Tag: 2007

This speech was made by Gordon Brown on 12th November 2007.

Tonight, I want to speak about Britain’s unique place in the new world. And where, as a result, our responsibilities lie; how our national interest can be best advanced; and what we can achieve by working together internationally and by contributing to building the strongest and broadest sense of common purpose.

In the 1820s the then Foreign Secretary George Canning said that he had ‘called the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old’. The order of the nineteenth century saw European empires spanning the globe. After World War Two a new international order was defined by the high stakes of the superpower nuclear stand off. Both these world orders shaped by political weight and military power.

In 1989 the old world order dominated by the Cold War came to an end. But how quickly events have disproved those who celebrated the end of the Cold War as ‘the end of history’. From Bosnia to Darfur, Rwanda to Afghanistan we have seen a level of disorder and uncertainty that no-one predicted. And no one foresaw the scale of the dramatic and seismic shifts in economy, culture and communications that are now truly global.

Our international institutions built for just 50 sheltered economies in what became a bipolar world are not fit for purpose in an interdependent world of 200 states where global flows of commerce, people and ideas defy borders. With such transformative change comes a clear obligation, but also a great opportunity, to write a new chapter — to set down for a new era a better 21st century way of delivering peace and prosperity.

Of course the first duty of Government – our abiding obligation – is and will always be the safety of the British people, the protection of the British national interest. And let me affirm our commitment that we will always be vigilant and resolute, never leave ourselves vulnerable, but will at all times support and strengthen our armed forces, our defences and our security. Yet the timeless values that underpin our policies at home – our belief in the liberty of all, in security and justice for all, in economic opportunity andenvironmental protection shared by all – are also ideals that I believe that it is in our national interest to promote abroad. But we do so in a changing world where six new global forces unique to our generation are demonstrating our growing interdependence and pressing the international community to discover common purpose.

First, few expected when the adamantine certainties of the Cold War came to an end, we would have to address the constantly changing uncertainties of violence and instability from failed states and rogue states. The spread of terrorism has destroyed the old assumption that states alone could access destructive weapons. As dramatic in a different way is a third force for change: global flows of capital and global sourcing of goods and services have brought the biggest shift of economic power since the industrial revolution – the rapid emergence of India and China as global powers with legitimate global aspirations. The new frontier is that there is no frontier.

The unprecedented impact of climate change transforms the very purpose of government. Once quality of life meant the pursuit of two objectives: economic growth and social cohesion. Now there is a trinity of aims:prosperity, fairness and environmental care. And as energy supplies are under pressure there is a new global competition for natural resources. New global forces at work – from pandemics to worldwide migration – make the task of overcoming the great social evils of hunger, illiteracy, disease, squalor and poverty even more challenging. And if, as Tom Friedman has written, the defining image of the 20th centurywas a wall representing division, the defining image of the 21st is a web championing connections — a world where we can rightly now talk not just of the wealth of nations but the wealth of networks. The web cannot be controlled in the end by any single force or any single leader. And what happens within it cannot be predicted from day to day.

George Orwell was not quite right: the technology revolution he foresaw is not a controlling force enslaving people, but for the most part a liberating force empowering them. In the old order power affected people but could not easily be affected by them. But once powerless people now have the potential to be heard andsee their impact felt in places far away. And because our world is now so connected and sointerdependent it is possible in this century, for the first time in human history, to contemplate and create a global society that empowers people.

Why do I believe this is not only possible but essential? Because we cannot any longer escape the consequences of our interdependence. The old distinction between ‘over there’ and ‘over here’ does not make sense of this interdependent world. For there is no longer an ‘over there’ of terrorism, failed states, poverty, forced migration and environmental degradation and an ‘over here’ that is insulated or immune.Today a nation’s self interest today will be found not in isolation but in cooperation to overcome shared challenges. And so the underlying issue for our country – indeed for every country – is how together in this new interdependent world we renew and strengthen our international rules, institutions and networks.

My approach is hard-headed internationalism: – internationalist because global challenges need global solutions and nations must cooperate across borders – often with hard-headed intervention – to give expression to our shared interests and shared values; – hard-headed because we will not shirk from the difficult long term decisions and because only through reform of our international rules and institutions will we achieve concrete, on-the-ground results.

Building a global society means agreeing that the great interests we share in common are more powerful than the issues that sometimes divide us. It means articulating and acting upon the enduring values that define our common humanity and transcending ideologies of hatred that seek to drive us apart. And critically – and this is the main theme of my remarks this evening – we must bring to life these shared interests and shared values by practical proposals to create the architecture of a new global society.

Through our membership of the European Union – which gives us and 26 other countries the unique opportunity to work together on economic, environmental and security challenges – and the Commonwealth, and through our commitment to NATO and the UN, we have the capacity to work together with all those who share our vision of the future. And I do not see these as partnerships in competition with each other but mutually reinforcing.

It is no secret that I am a life long admirer of America. I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere in Europe and I believe that our ties with America – founded on values we share – constitute our most important bilateral relationship. And it is good for Britain, for Europe and for the wider world that today France and Germany and the European Union are building stronger relationships with America.

The 20th century showed that when Europe and America are distant from one another, instability is greater; when partners for progress the world is stronger. And in the years ahead – notwithstanding the huge shifts in economic influence underway – I believe that Europe and America have the best chance for many decades to achieve historic progress —-

–working ever more closely together on the project of building a global society;

–and helping bring in all continents, including countries today outside the G8 and the UN Security Council, to give new purpose and direction to our international institutions.

And while no longer the mightiest militarily, or the largest economically, the United Kingdom has an important contribution to make. Just as London has become a global hub linking commerce, ideas and people from all over the world, so too our enduring values and our network of alliances, can help secure the changes we need.

Today, there is still a gaping hole in our ability to address the illegitimate threats and use of force against innocent peoples. It is to the shame of the whole world that the international community failed to act to prevent genocide in Rwanda. We now rightly recognise our responsibility to protect behind borders where there are crimes against humanity.

But if we are to honour that responsibility to protect we urgently need a new framework to assist reconstruction. With the systematic use of earlier Security Council action, proper funding of peacekeepers, targeted sanctions – and their ratcheting up to include the real threat of international criminal court actions – we must now set in place the first internationally agreed procedures to prevent breakdowns of states and societies.

But where breakdowns occur, the UN – and regional bodies such as the EU and African Union – must now also agree to systematically combine traditional emergency aid and peacekeeping with stabilisation, reconstruction and development.

There are many steps the international community can assist with on the ladder from insecurity and conflict to stability and prosperity. So I propose that, in future, Security Council peacekeeping resolutions and UN Envoys should make stablisation, reconstruction and development an equal priority; that the international community should be ready to act with a standby civilian force including police and judiciary who can be deployed to rebuild civic societies; and that to repair damaged economies we sponsor local economic development agencies —- in each area the international community able to offer a practical route map from failure to stability.

And just as we will continue to be a leading nation in negotiating nuclear arms reductions, so we must be at the forefront of meeting the challenge of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation. And with more sophisticated after-the-fact detection of the source of nuclear materials there must be a determination to hold to account both active providers and potential users.

I propose internationally agreed access to an enrichment bond or nuclear fuel bank to help non-nuclear states acquire the new sources of energy they need. But this offer should be made only as long as these countries renounce nuclear weapons and meet internationally enforced non-proliferation standards.

The greatest immediate challenge to non-proliferation is Iran’s nuclear ambitions, hidden from the world for many years in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran has a choice – confrontation with the international community leading to a tightening of sanctions or, if it changes its approach and ends support for terrorism, a transformed relationship with the world.

Unless positive outcomes flow from Javier Solana’s report and the IAEA, we will lead in seeking tougher sanctions both at the UN and in the European Union, including on oil and gas investment and the financial sector. Iran should be in no doubt about our seriousness of purpose.

