools could be found.

Nothing could have summed up the outlook at the time better than that once ubiquitous phrase: ‘bog-standard comprehensive’.

How different the situation is today. We now have a school system where autonomous schools are able to break free from the intellectual and bureaucratic constraints of the past, allowing school leaders to beat a new path of previously unimaginable success. King Solomon Academy was founded in 2009 in one of the most disadvantaged London wards for child poverty. 44% of the pupils are eligible for free school meals – more than 3 times the national average.

From its inception, King Solomon Academy created an ethos-based on no-excuses school discipline, and unapologetically high academic expectations. Today, it is the best non-selective state secondary school in the country, according to the 5 A* to C measure at GCSE, with 95% of pupils reaching that standard.

King Solomon Academy is now able to spread its means of success to the 34 other schools within its multi-academy trust, Ark Schools. Unsurprisingly, school leaders are clammering at the doors to visit King Solomon Academy.

As a result of a cohort of some of the best teachers we’ve ever had in the state sector, 1.4 million more pupils are in ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ schools today compared to 2010. We have a generation of Teach First alumni and other teachers who are challenging prevailing education orthodoxies. People like Joe Kirby, Katie Ashford, Rob Peal, David Perks and Hwyell Jones.

We have a profession that is embracing an evidence based approach to the curriculum and pedagogy – new institutions such as Research Ed, founded by Tom Bennett and the Knowledge Network, a grouping of teachers committed to a knowledge rich curriculum. This government’s reforms have been the most radical and far reaching since the 1944 Butler Act. That’s why, on occasion, ‎they attract controversy. Our reforms are designed to deliver more schools like King Solomon; non-selective schools achieving GCSE results that exceed those of many selective independent schools.

Of course, there are still too many failing schools with weak leadership in this country. But that number is significantly down since 2010. We have taken nearly 1,400 failing schools out of local-authority control and had their governance transferred to academy trusts. We have invested heavily in the use of phonics in primary schools, and in an innovative scheme to the mastery method of mathematics teaching from Shanghai and Singapore to English schools; 2 measures which, in time, could all but eradicate illiteracy and innumeracy.

Reforms in education cannot be rushed. Changes to the examination and assessment system, which began in 2010, are only just starting, with 20 new GCSEs and 11 new A levels being taught from September and new national curriculum assessments at primary school being taken this week and next. And there has been a complete end to grade inflation since 2012. Quick fixes for turning the tanker of educational underperformance in this country do not exist. But let me reassure you that things are moving in the right direction.

The state and independent sectors need to work together – using your expertise to sponsor academies and new free schools, helping us to create more state schools that deliver standards we are seeing at Mossbourne Academy, the City Academy Hackney and the London Academy of Excellence – a project in which some here are involved. School leaders visiting these schools will return full of new ideas for improving the curriculum, teaching and organisation at their own institution.

And this is how improvement in any sector occurs: autonomy allows exemplary institutions to emerge, and the innovations which made those institutions exemplary can in turn migrate to drive improvement elsewhere. In time, and given the right channels of communication, the ideas which currently characterise the best of the education sector, will come to characterise the rest of the education sector.

The historical trend towards school autonomy has not been entirely linear. When I first became Schools Minster in 2010, it was clear that – whilst power had passed from local authorities to schools – the Department for Children, Schools and Families as it was then known, had become addicted to meddling in the minutia of school administration.

Schools had gone through a period of ‘initiativeitus’, with a constant turnover of ‘clever wheezes’ emerging from the department, or one of its ever-growing panoply of quangos. national strategies, national curriculum re-writes, a Five-Year Strategy, Every Child Matters – all burdening schools with bureaucracy and complex guidance.

We took clear and purposeful action to free heads from such meddling. We disbanded, merged or cut the government funding of 8 government quangos, an alphabetic soup including Becta; the GTC; the NCSL; the SSAT; and the QCDA.

We also removed 21,000 pages of unnecessary school guidance, reducing the volume by 75%, and centralising all that remained in one place on the GOV.UK website. In place of continual missives to school leaders, the department now sticks to one short monthly email.

Needless legislation which constrained the smooth running of schools has been amended, strengthening teachers’ powers to discipline pupils: teachers can now issue same-day detentions; they have stronger powers to search pupils’ possessions; and we have clarified teachers’ power to use reasonable force.

Today, headteachers no longer have to complete self evaluation forms, submit annual absence and performance targets to local authorities, or instruct their teachers to produce lesson plans or teach in a particular style simply to please Ofsted inspectors.

At the department, we have worked constructively with Ofsted and Sir Michael Wilshaw to ensure that headteachers are freed to focus on what is best for raising pupil outcomes, and not what is best for pleasing visitors. Ofsted guidance was reduced in 2014 from 411 to 136 pages, and last year guidance was further reduced despite the increased reach of the common inspection framework. The guidance that remains is clear, considered, and concise.

For headteachers who lead academies, the freedoms are more extensive still. They have more control over their funding, the ability to change term times and the school day, greater freedom over their curriculum, and the freedom to choose where to go to get the best services, such as behaviour support and school improvement.

This is because institutions thrive when the people who lead them are actually in charge. Conversely, there is nothing more deflating than being responsible for an organisation over which you do not have adequate control.

Crucial to a policy of school autonomy is, of course, having enough school leaders with the right skills and experience. For this reason, a significant focus of the white paper that we published in March is on improving the quality of school leadership within our schools.

The National Professional Qualification for headship, known as the NPQ, became optional for heads in the state-funded schools in 2012. We have passed on the delivery of these qualifications to schools and other organisations, in a bid to ensure their content is as focused as possible on real school concerns, and not distracting theories.

We are now taking reforms a step further, redesigning the NPQ to make it a truly world-class badge of excellence. We are convening a group of leading headteachers and education experts to guide and advise on exactly what this qualification should include, and the group will include expertise from across the state and independent sectors.

We will make sure that the new NPQ focuses solely on the practices which are backed up by rigorous evidence and research, not fads.

You may have noticed that when I earlier listed exemplar schools which visitors are keen to visit, they were all in London. Of course, there are excellent schools in all parts of the country, but we are keenly aware of the existence of cold and hot spots in school improvement. Good leaders are indispensable for turning schools around, but tempting good leaders to schools in areas of historic underperformance is an ongoing challenge.

For this reason, we are launching an Excellence in Leadership Fund, which will offer the development of innovate programmes to train leaders to work in areas where they are needed most.

For ambitious heads who take over failing schools, change cannot occur overnight. Schools run on annual cycles. It has been a disincentive for some leaders taking over underperforming schools, however, that they feel at risk of being judged harshly by Ofsted before they have had time to turn the organisation around.

To prevent this occurring, we are working with Ofsted to introduce ‘improvement periods’, which give new heads taking on challenging schools sufficient time to make an impact. Where a new head steps in to a school requiring improvement, the school will not face re-inspection until around 30 months after the previous inspection. And where a failing maintained school is replaced by a sponsored academy or a new sponsor is appointed to drive further improvement in an academy, the school will not normally face inspection until its third year of operation.

We have invested in a number of programmes which encourage promising young graduates into the profession, or which train promising teachers to take on leadership positions.

Teach First, for example, currently has 2,463 graduates of its programme teaching in UK state schools. Of these, 1 in 3 is already a middle or senior leader, and 18 are headteachers.

For bright and ambitious young graduates, a career in teaching now offers rapid advancement opportunities to rival any other profession.

And career advancement for teachers does not end with headship. The challenges of running a multi-academy trust demand a whole different set of abilities compared to headship, but equally should offer an exciting new avenue for the brightest and best in the profession to continue progressing throughout their careers.

