Tag: 2016

Julie Cooper – 2016 Speech on Domestic Violence Refuges

Below is the text of the speech made by Julie Cooper, the Labour MP for Burnley, in Westminster Hall on 11 May 2016.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Domestic Violence Refuges.

Domestic violence is violence or abuse inflicted in the home by one adult on another, often in the context of an intimate relationship. It may be psychological, physical, sexual, emotional or a combination of these. I acknowledge that men may also be victims, but I intend to focus today on domestic violence against women and the support that is available in refuges.

It is important to consider the scale of the problem. The Office for National Statistics revealed that in the last year domestic violence accounted for 16% of all violent crime and that 1.4 million women were victims. One in five children witnessed domestic violence and 62% of children living with domestic violence are directly harmed by the perpetrator, in addition to the harm caused by witnessing the abuse of others. Perhaps most shocking is the fact that two women are murdered in Britain every week by their partner or former partner. I am sure all hon. Members agree that that is appalling. These women need the Government’s support.

The problem is not new. Back in 1874, Frances Power Cobbe wrote a paper, “Wife Torture in England”. When the then Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, read it, he apparently wept and promised there would be an inquiry. There was an inquiry, but the sad fact is that nothing of substance happened until 1971, when Erin Pizzey opened the first women’s refuge.

Jenny Smith was an early beneficiary of Erin Pizzey’s refuge in Chiswick. I was moved when I heard her speak recently of the abuse she endured at the hands of her mentally unstable husband. The early 1970s was a time when there was no law against marital rape in the UK, when a lone woman could not apply for a mortgage and when domestic violence was rarely mentioned. Jenny Smith endured vicious beatings, knifings, burns, bites and attempted drowning. One day, she saw a tiny newspaper ad with a phone number offering help. She plucked up the courage to call and within hours she had left her home in Hackney, east London, and was standing outside the women’s refuge, an ordinary terraced house in west London, with her seven-month-old daughter on one arm and her 23-month-old at her side. She was safe.

Instead of receiving support, victims of domestic violence are often criticised. How often we have heard: “It’s her own fault; she should have left him”? That is easy to say, but we must remember that, apart from the physical difficulty of escaping from a controlling, violent partner, women who have been abused, beaten and degraded have little confidence. Their self-esteem is at rock bottom. Sandra Horley, chief executive of Refuge, said:

“Domestic violence is one of the only crimes where it can feel like the victim is being punished, rather than the perpetrator. Even with the full force of the law in place, there are many cases when a woman is not safe in her own home and where her ex-partner is determined to seek revenge. We know of women who have been too scared to leave their heavily locked homes to go to the shops, or who have sprinkler systems installed in case their former partner tries to burn the house down. They become prisoners. And when they do try to break free? We know of one woman who recently left her home to go to the shops, only to be followed by her abusive ex-partner. He viciously attacked and raped her to show that he was always watching; always in control.”

Women’s refuges play a crucial role. They are so much more than a roof over a head. Lives are transformed as specialist refuge workers support women to stay safe and access health services and legal advocacy, and provide immigration advice. Most important of all, refuges are safe places in anonymous, secret locations where women can be sure they will not be tracked down by a violent partner. Refuges provide an invaluable service for those who need it most. Without adequate refuge provision, women experiencing domestic violence will be faced with a stark choice: flee to live rough on the streets or remain with their abuser and risk further violence or even worse.

Earlier this year, the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), said in a written answer:

“Under this Government, there are more refuge places than ever before.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 130W.]

The hon. Lady is mistaken. Under this Conservative Government, 17% of refuges have been forced to close because of funding cuts. Erin Pizzey said recently:

“The closing down of refuges over the last two years is a source of great worry for me. The majority of women coming into my refuge needed long-term therapeutic care with their children”.

Despite two women being killed every week by domestic violence in our country, unprecedented funding cuts to local authorities mean refuges are being closed one by one, ending essential services that provide victims of domestic violence with a safe space, support, healthcare and everything else needed to rebuild a life shattered by abuse.

The amount of money allocated to women’s refuges is not ring-fenced or protected by the Government. Instead, the majority of funding comes from local authorities. As they have been subject to drastic cuts, cash-strapped councils have been forced to close many refuges. Despite their life-or-death importance, refuges are often one of the first front-line services to go. In addition to the places that have been shut down altogether, many have been radically cut, with new time limits on length of stay. Research by Women’s Aid shows that 30% of the 145 domestic violence services asked said they expected to get 30% less funding than last year and a shocking 17% said they did not know whether they would get any local authority funding at all.

On top of that, 48% of 167 domestic violence services in England said they were running services without any funding. Devon has been particularly badly hit by cuts and there are no refuges left. In my area, Lancashire County Council needs to save a further £262 million over the next four years, so it will no longer provide funding for the non-statutory part of the Supporting People budget. This funding is essential if we are to retain Lancashire’s nine refuges, which provide a lifeline for victims of domestic abuse across the county. In my constituency, 1,530 domestic abuse incidents were reported to the police in the last year. Many of the women admitted to the refuge were assessed to be at high risk of serious harm or homicide. When they escaped, they brought their babies, children and young people with them.

Even before the latest round of funding cuts, demand for refuge accommodation far outstripped supply. At this time, when all the evidence shows that we need more refuges, Government funding cuts are forcing them to close. It is a fact that without long-term sustainable funding many more refuges will close and others will be forced to make experienced, trained staff redundant. Consequently, they will become little more than hostels. This is another worrying outcome. According to Women’s Aid:

“The tendency towards funding generic rather than specialist domestic violence services will result in the loss of 35 years of acquired expertise in relation to domestic violence.”

Currently, fewer than one in 10 local authorities run specialist domestic violence services and 32 of the domestic violence services that have closed since 2010 were specialist services for black and minority ethnic women. The closure of these services is dangerous for all women, particularly those who rely on specialist domestic violence services, such as women of colour or trans women.

