Tag: 2016

  • Rob Wilson – 2016 Speech on Fundraising Week

    robwilson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rob Wilson, the Minister for Civil Society, at the British Film Institute in London on 19 April 2016.

    t’s a real pleasure to open the event today. I hope Fundraising Week 2016 is a huge success and will support people to take positive steps towards responsible and sustainable fundraising.

    Let me first of all express my sincere thanks to Stephen Cook for his great work as editor of Third Sector over the years. Like many in this room, I have been grilled by him in the past. I’m sure his colleagues will give him a great send off and will gladly opt-in to being asked for money for the leaving gift.

    On a more serious note – it’s great to see so many charities represented here today, positively engaging with fundraising and making it a central focus of their activities.

    And you are right to do so. According to the Charities Aid Foundation, the UK is the most generous nation in Europe, and one of the most generous in the world – it’s in our DNA as a country.

    Three quarters of people have donated to charity in the previous year, one of the highest rates anywhere in the world and voluntary income has remained strong. Now all of this is really heartening news.

    So let me start by saying this: I absolutely understand that you need to “ask” in order to fundraise.

    Fundraising enables you to do the vital work which is at the heart of all your organisations. And that is why it is so important to get it right.

    You’ll all be aware that this is an issue I care very deeply about.

    I am determined to see charities move on from poor practice, and come out stronger.

    But that’s only possible if all of you here today meet the high expectations of the generous British public.

    This means putting supporters back at the heart of fundraising activities and ensuring that charitable aims are only ever achieved by charitable means.

    Fundraising is the principal – and sometimes only – way in which the public interacts with a charity. It is in effect the “shop window” for your organisations. So it needs to be done in a way that reflects your core values and those of the sector as a whole.

    This means respect and care – not only for beneficiaries and donors – but also crucially for those who choose not to support your charities.

    Impact of poor practice

    We have all seen the devastating impact that poor fundraising practices – of even a few – can have on the entire sector.

    – Recent YouGov figures show that 62% of the public think that poor fundraising behaviour has damaged the sector as a whole

    – Hundreds of letters from members of the public have been written to me echoing their concerns about the way in which they have been contacted by charities

    – Public trust and confidence in charities overall has plummeted – on one measure, more people now trust supermarkets over charities

    Though you are still faring better than politicians and I’m afraid even journalists Andy. But seriously: these numbers show that, for many, the word charity no longer invokes warmth and pride. Instead it arouses suspicion.

    This state of affairs is incredibly damaging to the long term sustainability of the sector. Charities need to do everything in their power to meet this challenge absolutely head on.

    This means actively reassuring the general public that each one of you:

    – operates to the highest standards

    – will always treat people with respect

    – will spend as much as possible on frontline services.

    What worried me most about the recent YouGov reputation research was there was a significant number of people who thought larger charities were not taking the problem seriously enough.

    Moving on from poor practice

    Now back in December I said fundraising was at a crossroads. I am heartened to see that the vast majority of charities have chosen to go down what I regard as the right path.

    The one that:

    – supports a stronger self-regulator

    – allows the public a genuine say about whether they wish to be contacted for fundraising

    – and will help the sector restore the public trust and confidence on which the sectors future depends

    This is evident in the way that almost all of the charities asked to fund the setup of the Fundraising Regulator have responded positively. It’s a visible sign to the public and Government that they see the value in having effective, sector-wide regulation in place.

    I am sure you will be aware that Michael Grade and Stephen Dunmore have made great progress in this area.

    At this point, I would also like to commend the senior leadership of the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) for constructively engaging in the handover process and ensuring that the new regulator will have the best possible start.

    Thanks to their hard work, and the work of Stephen’s team, the new Fundraising Regulator will open its doors this summer.

    All of you here today should have firm plans to register your organisations. This will show your commitment to support responsible, sustainable fundraising for the future.

    Now, regaining trust doesn’t need to be lengthy process. If we collectively act to champion best practice then we will be able to rebuild relations with the public and win back their support.

    There are many who think that by giving self-regulation a second chance we’ve not gone far enough. As I took the Charities Bill through Parliament it was clear to me that all parties across the chamber wanted swift and firm action.

    I want self regulation to work. And my commitment to you is that I will continue to support the new Fundraising Regulator by defending self regulation.

    However as I have said before, I will intervene should it become necessary. That is not a threat, it’s simply a promise.

    Sector leadership

    I know that many of you have improved your approach to fundraising over the past six months. And, I am a firm believer that the most important changes in the sector need to come from you.

    We have already seen positive changes to the Fundraising Code of Practice that address some of the most pervasive issues around data protection that were uncovered last summer.

    Overall, the Code – and the Institute of Fundraising’s stewardship of it – has served fundraisers, charities and the public over the past 30 years.

    But we need to make sure that it will improve and prosper over the next 30 years too. Which is why the Code should become clearly independent from the interests of the profession and move to the new regulator.

    In talking of positive progress I want to single out Charities Aid Foundation for praise in the wide range of support it is providing for the new fundraising regulator.

    Some individual charities have also shown particular leadership in respecting and empowering their donors.

    I want to acknowledge the commitments by RNLI, Cancer Research UK and the British Red Cross to move to an opt-in only system for their fundraising communications. This will not only give the public a greater say over their data and preferences but also stop charities wasting resources on those who do not wish to hear from them.

    On that same note I am encouraged to see progress on the Fundraising Preference Service (FPS).

    Evidence shows the FPS is key to restoring trust in charities.

    According to YouGov, 72% of the general public surveyed feel this way. Other research has put general support for the service at over 60%.

    Now I understand that the uncertainty over the short term impact of this may be uncomfortable for you sitting in the audience today. But whatever you think might happen to your income as a consequence of the FPS will be nothing compared to losing the long-term trust and goodwill of the public.

    It is important to remember that the FPS is a service at the end of the day. Those who may feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of fundraising communications and want to say ‘no more’ absolutely have a right to do so.

    Sir Stuart and the cross-party panel of peers were right to recognise this in their review of fundraising regulation last summer and I congratulate them on their determination to uphold charities’ long-term reputation with the public.

    Thanks to their continued leadership, a working group of charity leaders and service experts will design an FPS that works for everybody.

    The proposals I have seen so far are promising and – once finalised – I hope the Fundraising Regulator will ensure their swift implementation.

    The future of fundraising

    All of the changes I see – driven by the regulators, the government and you – are part of a wider reform process to become more sustainable.

    I am supporting this – for example – through the Small Charities Fundraising Training Programme that I recently launched. This is designed to help small charities to fundraise more effectively through a significant number of training opportunities, such as face-to-face workshops, webinars and advice sessions.

    Innovative approaches to fundraising will become key because the generous post-war generation that was receptive to mail and telephone fundraising cannot be relied upon forever.

    Instead charities need to find new ways to engage younger people who will not be persuaded by persistent asks but instead want to be inspired on a personal level.

    We have seen the success of innovative fundraising approaches everywhere. Whether it’s getting people to participate in engaging events such as Save the Children’s ‘Christmas Jumper Day’ or using new technologies such as the WWF has done for its ‘endangered emoji’ campaign. Innovation is out there and we all need to continue to find new ways to connect with the public.

    What’s more – the latest NCVO Almanac data shows that we are seeing unprecedented levels of youth engagement with charities.

    Initiatives such as NCS and the #iwill campaign encourage young people to get involved with charities and their community from an early age.

    I am a firm believer that embedding community participation early on in life builds the perfect basis for lifelong engagement with the voluntary sector.

    2015’s Youth Social Action Survey showed that over half of those participating in social action had donated money or goods in the past year.

    Now, a brilliant example of this is 10 year old #iwill Ambassador Ryan Bickle, from Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, who fundraises in his local community showing that you can’t be too young to get involved!

    He first got involved in social action after his Grandfather died, raising money for his hospice and it’s not stopped since. For example last Christmas, he fundraised £800 for the Cumbrian flood relief fund by carol singing!

    Another 10 year old #iwill Ambassador is Lucy Bowie from Renfrewshire, Scotland who fundraised for Marie Curie Cancer Care by doing a sponsored walk, after getting involved with social action as part of Girlguiding Scotland. Overall she has helped to raise well over £2,000 for her chosen charities.

    It’s examples like these that show the potential that is just waiting to be unlocked all across the country.

    Securing income for the future

    As you take the lead in meeting the challenges of fundraising for the future, I will continue to challenge, innovate and help you build a strong and sustainable sector. One that the UK can be proud of.

    In doing so we have to listen to Lucy and Ryan’s generation.