This government will have achieved its aims, if in the years to come, teaching has become established as one of the most exciting and rewarding professions available to young people.

It is a remarkable fact, and perhaps no coincidence, that King Solomon Academy is today making headlines as the best school in the country, but 6 years ago was making headlines for employing the youngest head in the country: Max Haimendorf, who established the school aged just 28 years old, and is still there today.

Another inspiring school leader who I would like to mention is Katharine Birbalsingh. She is currently running a free school in Wembley which shows an admirable disregard for the way in which English schools are normally operated. The school is unapologetically strict and demanding: desks are in rows; corridors are walked in silence; and pupils memorise subject content for weekly tests.

Having visited the school last year, the whole institution emits a sense of positivity and purpose quite unlike any other school I have ever been inside. In this area of significant deprivation, children are brimming with pride at the progress they are making.

Such a school could never have existed before the academies and free school policies. Today, there are over 300 free schools in operation, which will create over 153,000 new school places once at capacity. The best are already extraordinary success stories, forcing all of us to revise our expectations about what children, particularly children from deprived backgrounds, are capable of achieving.

When this government talks about increased school autonomy, I do sense the incredulity with which some school leaders react. They point to a new curriculum; new national assessments at ages 7 and 11; and reforms to GCSE and A levels.

It is true that since 2010 we have overhauled the testing and assessment system, but that was for good reason. In 2010, 55% of pupils achieved the ‘minimum standard’ of 5 GCSEs at grades A* to C including English and mathematics. However, this number masked a multitude of deficiencies. The design of performance measures encouraged schools to enter its pupils for ‘equivalent qualifications’ in less academically demanding subjects, which employers told us were worthless. And there was suspicion of grade inflation within the profession and amongst employers.

Having compared the reported improvement in GCSE results to an annual benchmarked aptitude test, Professor Coe of Durham University concluded that the question, I quote, ‘is not whether there has been grade inflation, but how much’.

There was also a widespread feeling that qualifications, in particular GCSEs, did not represent the mastery of a sufficiently challenging body of subject knowledge. Did a good GCSE in history represent a basic understanding of the chronology of Britain’s past? Did a good GCSE in MFL mean a degree of fluency in the language? Did a good GCSE in English Literature mean a pupil had read widely from the corpus of great works?

The trend towards modular entry for GCSE, and the existence of A and AS levels, meant that pupils were experiencing a continual cycle of examination cramming and practice, limiting opportunity for teachers to revel in the simple pleasure of teaching their subject. Similarly, controlled assessment had become a time-consuming burden on teachers, which limited classroom teaching, and encouraged dubious practices in schools.

So we saw a pressing need to reform the examination system. Many of these reforms which began almost 6 years ago are only just becoming a reality in schools. I believe this process of reform is consistent with a policy of school autonomy. The government’s role in education should not be to dictate school practices, but it does need to act as the guardian of high expectations.

General Patton’s dictum on leadership was this: ‘Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.’

And that represents the philosophy behind our education reforms. Good government does not improve public services. It sets the conditions in which public services can improve themselves. That is what our reforms are achieving in this country’s state schools.

May 10, 2016
David Cameron – 2016 Speech on Security in the EU

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the British Museum in London on 9 May 2016.

Introduction

In 45 days’ time, the British people will go to polling stations across our islands and cast their ballots in the way we have done in this country for generations.

They will, as usual, weigh up the arguments, reflect on them quietly, discuss them with friends and family, and then, calmly and without fuss, take their decision.

But this time, their decision will not be for a Parliament, or even two.

They will decide the destiny of our country, not for 5 years or for 10, but in all probability for decades, perhaps a lifetime.

This is a decision that is bigger than any individual politician or government.

It will have real, permanent and direct consequences for this country and every person living in it.

Should we continue to forge our future as a proud, independent nation while remaining a member of the European Union, as we have been for the last 43 years? Or should we abandon it?

Let me say at the outset that I understand why many people are wrestling with this decision, and why some people’s heads and hearts are torn.

And I understand and respect the views of those who think we should leave, even if I believe they are wrong and that leaving would inflict real damage on our country, its economy and its power in the world.

Where I stand

I believe that, despite its faults and its frustrations, the United Kingdom is stronger, safer and better off by remaining a member of the European Union. Better off? Certainly.

We are part of a single market of 500 million people which Britain helped to create. Our goods and, crucially, our services – which account for almost 80% of our economy – can trade freely by right. We help decide the rules. The advantages of this far outweigh any disadvantages.

Our membership of the single market is one of the reasons why our economy is doing so well, why we have created almost 2.4 million jobs over the last 6 years, and why so many companies from overseas – from China or India, the United States, Australia and other Commonwealth countries invest so much in the UK.

It is one of the factors – together with our superb workforce, the low taxes set by the British government, and our climate of enterprise – which makes Britain such an excellent place to do business.

All this is alongside – let us note – our attractive regulatory environment. According to the OECD, it is second only to the Netherlands, itself an EU member – giving the lie to those who claim that the British economy is being strangled by regulation from Brussels.

If we leave, the only certainty we will have is uncertainty.

The Treasury has calculated that the cost to every household in Britain would be as high as £4,300 by 2030 if we leave. £4,300.

The overwhelming weight of independent opinion – from the International Monetary Fund to the OECD, from the London School of Economics to the Institute for Fiscal Studies – also supports the fact that Britain will suffer an immediate economic shock, and then be permanently poorer for the long-term.

The evidence is clear: we will be better off in, and poorer if we leave.

As Charles Dunstone, the founder of Carphone Warehouse, an entrepreneur not averse to risk, has said: “In my experience there are calculated risks, there are clever risks, and there are unnecessary and dangerous risks. And from all I can conclude, Brexit sits firmly in the latter camp.”

So the onus is on those who advocate leaving to prove that Britain will be better off outside the EU. Those advocating Brexit have spent many years preparing for this moment. And yet they seem unable to set out a clear, comprehensive plan for our future outside the EU.

Some admit there would be a severe economic shock, but assert nonchalantly that it would be ‘a price worth paying’.

Others are in denial that there would be a shock at all. And they can’t agree what their plan for post-Brexit Britain would look like.

One minute we are urged to follow Norway, the next minute Canada. A few days later Switzerland offers the path forward, until it becomes clear that their arrangement doesn’t provide much access for services to the EU’s single market – and services, as I’ve said, are almost 4 fifths of the British economy.

Most recently, the Leavers have noticed that a number of European countries that sit outside of the EU have negotiated separate trade arrangements with the EU.

They called this collection of countries the ‘European free trade zone’.

But in fact, this doesn’t exist: it is a patchwork of different arrangements, all of them far inferior to what we have now.

They have gone on to suggest that Britain might join this non-existent zone, just like Albania.

Seriously? Even the Albanian Prime Minister thought that idea was a joke.

The Leave campaign are asking us to take a massive risk with the future of our economy and the future of our country.

And yet they can’t even answer the most basic questions.

What would Britain’s relationship be with the EU if we were to leave? Will we have a free trade agreement, or will we fall back on World Trade Organisation rules?

The man who headed the WTO for 8 years thinks this would be and I quote “a terrible replacement for access to the EU single market.”

Some of them say we would keep full access to the EU single market.

If so, we would have to accept freedom of movement, a contribution to the EU budget, and accept all EU rules while surrendering any say over them.

In which case, we would have given up sovereignty rather than taken it back.

Others say we would definitely leave the single market – including, yesterday, the Vote Leave campaign – despite the critical importance of the single market to jobs and investment in our country.