Escaping domestic violence is a traumatising and emotional process. These women have specific needs that are often not catered for by generic domestic violence services. It is vital that when an abused woman tries to escape from her abuser, she has somewhere to go. Many of the refuges that remain open have been forced to reduce their capacity, and Women’s Aid reports that 6,337 of the 20,000-plus women looking for help at a refuge were turned away last year. The most dangerous point of an abusive relationship is when women try to leave. Before embarking on an escape, they need to know that they have somewhere to go, because being forced to return to their abuser is unthinkably dangerous.

David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)

I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate and pay tribute to Women’s Aid, which does tremendous work in my constituency. Does she agree that one difficulty in the past has been the reporting of domestic violence, whether it be sexual or another type of violence? In my area, we found that domestic violence was not separated from social violence; the figures were not there. We have now managed to achieve that and are seeing the true figure, and I have seen a big increase in domestic violence in my constituency during the past 12 months. It is important that it is reported.

Julie Cooper

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I totally agree: the first step to tackling domestic violence is ensuring that it is recognised and reported as such.

Another worrying effect of the funding cuts is that many local authorities are introducing local connection rules, meaning that only local women can access support. When refuges are not permitted to take women from outside their area, women whose safety depends on their putting distance between themselves and the world of their abuser have nowhere to go.

The Government actions to cut local authority budgets mean that there is no longer any sustainable funding for women’s refuges. The Government’s actions are shamefully irresponsible. In March 2015, the Government provided £10 million for domestic violence services to support the national network of specialist refuges and, in December 2015, a further £3 million of funding for domestic violence support. That additional emergency funding for specialist domestic violence services was welcomed, but it is no substitute for the provision of long-term, sustainable funding.

I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), has confirmed, in answer to a question from me, that the Government intend to provide

“£80 million of dedicated funding up to 2020 to tackle violence against women and girls. This funding will provide core support for refuges and other accommodation-based services, a network of rape support centres and national helplines”.

I was also pleased to hear that in April 2017 a new violence against women and girls service transformation fund will be introduced. That fund will

“support local programmes which encourage new approaches that incorporate early intervention, establish and embed the best ways to help victims and their families, and prevent perpetrators from re-offending.”

The Minister said that the criteria for applications to the fund

“will be published in due course.”

That announcement raises more questions than it answers. When exactly will the application process open? When will the criteria be announced? How much of that funding will refuges be able to access? Will the funds made available be enough to prevent any more closures? Does the Minister here today know how urgent the situation is? Is he mindful of the fact that two women are murdered every day? Many of the refuges are the difference between life and death and they are set to close. Without clearly defined, sustainable funding, other refuges will be forced to shed staff—staff who already have the expertise to know the best ways to help victims.

I hope that in his response to the debate the Minister will provide answers to those important questions. I also hope that he will let the Chancellor of the Exchequer know that at the end of every cut he makes to local authorities, there is a woman who will die, avoidably, at the hands of a man who once promised to love her. Cuts to public spending are creating orphans who could have grown up with parents. I beg the Minister to ensure that this Government do not unravel 40 years of good work. I beg him to listen and to act without delay.

May 11, 2016
Baroness Neville-Rolfe – 2016 Speech on Intellectual Property

Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Intellectual Property, in London on 10 May 2016.

Good morning, and welcome to the Department for Business. Today I am going to be talking about some of the challenges we are facing from the meteoric growth of illegal streaming services.

I am also going to discuss how we might work together to tackle this challenge head on, and that of course starts with you in this room.

But first, I want to talk about the wider enforcement landscape for intellectual property, the role of government, and to explain the framework that we have developed to guide our work over the coming years.

Intellectual property has been very important to the UK for a long time. We were at the forefront of developing patent rights. I understand that there is some evidence of a patent like system in ancient Greece, but in England, John Kempe and his company were granted letters patent in 1331. That’s nearly 200 years before Columbus reached America.

Similarly with the Statute of Anne in 1710, the UK effectively invented the concept of copyright. Now there are 170 states signed up to the Berne convention.

Again with trade marks, the first trade mark legislation was passed by the English parliament, in 1266.

And of course we have made good use of these intellectual property rights once they were brought into being. The UK has led the world in publishing. Only 7 fiction books have ever sold more than 100 million copies, and 5 of those were from British authors. And to be clear I’m not including the Bible, or the Quran in the fiction category – there’s a headline I don’t want to be reading tomorrow.

Again with music, there have only been 7 artists so far to sell over 250 million records – and 4 of them were from the UK.

And of course we have, and continue to be, at the forefront of technological innovation protected by patents. From steam engines, to televisions, to graphene, again the UK punches well above its weight, and we are investing in great initiatives like the Digital Catapult, to spur ever more innovation.

But of course I don’t need to tell you how central IP is to the UK. Most of you here in this room work in professions, or for companies that would not exist without IP rights, the licensing that takes place with those rights, and the investment that supports in content, in technology and in brands.

The problem we all face, is working out how we can ensure that these valuable IP rights are usable, and how we can ensure that their value is preserved in the face of relentless infringement on an enormous scale.

Professor Hargreaves stated it quite plainly in his 2010 report:

IP rights cannot succeed in their core economic function of incentivising innovation if rights are disregarded or are too expensive to enforce. Ineffective rights regimes are worse than no rights at all…

And that is where government comes in.

We often say that IP rights are private rights. In some cases the appropriate redress is through the civil courts, and rights holders can be left to get on with it. The problem is that when infringement is so widespread, and so damaging, that legitimate businesses are in danger of collapse, then that is no longer a private matter.

We are a government that stands right behind businesses, creators and innovators of all types. We cannot sit by while rights that have been developed over a long time to nurture innovation and encourage investment, are rendered useless. This is true whether it is caused by the deliberate behaviour of serious infringers, or by the unthinking actions of people who just don’t appreciate the harm that is caused by watching free streaming sites or buying bargain counterfeit goods.