Small arms kill every 90 seconds so as we call for an Arms Trade Treaty, Britain is willing to extend export laws to control extra-territorial brokering and trafficking of small arms, and potentially other weapons. And having led the way by taking two types of cluster munitions out of service, we want to work internationally for a ban on the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of those cluster munitions which cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

To build not just security but environmental stewardship and prosperity free of global poverty, I want a G8 for the 21st century, a UN for the 21st century, and an IMF and World Bank fit for the 21st century.

And to achieve this I want to play my part in helping the European Union move away from its past preoccupation with inward looking institutional reform and I will work with others to propose a comprehensive agenda for a Global Europe – a Europe that is outward looking, open, internationalist, able to effectively respond both through internal reform and external action to the economic, security and environmental imperatives of globalisation.

I said my approach was hard headed because I am conscious of weaknesses in international institutions that need to be addressed, aware that while resolutions matter results matter even more, determined to judge success not by the number of initiatives in conference halls but by practical action for change, and resolute in my determination that we need fewer rather than more international bureaucracies. Indeed, we need a new network of change-makers – often non-governmental organisations – which deliver concrete action on the ground.

Long term but now also interim options must be examined to reform a UN Security Council – whose permanent members do not include Japan, India, Brazil, Germany, or any African country – to make the Council more representative, more credible and more effective.

The G8 has to increasingly broaden to encompass the influential emerging economies now outside but that account for more than a third of the world’s economic output.

And we need a new coalition of democracies and civic societies joining together as allies for progress, with leaders in politics, economics and civil society all pushing forward reform.

International efforts against terrorism are not a short-term struggle where we get by through ad-hoc improvisation: this is a generational challenge. Global terrorist networks demand a global response. And if there are to be no safe havens for terrorists, and no hiding places for those financing and harbouring terrorism, we should work for a concerted global strengthening of law enforcement, financial supervision and policing and intelligence cooperation.

Financial disruption in one country can now affect all countries. The IMF should be transformed with a renewed mandate that goes far beyond crisis management to crisis prevention – not only responsible in the manner of an independent central bank for the independent surveillance of the world economy but becoming its early warning system.

As we move to a post 2012 global climate change agreement, we need a strengthened UN role for environmental protection.

And while we strengthen the World Bank’s focus on poverty reduction, it must also become a bank for the environment. So as its new President Bob Zoellick has argued, it should recognise that the poorest countries are the most vulnerable to climate change – and help them to adapt and to finance low carbon economic growth.

Over the summer in places of turmoil as different as Darfur and Burma – where we will continue to pressure and persuade – the international community has shown how it can come together.

In Afghanistan we will work with the international community to match our military and security effort with new support for political reform and for economic and social development.

And today and together we call on President Musharraf of Pakistan to restore the constitution and implement the necessary conditions to guarantee free and fair elections on schedule in January; release all political prisoners, including members of the judiciary and human rights activists; to pursue energetically reconciliation with the political opposition; honour his commitment to step down as Chief of Army Staff; and relax restrictions on the media.

Nor will we shirk our obligations to the people and new democracy of Iraq and to the international community. As we move next month from our combat role to ‘Overwatch’ in Basra Province, we will support economic development to give the people of Basra a greater stake in the future.

And with the personal leadership of President Bush and the peace initiative involving all 22 states of the Arab League, there is potentially a window of opportunity to achieve – thanks to the political courage of Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas – the creation of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.

For this we need not only a road to Annapolis but a road from Annapolis: the December donors conference in Paris; Tony Blair’s painstaking work for which I thank him; and Britain’s economic road map for reconstruction in the West Bank and Gaza, in support of which the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary will both shortly visit the region.

Whether in the Middle East or across the developing world, indifference to the plight of others is not only wrong, but not in our interests. That is why we continue to do all we can to reach a world trade agreement that will be of most benefit to the poorest.

But the global poverty emergency cannot be solved by one organisation or even a coalition of governments on their own: we now need the concerted efforts of private, public and third sectors working together —— a new public-private alliance founded on promoting trade and growth.

The injustices people inflict on one another are not god-given but man-made and we have it in our power to become the first generation in history to deliver to every child the long overdue basic right to education. And today we also have the science and medicine to be the first generation to eradicate the preventable diseases of TB, polio, diptheria and malaria — and eventually to cure HIV and AIDS.

And with a special UN meeting next year, it is my personal commitment to work with all people of goodwill to achieve these goals.

By history and conviction, we – Britain – are bearers of the indispensable idea of individual dignity and mutual respect. But we act to build a different, better world because we judge that it too is the best defence of our own future. We know that Britain cannot be a safe and prosperous island in a turbulent and divided world. A better world is our best security, our national interest best advanced by shared international endeavour.

So this is our message – to ourselves, our allies, potential adversaries and people who, no matter how distant, are now our neighbours: Our hard-headed internationalism means we will never retreat from our responsibilities. At all times justice in jeopardy, security at risk, suffering that cries out will command our concern.

From the early years of this young century we can already discern what Britain, the first multinational state, has always known: that success requires that people of different races, religions and backgrounds learn to live in harmony with each other.

We have already seen what our values have taught us: that progress depends upon openness, freedom, democracy and fairness. And we are finding that prosperity like peace is indivisible and to be sustained it has to be shared.

And we have learned too that without environmental sustainability, justice and prosperity are both imperilled and that the best route to long-term economic growth lies in action to tackle climate change.

These lessons are not an excuse to relax or rest or be complacent but a summons to act with utmost resolve. For the pressing challenge for Britain and for the international community is to harness these insights in a sustained endeavour to reform and renew our global rules, institutions and networks.

Upon this rests our shared future: a truly global society empowering people everywhere; not yet here, but in this century within our grasp.

Below is the text of the speech made by Gordon Brown at the University of Greenwich on 31 October 2007.

Thank you very much. Can I say first of all what a pleasure it is to be here at the University of Greenwich today, to be here with Tessa Blackstone, who does such a wonderful job, to be able to congratulate all those involved with the university for everything that you have achieved, and to be here with people from all the different parts of the world of education, from students, to lecturers, to teachers, to head teachers, to parents – everybody interested in the future of education.

And I do want to congratulate Greenwich University which was inaugurated as Britain’s second polytechnic college many, many years ago, has been an innovator from the start, now a great university with 23,000 students, right at the heart of this local community, going from strength to strength, a great reputation for teacher training, pioneering initiatives to encourage local young people to think about going to university.

And so I believe there is nowhere more appropriate for me to talk about what this government is trying to do, and will try to do in future, to unlock the potential of every child and young person and help every young person in this country make the most of their talents for the future.

My school motto was ‘I will try my utmost’. The motto of the school in the next door town to me, which was at the heart of the mining community in my county was ‘Rise to the light’. And as I have travelled round the country I have seen just how aspirational and inspirational mottos that schools adopt can actually be. ‘No goal is beyond our reach’ – that is the motto of the Business Academy at Bexley; ‘The best in everyone’ – Paddington Academy; ‘Achievement Beyond Expectation’ – Branksome School in Darlington; ‘Excellence through endeavour’ – the Kennet School in Newbury; ‘To strive and achieve is to succeed’ – the Howard School in Medway. And all these school mottos, that they tell us something about the spirit of the age in which they were written they are not in my view simply mementos of the past, they are not just enduring statements of shared beliefs across our communities about the possibilities of progress, they are a declaration of faith in the future, schools saying in their mottos that education should make it possible for young people to bridge the gap between what they are and what they have it in themselves to become. And I believe that these mottos are a promise and a summons, they embody ideals and aspirations and they speak to a guiding belief that I think most of us hold that every child has a talent, every child can learn and so we must nurture and fulfil the potential of all.

Of course some mottos can be misunderstood. Brighton Hove and Sussex Grammar School, its motto was ‘Absque labore nihil’ which is ‘Without labour, nothing’. Funnily enough the school moved to new premises, the old building then became Brighton’s maternity hospital and their motto ‘Without labour, nothing’ was left on the façade.

Now I was fortunate. I went to a school that aimed high, a school that had an ethos of striving, hard work and achievement and that is what I want for every child in the country.