I can only describe this as a reckless and irresponsible course. These are people’s jobs and livelihoods that are being toyed with.

And the Leave campaign have no answers to the most basic questions.

What access would we try to secure back into the single market from the outside? How long would it take to negotiate a new relationship with the EU? What would happen to the 53 trade deals we have with other markets around the world through the EU?

The Leave campaign can’t answer them because they don’t know the answers. They have no plan.

And yet sceptical voters who politely ask for answers are denounced for their lack of faith in Britain, or met with sweeping assurances that the world will simply jump to our tune.

If you were buying a house or a car, you wouldn’t do it without insisting on seeing what was being offered, and making sure it wasn’t going to fall apart the moment you took possession of it.

So why would you do so when the future of your entire country is at stake?

The British people will keep asking these questions every day between now and 23 June, and demanding some answers.

Nothing is more important than the strength of our economy.

Upon it depends the jobs and livelihoods of our people, and also the strength and security of our nation.

If we stay, we know what we get – continued full access to a growing single market, including in energy, services and digital, together with the benefit of the huge trade deals in prospect between the EU and the United States and other large markets.

If we leave, it is – genuinely – a leap in the dark.

But my main focus today will not be on the economic reasons to remain in the EU, important though they are.

I want to concentrate instead on what our membership means for our strength and security in the world, and the safety of our people, and to explain why, again, I believe the balance of advantage comes down firmly in favour of staying rather than leaving.

Because this decision is a decision about our place in the world, about how we keep our country safe, about how Britain can get things done – in Europe and across the world – and not just accept a world dictated by others.

A proud, confident nation

So today I want to set out the big, bold patriotic case for Britain to remain a member of the EU.

I want to show that if you love this country, if you want to keep it strong in the world, and keep our people safe, our membership of the EU is one of the tools – one of the tools – that helps us to do these things, like our membership of other international bodies such as NATO or the UN Security Council.

Let us accept that for all our differences, one thing unites both sides in this referendum campaign.

We love this country, and we want the best future for it. Ours is a great country.

Not just a great country in the history books, although it surely is that.

But a great country right now, with the promise of becoming even greater tomorrow.

We’re the fifth largest economy in the world. Europe’s foremost military power. Our capital city is a global icon. Our national language the world’s language.

Our national flag is worn on clothing and t-shirts the world over – not only as a fashion statement, but as a symbol of hope and a beacon for liberal values all around the world.

People from all 4 corners of the earth watch our films, dance to our music, flock to our galleries and theatres, cheer on our football teams and cherish our institutions.

These days, even our food is admired the world over.

Our national broadcaster is one of the most recognised brands on the planet, and our monarch is one of the most respected people in the world.

Britain today is a proud, successful, thriving nation, a nation the world admires and looks up to, and whose best days lie ahead of it.

We are the product of our long history – of the decision of our forebears, of the heroism of our parents and grandparents.

And yet we are a country that also has our eyes fixed firmly on the future – that is a pioneer in the modern world: from the birth of the internet to the decoding of the genome.

The character of the British people

If there is one constant in the ebb and flow of our island story, it is the character of the British people.

Our geography has shaped us, and shapes us today. We are special, different, unique.

We have the character of an island nation which has not been invaded for almost a thousand years, and which has built institutions which have endured for centuries.

As a people we are ambitious, resilient, independent-minded. And, I might add, tolerant, generous, and inventive.

But above all we are obstinately practical, rigorously down to earth, natural debunkers.

We approach issues with a cast of mind rooted in common sense. We are rightly suspicious of ideology, and sceptical of grand schemes and grandiose promises.

So we have always seen the European Union as a means to an end – the way to boost our prosperity and help anchor peace and stability across the European continent – but we don’t see it as an end in itself.

We insistently ask: why? How?

And as we weigh up the competing arguments in this referendum campaign, we must apply that practical rigour which is the hallmark of being British.

Would going it alone make Britain more powerful in the world? Would we be better able to get our way, or less able?

Would going it alone make us more secure from terrorism, or would it be better to remain and cooperate closely with our neighbours?

Would going it alone really give us more control over our affairs, or would we soon find that actually we had less, and that we had given up a secure future for one beset by years of uncertainty and trouble with no way back?

Would going it alone open up new opportunities, or would it in fact close them down and narrow our options?

Stronger in the world

That is certainly the approach I have taken to judging whether Britain is stronger and safer inside the European Union or leaving it.

And I have just one yardstick: how do we best advance our national interest?

Keeping our people safe at home and abroad, and moulding the world in the way that we want – more peaceful, more stable, more free, with the arteries of commerce and trade flowing freely.

That is our national interest in a nutshell – and it’s the question that has confronted every British prime minister since the office was created: how do we best advance Britain’s interests in the circumstances of the day?

If my experience as Prime Minister had taught me that our membership of the EU was holding Britain back or undermining our global influence, I would not hesitate to recommend that we should leave.

But my experience is the opposite.

The reason that I want Britain to stay in a reformed EU is in part because of my experience over the last 6 years is that it does help make our country better off, safer and stronger.

And there are 4 reasons why this is the case.

First, what happens in Europe affects us, whether we like it or not, so we must be strong in Europe if we want to be strong at home and in the world.

Second, the dangerous international situation facing Britain today, means that the closest possible cooperation with our European neighbours isn’t an optional extra – it is essential. We need to stand united. Now is a time for strength in numbers.

Third, keeping our people safe from modern terrorist networks like Daesh and from serious crime that increasingly crosses borders means that we simply have to develop much closer means of security cooperation between countries within Europe. Britain needs to be fully engaged with that.

Fourth, far from Britain’s influence in the world being undermined by our membership of the EU, it amplifies our power, like our membership of the UN or of NATO. It helps us achieve the things we want – whether it is fighting Ebola in Africa, tackling climate change, taking on the people smugglers. That’s not just our view; it’s the view of our friends and allies, too.

Let me go through them in turn.

What happens in Europe affects us

First: Europe is our immediate neighbourhood, and what happens on the continent affects us profoundly, whether we like it or not.

Our history teaches us: the stronger we are in our neighbourhood, the stronger we are in the world.

For 2,000 years, our affairs have been intertwined with the affairs of Europe. For good or ill, we have written Europe’s history just as Europe has helped to write ours.

From Caesar’s legions to the wars of the Spanish Succession, from the Napoleonic Wars to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Proud as we are of our global reach and our global connections, Britain has always been a European power, and we always will be.

We know that to be a global power and to be a European power are not mutually exclusive.

And the moments of which we are rightly most proud in our national story include pivotal moments in European history.

Blenheim. Trafalgar. Waterloo. Our country’s heroism in the Great War.

And most of all our lone stand in 1940, when Britain stood as a bulwark against a new dark age of tyranny and oppression.

When I sit in the Cabinet Room, I never forget the decisions that were taken in that room in those darkest of times.

When I fly to European summits in Brussels from RAF Northolt, I pass a Spitfire just outside the airfield, a vital base for brave RAF and Polish pilots during the Battle of Britain.

I think of the Few who saved this country in its hour of mortal danger, and who made it possible for us to go on and help liberate Europe.

Like any Brit, my heart swells with pride at the sight of that aircraft, or whenever I hear the tell-tale roar of those Merlin engines over our skies in the summer.

Defiant, brave, indefatigable.

But it wasn’t through choice that Britain was alone. Churchill never wanted that. Indeed he spent the months before the Battle of Britain trying to keep our French allies in the war, and then after France fell, he spent the next 18 months persuading the United States to come to our aid.

And in the post-war period he argued passionately for Western Europe to come together, to promote free trade, and to build institutions which would endure so that our continent would never again see such bloodshed.