    Alongside getting active in their local communities, research shows that 75% of Millennials also care about companies giving back and prioritising more than just profits.

    This is why I want to create a social economy where everyone has a genuine choice over how their money is managed in line with their values.

    This could involve creating dedicated pension products and ISAs. I am already looking at ways to enable ‘everyday social investors’ to back causes they care about.

    This is on top of establishing the world’s first social investment bank, with contributions from the big four high street banks, to bringing in Social Investment Tax Relief.

    But there are even more ways to unlock the social economy.

    We have launched a Dormant Assets Commission, similar to the successful Dormant Bank Accounts scheme.

    Former Big Society Capital chief executive Nick O’Donohoe is identifying pools of unclaimed assets including stocks and shares that have laid untouched for 15 years.

    We are hoping that an estimated one billion pounds will be unlocked for good causes through the Commission.

    But there is also more we can do to ensure that opportunities are available to all organisations across the voluntary sector.

    In particular I want to look at what we can do to help small and medium sized charities. They are the ones who often achieve the best impact in their local areas and who sometimes struggle in the shadow of their larger cousins.

    So I’ve asked my team to look at ways to enable small and medium charities to use their ideas and talent to improve outcomes for public services across the country.

    We know that charities make a huge difference and reach some of the most difficult to reach communities.

    I want to find existing best practice and share these fantastic initiatives to explore whether they can be scaled up to benefit even more people.

    The combined effect of these reforms will ease the pressure on income and enable you to concentrate on building more sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships with your donors.

    Conclusion

    A new and improved self-regulator is just one part of the change that we need to see in fundraising. The other, more significant, change is in culture and practices.

    That is entirely in your hands. I hope you take away from what I have said, some very positive messages for the future.

    My strong advice for what it is worth is to listen to the tide of public opinion and do what is right to ensure higher standards in fundraising.

    A solid foundation is needed to restore public trust and ensure that you not only do right by your current beneficiaries, but also future ones.

    Thank you.

  • Rob Wilson – 2016 Speech on Buy Social Corporate Challenge

    robwilson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rob Wilson, the Minister for Civil Society, at 11 Downing Street in London on 19 April 2016.

    Good afternoon everyone and welcome to 11 Downing Street.

    It’s my great pleasure to host you to launch the Buy Social Corporate Challenge. The Challenge is a world-first and I am delighted to see representatives from the UK’s leading businesses, financial services and social enterprises in the room.

    We are all here today because we see the potential for business to be a powerful force for good. It is one of my key ambitions to see the growth of the UK’s dynamic social enterprise sector. Crucial to success will be opening up access to corporate markets, individual consumers and the public sector.

    Many businesses recognise that their long-term survival is linked to the positive difference they make in the world. And more large companies are interested in how their spending power can be used to buy from social enterprises.

    Customers are demanding it too: 1 in 3 British consumers will pay more for products and services that have a positive social and environmental impact.

    Social enterprise can no longer be seen as a niche activity – 1 in 5 businesses in the UK now have a social mission at their core and the sector employs more than 2 million people.

    The Buy Social Corporate Challenge is about connecting larger businesses to the ingenuity and innovation in the UK’s vibrant social enterprise sector. It isn’t asking businesses to spend more. But to spend in smarter ways that can improve their core business.

    As you’ll hear today, the companies already signed up are taking a leading role by setting big targets for their own spending with social enterprises. Andy from Wates Group will speak about their commitment in a moment, and Johnson & Johnson have a target spend of £15m by 2020.

    The Cabinet Office has worked with Social Enterprise UK to create this campaign and we will support SEUK to bring on board many more businesses to join the founding partners – to whom we are immensely grateful for their leadership.

    The ambition is high and the Buy Social Corporate Challenge aims to see businesses spend £1 billion with social enterprises by 2020.

    I encourage those of you representing large companies to find out how you can do more business with social enterprises by joining this Challenge; our support is there for you to make it happen.

    And those of you from social enterprises, to show how you can deliver comparable or better services at fair costs to corporate clients – while making a difference to communities across the UK.

    This campaign is a win-win for businesses and I am delighted that we are launching it here today.

    Thank you and good luck.

  • Airey Neave – 1973 Speech on Science and Technology

    aireyneave

    Below is the text of the speech made by Airey Neave in the House of Commons on 22 January 1973.

    I beg to move, That this House takes note of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the last Session of Parliament and of the relevant Government Observations (Command Paper Nos. 5176 and 5177). I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for finding time for this debate today because the Select Committee, of which I am Chairman, heard evidence over a long period and worked very hard to produce these four reports. I thank also all my colleagues for the part that they played. I shall refer to some of them individually in a moment, and I regret that some of them are prevented from taking part in this debate.

    It is an important precedent that we are debating these reports within a reasonable period after their publication. The last occasion on which I took part in a debate on a report from a Select Committee—it was on defence research—was two-and-a-half years after the event, and on that account all of us have found it rather difficult to make our speeches.

    This inquiry into research and development began a long time ago with the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science—whom I am glad to see in her place—in May 1971 and the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). The evidence, which we took over a period, lasted until May 1972. Altogether we published six reports on research and development—four in the last Session, which are the subject of this motion, while the other two, which were published in 1971, are history.

    Besides thanking my colleagues, I should like to thank the witnesses for all the information that they provided to the Select Committee. I do not think that all of them enjoyed the experience. Indeed, judging from the debate in another place, they certainly did not, because there I was described by a noble earl as a modern Torquemada, and there have been references to the Nuremburg Trial. But I assure the House that we are as courteous as possible to our witnesses and that we do not employ the methods employed at Nuremburg.

    I should like also to take this opportunity of thanking the two Clerks who had to work very hard over a long period of fairly intensive investigations into this wide-ranging subject of research and development.

    At the same time as the Committee was studying the subject of the reports being debated today it was studying the computer industry and the prospects for the nuclear industry, and this it will continue to do in this Session. I should like in this connection to accord particular thanks to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), my predecessor, who laid the foundations for what I think has been the success of this Select Committee, as he was the first Chairman when it began in 1967.

    The House will be sad today not to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). There has been good news of his progress, and I saw him last week. He is held in great affection by both sides of the House, and his views are respected. I have consulted him about the Government’s observations on our four reports. He agrees with a number of the things that I am going to say, and I wish to put his point of view on a number of matters. In particular, he profoundly disagrees with the Government’s decision on the Nature Conservancy. He regards it as an extraordinary decision. Like the hon. Member for Bristol, Central, my hon. Friend was a founder member of the Select Committee.

    This Committee has a number of purposes to which I should like to refer shortly before I deal with the reports and the Government’s observations. First, it seeks to form non-scientific judgments based on the best evidence, which it hears in public, and to provide information to Parliament and to the public and, above all, a dialogue with the Government on scientific subjects. On research and development we sought also—perhaps for the first time in this form—to give an opportunity to all scientists and research workers to state their views on the proposals put forward in the Green Paper by the Government and by Lord Rothschild on their behalf. There was a great deal of hard work in this, and I should like to thank all concerned for what they did.

    The first thing that we tried to do when we began in January 1972—exactly a year ago—was to discover what processes of thought lay behind the Green Paper. Cmnd. 4814, “Framework for Government Research and Development”, published in November, 1971, and generally known as the Rothschild Report. It also contained a report by Sir Frederick Dainton. The debate at that time, both in the columns of The Times and in scientific newspapers, surrounded the research councils, but we in the Select Committee decided to widen our inquiry to include Government policy for research and development as a whole, and in view of what has been said about the correct interpretation of Lord Rothschild’s report I believe that to have been the right decision. Our comments in these four reports, and particularly on Lord Rothschild’s method of inquiry and the Government’s attitude to the Rothschild Report, are outspoken—I do not think that anybody would deny that—and our recommendations cause some controversy.

    No one on the Select Committee would suppose that we always ask the right questions, and we often receive some curious answers, but it has to be remembered that our proceedings are the proceedings of the House. They are the proceedings of Parliament. Our reports are the property of Parliament, and in July 1972 we were obliged to remind Ministers and civil servants in no uncertain fashion that these are reports to Parliament and that Ministers and the Civil Service are responsible to Parliament.

    It could not for one moment be suggested that we are always in conflict with the Executive. We seek to provide a dialogue on scientific and technological matters. For this reason it would be best if I were to start with our second and third reports and the Government’s observations in their White Paper at December 1972, Cmnd. 5176.