In our manifesto we pledged to make Britain the best place in Europe to innovate, patent new ideas and set up and expand a business. We pledged to protect intellectual property by continuing to require internet service providers to block sites that carry large amounts of illegal content. And we have pledged to build on our voluntary anti-piracy projects to warn internet users when they are breaching copyright, and to work to ensure that search engines do not link to the worst offending sites.

To sum things up more broadly than these specific pledges, we are committed to ensuring that the bargain between creator and the IP system is honoured. There must be a framework which supports the effective and appropriate enforcement of all IP rights. That framework has to be accessible, and it must keep pace with new models and channels of infringement.

I am taking the opportunity of this seminar today to launch our new strategy, ‘Protecting creativity, supporting innovation: IP enforcement 2020’. This document lays out the areas that we see as the most pressing priorities, and some of the work that we see as most necessary to make sure that IP enforcement works.

In some ways we start from a favourable position. The UK has done well in recent years, being ranked highly for its IP system, and its enforcement environment in particular. But we must work tirelessly to keep ahead of the game.

The first piece of this puzzle, and the reason we have organised this seminar today, is to ensure that we know our enemy. Good evidence, and clear intelligence, about the harm caused by infringement and the business models that facilitate and profit from it, are central to an effective response.

That is why I have asked the Intellectual Property Office to develop a robust methodology for measuring the harm caused by IP infringement. I have tasked them with developing a comprehensive scoreboard to be published annually, combining data on the prevalence of civil and criminal IP infringement with the outcomes of enforcement activity and the best available estimates of their impact.

This means better reporting in the criminal justice system, better reporting of court cases and a deeper understanding of consumer behaviours and emerging trends. The IPO has been supporting industry and enforcement agencies with its IP Crime Intelligence Hub, and has built links into the police and trading standards to share that intelligence.

We must also stem the tide of infringing material online. The Prime Minister has announced a universal service obligation for broadband of 10 megabytes for every household by 2020. That will be amazing for consumers and legitimate online businesses, but an open door for pirates to push out yet more infringing content.

We need to make it easier for consumers to recognise legitimate content, and to understand the harm caused by piracy. We also need to find a new model for notice and takedown which does not require rights holders to send millions of notices only to see the same content reposted as soon as it is taken down.

We have had some successes here, with the creation of the Infringing Website List now beginning to starve pirate sites of the advertising money they need to survive, but we must push this approach out further, to other intermediaries and to other territories.

Of course despite this focus on exciting new technologies and the online world we cannot afford to take our eyes off the physical world either. Counterfeiting remains a huge problem – causing harm for brand owners in lost sales and harming consumers with substandard and sometimes dangerous goods.

We will continue to provide a dedicated intelligence resource to help enforcement agencies tackle counterfeiting. We will continue to tell anyone who will listen about the deep rooted and well proven links between IP crime and other criminal behaviour. We will champion the use of Proceeds of Crime seizures in IP investigations. Again – we don’t just want to follow the money, we want to take it back from the criminals who have stolen it.

Now I spoke earlier about the idea that IP is a private right, and I hope I explained why I believe government has a central role to play in this fight. But I also believe that the most effective remedies come from helping people to help themselves.

Our strategy also commits us to look at the entirety of the legal framework, to ensure that whatever type of infringement, and whatever the IP right, creators and innovators are able to access recourse that is effective, and proportionate.

We have announced our intention to toughen penalties for online copyright infringement. We have also called on the EU as part of their work on the digital single market to protect the system of website blocking injunctions we have developed in the UK, and to ensure those same injunctions are available in other member states.

But we are also looking at new areas where we might need to create new legal tools to tackle new modes of infringement.

We will look for example at whether or not new legislation is needed to respond to the role of fulfilment houses, an odd term I know, and drop shippers in the distribution of counterfeit goods.

Following today’s discussions we will look at the legislation around set-top boxes, and whether we have enough effective remedies to tackle their misuse.

We will also look across the framework, to ensure that there are effective sanctions, when there is infringement to be tackled.

Set-top boxes capable of accessing infringing broadcasts were initially an issue in business premises especially of pubs taking the opportunity to screen football matches without a valid subscription.

But more recently, as we will hear later, these set-top boxes have entered the mainstream consumer market. And I can see the appeal. If the only factor guiding a purchase decision is price, then a set-top box which allows you to watch countless premium channels for a modest one off payment is an attractive option.

But perhaps this also gives us an insight into the solution. We must work to educate consumers as to what exactly their bargain entails. If they knew that by buying these boxes and watching infringing streams they were directly damaging the future of their favourite programmes they might think twice.

This is not an easy message to get across. But in truth this is the tragedy of the commons writ large. Consumers understand that deliberate infringement has consequences, but many don’t think they themselves really bear any responsibility. That is the mind-set we have to change.

Working with businesses to promote diverse sources of legal content will help to ensure that ‘it’s easier to infringe’ or ‘I can’t get it elsewhere’ are no longer valid excuses for infringement.

And educating consumers directly as to the effect their choices have, following the mould of the ‘Get it Right from a Genuine Site’ campaign, will help us build momentum for behaviour change.

IP is by its nature international. We will continue to engage closely with Europe in the light of the current digital single market programme.

But looking further afield a 2014 UKTI survey found that 1 in 4 UK businesses were deterred from entering an overseas market due to the risk of IP theft.

While some of this can be written off to unfamiliarity, language barriers, different legal systems and so on, there is clearly a real challenge for us here as well.

That is why our strategy also lays out our plans to build on the IP attaché network, to build influence in key UK markets and provide training and practical support to emerging markets, and to strengthen our links with established trading partners.

We will continue to share best practice with law enforcement and judiciary overseas, and we will continue to engage operationally where infringing activity crosses borders.