Isolationism has never served this country well. Whenever we turn our back on Europe, sooner or later we come to regret it.

We have always had to go back in, and always at a much higher cost.

The serried rows of white headstones in lovingly-tended Commonwealth war cemeteries stand as silent testament to the price that this country has paid to help restore peace and order in Europe.

Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

I would never be so rash as to make that assumption.

It’s barely been 20 years since war in the Balkans and genocide on our continent in Srebrenica. In the last few years, we have seen tanks rolling into Georgia and Ukraine. And of this I am completely sure.

The European Union has helped reconcile countries which were once at each others’ throats for decades. Britain has a fundamental national interest in maintaining common purpose in Europe to avoid future conflict between European countries.

And that requires British leadership, and for Britain to remain a member. The truth is this: what happens in our neighbourhood matters to Britain.

That was true in 1914, in 1940 and in 1989. Or, you could add 1588, 1704 and 1815. And it is just as true in 2016.

Either we influence Europe, or it influences us.

And if things go wrong in Europe, let’s not pretend we can be immune from the consequences.

The international situation means cooperation with Europe is essential

Second, the international situation confronting Britain today means that the closest possible cooperation with our European neighbours isn’t an optional extra.

It is essential for this country’s security and our ability to get things done in the world.

We see a newly belligerent Russia. The rise of the Daesh network to our east and to our south. The migration crisis. Dealing with these requires unity of purpose in the west.

Sometimes you hear the Leave campaign talk about these issues as if they are – in and of themselves – reasons to leave the EU.

But we can’t change the continent to which we are attached. We can’t tow our island to a more congenial part of the world.

The threats affect us whether we’re in the EU or not, and Britain washing its hands of helping to deal with them will only make the problems worse.

Within Europe they require a shared approach by the European democracies, more than at any time since the height of the Cold War.

It is true, of course, that it is to NATO and to the Transatlantic Alliance that we look to for our defence.

The principle enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all – that remains the cornerstone of our national defence.

That fundamental sharing of national sovereignty in order to deter potential aggressors. That is as valid today as it was when NATO was founded in 1949.

It is an example of how real control is more important than the theory of sovereignty.

The European Union – and the close culture of intergovernmental cooperation between governments which it embodies – is a vital tool in our armoury to deal with these threats.

That is why NATO and top military opinion – British, American, European – is clear that the common purpose of the EU does not undermine NATO, it is a vital reinforcement to it.

And they are equally crystal clear: Britain’s departure would weaken solidarity and the unity of the west as a whole.

Now some of those who wish us to leave the EU openly say that they hope the entire organisation will unravel as a result.

I find this extraordinary.

How could it possibly be in our interests to risk the clock being turned back to an age of competing nationalisms in Europe?

And for Britain, of all countries, to be responsible for triggering such a collapse would be an act of supreme irresponsibility, entirely out of character for us as a nation.

Others suggest that Britain stalking out could lead to and I quote “the democratic liberation of an entire continent”.

Well, tell that to the Poles, the Czechs, the Baltic States and the other countries of central and eastern Europe which languished for so long behind the Iron Curtain.

They cherish their liberty and their democracy. They see Britain as the country that did more than any other to unlock their shackles and enable them to take their rightful place in the family of European nations.

And frankly they view the prospect of Britain leaving the EU with utter dismay. They watch what is happening in Moscow with alarm and trepidation.

Now is a time for strength in numbers. Now is the worst possible time for Britain to put that at risk. Only our adversaries will benefit.

Security risks

Now third, the evolving threats to our security and the rise of the Daesh network mean that we have to change the way we work to keep our people safe. Security today is not only a matter of hard defence, of stopping tanks – it is also about rooting out terrorist networks, just as it is about detecting illegal immigrants, stopping human trafficking and organised crime. And that makes much closer security cooperation between our European nations essential.

I have no greater responsibility than the safety of the people of this country, and keeping us safe from the terrorist threat.

As the Home Secretary said in her speech a fortnight ago: being in the EU helps to makes us safer.

We shouldn’t put ourselves at risk by leaving.

One of her predecessors, Charles Clarke, reiterated that only this morning.

And the message of Jonathan Evans and John Sawers, former heads of MI5 and MI6 respectively, is absolutely unmistakable: Britain is safer inside the European Union.

During the last 6 years, the terrorist threat against this country has grown.

Our threat level is now at ‘Severe’, which means that an attack is ‘highly likely’. Indeed such an attack could happen at any time.

But the threat has not only grown, it has changed in its nature.

The attacks in Paris and Brussels are a reminder that we face this threat together – and we will only succeed in overcoming it by working much more closely together.

These terrorists operate throughout Europe; their networks use technology to spread their poison and to organise beyond geographical limits.

People say that to keep our defences up, you need a border. And they’re right.

That’s why we kept our borders, and we can check any passport – including for EU nationals – and we retain control over who we allow into our country.

But against the modern threat, having a border isn’t enough. You also need information, you need data, you need intelligence. You need to cooperate with others to create mechanisms for sharing this information.

And, just as the Home Secretary said a fortnight ago, I can tell you this: whether it’s working together to share intelligence on suspected terrorists; whether it’s strengthening aviation security; addressing the challenge of cybercrime; preventing cross-border trade in firearms; tackling the migration crisis; or enhancing our own border security, the EU is not some peripheral institution, or a hindrance we have to work around – it is now an absolutely central part of how Britain can get things done.

Not by creating a vast new EU bureaucracy. Nor by sucking away the role and capabilities of our own world beating intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

But because their superb work depends on much closer cooperation between European governments and much faster and more determined action across Europe to deal with this new threat.

As the historian Niall Ferguson observed, it takes a network to defeat a network.

And European measures are a key weapon.

The European Arrest Warrant allows us to bring criminals and terrorists, like one of the failed 21/7 Tube bombers who had fled to Italy, we can bring them back to the UK to face justice straight away.

Our membership of Europol gives us access to important databases that help us to identify criminals.

And we have begun to cooperate on DNA and fingerprint matching across borders, too. These tools help us in real-time, life-or-death situations.

One of the Paris attackers, Salah Abdeslam, was only identified quickly after the attack because the French police were able to use EU powers to exchange DNA and fingerprints with the Belgians.

Before this cooperation, DNA matching between 2 countries didn’t take minutes, it could take over 4 months.

In the last few months alone, we have agreed a new Passenger Name Records directive, so that EU countries will have access to airline passenger data to enable us to identify those on terror watch-lists.

These new arrangements will also provide crucial details about how the tickets were bought, the bank accounts used and the people they are travelling with.

And the EU has recently switched on a new database, called SIS II, which is providing real-time alerts for suspected jihadists and other serious criminals.

Now I don’t argue that if we left we would lose any ability to cooperate with our neighbours on a bilateral basis, or even potentially through some EU mechanisms.

But it is clear that leaving the EU will make cooperation more legally complex – and make our access to vital information much slower and more difficult.

Look at for instance Norway and Iceland: they began negotiating an extradition agreement with the EU in 2001 and yet today it is still not in force.

And of course we will miss out on the benefits of these new arrangements, and any that develop in future.

Now you can take the view that we don’t need this cooperation – that we can just do without these extra capabilities.

That in my view is a totally complacent view. Especially in a world where the difference between a prevented attack and a successful attack can be just 1 missing piece of data; 1 piece of the jigsaw that the agencies found just too late.

You can also decide, as some on the Leave side seriously do, that even though working together is helpful for keeping us safe, it involves giving up too much sovereignty and ceding too much power over security cooperation to the European Court of Justice.