I have said education is my passion. Britain is full of talented people. I believe each young person has talent and potential, each has some gift to develop, each something to give to the good of the community. And the Britain I want to strive for is a Britain with no cap on ambition, no ceiling on hope, no limit to where your potential will take you, how far you can rise, a Britain where the talents of each of us can contribute to the well being and prosperity of all.

And this idea of excellence in education is not just a noble ideal, respecting the search for knowledge, the pursuit of wisdom and the fulfilment of human potential, it is also I think as everybody knows an economic imperative too.

In the past those countries who had the raw materials, the coal or the oil or the basic commodities, or the infrastructure, the ports and the communications, were the ones that had probably the most competitive advantage. Today what matters is who has the skills, the ideas, the insights, the creativity. And the countries that I believe will succeed in the future are those that will do more than just unlock some of the talents of some of their young people, the countries that will succeed will be those that strive to unlock all the talents of all of their people.

Now in the last 10 years we have moved from an education system which was below average in its performance to above average, but we now have to do much more than that. Our ambition must be nothing less than to be world class in education and to move to the top of the global education league, and it is time to say not just that we will aim high but that we can no longer tolerate failure, that it will no longer be acceptable for any child to fall behind, no longer acceptable for any school to fail its pupils, no longer acceptable for young people to drop out of education without good qualifications without us acting.

So no more toleration of second best in Britain, no more toleration of second best for Britain.

And I believe that to achieve that we must confront head on three assertions that I believe have held our country back for too long. The first is an assumption that there is only limited room at the top, that there is no point in educating everyone as far as their talents will take them because the economy simply needs only a few who are trained for the top.

Now I think the fast changing global economy has decisively defeated that argument. Even if in the past there might have been national limited room at the top, now there is clearly global room at the top. Indeed there are millions more skilled jobs and opportunities in our country and round the world for people with skills and qualifications. The young people we educate can and often do work anywhere in any part of the world and there is a virtually unlimited global demand for new talents.

The real challenge that we face is not no room at the top, but no room at the bottom. Unskilled jobs are disappearing. We have 6 million unskilled workers in Britain today, we will need only a half million of these 6 million jobs in 2020, 5.5 million fewer unskilled jobs and this disappearing demand for low skills and no skills and a rising demand for high skills explains why no young person can afford now to leave school without some skill or qualification.

I believe that Britain has often in the past also been held back by a second often heard assertion that ‘more means worse’, that to educate more and more young people is wasteful because they simply don’t have the talent to benefit. And instead of talking of a pool of untapped talent, some people have talked of a pool of tapped untalent.

And each year, even as more young people achieve GCSEs and A’ Levels, even as university and college opportunities are expanded, we often hear echoes of this ‘more means worse’ dogma, the assumption that when you get these results that only some can really achieve high standards and that high achievement in education is by definition limited and exclusive.

And I think this self-imposed limit on the idea about how talent can develop has been an historic curse of the British education system and it does go a long way to explain why too often we fall short of other countries.

Take university access. Other countries are already above 50% for young people going into higher education. Australia claims a graduation rate of 59%, yet many in Britain still say that even to aspire to going up to 50% is a recipe for dumbing down. And the result is that while we have some of the best world class schools and the best world class universities, still too many young people do not get an excellent education. And of course in Britain just 10% of the unskilled workers’ sons and daughters reach university and that is an attainment gap that has to be bridged in the modern world.

And if these notions of ‘more means worse’ are wrong, so too is a related view which is a more fatalist assumption that springs from the denial of aspiration: that there will always be schools that do badly, there will always be pupils who will never do well or even adequately, and when combined with an equally defeatist left of centre assertion sometimes that poor children can never overcome their disadvantage at school, it acquiesces in low expectations and then we put up with coasting and failing schools.

So my argument, and my starting point today, is it is time for Britain to leave behind once and for all this culture of pessimism, any acquiescence in defeatism, any acceptance of low aspirations that holds us back. Poverty of aspiration is as damaging as poverty of opportunity and it is time to replace a culture of low expectations for too many with a culture of high standards for all.

Now that is one of the reasons why in the summer we created a new Department for Children, Schools and Families. We wanted for the first time to be able to support children and young people in the round.

We all know that there are many other influences on our children’s development beyond school, and we all know I think that education must look at the whole picture. So since then the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has been laying the foundations for the next stage of the transformation of education: how we will focus on classroom standards, ensure that we monitor exam standards rigorously, reform the qualifications system with announcements he has made for the monitoring of that to be independent, mobilise universities and businesses behind school improvement so that all contribute to the education of young people.

And it is building upon these changes that have already been made that I want to spell out what that idea of world-class education could mean for Britain in the 21st century. And I also want to show something more, that only by tackling these old prejudices, ingrained culture of low expectations, and by raising our sights for the future, can we make a reality of equality of opportunity for all children in our country.

In other words I think we need not just education reform to continue and intensify, but we need culture change as well. And what do I mean when I say this? For most of the 20th century the fundamental political divide was between a Left that believed that the extension of state action, command and control structures, could solve social problems and reduce inequality, and then there was the Right that believed that the state had to be rolled back for market forces and market incentives and rewards to be unleashed.

And in the social democratic tradition the state supplied services to people, it built schools, hospitals, houses, provided the funding to run services. But let’s be honest, we paid less attention to how people used these services than the capabilities people need to make the most of the opportunities available to them. We trusted professionals to deliver services, the public to accept them. People were treated sometimes more as passive subjects than as participants in change. The system was content to limit participation in the shaping and direction of public services to voting at election time. In the words of one historian, Peter Clarke, it was about mechanical reform, social change from above, not from below.

And then for its part the right-wing tradition viewed government as an obstacle to market forces, indeed in many ways it still does, reducing human motivation to self-seeking calculations in the market place, relying on civic virtue for charity in areas from where the state is then withdrawn.

I think we can say today that both of these positions are inadequate. We need both strong public services and we need a dynamic market economy to have a fair and prosperous society. Arguments about the size of the state and the funding of public services mark important dividing lines in politics, investment in public services in my view is absolutely critical. But we don’t believe in a zero sum game in which there is only one winner between state and market forces in advanced economies. Each, markets and government, have their place. Prosperity results from drawing upon the best strengths in each of them.

But that is not the end of the matter. For what those who placed their faith in either state or market too often ignored, is culture: the motivation, the values, the habits that influence us all in our daily lives, that influence our families and our communities. These are the values we share, the aspirations we have, the boundaries we set as communities between what is acceptable and unacceptable.

And I think we can now see that culture change is critical to achieving success in reforming public services, true in almost every area of public policy: preventative local health, to social care, community policing, tackling climate change. When we see that equality of opportunity can work to best effect, when people believe, such as on the environment, that they can improve things for themselves and are aspirational about what they want to achieve.

Public services can no longer be delivered to people without their engagement in them. Whether we aim to reduce carbon emissions or tackle obesity, or empower those people who are receiving social care, change will always be more effective if people participate and play their part.

So the bad news for the old thinking on both Left and Right is that culture matters. The good news is that cultures can change. And it is by promoting cultural change that we will ensure that many of the values that we share come alive in this 21st century.

So I think our goal must be simultaneously to expand opportunity, not just one chance but second, third and fourth chances for people throughout their lives, to raise the aspirations that people have to grasp these opportunities, that is the key to unlocking talent, and to develop people’s capabilities to participate in shaping the future so that services are personal to each but also shaped by people themselves.

On its own, equality of opportunity can never be enough. Opportunities are only meaningful if people have the capabilities, the resources, the aspirations to make the most of them. So inequalities in aspiration and in the capability to benefit from them must be tackled also. Without doing that fairer outcomes, the fairness which will shape the opportunities of the generations to come will not be achieved. But if we can expand opportunity, aspiration and participation together, then outcomes for pupils, parents and citizens will be fairer, the result of the choices we make, the hard work and effort we put in – not imposed by the accident of birth or the brute luck of circumstances. And it is in this way I think we will create a stronger, fairer society with excellence within the reach of everyone and not just the few. Talent nurtured, effort rewarded, the merit of each in the service of all.

Now what does that mean for how we move forward with our schools and our education?