As I have mentioned, the issue of set-top boxes is a perfect example of a modern IP enforcement challenge.

Set-top boxes and IPTV constitute a disruptive technology. Both the boxes, and the online services which they access have legitimate uses, but they have been subverted on a massive scale.

The business of satellite and cable broadcasting is a multi-billion pound industry in Europe and brings a wide range of cultural, sporting, educational and leisure programmes to an immense audience.

Broadcast content is an area where the UK has a strong position. The reach of content like the English Premier League is truly global and there is hardly a corner of the earth that does not know about Manchester United and other British teams. I understand Leicester City led to chanting in the streets in Thailand and is being wooed for a Harvard Case Study.

Now broadcasting has come a long way since John Logie-Baird demonstrated the first working TV. The days of a monolithic central broadcaster producing all of their own content and beaming it out into the world with a big transmission tower are long gone.

Broadcasters and content owners today support a massive network of jobs and industry. In addition the infrastructure of the delivery companies creates employment and revenue that benefits the community and governments as well as shareholders.

Examples of this ecosystem include the domestic manufacturing industry that makes the receiver kit – decoders, the software industry that provides the systems and the security around them, the call centres that handle consumer issues…the list goes on.

The value of protecting the delivery of pay to view broadcasts was and has been recognised in the extension of legislation to protect the decoders necessary to receive the signal, allowing subscription services to generate income. It is already illegal to circumvent the security of such devices.

However as technology has developed and broadband speeds have increased, it is now entirely possible to receive programmes in high quality over the internet avoiding the use of decoders entirely.

Quite simply the original broadcast is captured at illegal data centres that can be located anywhere and is then re-transmitted as streamed signals over the internet.

Set-top boxes, which I must stress have perfectly legitimate uses, are then supplied pre-loaded with apps that can either be used to subscribe to an illegal site or get content for free whilst the site operator generates income from advertising.

These devices have quickly become widely available. In the first instance they appeared in pubs and clubs and the industry has invested huge time and effort in challenging them, However, they are now so prevalent that individual consumers are buying them in their droves, and getting free access to copyright material from any broadcaster, anywhere in the world.

The threat this poses to the industry is huge and already we have seen specialist providers such as one London-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) serving the ex-pat Chinese community being put out of business, with the loss of 50 jobs in London.

But this is not an easy problem to crack. The industry in the UK has done everything to ensure that where action can be taken it is. And we are confident that data centres streaming content illegally are very rare in the UK. But the internet knows no borders, and services based in more tolerant regimes overseas are having a direct impact upon our broadcasters, and our content creators.

We also have the fact that the devices themselves are not illegal – as I have mentioned they have legitimate uses and we cannot forget that.

Because it is the use they are put to, rather than the devices themselves which are the problem – it is unlikely that they can be successfully regulated like de-coders. In any case as smart TVs become more widely used set-top boxes will not be needed, as the TV itself will just need the right apps to access illegal content.

But this does not mean we are powerless. Officials in the UK and Europe have sought to influence our Chinese colleagues, so that they consider how they might restrict their manufacture and supply. I myself have visited China as a minister and have discussed exactly these sort of issues.

We are also acting at home, to prove to the world that we are willing to clean up our own back yard as well and tackle the demand side of the equation. Recently arrests have been made under conspiracy to defraud legislation, targeting those criminals who commercially order and supply set-top boxes with the intention that they will be used to illegally receive IPTV.

We think this is an effective approach and our work has been a major help to Hong Kong Customs in developing their own ability to prosecute traders in set-top boxes using similar legislation.

But despite these small glimmers of light, it is clear that we need some new thinking in this area. The satellite and cable industries and broadcasters continue to invest in better security and enforcement, but it is also clear that the criminals are serious and this sort of organised crime generates huge profits.

It is no coincidence that data centres for illegal streaming services tend to be concentrated in places like Russia and the Ukraine and are linked closely to dedicated fraud sites.

Now this is the part of the speech where I would love to be able to propose a solution, or to announce some targeted new law which would make everything better, but we are not there yet. That is why we have asked you here today. We must first gather the evidence and intelligence we need. Only then can we look at the legislative framework, at the role of education and awareness raising, and at how we can facilitate closer work within the industries affected.

There is no single device or clever trick which solve these sort of problems, but as our strategy lays out, we need instead to develop and maintain an entire toolbox of interventions and remedies.

I very much look forward to hearing more from you all on this very topical subject, and I hope that by the end of today we have moved at least a little forwards in developing a few new tools for our collective toolbox.

May 11, 2016
Justine Greening – 2016 Speech to European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Meeting

Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development annual meeting in London on 11 May 2016.

I’m delighted to be here with you at the EBRD’s 25th Annual Board of Governors meeting.

Over the last quarter of a century the EBRD has played a unique and powerful role on the world stage, helping countries transition towards market orientated economies and democratic principles.

More than 30 countries, from Bulgaria, to Mongolia, to Jordan, to Tunisia now benefit from the Bank’s investment and expertise.

My key message today is that in our age of crisis, with all the challenges the world is facing, a strong and effective EBRD – an international institution with a European heart – has never been more important. More than ever we need the private sector to be centre stage in tackling the global challenges we face – and the EBRD’s leadership on this remains absolutely essential.

We know the world is facing unprecedented challenges to our global prosperity and global security.

Uncertainty in the markets, the threat of climate change, the impact of protracted displacement crises such as we are seeing in Syria and the region.

And the reality is we have a shared responsibility for meeting these challenges. If we choose to neglect the problems beyond our borders today – they become our own tomorrow.

So we must work together to tackle the root causes of poverty and instability.

The past 25 years have shown us that trying to build development and to help transition in any country without a solid foundation of peace and stability simply doesn’t work.

Stability is not only about war and conflict – it’s about countries having strong economies, a strong private sector, healthy and educated populations and, crucially, it’s about the strength of their institutions.