    I should like, first, to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for setting out their answers to our recommendations in a lucid form which is easy to follow. In future it will be useful to have an index setting out these observations. I have had letters from scientific librarians asking the Select Committee to consider making an index for its own reports, which such libraries would find useful. I hope that we shall also manage to abolish the traditional method of including minutes of proceedings in our published reports. Such minutes bear no relevance to the evidence that has been taken and upon which we are reporting. The Press, especially the New Scientist, has often drawn our attention to that matter in our news conferences. An index would be useful in both cases. Otherwise the Department of Trade and Industry’s observations in Command 5146 are set out in a helpful way.

    Members of the Select Committee will be glad to hear that the Government agreed with their views on the non-nuclear work by the Atomic Energy Authority. We are glad to hear that there will be an increasing amount of that work on a non-nuclear basis and that it will appear in future on a Vote. That was the main recommendation of the Committee.

    There was another recommendation to which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central will no doubt wish to refer. The hon. Gentleman was the Chairman of the Sub-Committee which considered that matter—namely, the establishment of an industrial advisory committee. I am not clear why the Government have rejected the Committee’s recommendation, which I consider useful. Harwell, which is in my constituency, was the centre of these considerations. I was glad that the Select Committee firmly rejected the view that we can dispense with Government research centres of that importance. Indeed, it firmly rejected the glib and uninformed view that appeared in some quarters that industry can do all its own research. That is completely untrue in any industrialised European country. It was untrue when these observations were made, some two or three years ago. A programme of Government research and development will have to be maintained by the United Kingdom if it is to remain competitive in the next 25 years. That is one of the main themes behind some of the recommendations of the Select Committee.

    Paragraphs 11 to 24 of the observations of the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping seek to answer the Committee’s point that industrial research establishments of his own Department—for example, the NPL, the NEL and Warren Spring—should exploit their services and be more competitive and independent. That was the view of the Select Committee.

    The White Paper describes the way in which the establishments should transfer their technology in what I should describe as a useful but rather tame way. I do not find the description to be invigorating. For example, it is suggested that their work could be done through publication, personal contact and advisory and consultancy services.

    I should like to see the laboratories much more enterprising than they are now. Why should they not do some hard selling? Why should they not put full-page advertisements in the Financial Times telling industry what they can offer? That gap between industry and the establishments worried the Committee a great deal. We are told that it will be reformed by the departmental requirement boards.

    The requirements boards constitute a radical change in the Department of Trade and Industry. The Select Committee will want to watch their progress. Several other Select Committees of this House are involved in their possible reports and activities. I should like to know how the requirements boards will report to Parliament. Will copies be sent to the Select Committees?

    The Select Committee on Science and Technology, as the House will be aware, has been concerned about unnecessary secrecy and publicity regarding research and development. The Committee, if I may say so, did a good service in 1972 in bringing to light some unnecessary secrecy in Government Departments regarding the publication of reports that can and should be used by Select Committees, and that should be considered by hon. Members, the public and those interested in industry and science.

    Publication of reports commissioned by the Government was recently highlighted by a special report which the Sub-Committee made in December 1972 when it published the Docksey Report on intervention as an appendix. It arose during the course of taking evidence on research and development—the evidence of my right hon. Friend who was then the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The failure to publish the Docksey Report is relevant to the recommendations which the Committee made in its First and Fourth reports.

    I have said on several occasions that I condemn the practice of unnecessary secrecy in Government Departments. I especially condemn it in research and development, which merits the widest communication and dissemination of Government policy. The Docksey Report raises particularly important matters which should have been the subject of a separate debate. It raises issues of great constitutional moment in the Special Report. The Committee said that Select Committees of this House should be given reports unless there were unusual and compelling reasons, such as confidentiality in the commercial sense, and security. At no time has it wished to impair the need for Ministers to receive confidential advice. It would be absurd to do so. There must be occasions when Ministers commission reports which must remain confidential. However, I feel that the issue should be developed further on another occasion.

    Therefore, I welcome the Government’s statement in the July 1972 White Paper. Although that is not the subject of the debate, I consider that it should take a part in the discussion. In Cmnd. 5046, the White Paper “Framework for Government Research and Development”, the Government say that they agree, at paragraph 11 that …at present neither Parliament nor the public is given sufficient information about departmental research and development programmes. That was the view of the Select Committee over a long period.

    I am glad that the Government put that into their first White Paper, Cmnd. 5046, in July 1972. The method of inquiry which they adopted in 1971 into research and development and into its organisation will, I sincerely hope, not be followed in future. The Committee deplore the way in which discussion on the Green Paper, which contained the famous Rothschild Report, was impaired and prejudiced by a Government statement of policy in advance. The Government wrote a preface to the Green Paper saying that they endorsed the customer-contractor principle without giving any reasons. I do not want to go over that ground again. I hope that the Government will not follow that practice in future.

    The Government, in reply to our First and Fourth Reports, at paragraph 3, Command 5177, state the rather curious principle that some Green Papers are greener than others. This one was said in some circles to have had a white border when it was first introduced. Hon. Members will understand what that meant. The Government stated that they endorsed the principle which we were supposed to be discussing and on which they had promised consultation. However, my colleagues and I take the view that the Government should not promise consultation and then rule out discussion by their preface to the Green Paper. That is one reason why the Select Committee decided to carry out an inquiry over a considerable period, namely a year, and to hold it in public. That was why we undertook to do that in addition to the duty which had been laid upon us to provide the Government with information and to give scientists, research workers and people in the centres the opportunity to state their views.

    The White Paper, “Framework to Government Research and Development”, published in July 1972, as Command 5046, which purported to be the Government’s decisions on the Green Paper, ignored the Select Committee’s recommendations. I do not wish to go over this unfortunate affair for too long. The situation was only saved by the Lord Privy Seal appearing again before the Select Committee to announce that answers would be given in full—and indeed they have been. We certainly do not complain that they have not been given in full, and we are grateful for them, not that one accepts all the statements which have been made, but at least the dialogue is taking place, and this in itself is very considerable progress and a great asset to the understanding of science and technology in this House.

    I now turn to the White Paper, Command 5177, containing the Government’s observations on the First and Fourth Reports of the Select Committee. Again I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which the White Paper was prepared, particularly for the index. A combination of both White Papers with an index would be the best way, setting out the recommendations first and then the answers, as was done by the Department of Trade and Industry. I suggest that this could also have been done in the White Paper Command 5177.

    The First and Fourth Reports of the Select Committee were controversial. So, too, to a certain extent, as my right hon. Friend will agree, are the Government’s observations. They reveal a substantial difference of opinion between the Committee and the Government as to what organisation, ministerially and otherwise, and what policies there should be in the coming years for research and development, especially Government research and development.

    The Select Committee was looking to the future and saw the need for coordination of research and development under a Minister. The Government, on the other hand, appear from their observations to prefer their own existing organisation. This is an important subject for debate because it has tremendous implications for the future, but before I launch into it I should refer to a number of answers to our recommendations on other questions.

    The first of these concerns research councils. Again I do not want to go over the battle of the winter of 1971–72, which took place in the columns of The Times and in other places. It was very interesting but not always entirely conclusive. I refer now to paragraph 24 of the White Paper containing the Government’s observations on the first and fourth reports. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, with whom I spoke last week, is very displeased indeed at the decision to abolish the Nature Conservancy Committee of the Natural Environment Research Council and to establish a new Conservancy Council. Like me, he thinks this decision very extraordinary. I hope that note will be taken of what I am saying.

    Two or three years ago the Select Committee—the hon. Member for Bristol, Central will recall the exact date—recommended that research and conservancy should stay together. But here we have a situation now in which the Nature Conservancy is to be separated from its supporting laboratories. I do not understand the reasons for this decision. I hope that it is not true that the chief officials of the two bodies have fallen out, if that has anything to do with it. There are rumours. I hope that this matter will be taken up during the debate and that the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, which were, of course, the recommendations of the whole Committee at the time, will be seriously considered.

    I turn now to the famous Table 4 of the Rothschild Report. This concerns paragraphs 27 and 28 of the White Paper. We were not able to discover what Table 4 really meant—certainly I did not. How far has implementation actually gone? What will be the final amount transferred from the Vote of the Secretary of State for Education and Science? We were not able to find out the arithmetic on which the figures were based. We interviewed a large number of witnesses but they managed to avoid telling us. I wonder whether this was a divine inspiration of Lord Rothschild or whether there really was something behind it on which the figures were based.

    I do not intend to revise the narrow battleground of last winter, when Lord Rothschild defended his position against the scientific world and did so very ably. The Select Committee would like to thank him for his assistance in coming and giving evidence. But we should ask a few questions about this subject, which is all-important in relation to future policies.