Aspiration matters in every aspect of education: the aspirations of parents for their children from their very earliest years; the aspirations of young people, whether they are going to seize the opportunities available to them; the aspirations of course of teachers, of schools, of local government setting high expectations for achievement; the aspirations of society placing the highest possible cultural value upon learning itself; and of course aspirations of government that sets long term ambitions and matches those ambitions with the necessary investment over the long term to realise them.

Now just consider the evidence. We now know the level of parental engagement in learning is actually more important in determining a child’s educational achievement than the social class background, the size of the family or the parent’s own educational attainment. A child with a stimulating home environment does better on all the scores of early childhood development.

Conversely we know for example that teenage pregnancy is significantly more likely amongst girls whose mothers have low expectation for their education, even after controlling for other socio-economic factors.

Aspiration matters. But we have barely set out on the journey of involving parents in the education of their children and encouraging high aspirations as an explicit and central goal of policy.

Parents are worried about discipline, about bullying, about schools where children’s lessons are disrupted, and where there is not enough of a school ethos for learning to flourish and all children to succeed.

And I share all of these concerns. If we ask parents to get more involved in the education of their children, in the lives of their schools, we have to respond to these concerns, just as parents for their part need to reinforce the expectations for good discipline and the boundaries of acceptable behaviour set by head teachers for their schools.

So let us do more now to involve and engage parents at every stage of the journey of their children’s education, spread the best practice of the best schools, more regular real time feedback about their children’s progress, regular emails, regular meetings, more parent sessions at schools, to share information and to set goals at key transition points for children.

But it is not just parental involvement that can be expanded, young people’s aspirations matter too. In many ways the greater failure is not the child who doesn’t reach the stars, but the child who has got no stars that they feel they are reaching for.

And as every teacher knows, you can’t educate those you can’t easily motivate. But we know sometimes that helping boys in particular to aspire and aim higher comes up against in schools boredom, distraction, disaffection, a sense the classroom isn’t for them, the downward pull of peer pressure. So we have also to raise boys’ aspirations in education, provide education that can enthuse and engage, provide different opportunities for different kinds of vocational learning as young people prepare for the transition to the world of work.

And that lies behind much of what we are doing in diplomas. The very idea of personalised learning is about helping children become more aspirational, that we identify talent, we shape education around the unique needs and aspirations of every child, we engage pupils in their own learning and we give them a thirst for education and knowledge that will stay with them long after they have left school.

So we will expand our Gifted and Talented Learning Programme for children at school. We will give a million of our most talented children the opportunity to benefit from special and stretching tuition, we are boosting activities in those areas which can unlock so many different forms of talent: sport, music, the arts, culture, enterprise. We will continue to increase the number of student ambassadors from universities who work in schools: there are now 7,000 helping promote the benefits of higher education to younger pupils when they are still at school. And we will build on what is called our Aim Higher Programme so we increase the aspiration of many to go to university, just as universities are now encouraged to reach out into the schools and colleges, hold summer schools and other events to help lift young people’s sights towards higher education.

And because raising aspirations is at the heart of raising standards we will ask the National Council for Educational Excellence to work with schools and universities, the Sutton Trust and other organisations in this field, to report on how we can increase applications to universities from schools in disadvantaged areas.

So raising aspiration, encouraging the participation of parents and students is at the heart of our approach. But direct action to raise standards and to address failure is also fundamental.

I think we have come a long way in the last decade. Ten years ago there were no children’s centres like Sure Start, there were no nursery places for 3 year olds, there was no literacy hour in our primary schools, no guaranteed sports, arts and modern languages, no extended schools, no trust, specialist or academy schools in every area. There were no educational maintenance allowances so young people found it difficult in some areas to stay on in education beyond 16. There were few new school buildings which now today stand as beacons of aspiration, particularly in low income communities.

Now all of this, and more, has been achieved. But now as we develop what will be our 10 year Children’s Plan we need to move to the next stage in the transformation of standards in education in Britain, rising to the challenge of world class excellence.

Across the globe, as everybody knows, education standards are rising. Other countries will not stand still and are pushing forward and they are pushing forward the frontier of what a 21st century education can offer. Take Canada, or Finland, or Hong Kong. Almost all the children there achieve the required standard of literacy by 11. In Finland every teacher has to have a Masters Degree and 10 people apply for every place on a teacher training course. In South Korea only the brightest and the best are selected to enter the teaching profession. In Chicago, Boston and New York education leaders are now taking a systematic and relentless approach to tackling failing schools.

So the world is moving at this restless pace to transform education. And what appears to be world class now will soon of course appear to be second class in 10 or 20 years time. And that means that the strategic choices that we make today are going to be critical for our long term prosperity.

So I want us to learn all the lessons of excellence from round the world, that the very best education systems start with high quality affordable daycares and early learning, as in Scandinavia where children start school ready to learn because they have had excellent and highly professional pre-school care and development.

But as Michael Barber has shown, the best education systems recruit the best people into teaching – the top 5% in South Korea, the top 10% in Finland, the top 30% in Singapore and Hong Kong. In excellent schools the teachers receive continuous training and professional development to update their skills and expertise, and there is always strong leadership from head teachers with the autonomy to lead their schools. World class education, we know, achieves high standards for 100% of the children when there are systems of accountability, funding and pupil tracking that leave no child behind and personalised learning is tailored to the unique potential of every child with one-to-one tutoring and support. That world class education depends on a systematic intolerance of failure and a preparedness of public authorities to intervene and to innovate to eradicate failure; and in leading economies of course participation in learning or education is near universal up to the age of 18, skills investment is high and rising, and in all successful countries entry to universities and colleges is rapidly increasing.

So we must renew our ambitions also. And we will build on the improvements we have made in early years by extending entitlements to free nursery education, we will improve the quality of childcare and early learning, we should aspire to match the excellence we know exists particularly in the Scandinavian countries in early learning and daycare.

And then we will raise still further the status and standards of teaching. Everybody remembers an inspirational teacher, everybody knows that a good teacher makes all the difference, and there are many good teachers here this morning. And that is not just my personal experience but the personal experience I find when I talk to many people.

And research is absolutely conclusive about the importance of teaching standards. If you take a group of 50 teachers, a child taught by one of the best 10 will learn sometimes at twice the speed of a child taught by one of the worst 10. Teaching quality is that important.

Ofsted say we now have the best teachers ever in our schools today and they should be valued and applauded for their work. And now our goal should be even bolder, to have a world class teaching profession for all our pupils within a generation.

So we will do more to raise the quality of recruits into teacher training, we will expand routes into training for talented people in mid and late career with ‘Teach First’ followed by ‘Teach Next’ so that people can move into a teaching job later in career. We will build on these reforms with the aim of raising still further the status of teaching in Britain. We will match the rigorous selection of the brightest and best into teacher training that other countries are achieving and we will promote graduate opportunities for teachers to undertake professional training and development linked to performance assessment.

And this is my belief: that world class performance comes from consistent brilliance from teachers in every classroom, professionals who always seek continuous improvement; who teach better lessons tomorrow than they did yesterday because they are learning all the time; who when a pupil falls behind don’t assume it is a lack of ability but instead ask: how could I teach that material better to enable my pupil to master that?

And that is the challenge, we know, for the best teachers and we will assist them in rising to it.

But we should also work on the principle of social justice for all, that no child should be left out or lose out, that as we raise standards we also narrow the social gap attainment in education and that every child should be given the best chance to progress as far and as fast as they can.

And we have improved standards of schools in disadvantaged areas, but we have not made enough progress in closing the gap between individual pupils from different backgrounds. A ‘no child left out’ education system must work for 100% of the pupils 100% of the time, and that is a major undertaking for this generation.

So what accountability there is and what progress targets we have must prioritise success for all.

Now in primary education every child should reach the expected level in literacy and numeracy. If the best in the world can do it now, so should we. For those who say it is not possible, I say visit West Dunbartonshire, one of the most disadvantaged parts of Scotland. Ten years ago it took the decision to eradicate illiteracy in primary schools. In 2001 almost 1 in 3 left primary school functionally illiterate. Last year only 6% did so. Through sustained ambition, intensive intervention at every level it is on track to wipe out pupil illiteracy this year after a decade of raising standards for children.