Today, we are gathered in the City of London – the world’s leading financial centre and home to many multinational firms. And not too far from this building you will also find the sites of many of Britain’s great institutions from the London Stock Exchange, to the Bank of England, to the Royal Courts of Justice.

These institutions were vital to Britain’s own development. Without rule of law, without parliamentary democracy, without open markets – Britain would never have prospered in the way we have – and that’s true for so many of the countries represented here.

So institutions matter – to citizens and to businesses as well. And it’s not only national institutions that matter – the strength of our international institutions is critical as well. The UN, the World Bank, the IMF and, of course, the EBRD.

Twenty-five years ago when this Bank was formed, just after the Berlin Wall had fallen and with it, symbolically, Europe’s Iron Curtain. It was a time of great hope but also great uncertainty. There were no guarantees that former Soviet bloc countries could easily transition into democratic, market orientated economies.

But in response the world’s leaders did not sit back and wait to see what happened. Just as they had once forged new alliances after the Second World War – the end of the Cold War paved the way for new and enduring partnerships, and ultimately a more stable, more peaceful, more prosperous Europe.

The EBRD was formed with a unique economic and political mission – that focused on the creation of open market economies in countries committed to multi-party democracy and pluralism.

And the Bank has played a critical role supporting: banking systems reform; the liberalisation of markets; replacing inefficient state monopolies with greater competition; and the creation of proper legal frameworks for property rights.

This has helped foster the kind of open societies and open economies where jobs, growth and enterprise can thrive – and individual rights to liberty and property are safeguarded. All of which, in turn, opens the door to greater private sector investment and a virtuous circle of growth.

Of course the challenges of 25 years ago are different from the challenges we face today. The EBRD has to evolve and adapt in a changing, and often turbulent, world.

And under Sir Suma’s leadership the EBRD is rising to this challenge.

In response to the Arab Spring, the EBRD rapidly expanded into the Southern and Middle Eastern Mediterranean countries region – with support from the UK and others.

In light of the economic and financial challenges facing Ukraine, and in recognition of the new government’s resolve to undertake comprehensive reforms and combat corruption, the EBRD has reconfirmed its commitment to support Ukraine in this reform process. In fact the Bank is the largest international financial investor in Ukraine.

And I’m pleased that the EBRD and the UK will be collaborating on our response to the refugee crisis in Jordan.

At the London Syria Conference earlier this year, the international community took its first step in recognising the global public good that neighbouring countries like Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey are providing by hosting the vast majority of Syria’s 4.6 million refugees.

Together the world pledged vital, record-breaking billions to meet the urgent humanitarian needs – and made historic commitments to provide education, jobs and, in doing so, hope for refugees stuck in a permanent emergency situation.

Again, the EBRD will play its part and has already engaged with government agencies, donors and other stakeholders to identify where and what investment is needed. As a result the UK has agreed a £30 million grant to the EBRD to support a series of investments in Northern Jordan. This will focus, firstly, on improving overstretched infrastructure in refugee-hosting cities.

And, following the crucial commitments at the London Syria Conference to open up work permits to up to 200,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan, the EBRD will help deliver some of these opportunities by identifying skills and engaging with the private sector to offer training and work based learning opportunities and routes into jobs.

I also want to commend the EBRD and Sir Suma for your work promoting inclusion, in particular the Bank’s strategy for the promotion of gender equality.

It is now increasingly recognised that women’s economic empowerment is one of the biggest potential levers we have for boosting global prosperity. That’s why the UN Secretary General has set up the UN’s first ever High Level Panel to kick-start a global movement on women’s economic empowerment – and I’m proud to be one of the founding members of this Panel.

The EBRD has a crucial role, working with businesses, to create new opportunities for women’s economic participation. As much as any other reform law, it is how we underpin and unlock growth.

I believe it’s critical that all of us working together – including the EBRD – continue to up our game on this and break down the remaining barriers that prevent girls and women from fulfilling their potential and contributing fully to the global economy. We can’t afford not to.

In today’s world, with all the challenges we face, the EBRD’s mission is as relevant and as important as ever.

Aid alone will not be enough for delivering sustainable development and global prosperity – we need business, more jobs, growth and enterprise. And that means dramatically increasing and improving our performance in leveraging private sector financing.

The UK believes that the EBRD with its in-depth knowledge, experience and expertise must be at the heart of helping to solve some of the most difficult and urgent challenges we face – whether that’s the displacement of people and the refugee crisis or helping countries transition to low carbon economies or empowering women economically.

The EBRD, by committing to its private sector mission, by continuing to concentrate more of its efforts and resources in the poorest and most fragile areas it works in, and by focusing on inclusion, gender equality and results, can and must play a fundamental role in delivering sustainable, inclusive development over the next 25 years, working alongside other multilateral organisations.

A quarter of a century ago investing in former soviet bloc countries was morally the right thing to do – but it was right for our national interests too.

Today we have a fresh set of complex global challenges but we need to show the same determination, innovation and ambition.

Then, as now, our best chance of rising to the challenges we face is by working in partnership – working together to build the more stable, peaceful and prosperous world we all want. With the EBRD continuing to play a central, unique role on behalf of our continent.

Thank you.

May 11, 2016
John Whittingdale – 2016 Speech on the Business of Sport

Below is the text of the speech made by John Whittingdale, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to the Business of Sport Conference on 11 May 2016.

It is a pleasure to be here with you at this Business of Sport conference, not least following this country having just seen one of the most extraordinary sporting achievements of all time.

I will leave it to others to determine whether Leicester City’s Premiership triumph is a bigger shock than Boris Becker winning Wimbledon at seventeen, or Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson, or indeed what Brian Clough achieved with Derby County and Nottingham Forest.

Two things are certain, however: what Leicester have done has got the whole world even more excited about English football – and Keith Vaz is going to keep wearing his Leicester City scarf unless someone can wrestle it off him.