    Paragraph 29 of the White Paper refers to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. What will this board do? I have never been in favour of a board for research councils, because if the research councils are to be strengthened, as indicated in the White Paper, as a result of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and if they are to do their job properly, why do we need an advisory board for them? I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this point.

    Paragraph 33 of the White Paper refers to the reports of the research councils. We look forward with anticipation to these reports in their new form and hope that they will be more informative than in the past.

    I turn now to the Fulton Report. The Select Committee had a good deal to say about the future of scientists and the need for greater interchange of scientific talents. The White Paper “Framework for Research and Development”, Cmnd. 5046, refers in paragraph 39 to a small high-level task force which has been set up for this purpose and to investigate how it can best be carried out between industry and the research establishments. Will the report be published? We shall press strongly for publication because this is one issue about which the staff of these establishments and industry are most concerned. There is every need for the report to see the light of day and, if necessary, to be discussed in this House.

    The White Paper containing the Government’s observations on the First and Fourth Reports deals with the future reporting of research and development to Parliament in paragraphs 40 to 46. It is suggested in the White Paper that the Departments should lump their reports together—into one consolidated report, I suppose; at least that is how I read those paragraphs. I hope that this decision will be looked at again. The reports should be separate documents. The Departments should not mix their reports with others. With the number of reports we have to read during our investigations, whether as members of the Select Committee or otherwise, we often find it intolerably difficult to trace them all. Will all these reports be laid before Parliament? We recommended that they should all be laid before Parliament in the future.

    Finally, I turn to the question of reporting Government programmes to the House, to which I attach great importance in the interests of scientists and research workers all over the country. They study what we say here with great concern and interest. Paragraph 41 of the White Paper refers to a five-year rolling programme. The Confederation of British Industry, in its evidence to the Select Committee, recommended the system of five-year forecasting. We adopted that recommendation, suggesting a five-year rolling programme of research and development expenditure, and said that it should be published. The Government say in the White Paper that flexibility is required and that they do not want to lay down a hard and fast rule. But surely a five-year rolling programme is a flexible instrument, which is why we recommended it. I suggest that we should adopt this system and publish the programme.

    I was also glad to see that the Government propose a wide interpretation of the customer-contractor principle. This, I think, we wish to see. We were not sure how it would apply to the research councils, and even now we are not sure how it will be done. We do not want to see bureaucratic control creeping towards the system of research in this country beyond what is absolutely necessary for accountability, especially parliamentary accountability. We do not want to see the customer-contractor principle doing any injury to, above all, university research.

    Those are my views on those aspects of the White Papers, and I now come to what I regard as the really important issue—the organisation of Government policy for research and development in the future as expressed in the Select Committee Reports.

    I have already said that big research and development programmes will be needed by all advanced European industrial countries for competing in world markets in the next generation, and it is the long-term interests that the Select Committee had in mind.

    Similar discussions to the one which I am initiating today, resembling the dialogue between the Committee and Her Majesty’s Government, are taking place in Europe and, indeed, in all advanced industrial countries. Paragraph 17 of the White Paper agrees that the European Economic Community is seeking a comprehensive Community policy on scientific research and technoogical development. The Council of Europe discussed this matter last year, as those who read the report of its Science Committee will see, and it has taken the view that all industrialised nations should recognise the need to expand research in the interests of social progress and the development of technologies for economic needs.

    We are in the same position. The whole discussion about whether we should have a Minister for Research and Development, supported by a Council for Science and Technology, as advocated by the Select Committee, must be considered in that context. If the Government agree that there has to be a Community policy for research and development, surely they also have to consider having a national policy themselves, which at present they do not appear to have? Surely they will ultimately need a Minister and an advisory council to initiate that policy? I put these points to my right hon. Friend in the knowledge that we cannot resolve all of them today; it is a long-term matter, but it is extremely important.

    In their three White Papers the Government have replied that their system is based on the functional responsibilities of Departments, that research and development is a departmental matter, that they do not look at it as an entity or as a national matter, and that they are satisfied, apparently, with the existing machinery. This is certainly not the view of the Select Committee, and it puts its case, as I think hon. Members will agree, pretty sharply.

    Elsewhere in Europe we found the same doubts being raised as were raised by the Committee. In the German Federal Republic, the Federal Minister for Education and Science has recently drawn attention to the need for co-ordination of the main areas of research, and the German policy documents view research policy as part of their overall policy. For example, in Germany a Research Policy Advisory Committee similar to the Council advocated by the Select Committee—the Committee had Europe in mind when it made this recommendation—is presided over by the Minister I mentioned, in the same way as the Select Committee advocated that a Minister for Research and Development in this country should be Chairman of a Council for Science and Technology.

    In Belgium a Minister Without Portfolio is responsible—this is important because these other countries are moving in the same direction as that advocated by the Select Committee—for co-ordinating the activities of departments involved in science policy.

    I do not suggest that we should slavishly follow the system in other countries or that the circumstances are identical. I am merely saying that if we are to be a competing nation in the next 25 years, we shall have bigger and more important national and international research programmes which cannot be effectively carried out without the proper mechanism and machinery.

    In France there is a Minister of Industrial and Scientific Development. This is interesting, because he is the head of an inter-departmental committee for scientific and technical research and also chairman of an advisory committee for scientific and technical research. In some ways this approximates to the idea of a central council with the Minister as chairman which the Select Committee has put forward. If there were a Cabinet Committee in this country, whether on research or on science, it would be advised by a central council such as we suggest.

    I do not expect all these matters to be adopted immediately, but they are relevant, and they are becoming more and more important as time goes on.

    In Italy the lack of machinery for implementing scientific policy, which has caused a great crisis in Italian science, is likely to lead to a Ministry of Scientific and Technical Research. Finally, in the Netherlands a Minister of Science and Higher Education was appointed last year with a science council.

    So the pattern is there in Europe, and it is very similar to that recommended by the Select Committee subject, of course, to the objection that the Government of this country are at present making, that it would upset their existing arrangements.

    But the Committee had the EEC in mind when it made the recommendations for a Minister to “examine and approve” all Government research and development, to co-ordinate Government programmes and to be Chairman of a Council for Science and Technology.

    Clearly, that is not a new idea. In their reply the Government have relied on their existing set-up, which we found—we put our reasons clearly in our report—to be inadequate in a fast-changing world. We also found the absence of a strong and independent scientific voice at Cabinet level, and we felt that it could be provided only by a Minister. The Committee viewed the function of such a Council for Science and Technology as a scientific “look-out” or watchdog, with the Minister to co-ordinate and examine departmental programmes.

    We found as a fact—the Government agree, to judge by their replies—that no one really performs this function. The Government say in paragraph 10 of the White Paper that a central advisory function is performed none the less, by the Chief Scientific Adviser, with the Lord Privyl Seal to co-ordinate policy on research and development issues. But is that a correct description? I do not believe that it is a sound answer to what we have recommended. Has that particular Minister really the time to do this job, having regard to the increasing size and complexity of research and development problems?

    The Government’s reply also strains at a gnat in describing how the Minister and the Council would work in practice. They choose the example of road research, saying that if there were a Minister to “examine and approve” the relative effort between road and transport research, it might involve some interference with the way in which the Department of the Environment spends its money on research. Why not? The Government’s function should be to have an overall policy on research, and someone should be given the job of deciding those priorities.

    The Government seem quite upset—in the sense that they disapproved, not that they are angry—about the idea of the existence of an overall budget for research and development. This is not a revolutionary idea. I should have thought that, now they are in Europe, the Government will find that they will be asked by the Commission what percentage of their gross national product they devote to research and development—and they must have some idea of the answer. Their reply to this is that the Government expenditure is not structured in this way. The whole answer is “We do not do things like that. We do not agree, because the thing is not organised in that way, the Government expenditure is not structured in this way; nor should it be according to the principle of functional responsibility.”

    The whole question I am raising today is whether functional responsibility is all that counts in this matter and whether there are not very much wider issues at stake, as I believe there are. Do the Government make any estimates of the future size and allocation of research and development resources on a national basis? I do not think that the issue of a separate Vote for the proposed Minister which they raise is anything more than a red herring. We do not treat that very seriously. We wanted to give the Minister concerned a secretariat of about 50 and give him a Vote for that reason.