My view is this: when terrorists are planning to kill and maim people on British streets, the closest possible security cooperation is far more important than sovereignty in its purest theoretical form. I want to give our country real power, not the illusion of power.

Britain’s power in the world

Fourth, Britain’s unique position and power in the world is not defined by our membership of the EU, any more than it is by our membership of the Commonwealth or the UN Security Council or the OECD or the IMF or the myriad other international organisations to which we belong.

But our EU membership, like our membership of other international organisations, magnifies our national power.

Britain is a global nation, with a global role and a global reach.

We take our own decisions, in our own interests. We always have done, we always will do.

In the years since we joined the EU, we have shown that time and again with British, national, sovereign decisions about our foreign and defence policy taken by British prime ministers and British ministers.

Liberating the Falkland Islands in a great feat of military endeavour. Freeing Kuwait from Iraq.

And, more recently, our mission to prevent Afghanistan continuing to be a safe haven for international terrorists.

As I speak here today, we are flying policing missions over the Baltic states. Training security forces in Nigeria. And of course, taking the fight to Daesh in Syria and Iraq.

So the idea that our membership of the EU has emasculated our power as a nation – this is complete nonsense.

Indeed, over the last 40 years, our global power has grown, not diminished.

In the years before we joined the EU, British governments presided over a steady retrenchment of our world role, borne of our economic weakness.

The decision to retreat East of Suez and abandon our aircraft carriers was taken in 1968.

Since then, starting with the transformation of our economy by Margaret Thatcher, we have turned around our fortunes.

In the 21st century, Britain is once again a country that is advancing, not retreating,

We have reversed the East of Suez policy, we are building permanent military bases in the Gulf, we are opening embassies all around the world, particularly in Asia.

We have a new strategic relationship with both China and India, have committed to spending 2% of our GDP on defence – 1 of only 5 NATO nations to be meeting that target.

Our expertise in aid, development and responding to crises is admired the world over.

We are renewing our independent nuclear deterrent.

Our 2 new aircraft carriers will be the biggest warships the Royal Navy has ever put to sea.

These are the actions of a proud, independent, self-confident, go-getting nation, a nation that is confident and optimistic about its future, not one cowed and shackled by its membership of the European Union.

On the contrary, our membership of the EU is one of the tools – just one – which we use, as we do our membership of NATO, or the Commonwealth, or the Five Power Defence Agreement with Australia, New Zealand and our allies in South East Asia, to amplify British power and to enhance our influence in the world.

Decisions on foreign policy are taken by unanimity. Britain has a veto.

So suggestions of an EU army are fanciful: national security is a national competence, and we would veto any suggestion of an EU army.

And as we sit in Britain’s National Security Council, time and again I know that making Britain’s actions count for far more means working with other countries in the EU.

Let me just take 3 specific examples of what I mean.

When Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, there was a real risk of a feeble European response, and of a split between the United States and Europe.

I convened a special meeting of the key European countries in Brussels, agreed a package of sanctions, and then drove that package through the full meeting of EU leaders – the European Council – later that same evening. I could not have done that outside the EU.

An example of Britain injecting steel into Europe’s actions; delivering sanctions which have been far more effective because 28 countries are implementing them, not just the UK. And at the same time, we maintained that crucial unity between Europe and the US in the face of Russian aggression.

On Iran, again, it was Britain that pushed hardest for the implementation of an EU oil embargo against that country.

And it was the embargo which helped bring Iran to the negotiating table, and ultimately led to the UN sanctions that led to Iran abandoning its ambition to build a nuclear weapon. Who led those negotiations? It was the EU, with Britain playing a central role.

And on Ebola, it was Britain that used a European Council to push leaders into massively increasing Europe’s financial contribution to tackling the disease in West Africa, thereby helping to contain and deal with what was a major public health emergency.

If Britain left the EU, we would lose that tool.

The German Chancellor would be there. The French President. The Italian Prime Minister. So would the Maltese, the Slovak, the Czech, the Polish, the Slovene, as well as all the others.

But Britain – the fifth largest economy in the world, the second biggest in Europe – would be absent, outside the room.

We would no longer take those decisions which have a direct bearing on Britain.

Instead we would have to establish an enormous diplomatic mission in Brussels to try and lobby participants before those meetings took place, and to try and then find out what had happened at them once they broke up.

Would we really be sitting around congratulating ourselves on how ‘sovereign’ we feel, without any control over events that affect us?

What an abject act of national retreat that would be for our great country, a diminution of Britain’s power inflicted for the first time in our history not by economic woe or military defeat, but entirely of our own accord.

And when it comes to the strength of our United Kingdom, we should never forget that our strength is that of a voluntary union of 4 nations. So let me just say this about Scotland: you don’t renew your country by taking a decision that could, ultimately, lead to its disintegration.

So as we weigh up this decision, let’s do so with our eyes open.

And, of course, there is something closely connected to our power and influence that is absolutely vital: and that’s the view of Britain’s closest friends and allies.

Before you take any big decision in life, it’s natural to consult those who wish you well, those who are with you in the tough times as well as in the good.

Sometimes they offer contradictory advice. Sometimes they don’t have much of a view.

That’s not the case here.

Our allies have a very clear view. They want us to remain members of the European Union.

Not only our fellow members of the EU – they want us to stay, and could be resentful if we chose to leave.

The Leave campaign keep telling us that there is a big world out there, if only we could lift our sights beyond Europe.

But the problem is they don’t seem to hearing what that big world is saying.

There is our principal and indispensable ally, the guarantor of our security – the United States – whose President made the American position very plain, as only the oldest and best friends can.

And then there are the nations to which we are perhaps closest in the world, our cousins in Australia and New Zealand, whose prime ministers have spoken out so clearly.

The Secretary-General of NATO says that a weakened and divided Europe would be “bad for security and bad for NATO”.

Only on Thursday, the Japanese Prime Minister – whose country is such a huge investor and employer in the United Kingdom – made very clear that Japan hoped the UK would decide to remain in the EU.

So too have big emerging economies like Indonesia.

And then there are our major new trading and strategic relationships – China and India – in whom some of the Leave campaign claim to invest such great hopes, at least when they’re not saying they want to impose hefty tariffs on them. They too want us to remain in the EU.

So from America to Asia, from Australasia and the Indian sub-continent, our friends and our biggest trading partners, or potential trading partners, are telling us very clearly: it’s your decision. But we hope you vote to stay in the European Union.

By the way, so too are our own Dependent Territories – Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands – with whom we have such a special bond and for whom we have a special responsibility.

Conclusion

And so? Next month we will make our choice as a nation.

I am very clear.

Britain is stronger and safer in the EU, as well as better off.

And the EU benefits from Britain being inside rather than out.

This is a Europe that Britain has helped to shape.

A continent that Britain helped liberate not once in the last century, but twice.

And we always wanted 2 things from the EU.

One: the creation of a vast single market; one we thought would benefit our economy enormously and spread prosperity throughout our neighbourhood.

And two: a Europe in which Britain helped the nations which languished under Communism return to the European fold; nations who still look to us as a friend and protector and do not want us to abandon them now.

We’ve got both of those things.

We did all that.

And imagine if we hadn’t been there.

Who would have driven forward the single market?

Who would have prevented Europe from becoming a protectionist bloc?

Who would have stopped the EU from becoming a single currency zone?

Who would have stood up and said no to those pushing for political union?

Who would have done these things?

Because the truth is that if we were not in it, the European Union would in all likelihood still exist.

So we would still have to deal with it.

Now we have the opportunity to have what we have always wanted: to be in the single market, but out of the euro.