It has been an exciting year across all of sport. I have had the good fortune to attend – amongst other events – three huge sporting occasions here in the UK. Wimbledon. The British Grand Prix. And the Rugby World Cup.

The first two are annual staples, and among the most celebrated sporting events on the planet. The Rugby World Cup, meanwhile, was widely seen as the best ever. It was a real testament to the appetite for live sport in this country that – despite England’s exit after just three games – fans still filled stadia up and down the country throughout the tournament. And that appetite for sport has helped to make it big business in the UK.

Sport is a key element of the Government’s broader growth agenda – and a highly successful one.

The Premier League is the best on Earth. Not only are more fans than ever watching in fantastic stadiums, it is one of this country’s most recognised brands – generating £3.4 billion in GVA in 2013/14 and supporting more than 100,000 jobs. 800,000 tourists attended a match last year. The Premier League is broadcast to 730 million homes in 185 countries.

Sport-related consumer spending is worth around £30 billion annually. Motorsport Valley in the Home Counties employs 40,000 people in 3,500 companies.

The Tour de France’s 2014 visit to Yorkshire added £100 million to that county’s economy, and helped draw the world’s attention to the beautiful Dales.

There is of course a very strong link between sport and the tourism sector – for which my department is also responsible.

Just as cycling has enticed people to Yorkshire, so football entices them to Manchester and Liverpool, and tennis brings them to Eastbourne and London.

The sport-tourism link also supports a wide range of jobs in hotels, bars, restaurants, sports marketing and much else besides. One of the reasons that the Government is so much in favour of hosting international sporting events is the economic boost they give to cities and towns.

The Cricket World Cup is coming here in 2019, providing opportunities for places like Southampton, Taunton and Durham.

In 2017, Cardiff will host the Champions League Final.

When Wembley hosted the same event in 2013, London was awash with the red of Bayern Munich and the yellow of Borussia Dortmund – many fans coming over to sample the atmosphere – and spend money – even though an estimated 100,000 didn’t have a ticket for the game.

The Rugby World Cup generated nearly a billion pounds, and provided some terrific entertainment – such as Japan’s historic victory over South Africa. The Rugby League World Cup in 2013 was also a big success – with the final enjoying the biggest ever crowd for a rugby league international.

Most impressive of all, the overall impact of hosting the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics is expected to be as high as £41 billion of GVA. London was an incredible place to be throughout both.

And we now have the NFL starting to bring games to this country, with three further games this year. This will provide another massive boost. And if a franchise locates here permanently, that will only increase.

A lot of the money that sport in this country generates comes via television rights.

Television has had a revolutionary impact on sport. It famously transformed the domestic popularity of snooker several decades ago, but that enthusiasm has now spread to China – and indeed China’s Ding Junhui recently came within a few frames of becoming the first Asian world champion.

Sky – and now as well BT – have generated huge sums for the sports they screen, whilst helping to grow and sustain interest and participation.

We do not propose to reopen discussion on Listed Sporting Events. Rather than dictate to individual sports, I believe that it is better to allow national governing bodies and other rights-holders to decide for themselves the right balance between reaching a wide audience and generating as much revenue for their sport as they can. But it is our view that the starting point should always be how to ensure the broadest audience can experience live sport.

The consultation leading up to our sports strategy found a widespread eagerness for more coverage of smaller sports and women’s sport. This is something I very much wish to encourage. I know, for example, that weightlifting fans think that Eurosport’s coverage of the sport has been excellent.

I also welcome the Premier League cap of £30 for away supporters for the next three seasons, funded – in part – by their record-breaking TV deal. And I applaud the efforts of some clubs in the Football League to reduce season ticket prices and introduce concessions for young fans. I hope to see much more of this.

A principle of the Voluntary Code of Conduct on the Broadcasting of Major Sporting Events is that a minimum of 30 per cent of net broadcasting revenue is put back into grassroots development within that sport. This is very welcome.

Whenever a sport makes significant money from a television deal, I hope it will plough a substantial amount into its grassroots.

For the grassroots of sport are critically important. We want people of all ages and abilities to be inspired to make sport a central part of their lives.

The benefits of this are huge and varied. We know that sport has a positive impact on health, crime, wellbeing and social cohesion. It also has an economic impact. Physical activity adds £39 billion to the UK economy every year – half of which comes from people’s involvement in grassroots sport. The more people get active, the more the economy grows. It’s a virtuous circle.

This was why my excellent Minister for Sport, Tracey Crouch, launched our new Sports Strategy last year, which explores the many ways we can get many more people active. This includes our consulting on how the corporation tax system might expand support for grassroots sport.

We are determined to back all levels of sport. I also want to see the elite end of sport pulling its weight and supporting the grassroots on which it depends.

After all, in 2012 Jamie Vardy was playing for Fleetwood Town. Now he has several England caps and a Premiership winner’s medal.

Moreover – as I am always quick to remind anyone who will listen – Alastair Cook started his career at Maldon Cricket Club, of which I am a Vice-President. He is an honorary life member and regular visitor – a useful reminder that all the best sportsmen and women remember where they came from and that sport belongs to all of us.

I recently met Leon Smith – the brilliant captain of the first GB team to win the Davis Cup since 1936. It was a superb achievement, but I was equally pleased to learn that one of the first things he did after that win was to use the momentum created to start enthusing more youngsters to play the sport.

Along with Annabel Croft he is overseeing a scheme called “Tennis for Kids”, working with coaches to get children involved in the sport and to create an environment where they don’t just try tennis but stick with it. It is great to see elite coaches and athletes give back to their sport in this way.

Some governing bodies have done good work too – such as the RFU through its CBRE All Schools programme, which aims to increase the amount of rugby in schools and encourage new players to join local clubs. The RFU invested 32.5m last year in the grassroots game, an increase of 5 per cent from previous year.