    We turned our attention a good deal to the national objectives in science and technology. Paragraph 13 of the White Paper shows a curious attitude to the whole problem of long-term research, which some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will view with a certain amount of amazement, but this passage appears there: In respect of national objectives the programme of nuclear fusion research at the Culham Laboratory is no way different from that for the construction of a more conventional power station. I wonder who wrote that paragraph. It is a very extraordinary paragraph. One field is, after all, pure research—we have to use the phrase “pure research” now, according to Lord Rothschild; let us use it for fusion research—and one is engineering. What about the time scale between the two, between fusion research and the construction of a conventional power station? The Government clearly believe that research and development cannot be meaningfully looked at as a whole but that it arises from the objectives and functions of individual Departments.

    That is where we disagree. I find a weakness in that approach. I am not seeking to criticise the Government, in such an abstruse field, from any other point of view except our disagreement on the basis of our evidence. The weakness of that approach is that in practice science is brought in as an appendage of policy, an ancillary to policy, and not part of policy as a whole such as is found in other countries. The Committee found quite differently about this, that science should be at the centre of the decision-making machinery. That is the difference between us: science should be at the centre of the decision-making machinery.

    There are one or two other crucial points. A critical gap was that the Committee found that no mechanism existed to keep the Cabinet directly informed of major developments but for the chief scientific adviser. The ability of the present chief scientific adviser is not in doubt and no disrespect is meant to him, nor to the new chief scientists in the Departments who have been appointed since these reports were first made. But the Select Committee does not regard that as sufficient. The Select Committee feels that, however distinguished an official may be in the capacity as chief scientific adviser, the final advice to the Cabinet on major issues of research and development should be made by Ministers. That is the crucial difference of opinion that we had on that point. It is a matter well worthy of full debate.

    There is a continuing dialogue here and it will have to continue. It is of great interest and value. I have not sought to go over all the ground of these reports, but I hope that during this Session the Government will be ready to have further discussions with the Select Committee on these lines.

    On 13th July the journal The Engineer said that it was wrong to leave all this responsibility for the allocation of money and the decision on priorities to a chief scientific adviser. I think that The Engineer was absolutely right. It said: It is understandable that people in government service are against the idea of a Minister as the piercing rays of public scrutiny fall on them as well. Perhaps that may be a little uncharitable, but that is the duty of Parliament, and the responsibility of a Minister to Parliament would be a safeguard of great importance. Parliament has to be more involved in research and development in the future if the basis of our industries is to be broadened and they are to be made more effective in the next generation.

    The Select Committee’s duty is to inform the House and the Government of these problems and to make Ministers accountable. As Dr. Budworth of the CBI said in the New Scientist of 7th December: Decisions of science will in future be taken on the basis of wider considerations than those of science alone. This surely means that the Committee must continue its work in reporting to the House and maintaining its dialogue with the Government.

  • David Lidington – 2016 Comments Made at EU Foreign Affairs Council

    davidlidington

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister of State for Europe, in Luxembourg on 18 April 2016.

    There are 3 really important issues on today’s agenda.

    First of all Daesh and combating the threat that it poses to the security of European citizens from every one of the member states, and we can take some comfort from the fact they have been pushed back, they have lost about 40% of their territory in Iraq and a considerable amount of territory in Syria. And the lesson of that is that we have to pursue the strategy to defeat Daesh with unity, with perseverance, and with determination and that will include ensuring that Russia sticks to what it has agreed to do under the aegis of the International Syria Support Group.

    Secondly we will be talking about the issue of migration. It is of critical importance that the European Union’s deal with Turkey works and is implemented effectively and comprehensively. We are already seeing early signs that it is having benefits, that the numbers crossing the Aegean, that the number of people putting themselves in the hands of people smugglers and in great peril has diminished. But we cannot be complacent. There is more work to be done but I am looking forward to the discussion with the UN High Commission[er] on Refugees, to see what concerns, if any, they have and how they can be addressed. But the way I am coming to this discussion is recognising that Turkey is already generously providing a home for about three million refugees. And certainly in the view of the United Kingdom, Turkey is a safe country.

    Third, later on today we will be moving on to talk about Libya together with Defence Minister colleagues. The formation of the GNA (Government of National Accord) in Libya is an important step forward and I think Ministers will want to take stock of what we could be doing to strengthen the GNA, to enable it to restore governance to Libyan territory. I think that will include some consideration of whether there should be a civilian CSDP mission. And we will also want to focus upon Operation Sophia and look for ways that can be made even more effective than it has been today.

    I want to add a few words about what has been happening in London this morning. Today the Treasury has published a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the impact upon living standards in the United Kingdom of a withdrawal from the European Union. What that detailed, meticulous analysis confirms is that the verdict that has been reached independently by private sector organisations, by the Bank of England, by the International Monetary Fund and others. Which is, that for the UK to leave the EU, would mean a massive financial and economic risk for ordinary families in every part of the United Kingdom. Today’s publication confirms the Government’s view that the people of the United Kingdom will be safer, will be stronger, will be better off economically by continuing to remain full members of the European Union and that is why the government is campaigning strongly for a vote to remain in the EU at the forthcoming referendum. Thank you very much.

  • George Osborne – 2016 Speech on HM Treasury Analysis of Leaving the EU

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Bristol on 18 April 2016.

    Good morning.

    It’s great to be here at the brilliant National Composite Centre in Bristol, and good to be joined by my colleagues Liz, Stephen and Amber.

    The engineers, scientists and designers who work here deliver world-leading research and innovation in composites for some of Britain’s most important industries.

    One sector that particularly benefits from the work of the National Composite Centre is aerospace. The South West is a great showcase for Britain’s successful aerospace industry.

    Half of everything our aerospace sector exports is sold to the European Union, and our aerospace industry relies on imports from Europe to make their finished products.

    We’re here to talk about Europe today.

    In a little over two months’ time the people of the United Kingdom will decide whether our country should remain in the European Union or leave it.

    It’s the biggest decision for a generation – one that will have profound consequences for our economy, for living standards and for Britain’s role in the world.

    But what many people are saying at the moment is that they don’t have enough facts and information to make an informed decision.

    And so it’s up to all of us who fought so hard to give people this referendum, so they could take this momentous decision, to provide those facts and that information.

    That’s why today the government is publishing a comprehensive Treasury analysis of the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives.

    This is a sober and serious look at the costs and benefits of remaining in the EU, or leaving it.

    Not just for Britain, but for the individual families of Britain.

    To put it simply: are you better off or worse off if Britain leaves the EU?

    Has your family got more money each year, or less?

    And is there more or less money available to your government to spend on public services and lower taxes?

    To find the answer to those questions, the Treasury has gone back to first principles and looked at the current costs and benefits of our membership of the European Union – essentially what we put in and what we get out.

    We’ve also looked at how that would change if the EU were to reform along the lines it has committed itself to.

    And we’ve looked at the costs and benefits of leaving the European Union.

    Not the immediate shock – a future Treasury study will look in detail at that.

    But rather the long term impact that our exit from the EU would have on family finances and the nation’s finances.

    We’ve done that by examining in detail what the alternatives to EU membership look like for Britain’s economy. We know now pretty clearly what those alternatives might be, although we don’t know which one Britain would pick, or our European neighbours would accept.

    There’s seeking membership of the European Economic Area, where you get access to part of the single market but you have to pay into the EU and accept free movement, without any say over either. That’s the Norway model.

    There’s relying on our existing membership of the World Trade Organisation where, like Russia or Brazil, you put nothing into the EU but get nothing out in terms of preferential access. That’s the WTO model.

    And then there’s the halfway house of trying to negotiate a bilateral trade deal with the EU, where you get some trade access but you’re not part of the Single Market. That’s the Canada model.

    It’s a complete fantasy to claim we could negotiate some other deal, where we have access to the EU’s single market but don’t have to accept the costs and obligations of EU membership. Other member states have made it very clear in recent weeks that’s not on offer – and how could it be?

    How could other European countries give us a better deal than they have given themselves? Never forget that while 44% of our exports go to the rest of the EU, less than 8% of their exports come to us.

    So in today’s analysis we look at the costs and benefits of our existing membership of the EU, and test that against the three realistic alternative models – like that of Norway, the WTO and Canada.

    Shortly I will ask my colleagues Liz, Stephen and Amber to go through each alternative in turn.

    But first let me say something about the underlying economic assumptions that were made, and upon which the analysis rests.

    We assume that the underlying objective of economic policy is to increase living standards through the creation of jobs, rising household incomes, and low and stable prices for consumers.

    You may have other policy objectives that you think trump those objectives – but the purpose of economic policy is higher living standards.

    It’s well established in economic literature that those higher living standards are ultimately driven by long term improvements in productivity: in other words, increasing the value of what British workers produce per hour. And it is also a well-established doctrine of British economic thinking over centuries that greater economic openness and interconnectedness helps raise productivity.