To be at the European Council, with our full voting and veto rights, but specifically exempted from ever closer union.

To have the opportunity to work, live and travel in other EU countries, but to retain full controls at our border.

To take part in the home affairs cooperation that benefits our security, but outside those measures we don’t like.

And to keep our currency.

That is, frankly, the best of both worlds.

No wonder our friends and allies want us to take it. To lead, not to quit.

It is what the Chinese call a win win.

The Americans would probably say it’s a slam dunk.

We are Britain.

No one seriously suggests any more that after 40 years in the EU, we have become less British.

We’re proud. We’re independent.

We get things done.

So let’s not walk away from the institutions that help us to win in the world.

Let’s not walk away from the EU, any more than we would walk away from the UN, or from NATO.

We’re bigger than that.

So I say – instead, let us remain, let us fight our corner, let us play the part we should, as a great power in the world, and a great and growing power in Europe.

That is the big, bold, and patriotic decision for Britain on 23 June.

May 10, 2016
Chris Chope – 2016 Speech on the European Convention on Human Rights

Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Chope, the Conservative MP for Christchurch, in the House of Commons on 9 May 2016.

I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for giving me the opportunity this evening to raise the issue of the UK’s membership of the European convention on human rights. I want to focus on the issue in the context of the referendum that will take place on 23 June—and let me say, as a Brexiteer, that it is good to know that a fellow Brexiteer will be responding to the debate.

I should, at the outset, set out my position on sovereignty and human rights. I want our Parliament to make the laws to which United Kingdom citizens are subject, and I want our independent judges to interpret those laws without fear or favour. I believe that if Parliament does not like a court’s interpretation of the law, Parliament should be able to change that law, prospectively but not retrospectively. I also believe that supranational courts should not be able to legislate for us by judicial means. If the wording of a treaty is to be changed, it should be changed by an amending protocol and not by judges.

That is why I support the European convention on human rights, but am very uneasy about the way in which it has been extended by judicial activism into fields that Parliament has never approved—a prime example, obviously, is giving votes to prisoners, an issue which the Prime Minister told us made him feel physically sick—and that is why I am so keen for the United Kingdom to take back control over the making and interpretation of our laws. Currently, 60% of our laws are made by the European Union, and they can be changed at will by the European Union against our wishes, because even if all United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament vote in one way, they can muster fewer than 10% of the votes in that Parliament.

I applied for this debate because I am very confused about Government policy on UK membership of the European convention on human rights. I read the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on 25 April, entitled “The United Kingdom, the European Union, and our place in the world”. In that speech, my right hon. Friend set out what she considered to be the principles for Britain’s membership of international institutions. She said:

“We need…to establish clear principles…Does it make us more influential beyond our…shores? Does it make us more secure? Does it make us more prosperous? Can we control or influence the direction of the organisation in question? To what extent does membership bind the hands of Parliament?”

Having asked all those questions, she said that

“the case for remaining a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights—which means Britain is subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights—is not clear.”

She went on to say:

“The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign criminals.”

“If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

If we want to have influence, we should bear in mind that tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of the imprisonment of seven Bahá’i leaders in Iran. They are prisoners of conscience, and were imprisoned as a result of their religious belief. That is an unquestionable violation of their human rights.

Outside Europe, the United Kingdom’s membership of the European convention on human rights sends a strong signal of our continued commitment to upholding and advancing human rights globally. Is there not a good reason for our being a member of the convention when we can do something for those Bahá’i leaders in Iran who have been violated and persecuted because of their beliefs? That is one example.

Mr Chope

The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well. However, I am concentrating on what the Home Secretary said. She seemed to be announcing a Government policy that the United Kingdom should leave the convention but stay in the EU. Her speech led to an urgent question, which was granted by Mr Speaker, and I—and other people who were present on that occasion—could not understand how we were going to be able to deliver the Home Secretary’s agenda on human rights if we remained in the European Union and subject to the EU charter of fundamental rights.

Questions were raised by Members during those exchanges, and it became clear that the Home Secretary—and, indeed, the Government—were indeed rather muddled about this. One of the questions that was asked was whether membership of the European Union required us to be a party to the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary was not answering the urgent question. The Attorney General answered, as a Law Officer. He said:

“It is not…in any way clear that membership of the European Union requires membership of the European convention on human rights…there are considerable legal complexities”.—[Official Report, 26 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1291.]

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) then cited article 6.3 of the treaty on European Union, which states:

“Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention…shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.”

He went on to refer to the fact that the Commission had said that any member country of the European Union that sought to disengage from the European convention on human rights might have its voting rights suspended.

Then, as so often happens in this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) asked a really pertinent question. He said:

“Can a country remain in the European Union and still come out of the convention? What is his legal opinion on that?”

The Attorney General replied:

“As I have suggested, the legal position is not clear.”

He went on to say that he did not

“have the time to go into all the ins and outs of that particular question now, but I suggest it would also be wrong to say that it is clear in the opposite direction.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1301.]

So that was what the Government were saying about this particular matter.

This morning, I heard the Prime Minister chiding Brexiteers for having no clear comprehensive plan for life outside the EU, but that was a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. As I have just said, the Prime Minister and the Government have no clear plan for life inside the European Union if there is a remain vote on 23 June. They do not know what will happen to their human rights agenda. There are many other examples beyond that.

It is a failure by the Government not to address this issue up front, and to leave it hanging in the air pending the referendum. We have had some quite clear advice from lawyers of great distinction. For example, Lord Woolf said:

“You can legally reconcile the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament with the European Convention on Human Rights. You cannot do that with regard to the European Charter, because the position there is that you can trump a statute.”

Lord Woolf was being quoted there in the House of Lords paper 139, which was published today. We now have a situation in which the Home Secretary seems to be arguing that we would be more secure if we left the convention on human rights but retained European law relating to fundamental rights.

I should like to give the House some examples of how EU law is undermining our security. In The Sunday Telegraph yesterday, it was reported that six Algerian terror suspects with links to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were to be allowed to stay here after a 10-year battle in the courts. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) has made the point that the number of people fraudulently trying to gain entry into the United Kingdom has almost doubled in a year. That is because those people realise that we do not have the power to turn them away at our borders if they are waving a European Union identity document.

I was speaking at a conference on European freight security last week, at which it became apparent that we are not allowed to X-ray lorries in Calais to see whether they contain illegal migrants because it might be damaging to the human rights and health of those illegal migrants. That is another example of how human rights laws undermine our ability to keep our borders secure. Another example is that we are not allowed to take DNA samples from migrants who refuse to give their fingerprints when they enter the European Union, which is expressly prohibited by the Eurodac regulations.

Then we have the example, which came out a couple of months ago, of Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law. We found out that she was his daughter-in-law only through a freedom of information request. An advocate-general in the European Court of Justice said that it was in principle contrary to European Union treaties to remove the lady from the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that she had been convicted and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. It was subsequently revealed that she had been convicted of attempting to smuggle a Sim card to Abu Hamza while he was in a high-security prison, but even that grave crime was insufficient to allow the courts to remove her from the United Kingdom because of the intervention of the European Court of Justice, which exercised its powers under the EU’s fundamental rights laws.

I cannot understand how the Home Secretary can consistently argue that we should stay in the European Union when the logic of everything she said in her speech was that we should be leaving the EU. It is potentially misleading for members of the public to think that they can have their cake and eat it by leaving the European convention on human rights while still remaining subject to the European Court of Justice.

Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

Perhaps all these complexities explain why so little progress is being made on our manifesto commitment to leave the European convention on human rights. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will make it clear that the Government have not gone cold on that.