And we are also extremely fortunate to have so many unpaid volunteers up and down the country – without whom sport would collapse. We are supporting those volunteers and the grassroots, where some of our best talent starts.

The Premier League, which will earn over £5 billion over three seasons, already makes a significant investment in the grassroots of the game. However, the fact that it goes from strength to strength should have a commensurate impact on the lower levels of the sport.

The Premier League has agreed with the Government that it will at least double its investment into community football over the coming three seasons. That means over £100 million for the next three years will go to grassroots facilities and programmes where it is needed the most.

The funding details are dependent on the outcome of the Ofcom investigation into the sale of the Premier League’s audio-visual rights in the UK. Government does not control the timing of this, but will maintain a keen interest in how it develops.

The British public has an immense appetite for sport – as participants and spectators. We must not, however, abuse that position.

There has been a spate of shocking allegations and revelations in recent months. What has happened at FIFA is reprehensible and appalling. Accusations of match-fixing in tennis and snooker and allegations of doping in athletics are deeply disquieting.

This is damaging the reputation of sport. All corruption must be rooted out and dealt with. It is vitally important that sports bodies at home and abroad uphold the highest standards of governance, transparency and accountability.

Tomorrow, the Prime Minister is hosting an international Anti-Corruption Summit, the first of its kind. He will be welcoming international governments, businesses and organisations leading the fight against all corruption, including sports bodies.

It is the right thing to do. Government invests millions in sport, and has a responsibility to the taxpayer and Lottery player to see that their money is well spent. We have a responsibility to tackle corruption wherever it is to be found, whether in sport or anywhere else.

We want to inspire other governments to take a similarly robust position. Across the world, governments are the single biggest investor in sport – whether in the grassroots, elite funding or major events.

Domestically, we have a good record, but more needs to be done, especially if we are to lead the world by example. UK Sport and Sport England are drafting a domestic code, which will be launched later in the year. It will include new rules on governance, financial transparency and diversity.

There are cases where certain minimum standards are not being met, in regard to independence, conflicts of interest and term limits. This is a betrayal of athletes and the public alike. In future, where these standards are not met, we will not invest public money.

I was disappointed to learn that the FA have again rejected the opportunity to reform their out-dated and unrepresentative governance model.

So I will be writing to the FA to make clear that if they don’t make sufficient progress on reform, they will not get a penny of taxpayers’ money in the future. We would look instead to route money for grassroots football to other organisations that will adhere to the code of good governance.

It is also vitally important that fans continue to feel connected to their clubs.

In January the Government’s Expert Working Group published a report on football supporter ownership and engagement. It has been well received by the football authorities and by supporters’ groups.

The report contained proposals on improving dialogue between fans and clubs and about making it more realistic for fans to bid for ownership of their club, when such opportunities arise.

From next season, club owners will be expected to talk with a representative group of supporters about matters of strategic importance – giving them more information and a chance to hold key people to account.

This year will be another momentous one for sport. We have three major events in Euro 2016, the Olympics and Paralympics.

We are looking forward to an exciting European Championship in France and wish the English, Welsh and Northern Irish teams good luck for a successful tournament.

Memories of the London Olympics and Paralympics in 2012 are still fresh in all our minds, and the Government remains committed to their legacy. We had an excellent settlement in the Autumn

Statement, whereby we are increasing central government funding for elite sport. We want to keep the medals count up at Rio this year and Tokyo in 2020!

Sport is something that we are great at. It is one of our biggest drivers of talent, it boosts our economy, it gives us international clout and national pride, and it is hugely enjoyable.

This government is making a record investment in sport, because sport in this country has the potential to be even bigger and better.

We want to see all corruption sniffed out and strangled, and as many people as possible from all backgrounds enjoy the multiple benefits of a sporting life.

We will therefore continue to implement all the goals in our sports strategy, and we will continue to work with all of you, to deliver all these benefits.

Thank you.

May 11, 2016
Chi Onwurah – 2016 Speech on Housing in Newcastle

Below is the text of the speech made by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, in Westminster Hall on 10 May 2016.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing in Newcastle.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to have secured this short debate on a subject that is so critical to my constituents.

I am sure that everyone present is an avid reader of my website, chionwurahmp.com, and so will know that I publish pie charts that summarise the issues that constituents come to me with. At the moment, March’s pie charts are up, showing that I dealt with 36 housing issues that month—just behind the 37 benefits issues. Since I was first elected six years ago, housing has consistently been in the top three issues in Newcastle upon Tyne Central, and often No. 1, which is why I have secured several debates on housing and related issues, including on empty properties in 2012 and on local authority funding settlements and holdbacks in 2013.

Earlier this year, I held a ward summit in Blakelaw in my constituency that was attended by local councillors, residents groups and other organisations. The minutes are on my website, and show that, again, housing was the No. 1 issue. Late last year, I held another ward summit, in Benwell and Scotswood, where housing was also the No. 1 issue. Just last week, I held an informal surgery with the Sisters Study Circle group at the Tawheed mosque in Elswick, and housing was of great concern to them.

Why, I was asked, is it now next to impossible to get a council house in Newcastle? I tried to explain that there are 6,000 households on the waiting list, of which 4,000 are actively bidding for properties, but only 185 properties become available each month. I also explained that much of the council housing stock has been sold off and that, really, it was now available only to those with the greatest need. “Why did the Government not build more houses?”, they asked me. “Did they not realise the impact bad housing has on health, crime and education? How can young people focus on studying or getting a job if they haven’t got a decent roof over their head? How can parents give children the support they need if they are worrying where they are going to be living next week?”

After some time, I grew tired of trying to explain the Government’s logic while at the same time thinking, “I myself don’t understand.” My job is not to justify the Government but to hold them to account. I am sure the Minister agrees that my constituents are right to be concerned about the lack of housing in Newcastle. I applied for this debate to find out from him exactly how he believes Newcastle City Council can overcome the barriers preventing it from building more houses to improve the lives of the thousands of people in my constituency who need a decent home.