    That’s because greater openness to trade and investment increases competition, enhances incentives for firms to innovate, and gives them access to finance – this enables them to invest and employ people, and it gives consumers access to more choice and lower prices.

    Now I accept there are those who advocate a completely different economic approach – a closed, command economy, and no free trade or competition or private business.

    But that’s never been the consensus in Britain, or the rest of the world these last few decades.

    And those most prominent in advocating our withdrawal from the EU do so, in part, with the claim it will lead to freer trade and freer markets – so they share these basic assumptions about the advantages of economic openness too.

    In this document the Treasury therefore assess the alternatives to EU membership, and see whether they enhance or diminish our economic openness and interconnectedness and by how much.

    First, is market access increased or reduced? In other words, do British businesses and consumers face tariffs, quotas and unfair competition or other barriers?

    Second, is Britain’s economic influence enhanced or curtailed? What say do we have over the rules and standards that apply to the goods and services we trade in?

    Third, are the costs to Britain greater or less? What do we end up paying for a different trading relationship? We know the answer to these tests with Britain’s current membership of the EU.

    When it comes to market access, there are no tariffs or quotas applied to British exports to the 500 million consumers who live in the European Union.

    But a Single Market is about more than the absence of quotas and tariffs – it means common standards, so there aren’t invisible barriers and obstacles to trade.

    So, for example, when a highly skilled car maker is building a car, they know it can be sold directly and without any hindrance into the continent of Europe.

    It also means a British-based architect or engineer can get off the plane in Munich or Madrid and immediately start doing business.

    And it means that any European airline can offer the best service at the best price to provide that journey.

    That’s what the Single Market means – and the Treasury analysis shows EU membership has increased trade with EU members by around three quarters.

    Greater openness leading to higher productivity and rising living standards.

    We also know that our current EU membership gives us influence over the rules and standards of that Single Market – we have votes over what they are, our Commissioners can help design them, our Ministers and elected MEPs can shape them, and on key issues like common tax standards we have an absolute veto.

    But we are not in the single currency and we are not in the Schengen free border area – so we have a special status in the EU.

    That gives us the best of both worlds: influence over the single market without the obligations that membership of the euro and open borders would bring.

    And we know what the costs and the financial rewards of being in the EU are.

    We pay into the EU budget, but our citizens, businesses and universities also receive money from the EU budget.

    The net direct cost is equivalent to a little over 1 pence for every £1 we raise in taxes.

    But we have also received over £1 trillion of overseas investment into Britain, much of it driven by the fact we are in the EU and its Single Market.

    Indeed, we have received more of this overseas investment than any other EU member state – and that drives better jobs and rising living standards too, bringing money into the exchequer to spend on public services.

    So we know how our existing membership of the EU performs against these tests of openness and interconnectedness.

    We also know the advantages that future reform of the EU can bring for Britain.

    For the EU is not perfect. The Single Market can be expanded, the costs can be reduced, and the influence of Members States can be enhanced.

    That’s what the new settlement, negotiated by the Prime Minister, supported by the Cabinet, delivers.

    The Treasury analysis shows that achieving EU-wide reforms to deepen the Single Market and complete major ongoing trade deals offers a huge prize for Britain.

    It could add up to 4% to our GDP over the coming 15 years – that’s thousands of pounds more for each British household.

    So Britain’s membership of the European Union contributes to the openness of our economy – and that leads to higher quality jobs, rising living standards and lower prices.

    And we know there will be better jobs, higher living standards and even lower prices if Europe reforms.

    That’s the future on offer if Britain remains in a reformed EU – a future where we are stronger, safer and better off.

    What does the Treasury’s rigorous economic analysis show about the alternatives?

    Let me hand over to my colleagues Liz, Stephen and Amber. They will go through each of the alternative models – like that of Norway, the WTO and Canada – and look at what they would mean for British families.

    Elizabeth Truss, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The document published today shows how one of the big advantages of being in the European Union is the ability we have to shape the rules.

    Our record shows that reforms are more likely with Britain around the EU table:

    Throughout the 80s we drove trade liberalisation in Europe, with action to break down barriers to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people which meant the creation of the Single Market as we know it today.

    In the early 90s it was Britain who pushed to dismantle national barriers to air travel and open Europe’s air transport up to competition, which led to the creation of low cost carriers, and helped cut the cost of air travel by 40% in just 8 years.

    And in the last decade it’s been Britain pushing to deepen the Single Market in digital services – simplifying rules for cross-border online purchases, and supporting a package to end mobile roaming charges in the EU.

    So we’ve proven we can influence the rules from the inside. The question is could we shape them from the outside? If we left the EU some say we could be like Norway.

    Norway isn’t in the EU, but it is in another group called the European Economic Area

    On paper it looks pretty similar to our relationship with the EU.

    We would still be in a European club – albeit a different one.

    We’d still pay contributions to support other EU member states.

    We’d still implement EU legislation.

    But there would be a crucial difference.

    We’d have no say over the rules.

    Our Prime Minister would no longer have a seat at the European Council, where EU leaders take decisions about the future direction of the continent.

    No British Minister would be there when farming issues were decided – or indeed any other issue that impacts our country.

    We would have no vote in the Council of Ministers – the body where the 28 EU Member States decide on legislation.

    But we’d still have to implement their decisions on the internal market, and follow their rules on State Aid and competition.

    The current EEA members take this on the chin.

    For Norway, that means losing a vote share that inside the EU would be worth 1%.

    That’s a pretty low price.

    But what about Britain?

    Our vote share would drop from one of the highest, alongside France and Germany, to zero.

    Our strong, reforming voice would be silenced.

    That’s what I call a loss of British sovereignty.

    But it’s not just the lack of influence that worries me about the Norway model.

    It’s the fact that the EEA tariff-free trade doesn’t cover key areas like the vast majority of agriculture and fisheries, so Britain’s farmers would be hit.

    It’s the fact that EEA members aren’t part of the EU customs union, so British firms would face new customs checks and bureaucracy if they wanted to trade with Europe.

    Every time Norway exports a product to an EU country, they have to fill in a form with 50 boxes and guidance that is 78 pages long.

    This must be frustrating for Norway, even though many of their exports are raw materials, making these forms easier to comply with. But it would be a nightmare for Britain as many of our exports are complex finished products like cars or machinery.

    All this new bureaucracy would significantly reduce our openness and interconnectedness – reducing the competitiveness of British firms and acting as a drag on our productivity.

    And being part of the EEA means still accepting EU regulations, contributing to the EU, and permitting the free movement of people,

    So if we decided to be like Norway, we’d have worse access to the Single Market. We’d keep paying into Brussels but we’d be a rule-taker instead of a rule-maker.

    The Treasury has run the numbers and joining the EEA would significantly reduce our openness to trade, and as a result, productivity and investment would fall.

    Let’s be clear on this – because we know that increasing productivity is the key to increasing living standards. If productivity falls we will see lower wages in Britain; consumption will fall and people will be permanently poorer.

    The analysis published today shows that following this path would mean a long-term reduction in GDP of around 4% every year.

    And this long-term reduction in GDP will hit our tax receipts as people and businesses earn less.

    The impact on tax receipts of joining the EEA would be £20 billion a year within 15 years’ time. Not a one-off hit, but an ongoing painful reduction as our country raises less money, and has less money to spend on public services.

    Those are the facts on the European Economic Area.

    So the analysis shows if we want to minimise the significant damage to our economy from leaving, we would, effectively, have to re-join another European club on worse terms – no vote, no power, still paying into the EU, and with much less protection against the abuse of free movement.

    For a country the size of Britain, with the strong voting clout we already have in the EU, this would represent shooting ourselves in the foot.

    Stephen Crabb, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

    Next I want to talk to you about global trade. There are some who imply there’s a tension between trading with Europe and trading with the rest of the world.

    That is simply wrong. Both are good and we need to do both.

    And that’s exactly what we will do if we remain a member of the EU.

    Yes, nearly half of our exports go to Europe, but our exports to the rest of the world have gone from £150 billion to £290 billion in just 10 years – that’s a 95% increase.

    And to those who say that’s proof we don’t need the EU, just look at where they’ve increased the most.

    We currently benefit from trade deals the EU has negotiated with over 50 other countries.

    And as today’s document explains, those deals have been great for Britain.

    Our exports to South Korea have grown by over 100% in just four years since the EU Free Trade Agreement was signed. Exports to Chile have grown almost 300% in a decade.

    Those other countries will have given up a lot in negotiations to gain access to a bloc with 500 million customers and a quarter of the world’s GDP.