Mr Chope

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that. We had a debate towards the beginning of this parliamentary Session in which the Minister made it clear that the Government intended to bring forward a consultation document on this sooner rather than later. I think he envisaged that that would be before Christmas, but it then became after Christmas and now it is after the referendum. They were talking about a consultation document, so why can we not have even a discussion? I fear that it has been kicked into the long grass on the instructions of No. 10, because it was realised that it would lead to lot of awkward questions. The Government have demonstrated throughout the course of the referendum debate that they are quite happy to ask hypothetical questions and complain when people are unable to answer them, but they are unwilling to respond positively to the questions that people are asking them.

Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)

I am sorry that I missed the first part of my hon. Friend’s speech; I very much look forward to reading it tomorrow. While the view of the general public is that infringements on the rights of Parliament are the result of the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights, will my hon. Friend confirm that even if we were to leave the European convention on human rights and remain in the EU, we would still be subject to the same kind of interference from the European Court of Justice?

Mr Chope

Yes. It would be not only the same type of interference, but graver. That is the conclusion of the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, the report of which I referred to earlier and came out today. The European Court of Justice has much greater powers and can effectively remove legislation from our statutes. The European Court of Human Rights is much more restricted and can deal only with individual cases, which then can be the subject of negotiation and we can ultimately exercise more discretion or have a greater “margin of appreciation”, to put it in legal language. As Lord Woolf was saying, the European convention on human rights may not be perfect, and we may not like the way in which it has been changed by judge-made law, but most people would agree with its actual wording.

The European charter of fundamental rights is anathema. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when the charter was first brought forward and the then Labour Government were saying that it would have no application to the United Kingdom, the then Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), memorably said that it would have no more status in UK law than a copy of the Beano. That just illustrates the speed with which change comes about. One moment we think something has been passed which is not going to apply to us and now we find, on the highest authorities in the land, that we are indeed subordinate to the European Court of Justice and that the European fundamental rights agency and charter are supreme. My plea to the Minister is: can we get this sorted out? Will he confirm that the UK would be in an absurd position if it wanted to stay in the EU but denounced the European convention on human rights?

May 10, 2016
Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech in Leicester

Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, in Leicester on 6 May 2016.

Good morning ladies and gentleman, and thank you Corin [Crane, Director, Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership] for that introduction.

Both as the Secretary of State for Education and as a Leicestershire MP, it’s such a delight to be here today, launching the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership’s local Enterprise Adviser Network in partnership with the Careers and Enterprise Company.

And it’s a real pleasure to welcome the Careers and Enterprise Company’s Chief Executive, Claudia Harris, here this morning.

As a government we have made it a priority to make sure the education system is better linked to the world of work, with emphasis on young people mastering the skills the economy needs and relevant qualifications respected by employers who are able to have greater influence on the curriculum and how it is delivered.

This government wants to see real and long-lasting improvements to the quality of careers advice and guidance, with schools and employers working more closely together.

Getting this right means opening a world of opportunity for young people, making sure each and every one of them has the chance to succeed in life, and is a key component of our commitment to govern as one nation and deliver social justice.

We know we have made great strides forward since 2010, with the latest national figures showing 7.3% of 16- to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training (NEET) – that is the lowest level since consistent records began.

However, in parts of our local area NEET levels are significantly higher than others, so we cannot rest on our laurels, and we have to continually commit ourselves to helping all young people to reach their potential.

By working together – government, schools, colleges, universities and employers – we can all play a part in the success of young people, setting them up with the tools to find a career that suits them and delivers the financial security of a prosperous future.

It’s vital for individuals, but actually it’s vital for the economy as a whole too. That’s why the careers strategy we’re publishing this year will rightly recognise the importance of careers provision.

I’m proud that this government has committed £70 million throughout this Parliament to transform careers provision – and we’re investing an additional £20 million to increase mentor numbers for those at risk of underachieving, so that they can get the high-quality mentoring that will give them the guidance and the confidence that will allow them to succeed.

Many organisations are already offering excellent careers and enterprise activities for schools, employers and young people, but access is inconsistent and coverage is patchy.

That’s why we backed the creation of the Careers and Enterprise Company, so that it could test and share evidence on what works, address inconsistencies and deliver targeted support where it is most needed, invest in and facilitate young people having more contact with employers during the crucial period when they are making decisions about their future, and create the lasting connections between schools and local employers that will make careers guidance meaningful and matched to local need.

The Careers and Enterprise Company has made excellent progress to date, launching its £5 million careers and enterprise fund, benefiting a number of national projects and of which £184k has been specifically awarded to excellent local initiatives.

Bridge to Work, based at Loughborough College, an initiative I have been delighted to support as a local MP, is one of the recipients.

It offers flexible courses, work experience, interview training, employability and job coaching, as well as intensive courses in vital English, maths and ICT skills. Its focus on the skills gap is helping young people to make a smooth transition from education to the world of work.

In October last year I was thrilled to be able to attend one of their careers events, alongside Claudia Harris of the Careers and Enterprise Company.

Bridge to Work is not alone, with other local schemes like the Engineering Development Trust, Founders for Schools, Twenty Twenty and World Skills UK also benefiting from the fund.

The Careers and Enterprise Company has made other progress too, publishing its ‘what works’ toolkit and announcing that it will lead a new mentoring campaign with the aim by 2020 for 25,000 young people a year to receive mentor support.

Enterprise education is about teaching young people to recognise and develop the skills of innovation, creativity, risk-taking and management and – while it is for schools to decide how best to provide entrepreneurship education – we know that contact with entrepreneurs and businesses is key, because modern careers guidance is as much about fostering aspiration and building confidence in young people as it is about making sure they have access to meaningful advice.

I am delighted that the Enterprise Adviser Network, launched by the Careers and Enterprise Company in September 2015, has been such a success.

Local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) up and down the country have embraced this opportunity to help deliver their skills plans by bringing schools, colleges, local employers and other organisations together.

The hard work of people like Corin, Abdul [Bathin, Enterprise Co-ordinator, Leicester and Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership] and the fabulous team at the Careers and Enterprise Company has got the network off to a flying start and it is already making a difference.

There are now 59 enterprise co-ordinators in 35 local enterprise partnerships, with 340 enterprise advisers signed up.

And it’s set to grow rapidly, with the remaining local enterprise partnerships signing up and the recruitment of more coordinators and many more volunteer advisers.

As you know, the Enterprise Adviser Network is able to pair senior business volunteers with senior leadership teams in schools and colleges, with the volunteers supporting those schools to build employer engagement and careers and enterprise plans.

The network is underpinned by the enterprise co-ordinators working in clusters of 20 schools and colleges, knocking on employers’ doors and making it their mission to understand offers from service providers, significantly decluttering the work-facing schools and colleges trying to build engagement plans.

The success of the Enterprise Adviser Network depends on business volunteers giving up their time to work with schools and inspire young people, opening their eyes to opportunities available to them and helping them to take control of their futures.

I want to say a massive thank you to those who have volunteered already – it’s such an important role, and I think there’s something to be gained for the volunteers too, with the potential to inspire young people into their own sectors and contribute to the way their local economy adds to its workforce with the kinds of skills it really needs.

Evidence indicates, for example, that manufacturing employers find it difficult to fill vacancies because of a lack of applicants with the requisite skills.

This is a particular challenge here in Leicester and Leicestershire because we have higher-than-average concentrations of manufacturing with 14% compared to 9% nationally.

In other industries we have higher-than-average logistics and public sectors too, so we need to make sure we are taking steps to address that in the way we train and advise our young people on careers.

The Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Adviser Network was created to build the lasting connections between local employers, and schools and colleges that Leicester and Leicestershire really needs.

I’m so pleased that the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership has been so quick off the mark, recruiting one enterprise co-ordinator already, with 17 local schools and colleges signed up, and 14 enterprise advisers recruited to the programme, which it is now seeking to match.

The network ambitiously aims to have 20 schools signed up and 20 enterprise advisers recruited by the end of this month, and to have another enterprise co-ordinator in post, and 40 schools and enterprise advisers involved by September.

And I think that approach is absolutely right because we have to be ambitious for every young person and stretch the network’s reach as far as we can.

I’m really pleased that established and successful local provision like the Leicestershire Education Business Company and Leicestershire Cares are at the heart of the local enterprise partnership’s development of the Enterprise Adviser Network.

The network is already a fantastic example, building on the excellent practice that exists and stripping out unnecessary duplication, making it easier for schools and colleges to connect with local employers and careers and enterprise providers across the country.

I want to take this opportunity to wish Abdul well in his role as Enterprise Co-ordinator and ask that you work with him in the coming months and years, as he seeks, with his wealth of experience working with local businesses and young people, to grow the network and make it a success.

I’m so excited to see the Enterprise Adviser Network operating here in our local area.

The guidance, support and opportunities it can and will offer to young people here in Leicester and Leicestershire is crucial to making sure they are able to make informed decisions about their future careers, while at the same time matching them with the needs of our local economy.

Armed with the right information those young people can make choices that suit them and their skills, setting them up for the futures they really want.

Thank you.

May 9, 2016
Lord Price – 2016 Speech in Argentina

Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Price at the Stock Exchange, Buenos Aires, Argentina on 6 May 2016.

Delighted to be here today and thanks for that introduction.

“Buenas tardes”.

As you can see, I have been practising my Argentine Spanish.

I was able to hone my skills when I came here a few years ago. At the time, I was Managing Director of Waitrose, one of the largest supermarkets in the UK, and I had come to Argentina on a buying trip. I had a memorable time travelling around this beautiful country and meeting our suppliers.

So, when I became the British Minister for Trade & Investment last month, I knew that Argentina was a country with vast potential and was keen for a return visit.

There were two things that intrigued me.

The first was the very strong relationship that Argentina and Britain had from the very early days of independence; and the second was the issue of trade.

I knew that when Argentina became independent, Britain was its natural ally as the pre-eminent power of the day.Railways and ports were built using British engineering knowhow and Liverpool bricks. These helped to open up the interior, enabling Argentina to develop into the major food producer it is today.

And the architectural legacy of this time lives on in the 300,000 tiles supplied by Royal Doulton for the Palace of Flowing Waters (the Palacio de Aguas Corrientes) in Buenos Aires. And in the design produced by British engineers for the beautiful Retiro Mitre railway station.

Less tangible are the common passions we both share.

I am a supporter of Crewe Alexandra Football Club. Not heard of them? They are the second bottom team in the bottom league of English football. They would probably struggle against Boca or River Plate, but – like any football fan – I live in hope.

We enjoy the finer things of life.

It was no coincidence that I unveiled the sleek lines of the Jaguar XE car at the British residence last night.

And both our nations admire fashion and creativity.

I am here today because I think there is an opportunity to transform these shared interests into tangible business interests.

The second issue that caught my attention was our attitude to trade. I am a great believer that business is a force for good. It is business that creates the jobs and profits, that generate the taxes, that pay for our schools, hospitals and roads, making our countries safer and more secure. And by doing business internationally, we can spread these benefits to more people.

The freedom to trade is something that the UK believes in very strongly.

That’s why we use our influence as the world’s fifth largest economy to promote this via bodies such as the EU, the World Trade Organization, the G20 and the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation. We warmly welcome Argentina’s renewed engagement on the international scene, and the direction of your government’s economic reforms.

As the third largest economy in Latin America and a fellow member of the G20, it’s important that Argentina’s voice is heard. The UK is pushing for rapid progress on the EU-Mercosur trade deal; we are supportive of your bid to join the OECD; and we look for Argentina’s support in enabling the WTO’s Agreement on Trade Facilitation to come into force.

Expanding trade was one of the subjects under discussion when Prime Minister David Cameron met President Mauricio Macri in Davos, this January. It was the focus of a meeting between Chancellor George Osborne and Finance Minister Alfonso Prat-Gay.

And, for these last two days, it has been my focus here, and that of the business delegation accompanying me. We have had the great pleasure of meeting Francisco Cabrera, your Minister for Production; Miguel Braun, your Secretary for Commerce; and Guillermo Dietrich, the Minister of Transport.

The message we bring is that the UK is committed to developing our bilateral relationship and supporting Argentina’s growth.

With this depth of activity going on, we are looking at specific opportunities. So what are these?

Rail is clearly one of them. Our countries worked together to help build the railway network here, now we can work together to develop it further. Yesterday, I visited the Mitre railway line where British company Brecknell Willis is involved with the electrification project. And Transport for London has a memorandum of understanding to support the development of a transfer station in Buenos Aires.

Foster + Partners designed the Buenos Aires City Hall; and we have a wide range of architects and engineers with track records of producing unforgettable designs and practical solutions for airports, housing, roads and ports.

Waste water is not the most glamorous of subjects, but this is an area where our civil engineers can work together to bring real benefit to people in Argentina.

I am excited by the prospect of increasing e-commerce. The UK is number one in Europe in this field, and I am delighted that British e-tailers will soon be promoted on the Mercado Libre website, in accordance with an agreement with UK Trade & Investment. With such technology, trading overseas has never been easier.

And the UK is keen to use its expertise in agri-tech to help Argentine farmers to improve yields and reduce costs, as we were able to discuss with Sociedad Rural, the Argentine Rural Association, just prior to our arrival at the Bolsa.

None of these projects can get off the ground without support from the financial sector.

I spoke earlier about the power of business to do good. This is not something our stockbrokers and bankers are accused of doing very frequently. Yet when you think about it, financial services are the bedrock that underpins so much other business activity. Where would the start-up be without the bank manager’s loan? Where would expanding businesses be without the ability to seek capital in the stock markets? And who would do business if they had no cover against risk? Financial services not only generate tax revenues on their own account, they allow the rest of the economy to do the same.

The UK and Argentina have a long history of cooperation in the financial sphere. And London is the leading centre in Europe for financial services. If we can work together on this, we can free up the resources that will enable Argentine businesses to grow.

For those Argentine companies that do want to expand internationally, I hope you will consider the UK. You would be warmly welcomed.

The UK is consistently the number one destination for foreign direct investment in Europe.

We are the fastest-growing major economy in the world.
We have a tax system that says that we are open for business. Our corporation tax is due to fall to 17% by 2020 and there is a tax rate of 10% that applies to profits earned on income from patents.
And we are home to businesses from around the globe; with a cosmopolitan and highly skilled workforce and standard of living that few other countries can match.
Furthermore, we actively welcome entrepreneurs and have visas for those wish to invest in the UK and their families.

Sadly, this lunch is the finale of my trip, and I am deeply honoured that I have been brought to such magnificent surroundings to speak to such a distinguished audience. Thank you for your time.

We are at the start of a new era for relations between our two countries, forging fresh ties that build on our historic connections and common interests. Over the coming weeks, we will see a British oil and gas delegation coming to Argentina, and an Argentine delegation attending London Tech Week.

I hope to see many more firms follow in their footsteps.

I have had a wonderful time in Argentina, and have been welcomed as a guest wherever I have been.

Thanks once again for a very valuable visit.

May 9, 2016