Last year, the Government presided over the building of just 9,590 homes for social rent, compared with the 33,180 delivered in Labour’s last year in office. Last year’s was the lowest level of affordable homes built for more than two decades. Having knocked on a great many doors over the last few weeks—indeed, over the last few years—I know that they bear testament to the last Labour Government’s investment in our housing stock. Labour could, and should, have built even more homes, but the decent homes programme—visible in new doors, windows, kitchens, bathrooms and the very fabric of so many homes in Newcastle—effectively renewed the existing stock so that it could last for another generation.

That programme contrasts with this Government’s record of cutting investment and of building just one new social home for every eight sold off through right to buy—a Government whose use of the term “affordable rent” is not recognisable to most people; who thought up the unfair bedroom tax, which has affected half a million households; and who have overseen a 22% rise in private rents in Newcastle since 2011, when incomes have barely risen at all.

Newcastle is a growing city. It is estimated that by 2021 there will be 16,200 more people living in our great city, and the Government have a duty to ensure that local authorities have the means—both the funding and the powers—to provide the homes that local people need. Newcastle needs 16,400 new homes between now and March 2030: around 1,000 new homes per year, not including student accommodation for those studying at our world-class universities. Residents quite rightly do not want to lose any of our fantastic greenfield assets in and around Newcastle, so much of the land available for building these homes for Newcastle is brownfield, with high clean-up costs.

Providing the homes required in such circumstances is already a huge challenge for the council, given the ideologically and politically driven extent of the cuts to central Government funding, yet the Government seem insistent on piling on further pressure and putting further barriers in the way. The 1% cut in social housing rent over the next four years will leave a hole of £593 million in the council’s 30-year financial model—that is £0.6 billion. That investment was earmarked for building the homes that the city needs and for investing in the city’s stock. Although a 1% cut in social rent may seem a good thing for social tenants, it is the council that pays for it, not the Government. It will take money away from the capital investment needed for repairs, improvements and, critically, new homes.

If the Government were so concerned about saving social tenants’ money, they would abolish the grotesque bedroom tax. By the way, the Government are actually the greatest beneficiary of this rent cut, because the housing payment bill for the Department for Work and Pensions will fall considerably. It is the Government who will benefit from this cut, not social tenants.

It is not hard to see that when housing authorities’ incomes are cut, they will have less to invest—more than half a billion less, in the case of Newcastle City Council. Trampling over locally elected and accountable councils’ planned infrastructure investment in such a way deserves its own debate. But there is more: that hole in the city’s investment plan will be widened even further by the Government’s forced sale of higher-value housing to pay for the new right to buy. Building a new home in Newcastle costs a minimum of £120,000, but the result of the much criticised Housing and Planning Bill will be the selling off of homes at an average price of £80,000—so, £80,000 in income versus £120,000 to build them. Even if all the income were reinvested, at best we would replace only two thirds of all homes sold.

I hope the Minister is aware of the analysis published by Shelter last month, which showed that Newcastle will need to sell more than 400 homes every year to raise the £52 million annual contribution to the Government’s policy. That £52 million contribution must be paid for by selling off homes. That is 100 more homes than are built each year now, before the Government’s housing Bill bites, with its inevitable knock-on effect on investment.

My constituents who are on the lowest incomes already find it much more difficult to buy homes, even at the lower end of the market, than they would in other parts of the country. The council has done some brilliant work in recent years: delivering much needed specialist house building; building more affordable homes; returning vacant private sector properties to the market, which is very important; and working to reduce homelessness. But it is under attack from a Government who seem determined to dismantle our social housing stock from Whitehall. I simply cannot see how the council is supposed to meet the needs of local people, given the straitjacket that the Minister is putting them into. Those I have spoken to in Newcastle believe, as I do, that Government locally and nationally have a duty to provide homes for people. I want to see a healthy mix of tenures. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister is looking on his mobile phone to see how that can be achieved.

The actions of the Government and the housing Bill will throw up more barriers to building homes that, frankly, seem designed to destroy social housing altogether. Will the Minister tell us what role he sees for councils in building and providing homes, and how much discretion they should have in fulfilling that role? What modelling have his Government done on the effect of the 1% cut in social rents on investment in Newcastle and across the country, and will he publish that modelling? Does he not agree that decisions on rent should be with the local authority, and that if central Government want to cut rent—a laudable aim—they should provide the money to pay for it, rather than punish future generations? What modelling has he done on the forced sale of council homes to fund his right to buy policy? Does he agree with the analysis that Shelter has done on this and, if not, will he publish his own sums?

On the subject of the right to buy policy for housing associations, I wrote to the Minister last year about constituents of mine who are unable to sell their properties because the freehold is owned by the St Mary Magdalene & Holy Jesus Trust, which refuses to extend the leases. In his response, he said that my constituents should write to the advisory body LEASE, which they did, to no avail. There are three different housing Acts that affect three different types of properties and the rights they enjoy. The Minister said he would consider this further as part of the Housing and Planning Bill. Has he any hope, or indeed any clarity, to offer my constituents on that issue?

What would the Minister say to my constituents who cannot get a council home and cannot afford the rising rents in Newcastle? Does he think that his housing Bill will enable Newcastle City Council to build enough homes in the next 30 years and can he explain how? If it will not, how does he expect the private sector to fill the gap at affordable prices for different types of tenure? Finally, will he take a leaf out of the book of the new Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and commit to ensuring affordable housing in Newcastle?

May 11, 2016
Keith Simpson – 2016 Speech on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

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

Mr Simpson

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

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

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

Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)

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

Mr Simpson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harriett Baldwin

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

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

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

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

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

I had 4 main aims for the industry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’ve abolished the tripartite system of regulation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 11, 2016
Lucy Powell – 2016 Speech on Academies

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 10, 2016
Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech on Academies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 10, 2016