    But if we vote to leave, we’ll only have two years before all the trade deals we have via the EU would fall away. The clock would be ticking, yet renegotiating trade deals with more than 50 countries as a single country would take many, many years.

    And that’s if we can even get the talks off the ground: the US Trade Representative recently said the United States is “not particularly in the market for free trade agreements with individual countries”.

    Some argue there’s no need to worry – we could just fall back on the existing World Trade Organisation rules. Now let me be absolutely clear. The WTO is a brilliant organisation and one that Britain is proud to be a member of.

    But their rules are a sort of ‘minimum standard’ for global trade – and they fall way short of the Single Market and Free Trade Agreements we currently access through the EU. Under WTO rules we’d face common export tariffs.

    The EU would charge an average tariff of 36% on dairy products. 12% on fish. 12% on clothes. 10% on cars.

    Our services exporters would be hit too – as they’d lose their automatic right not to be discriminated against through being part of the Single Market.

    And we’d have to decide where to set British import tariffs.

    Would we choose to set high tariffs on food, to protect British farmers?

    Or would we set low tariffs on food, to protect British consumers?

    Regardless of what we decided on import tariffs – there’s a catch.

    WTO rules would require us to offer the same tariff to all countries.

    So if we wanted to offer low tariffs to our neighbours in Ireland, we’d have to do the same for all other 160 countries in the WTO.

    So for example, we’d have to offer low tariffs to countries like Brazil and Argentina while they apply high tariffs on our key exports, like Scotch Whisky at 20% in Argentina, and cars at 35% in Brazil.

    Trade deals are about give and take, but we’d have turned up to the table having already played all our cards. The analysis published today shows that the WTO scenario represents the most extreme break from the EU, and it is also the alternative that is the worst for the British economy.

    The sharp reduction in trade would be accompanied by a reduction in foreign direct investment into the UK as we’d no longer have the same degree of unrestricted access to the EU Single Market of 500 million consumers. Think of all the global firms that have headquarters in the UK so they can sell into Europe – if we leave the EU, they could leave Britain.

    The Treasury’s rigorous analysis of the trade and investment impact of the WTO option shows that after 15 years Britain’s economy would be around 7.5% smaller.

    And the fiscal cost of the WTO option is the most painful of all – in the long term our country would have to cope with annual tax receipts that are £45 billion lower. Every year.

    Conclusive proof that when it comes to trade, openness and economic growth, it’s better to go for the best deal available rather than the lowest common denominator.

    Amber Rudd, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

    As the document today explains, one of the most valuable benefits of EU membership for Britain is the Single Market. And that Single Market is not just in goods, but in services too.

    So what does a Single Market in services mean, and why does it matter?

    It matters because 80% of our GDP comes from the services sector, and 80% of our workforce are employed in the services sector.

    Britain is the country that designs the building, arranges the finance, insures the business, draws up the contract, produces the TV series, creates the advertising campaign and audits the accounts. High skilled service industries like these are vital for our future.

    The Single Market means that all of our exports can be sold to Europe tariff-free.

    And crucially it isn’t just tariff barriers that the EU has eliminated for Britain.

    The Single Market seeks to eradicate non-tariff barriers too. So a British architect or a British lawyer can go and work in any other European country and have their professional qualifications recognised.

    And the creation of passporting rights in the 90s means that financial services firms like banks, insurers and investment managers can establish themselves anywhere in the EU, and trade across the whole Single Market, with lower cost and lower complexity.

    The figures speak for themselves.

    Our service industries are growing at a rate of nearly 3% a year on average.

    Our services exports have increased from £130 billion to £220 billion in the past decade alone – with Europe being by far our biggest market.

    I accept the European Single Market for services is not yet complete – that’s why commitments to complete it formed such a key part of the Prime Minister’s recent negotiation.

    But the results clearly show that the Single Market has benefitted our services sector.

    Now I want to look at the final alternative scenario the Treasury has modelled: a negotiated bilateral agreement.

    They’ve looked closely at countries like Switzerland and Canada who’ve negotiated bilateral trade deals with the EU.

    The Canada free trade agreement seems to be the most popular with those who want to leave, so let’s look at its benefits and costs, and contrast it to EU membership.

    It’s been held up as the most comprehensive Free Trade Agreement the EU has ever made.

    It’s a vast, detailed agreement that runs to over 1500 pages – although 800 of those pages are exemptions and barriers to free trade.

    And remember it’s not in place just yet.

    Canada spent 7 years negotiating the deal, waiting outside the door as those on the inside decided whether to agree.

    But when it comes into force it may work well for Canada and for the EU.

    However, I’m not so sure it would work well for us.

    Their deal does offer some liberalisation in services it’s true. But the Canadians export about a tenth of the value of services to Europe than we do.

    And the Treasury analysis finds that around 50% of our service exporters would face materially less access to the EU market than they currently enjoy if we were to replicate the Canadian deal.

    In addition, Canada doesn’t have access to the financial services passport.

    This would be a real problem for Britain. If we left the EU and lost access to passporting rights the evidence suggests that financial services jobs would move out of Britain.

    But it’s not just services where the Canadian deal wouldn’t work for us.

    On agriculture, key sectors are excluded from the Canadian deal.

    Take beef for example. We currently export over 90,000 tonnes of beef a year to Europe tariff-free, and if we wanted to sell more then we could.

    The Canadian agreement allows them a quota of 50,000 tonnes, above which they would be subject to some tariffs equivalent to around 70%.

    If we voted to leave then a reciprocal deal would badly hurt British beef farmers.

    And how about another example – cars. Our car manufacturing sector is thriving, but as you’ve already heard from Stephen, the EU places a 10% tariff on cars from outside the EU.

    This would cost our industry more than £1 billion a year, and the Canadian deal only eliminates them after 7 years.

    So even though the Canadian Free Trade model is put forward as the best and most comprehensive option by those who want to leave, it’s clear there are some crucial gaps for a country like Britain.

    The Treasury analysis published today shows that a Free Trade Arrangement like Canada’s would have a significantly negative impact on our trade, investment and productivity.

    After 15 years Britain’s economy would be around 6% smaller, compared to 3.8% smaller were we to join the EEA.

    So even the best bilateral trade deal the EU has agreed with an outside country is significantly worse than the access you’d get to the Single Market through the EEA.

    George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer

    So you’ve heard today the serious and sober Treasury analysis, which sets out the costs and benefits of Britain’s membership of the European Union.

    The costs of accepting common European standards; and the benefit that gives us of unique access to a Single Market of 500 million people.

    The costs of being one voice among many when it comes to setting those standards; and the benefits of the influence that gives us to shape those rules to our advantage, and extend our trade access around the world, so that when it comes to our economic environment, Britain is a rule-maker not a rule-taker.

    The costs of directly contributing a little over 1 penny in every 1 pound of taxes; and the direct benefits of the billions of pounds of foreign investment which flow more to Britain than any other European country and boosts our public finances.

    Deliver the economic reform we’ve agreed in the European Union, and the benefits are even clearer.

    The analysis shows that our economy could be 4% greater if we extend that Single Market and do more free trade.

    These economic costs and benefits of EU membership, with or without this brighter, positive future need to be weighed against the economic costs and benefits of all the plausible alternatives for Britain.

    The Norway model – where we gain partial access to the Single Market, but face customs barriers and have no influence over the rules we’re forced to abide by.

    Where we lose trade and investment, but still have to pay into the EU and accept free movement of people. The WTO model, where barriers are erected by our nearest and most important markets, everything we make from food to cars to clothing and all the services we provide – with severe consequences for our industry and the size of our economy.

    The Canadian model, where our services that make up 80% of our economy cannot do business freely with Europe, and the integrated supply chains that are a feature of our advanced manufacturing face customs barriers for the first time in half a century.

    Under any of these alternative models of the kind of relationship Britain might have with its principal export markets our influence is diminished; we trade less; we receive less investment; our openness and interconnectedness to Europe is reduced.

    And you’d have to believe that we could more than compensate for that loss of trade and investment with Europe, by increasing trade and investment with the rest of the world.

    But the evidence shows that our trade deals with more than 50 other non-EU countries would be jeopardised, and our ability to influence global trade rules would be hugely reduced.

    We’d do less trade with the rest of the world outside the EU, not more.

    The Treasury has modelled the economic impact of alternatives to EU membership.

    As you’ve heard from my colleagues, the biggest impact comes if we just rely on being a member of the WTO.

    The least impact comes if we try to form a relationship like Norway, but then we have to pay into European budgets and accept free movement – the very things those who want to leave claim they want to be rid of.