And if West Dunbartonshire – one of the poorest parts of the country – can do it, so can the rest of the country. It means one-to-one catch-up in the 3 Rs to every pupil who needs it, with early intervention, ‘Every Child a Reader’, ‘Every Child Counts’, the new programme that Ed Balls has just introduced, ‘Every Child a Writer’.

And it means better school-based social and behavioural support for children with extra needs, building on the ‘Every child matters’ agenda.

And then for secondary school it must mean all pupils making good progress with setting by ability, stronger classroom discipline and real commitment to personalised learning. More one-to-one tuition, small group teaching, a personal studies tutor for secondary schools, more support for innovative teaching and learning strategies.

And we all know that the best schools already achieve superb results with personalised learning, the best schools are well led with innovative ideas, they increasingly operate as networks that link schools together and they spread best practice from school to school. And our goal must be a service that has the capacity and space to innovate and to personalise learning.

And as we start to move to personalised testing we must keep assessment under review to ensure it supports learning and achievement, and does not dominate teaching.

Every child is entitled to a decent school and a good education. So we must also put an end to failure. We have cut the number of failing schools dramatically in the last decade. In 1997 over 600 secondary schools had less than 25% of children getting 5 or more good GCSEs. Now instead of over 600, 26 do. But the latest figures still show that there are 670 schools where less than 30% of pupils get 5 A star to C grades at GCSE, including English and maths, and while that is down from 1,600 in 1997 there is still much to do.

So we must go further to end failure. And the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has challenged local authorities to use new powers and this is a critical strategic role and challenge for local government.

In the next 5 years we will work to get all schools above 30% A star – C grades at GCSE, including in English and maths. And let’s be clear, many of these schools below this threshold are already improving, many have strong and determined leaders, many face the toughest challenges in our education system and we have to use the right mix of intervention and support to raise standards.

So we have put in place now a systematic plan of ever tougher measures for eradicating failure. It will start with annual improvement targets for all schools that are falling below the required threshold. There will be new incentives for the best teachers to teach in the toughest schools, including expanding the ‘Teaching First’ and ‘Teach Next’ programmes to have the best possible teacher intake for these schools.

Good schools will be brought in to help poorer schools under improvement networks that will be run by schools for schools, as the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust motto puts it. Warning notices to trigger intervention powers will include new interim executive boards to take over school management where there is failure. Complete closure or takeover by a successful neighbouring school in a trust or federation or transfer to academy status, including the option of taking over by an independent school will be an available power.

And there will be 150 more academies in the next 3 years, on route to our target of 400; more universities working with us to set up academies; more local authorities doing what Manchester, Birmingham, Oldham and others are doing – putting academies at the heart of their local school improvement plans; more independent schools setting up academies to take over failing schools.

And this is therefore a determined and systematic agenda to end failure that we will see through and we will not flinch from this task.

And our final goal for world class education for young children will be 100% success for young people to make the transition from school to college, to university or to skilled work. And every young person should know that they have something to aim for in their education. So at age18 or 19, each should graduate from school, college or an apprenticeship with good qualifications or a certificate on the way.

We have set out in the last few days a new vision for diplomas, designed alongside and with universities and businesses to meet the needs of the new century. And alongside the diplomas, as they grow in excellence we plan a radical overhaul of apprenticeships too. A new matching service, rather like the UCAS university service, so that young people in any area can be matched up with businesses that are wanting and offering apprenticeships in every area of the country; a widening of the number of employers who now join the apprenticeship programme and we build on the 130,000 employers in all parts of Britain who have signed up for apprenticeships; we make the public sector a better partner, which it hasn’t always been, in apprenticeships, including changes in Whitehall itself; and we place a legal duty on the Learning and Skills Council to provide sufficient apprenticeship places in every area so that we can end a situation in which there can be only 95 apprenticeships completed in Hackney but over 2,500 today in Hampshire.

And to drive aspirations up we will ensure that all those reaching 18 or 19 who want to go on to an advanced apprenticeship or further education and training have the resources they need.

Just as from this year two-thirds of university students will be able, under changes that we have announced, to apply for grants of up to £3,000, so too advanced apprentices will have a credit of at least £3,000 through a Skills Account to pay towards their costs. And from this year we are paying the college fees of young people up to the age of 25 studying the equivalent of A levels and giving access to an adult learning grant of £30 a week.

And all of this is possible against the backdrop of the legislation to extend training or education to the age of 18 by 2015 to bring us in line with the rest and the best in the world. We will offer financial support for those who could not otherwise afford to stay in education. We will not insist that young people stay in the classroom. They will be able to choose from clear pathways into the future: further study at school or college, an apprenticeship or work with time off for training.

And in the coming week the Secretary for Children, Schools and Families will bring forward his action plan to ensure that all young people are in education, jobs or training and we will offer new rights to young people matched by that new duty to be in education until 18.

And because we cannot afford to leave any young person behind outside work or study, and because we owe it to them to equip them for the world they are growing up into, this will be a priority of the government that every young person is offered a route forward in education as they grow from their teens into their 20s.

I make no apology therefore for saying that education is the best economic policy, and I make no apology for wanting every child and young person to be able to read, write and add up. But as we all know education has always been about more than exams, more than the basics, vital as they are and will continue to be. To educate, as we know, is to form character, it is to shape values, it is to liberate the imagination, it is to pass human wisdom, knowledge and ingenuity from one generation to the next, it is a duty and a calling.

As was said by one of the ancient philosophers, the mind is not a vessel to be filled, it is a fire to be kindled. And that is why we have such high ambitions. Not just because education is a matter of national prosperity, it is certainly that, it is because education is the great liberator, the greatest liberator mankind has ever known and the greatest force for social progress.

That is why it is my passion. That is why I want to see a Britain where every child can go to a world class school, supported by high aspirations and surrounded always by excellent opportunities. And that is why I want to see a Britain where every family has the right to participate in the education of their child and is encouraged with every chance to do so. And that is why too I want a Britain where every young person can see ahead of them a goal in life, the support they need to get there, and it is a Britain therefore where effort is rewarded, ambition fulfilled, potential realised, a Britain of high aspirations and a Britain of all the talents. And I ask all of you to enlist in this cause.

Thank you very much.

Below is the text of the speech made by Gordon Brown to the CBI at the Business Design Centre on 26 November 2007.

It is a privilege to be here to address you this morning; to see the CBI so well supported by so many impressive companies like that of your own President; and to see how, under the leadership of Richard Lambert, the CBI asserts itself as an outstanding leader of business: a powerful force: pioneering new thinking on the great economic challenges of our time: on skills, science and technology and on the environment too.

And today – and let me congratulate the leadership of so many companies represented today – we can see how the vast majority of British businesses are meeting the global competitive challenge —- fitter and stronger than ever.

And I believe that – from financial services to modern manufacturing, from vehicles and aerospace to the creative industries – the British corporate community continues to rise to the challenges and opportunities of globalisation, the emerging technologies and new markets in Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

But we must recognise too that the last 12 months have shown that – along with challenge and almost unlimited opportunities – the new global order brings new uncertainties and new insecurities too – most recently in the form of financial turbulence and credit problems whose origins are clearly international but whose full implications are still unfolding.

And it is precisely because of these new short term and long term global challenges that every government in the world has to look afresh at what it can do to support business.

And today I want to discuss how we cooperate more fully to meet these new challenges and find, for this new era, enhanced ways of working more closely together for Britain — a new engagement through which government and industry can together respond to changing circumstance.

And my profound conviction is that if together we address and master all the long term challenges, Britain – with its openness, global reach, willingness to adapt and innovate and our new stability – can be one of the great global leaders of this century.

Some of the foundations of this framework we have already laid together. Over the last ten years, our shared resolve to entrench stability and the resilience of our economic framework have been tested again and again: the Asian crisis, the Russian crisis, the American recession, the escalation of oil prices and now the recent financial turbulence. But because of the tried and tested framework we now have in place – Bank of England independence, the Financial Services Authority, a new system for financial regulation – Britain has succeeded in delivering both low inflation and low interest rates and at the same time has had sufficient flexibility to adjust when events threaten our growth.

Earlier this year when inflation threatened to increase in the wake of oil and utility price rises, we took the difficult decisions to bear down on inflation and by staging public sector pay, keeping average overall awards at 1.9 per cent, we supported inflation moving back to target.

At the same time when we have had to deal with the fall out from global turbulence with events at Northern Rock, we have taken difficult decisions to steer a course of stability and protect the taxpayer which have led to today’s announcement by the company of a preferred bidder.

And so in difficult times we have been able to and will continue to hold to a stable course.

And I assure you that we will continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that in future we maintain our hard won stability. We will take no risks. There will be no irresponsible relaxation of pay discipline, no unfunded spending commitments, no unaffordable promises and no short-term giveaways. By definition, responsible government demands that stability will be our first priority – yesterday, today and tomorrow.

But whatever the ups and downs of the world economy, the short term fluctuations we face, globalisation forces us also to make the right long term decisions in infrastructure and planning, the environment and energy, science and education – to leave behind the old policies of yesterday and make the right long term decisions for a more successful tomorrow.

First, a long term approach to our transport and infrastructure where we must – and will – continue to step up our investment in major projects. And in each year to 2017 we will invest £20 billion a year in transport – double what was spent a decade ago. And having opened the Channel Tunnel Rail Link we will now proceed with a unique partnership between business and government: the £16 billion investment in Crossrail.

And we know also that even as we place strict local environmental limits on noise and air pollution and ensure that aviation pays its carbon costs, we have to respond to a clear business imperative and increase capacity at our airports – and you have rightly called for action at Heathrow. Our prosperity depends on it: Britain as a world financial centre must be readily accessible from around the world. And this week we demonstrated our determination not to shirk the long term decisions but to press ahead with a third runway.

Second, planning – which we all know that despite recent changes remains too inflexible. Following the case put in the Eddington and Barker reports the legislation which will be published tomorrow will put in place a streamlined system for making decisions on key national infrastructure projects —– a new independent body to take decisions fairly and without delay while allowing the public and local communities to participate effectively in the process. And we will stick to our plans to build 3 million more homes by 2020, making housing more affordable and providing homes for the workforce of the future.

Third, we need the same long termism in our approach to energy. We must – and will – take the right long term decisions to invest now for the next generation of sustainable and secure energy supplies. We have said that new nuclear power stations potentially have a role to play in tackling climate change and improving energy security. And having concluded the full public consultation we will announce our final decision early in the New Year.

Fourth, energy security for the long term must be matched by what your taskforce have reported on today – a sustainable environment for the long term. Among our market-based measures to achieve our goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050, we are working to expand the EU Emission Trading Scheme. And to meet that and our share of the European Union renewables commitments – and to create a new global carbon market in London – is not just a challenge but an opportunity for British business to lead the world in environmental technologies and finance.

Fifth, a long term approach to managed migration. In a world where 190 million people a year are moving from one country to another, we will continue to balance the needs of our economy – opposing those who want to abolish the highly skilled migrant programme – with the need to create a stronger sense that residence and citizenship means responsibilities too – not least through a new Australian-style point system and ID cards for foreign nationals.

Sixth, a long term approach to tax and deregulation including for Britain’s 4 million small businesses. Having cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 28 per cent, with a lower rate for small firms and an additional allowance for investment, we will continue to work with you to continuously modernise and simplify our tax regime and improve our tax competitiveness. And we will continue to listen and discuss with you the representations we have received about capital gains tax, ensuring that we maintain reforms for a fairer and simplified system that rewards enterprise.

Our risk based approach to deregulation – outlined originally in the Hampton Report, now extends from the light touch of the Financial Services Authority right across to reducing inspections by local authorities. Recent changes include replacing a multiplicity of planning forms by one, reducing health and safety burdens, abolishing the requirement for private bodies to hold AGMs, creating a single point of contact for all import and export regulatory requirements, pushing forward single market reform in Europe, and in December departments will publish further measures. And so I share with you the aim that with a risk-based approach we significantly reduce the numbers of inspections and reduce information requirements and form filling by firms and so reduce red tape.

And to help meet all these challenges we have set up the new business department so there is a better business voice in government.

And just as we have made monetary policy independent of government, we have made competition policy, industrial policy and now much of planning policy more independent of day to day political control.

And the new Business Council headed by some of our leading business leaders has a remit to examine every significant area of policy and to scrutinise and challenge government on the tasks ahead.

The new Council for Educational Excellence also contains business leadership so that standards in the schools can reflect the needs of business for the future. And last week we announced our intention to set up a new forum for the private sector to make sure their contribution to the NHS continues to grow – and to represent value for money for patients and taxpayers.

And together we should continue to search out new ways of attracting and retaining the best businesses in the world as we have in financial services, pharmaceuticals and aerospace. This requires a long term approach to the advancement of science and innovation in the UK – building on our 10 year science framework which links the universities, research institutes and knowledge centres to business, the £15 billion allocated to medical research, and the new public-private Energy Technologies Institute.

And up against the competition of over two billion people in China and India – with 5 million graduates a year – Britain, a small country, cannot compete on low skills but only on high skills. Our imperative – and our opportunity – is to compete in high value added services and manufacturing; and because that requires the best trained workforce in the world, our challenge is to unlock all the talents of all of the people of our country.

And the nation that shows it can bring out the best in all its people will be the great success story of the global age.

Richard Lambert has spoken powerfully of this imperative and the CBI is doing important work to help the cause.

And we must lead the world in mastering the most far-reaching change in our occupational industrial and employment structures for more than a century.

Let us face facts: as a result of changes in the global economy many of the jobs British workers do now are becoming redundant.

Of today’s 6 million unskilled workers in Britain we will soon need only half a million – over 5 million fewer.

We have 9 million highly qualified workers in Britain – but the challenge of the next ten years is that we will need 14 million – five million more. Higher standards of living will depend on higher standards of learning.

For most of the past half century we have had a Keynesian paradigm – either you are in work or you are on welfare. And in the old days it was the economy that had to create work – what prevented full employment was lack of jobs.

Now we need a new and very different paradigm. If in the old days the problem as unemployment, in the new world it is employability.

If in the old days lack of jobs demanded priority action, in the new world it is lack of skills.

So as we prepare and equip ourselves for the future, many of the policies of the past are out of date, with no answers to be found in old dogmas – and long term reforms changing the role of education and welfare – the responsibilities of the individual and government will have to intensify and be stepped up.

While in the old days we could assume that if a teenager left education with no qualifications they could get unskilled work, in the new world the unqualified and unskilled teenager will, in future, have to acquire a skill to be easily employable.

While in the old days only a limited number of apprenticeships were available for a far larger number of highly qualified teenagers, in the new world it makes economic sense to expand apprenticeships to make use of all the skills of all who have them.

While in the old days it was seen as the duty of government to create work for the inactive, in the new world there has to be both a duty on the government to help the inactive become employable and a duty on the inactive to take up those opportunities.

Indeed while in the old days the obligation was on the unemployed to find a job, in the new world the obligation on the unemployed should be not just to seek work but to train for work.

In the old days we could leave lone parents on benefit until their children left school. Now if they are to go to work sooner, they must train earlier and be ready for work when they can take it up.

In the old days when incapacity benefit was introduced the focus was on disabilities preventing work. Today in the interests of claimants and in the economy the focus must be on their capabilities and the opportunities for new skills for work.

In the old world you had colleges for everything that happened after school. Now we need a new focus on 16-19 year olds in sixth form centres —- and a similar focus on community colleges with state of the art training facilities that increasingly specialise in adult vocational excellence.

So making education for skilled work our first priority we need to provide new incentives and new obligations to train; we need to transfer resources from welfare to education and move claimants from passive recipients of welfare benefit to active job and skill seekers;

far-reaching reforms of our welfare state and education system to put us right in the forefront of the higher paying, highly skilled economy of the future.

Quite simply the old system does not fit the aspirational society the Britain of the future needs to be. The new idea is the development of all the talents of all our people.

Since June we have stepped up reforms in our schools and in the coming weeks we will publish our Children’s Plan, founded on an historic change in the span of schooling and the range and quality of learning – in the classroom and beyond it. Our aim that every teenager goes on to college, university or an apprenticeship or is preparing for this.

And today, as we come to terms with the far reaching nature of the global challenge, I have asked John Denham, who is responsible for skills, and Peter Hain, responsible for welfare, to bring together businesses, colleges, the whole of education and the voluntary sector to forge a new partnership to push through the scale of changes needed to equip people for the future.

In the old days the government ran the whole welfare system through separate jobcentres and benefit offices. In the new world Jobcentre Plus – which since its establishment in 2001 has built up a genuinely world class track record in getting people off welfare into work – will ask private sector agencies and charities to play a central role. As Peter Hain will set out tomorrow, we will contract with new providers – and incentivise providers – to find innovative ways of helping the long term unemployed and those outside the labour market altogether to move into work.

Already 200 of our best companies are leading the way in local employment partnerships. And while in the old world employers felt that the training system was unresponsive to their needs, in the new world you will increasingly be able to direct training budgets and we are inviting employers to play a more central role in the development of further education colleges.

Let me explain the new principles for welfare that will guide our new approach across the whole of government — on both what is being announced this week and what we will set out in the coming months.

First, if the best welfare is no longer the benefits you have today but the skills you gain for tomorrow then the inactive should, wherever possible, be preparing and training to get back into work.

So when someone signs on as unemployed, they sign up for a skills review, be given access to skills advice and training if that is what is needed, and this could be taken into account in their benefit entitlement. In the same vein, we should not deny people who are looking for work the chance to better their skills. So today Peter Hain is announcing we must reform the so-called ’16 hour rule’.

And we will help people not just get work but get on at work – helping them move up the jobs ladder. So we propose a seamless transition from out-of-work training to in-work skills development and – as John Denham will set out later today – a new adult careers and advancement service will be created to help people in work improve their skills or change their career: a commitment not just to one-off learning but to life-long learning.

Second, rights and responsibilities will be at the heart of our approach so we will intensify compulsion while at the same time offering new incentives.

In return for new rights to training and help to get into work, we will demand more responsibility.

We want lone parents on benefit to be training in preparation for going back to work when their child goes to school. And there will be a more modern regime for new IB claimants which, for the first time, will mean work for those who can, education or training for those with no skills, and treatment for those who need medical help including for mental health problems. Peter Hain is announcing today that in the future we will look to apply this more active approach to existing IB claimants as well as new ones, starting with those under 25.

And whilst in the old world, with no minimum wage or tax credits, 740,000 households faced marginal deduction rates of over 70 per cent, from April next year that figure will have fallen by three quarters and we will now do more to ensure that the long term unemployed, lone parents and those on IB are better off in work, even after reasonable transport costs.

And we believe that the flexibility you want as employers can be matched over time by more rights to request flexible working.

And we will focus on those areas where worklessness is concentrated and later this week Hazel Blears will announce details of new plans to help communities act together to get more people back into work.

Everybody in this room is well aware of the pressures this country faces and the need to rise to the challenge.

So just as we are modernising transport, planning, science policy, we are redefining the Britain welfare state for a wholly new world — to give people skills through transferring resources from welfare to education, not leaving them dependent, reliant on benefit without the opportunity to improve their skills and prospects.

All over the world – and this is what lies behind protectionist sentiment – peoples and countries are worried that they will not be globalisation’s winners but its losers, its victims not beneficiaries.

To help British people win from globalisation, I have outlined a new framework for British business based on firm fundamentals – open markets, free trade and flexibility – and action plans for equipping us in infrastructure, science, education and employment that we can now progress.

Working together we can move forward the long-term investments in education and skills we need.

Working together we can prepare, equip, and make Britain ready for a stronger future.

And working together we can make Britain a model – indeed a beacon – to the world for stability and progress.

Below is the text of a statement made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on December 17th 2007.

With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the European Council held in Brussels on 14 December, which focused on two major concerns:

1 – The reforms Europe must make to meet and master the global challenges we face – for competitiveness, employment, secure energy, climate change;

2 – And issues of security – in particular Kosovo, Iran and Burma – that we must confront together.

I start with the most immediate concern facing the summit: the best way to bring about a satisfactory resolution to the status of Kosovo.

Kosovo is the last remaining unresolved issue from the violent break up of the former Yugoslavia. And in light of the recent failure by the parties in the Troika process to find a negotiated way forward, the European Council accepted its responsibility for joint European action and agreed the importance of moving urgently towards a settlement.

It is to the credit of all parties in the dispute that even when faced with conflicting positions the region remains at peace. And, as the European Council conclusions noted, it is essential that this commitment to peace is maintained.

The principles of our approach are: first, that Europe take seriously its special responsibility for the stability and security of the Balkans region. Indeed it is thanks to the sustained efforts of NATO troops and the diplomacy of the United Nations and the European Union that a safe and secure environment has been maintained.

But, second, we were agreed that the status quo is unsustainable and that we needed to move forward towards a settlement that ensures what we called a ‘stable, democratic, multi-ethnic Kosovo committed to the rule of law, and to the protection of minorities and of cultural and religious heritage’.

And third, after a detailed discussion at the Council, we were also wholly united in agreeing that European engagement should move to a new level. We agreed in principle and stated our readiness to deploy an ESDP policing and rule of law mission to Kosovo. This will consist of a multinational mission of around 1,800 policemen and judicial officials. I can confirm that the UK will contribute around 80 of these, including its deputy head, Roy Reeve. European Foreign Ministers will confirm the detailed arrangements for this mission shortly.

Fourth, we also reaffirmed that a stable and prosperous Serbia fully integrated into Europe is important for the stability of the region. The Council encouraged Serbia to meet the necessary conditions to allow signature of its Stabilisation and Association Agreement and expressed our confidence that Serbia has the capacity to make rapid progress subsequently towards candidate status.

Indeed, the conclusions of the meeting of European Foreign Ministers last week reiterated the European Union’s support for enlargement more generally – and we also look forward to recognising the progress made by both Croatia and Turkey at this week’s Accession Conference in Brussels.

The UN Security Council will discuss the issue of Kosovo with representatives from both Belgrade and Pristina on 19th December, with the aim of giving Russia an opportunity to accept a consensus on the way forward. If this proves impossible, we – Britain – have always been clear that the Comprehensive Proposal put forward by the UN Special Envoy, Martti Ahtisaari – based around the concept of supervised independence for Kosovo – represents the best way forward.

And while we are rightly focused on the immediate priority of bringing the status process through to completion in an orderly and managed way, the European Council agreed that it is also important that we address the longer-term challenge of ensuring Kosovo’s future economic and political viability. I welcome the commitment made by the European Union to assist Kosovo’s economic and political development and planning is now underway for a Donors Conference to follow shortly after a status settlement.

The Council also discussed Iran and there was agreement on a united European approach. Here again, the power we wield working with all the EU is greater than if we acted on our own.

As I have made clear repeatedly, Iran remains in breach of its international obligations. In September foreign ministers from the E3 plus 3 agreed that unless there were positive outcomes from Javier Solana and the IAEA’s discussions with Iran, we would seek tougher sanctions at the UN. The latest E3 plus 3 assessment is that sufficient progress has not been made.

The European Council conclusions call on Iran to provide full, clear and credible answers to the IAEA, and to resolve all questions concerning their nuclear activities. The European Council reiterated its support for a new UN resolution as soon as possible. In addition we agreed to decide on new measures that the EU itself might take to help resolve this situation at the January meeting of Foreign Ministers. These should complement UN measures or substitute for them if the Security Council cannot reach agreement.

Iran has a choice – confrontation with the international community leading to a tightening of sanctions or, if it changes its approach, a transformed relationship with the world from which all would benefit.

As set out in the Council’s conclusions, the EU also reaffirmed its deep concern about the unacceptable situation in Burma, and makes clear that if there is no change in the Burmese regime’s approach to political negotiations and basic political freedoms, we stand ready to review, amend and – if necessary – further reinforce restrictive measures against the Burmese Government. The Council also reaffirmed the important role of China, India and the Association of South-East Asian Nations in actively supporting the UN’s efforts to establish an inclusive political process leading to genuine national reconciliation.

For our part we believe that the forthcoming visit of the UN envoy – Professor Gambari – is critical. It is essential that the Burmese government meets the demands set out in the UN Security Council statement of 11th October to:

Release all political prisoners; Create the conditions for political dialogue, including relaxation of restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi; Allow full co-operation with Professor Gambari; Address human rights concerns; And begin a genuine and inclusive process of dialogue and national reconciliation with the opposition.

In particular, the regime should respond to the constructive statement of Aung San Suu Kyi of 8 November and open a “meaningful and timebound dialogue” with the opposition and the country’s ethnic groups.

The Council also agreed that a key part of the EU’s external agenda is how we can – by working together – maximise our influence in tackling global poverty. The Council agreed that the European Commission should report by April next year – half way to 2015 – on how the EU is meeting its commitments to the Millennium Development Goals, and how we can accelerate our progress.

In addition to these issues of international security and development, the Council conclusions and the special declaration on globalisation also sets out the challenges that the EU must now address on globalisation:

First, we agreed to maintain our focus on economic reform, with a renewed focus on modernising the single market so it enhances the EU’s ability to compete in the global economy. We must have full implementation of the services directive by 2009 and we must continue to work towards further liberalisation in the energy, post and telecoms markets — where market opening could generate between 75 and 95 billion euros of potential extra economic benefits and create up to 360,000 new jobs. Investment in research, innovation and education – and removing barriers to enterprise – are also essential.

Second, we confirmed our commitment to free trade and openness. The priority is securing a successful outcome to the Doha trade round, which would deliver gains to the global economy approaching 200 billion dollars by 2015, equivalent to 0.6 per cent of global income and bringing significant benefits to rich and poor countries alike. We will also promote better EU-US trade links.

Third, we agreed to do more to develop mechanisms for co-operation within the EU and with countries across the world to tackle security challenges like terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime. We renewed our commitment to the EU Counter terrorism strategy and to cooperate on counter-radicalisation work.

Fourth, we will work together to deliver our commitments to tackle climate change – including the target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, or 30 per cent as part of an international agreement. And building on the significant progress made last week in Bali – an agreement which the Environment Secretary will report to this House upon tomorrow – we must help negotiate an ambitious post-2012 international climate change agreement. And Europe must also now step up funding, including through the World Bank, to help the developing world shift to lower carbon growth and adapt to climate change.

Mr Speaker, it was agreed at the last Council meeting that the Presidency would bring forward a proposal for a new Reflection Group. This was announced in October. At this later meeting the Council invited Mr Felipe González Márquez, assisted by two Vice-Chairs, Mrs Vaira Vike-Freiberga and Mr Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Shell and Nokia, to – and I quote – ‘identify the key issues and developments which the Union is likely to face in 2020 or 2030 and to analyse how these might be addressed’.

The remit specifically states that ‘it shall not discuss institutional matters. Nor should its analysis constitute a review of current policies or address the Union’s next financial framework’. It will report back to the Council, who will decide how to follow its recommendations.

Mr Speaker, I can tell the House also that today we are publishing the EU Amendment bill which contains the institutional changes to accomodate a Europe of 27 members and will include the safeguards we have negotiated to protect the British national interest:

– The legally binding protocol which ensures that nothing in the Charter of Fundamental Rights challenges or undermines the rights already set out in UK law – and that nothing in the Charter extends the ability of any court, European or national, to strike down UK law; – Legally binding protocols which prescribe in detail our sovereign right to opt-in on individual justice and home affairs measures where we consider it in the British interest to do so, but alternatively to remain outside if that is in our interests; – A declaration that expressly states that nothing in the new Treaty affects the existing powers of Member States to formulate and conduct their foreign policy and that the basis of foreign and security policy will remain intergovernmental, a matter for governments to decide on the basis of unanimity; -And an effective veto power on any proposals for important changes on social security so that when we – Britain – determine that any proposal would impact on an important aspect of our social security system – including its scope, cost or financial structure – we can insist on taking any proposal to the European Council under unanimity.

With the publication of the Bill that legislates for the amendments to the European Communities Act, Parliament will now have the opportunity to debate this amending treaty in detail and decide whether to implement it.

We will ensure sufficient time for debate on the floor of the House so that the Bill is examined in the fullest of detail and all points of view can be heard.

This will give the House the full opportunity to consider this treaty, and the deal secured for the UK, before ratification.

In addition, I can tell the House that we have built into the legislation further safeguards to ensure proper Parliamentary oversight and accountability.

To ensure that no government can agree without Parliament’s approval to any change in European rules that could, in any way, alter the constitutional balance of power between Britain and the European Union, there is a provision in the bill that any proposal to activate the mechanisms in the treaty which provide for further moves to qualified majority voting – but which require unanimity – the so-called “passerelles” – will have to be subject to a prior vote by the House.

In the event of a negative vote, the Government would refuse to allow the use of the passerelle.

The Bill also includes a statutory obligation that any future EU amending treaty – including one which provided for any increase in the EU’s competence – would have to be ratified through an Act of Parliament —- so Parliament would have absolute security that no future change could be made against their wishes.

I said in October that I would oppose any further institutional change in the relationship between the EU and its member states, not just for this Parliament but for the next. I stand by that commitment.

And this is now also the settled consensus of the EU.

All 27 member states agreed at the Council – and this was expressly set out in the conclusions – that this amending treaty provides the Union with a stable and lasting institutional framework and that it completes the process of institutional reform for the foreseeable future.

The conclusions of the Council state specifically that the amending treaty ‘provides the Union with a stable and lasting institutional framework. We expect no change in the foreseeable future’

Finally, let me conclude with the discussion on the most immediate of economic issues discussed — concerns about the economic consequences of the global financial turbulence that started in America in August.

The Government’s first priority in the coming weeks is to ensure the stability of the economy and to have the strength to take the difficult long term decisions necessary.

And the Council agreed that the whole of the EU must now turn its attention to both the immediate measures necessary and the long term strengthening of international capacity to secure greater financial stability.

The announcement earlier this week by Central Banks in the major financial centres that they will provide liquidity to ease tension in the financial markets must now be built upon.

As we agreed, supervisory authorities in different countries need to co-operate effectively across borders in exchanging information and in the management of crises and contagion.

The European Council conclusions emphasised that macroeconomic fundamentals in the EU are strong and that sustained economic growth is expected. But we concluded that continued monitoring of financial markets and the economy is crucial, as uncertainties remain. The Council underlined the importance of work being taken forward both within the EU and with our international partners to:

Improve transparency for investors, markets and regulators; Improve valuation standards; Improve the prudential framework, risk management and supervision in the financial sector; As well as review the functioning of markets, including the role of credit rating agencies.

The European Council will discuss these issues at its Spring 2008 meeting on the basis of a progress report by the Finance Ministers Council and by consideration of the Financial Stability Forum’s work to date. As agreed by Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and myself in October, the progress report should examine whether regulatory or other action is necessary. And I have invited Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy to London so that we can discuss the proposals in the paper we agreed and issued a few weeks ago.

Measures important to strengthening the international community’s role in addressing financial turbulence across the world —- showing the importance we attach to taking the tough long terms decisions to ensure in testing times the stability of the economy.

Mr Speaker, the conclusions of the Council state specifically that in the institutional framework we expect no change ‘for the foreseeable future’.

The protections that have been agreed in the amending treaty defend the British national interest. In the Bill introduced today we are legislating for new protections and new procedures to lock in our protection of these interests.

Europe is now moving to a new agenda – one that focuses on the changes needed to meet the challenges of the global era.

And I commend this statement to the House.