    That’s why those most prominent in advocating British exit from the EU say we’d try to form an arrangement like Canada.

    But we’re not Canada – our comparative advantage is in services and advanced manufacturing. 50% of all our services exports go to the continent of Europe.

    So the economic analysis shows that this Canada-style arrangement comes at a real economic cost for Britain.

    The central estimate is that in the long run GDP would be over 6% smaller and Britain would be worse off by £4,300 per household.

    The people of Britain want to know the facts before they vote on 23 June.

    The Treasury’s analysis steps away from the rhetoric and sets out the facts.

    Britain would be permanently poorer if it left the European Union. Under any alternative, we’d trade less, do less business and receive less investment.

    And the price would be paid by British families. Wages would be lower and prices would be higher.

    And that means that Britain would be poorer by £4,300 per household.

    That is £4,300 worse off every year, a bill paid year after year by the working people of Britain.

    And that is the long term cost – in the short term we’d face a profound economic shock and real instability. This Treasury analysis is serious and sober – and it’s conclusive.

    British families will pay a heavy economic price if we leave the EU.

    And don’t believe the flimsy claim that at least we would get some money back by not paying our 1 penny in every £1 we raise in taxes to the European budget.

    If we left the EU, we’d lose tens of billions of pounds in money for our public services, because our economy would be smaller and our families poorer.

    The most likely bill our public services would pay if we left the EU is £36 billion.

    That’s the equivalent of 8 pence on the basic rate of income tax.

    Higher taxes and a smaller economy is not a price worth paying.

    Of course, I know there will be many attempts by those who advocate exit to dismiss this Treasury analysis.

    But it’s rigorous, it’s rooted in the facts and its conclusions are similar to every other credible independent analysis done around the world – from the recent global outlook of the IMF to the academic research of the London School of Economics.

    And I would conclude by saying this:

    It is a perfectly honest position to say that Britain would be worse off but that is a price worth paying.

    But don’t pretend to the British people that leaving the EU comes at no economic cost.

    There is a price to be paid if we leave – a £4,300 price that families will pay year after year.

    Don’t let’s leave the EU on a false prospectus.

    Let’s have the facts and the figures in front of us as we all make this huge decision on 23 June.

    For me, in the end, it’s not just about the economics. It’s about who we are as a country.

    The Britain I love is open, confident in its values and ready to shape the future of our world.

    I don’t want Britain to be like Norway or like Canada or anyone else.

    I want us to be like the Great Britain we are.

    Strong. Proud. Prosperous.

    Stronger, safer and better off in the European Union.

  • Tim Farron – 2016 Opening Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    timfarron

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Farron, the Leader of the Liberal Democrat, at the party’s spring conference on 12 March 2016.

    When you’re sat in the front row, it’s impossible to miss your cue to get on stage.

    But for those of you who were at conference in the autumn, you may have noticed I was a little late to the stage.

    I was sitting very happily having a cup of tea in the green room, completely oblivious to what was happening

    I didn’t think I was due on for at least 5 more minutes.

    So, in my own good time, I wandered on stage, reasonably calm and collected, unaware that panic had set in.

    People were dashing around backstage trying desperately to find me.

    One member of my team, frantically rushed into the toilets thinking I was stuck inside and broke down a door.

    So, not only do I have to apologise to the Bournemouth Arena for the broken door but also to the poor person who was actually sat on the toilet at the time.

    Thank you so much to Lauren and all the amazing people who’ve spoken tonight.

    With talent and energy like that we know that our future is very bright.

    I met Lauren when I went to campaign in her council by-election.

    She knew everyone and everything about that community.

    I was massively impressed. I said, “Lauren how long have you lived here?”

    “18 years she said”. I thought for a second. “How old are you Lauren?” … 18.

    Well for Lauren, and anyone here who wants to, I hope that each one of our new members tonight has the best opportunity to become a member of parliament.

    And I’m not going to be neutral about this. I am crystal clear that we can make a difference and make that happen by supporting Sunday’s diversity motion, and creating a better chance of getting them there.

    I don’t believe in laissez faire economics because it doesn’t create fairness. Surely now we understand that laissez faire doesn’t create fairness when it comes to diversity.

    And that’s one of the reasons we’re all here in York, and why we come to conference.

    To debate our polices;

    debating diversity;

    debating cannabis when no other party has the confidence to do so;

    and debating the intrusive way the Government wants to gather our most personal data.

    Together we are shaping the fightback…

    one member one vote, opening our doors and opening our debate to every member, shaping this movement, building our distinctive, radical, Liberal agenda that can transform Britain from the grassroots up.

    And there are millions of liberals in this country. Our mission is to turn them into Liberal Democrat members.

    As we heard from Saleyha, she joined because she believes in what we believe in.

    Of course, Saleyha joined – crucially – because someone asked her.

    So, I’m sure you have seen there are two membership forms on every seat.

    My challenge to you is to recruit two new members each before the end of this month.

    And together we will be part of a growing, exciting team that will make a difference in May, and secure the result we all want in the referendum.

    So, the EU referendum. If like me, you were born after 1957, this is the first time you will get to vote on our future in Europe.

    This is likely to be the biggest vote you will ever cast.

    So it’s important we weigh up all the arguments. And in that spirit you’ll see that there is a stall here for the Leave campaign.

    And they are here for 2 reasons.

    One, we are lovely liberals who like a debate.

    Two, they are giving us cash.

    Cash, ladies and gentlemen, we will spending on a campaign, to beat them.

    So, this is the biggest campaign you will ever fight.

    The biggest stakes, the most to gain, the most to lose.

    So the campaign has begun.

    Lots of noise and it’s only going to get louder.

    People in the UK are waiting for a clear honest case.

    Over these last few weeks as I’ve been knocking on doors, more and more people are mentioning Europe.

    And most of them, don’t want to tell me their views, they want to know mine.

    Now obviously, they’ve come to the right person – trust me, I’m a politician.

    So let’s be honest about where we stand.

    We believe that Britain is stronger in Europe.

    And this vote is so much more important than the tedious internal Tory party soap opera that’s playing out in the news every day,

    And more important, indeed, than what the Queen really thinks… about Michael Gove.

    I, of course, would not dream of speculating as to Her Majesty’s views on Europe.

    All I will say is that she is a shining example… a shining example of European integration and harmony – of how a Greek family and a German family can be united in peace and happiness for 70 years.

    Aside from the soap opera, people really want to know the substance.

    They want to know what it will mean for their family, for their business, their job, their children’s future, our safety.

    So here goes:

    200,000 British companies currently export goods to Europe.

    Yes we pay in, but the CBI says Britain’s access to the European single market is worth 78 billion pounds.

    The car industry, reliant on European trade, employs 700,000 people.

    The single market gives us access to 500 million consumers.

    British families benefit from cheaper goods and services – everything from phone tariffs to flights – are cheaper because of European cooperation.

    So you can fly on holiday for less, and then when you get there post really tedious selfies from the beach at a fraction of the cost.

    Thousands of criminals are no longer on our streets because our police can share information.

    And hundreds of criminals have been brought back to justice here in Britain.

    And British workers have better annual leave, they have better protections from harassment at work, and better maternity leave.

    Strength in numbers, clear benefits, common sense.

    So there is an enormous net financial, economic and business benefit of being Europe.

    That doesn’t stop those who want to exit, constantly talking of the cost of being in Europe.

    But I look around our continent, at the scars of the last hundred years, and I see a far more painful cost of a dis-united Europe.

    People have different reasons for their stance on Europe.

    Business interests, the opportunities for their children, or maybe they just saw an opportunity to gain a bit more attention in their bid to become the next Tory leader.

    But for me, one thing stands out above all else.

    Countries who once had warheads pointing at each other, today work together in peace.

    I don’t remember the last war.

    But I remember the cold war.

    There’s an odd, stone building in the woods near our village, and I always joke with the kids that it’s the entrance to a nuclear bomb shelter, that there are four men from Kendal still down there, fighting over the last potnoodle thinking the bomb dropped three decades ago.

    When I was a teenager, I remember coming down Fishergate Hill in Preston on a Sunday morning.

    I did a double take because the old laundrette had changed hands, instead it had become a showroom for nuclear fallout shelters.

    I was 14, and I thought: One, nuclear fallout shelters cost a lot of money,

    Two, nobody I knew in Preston had any money, Three, here was a shop apparently successfully selling these things anyway,

    Four, ergo, the end of the world was imminent.

    And that threat might seem laughable now.

    But it wasn’t then.

    It was 1984, we lived in a divided Europe, we lived in the shadow of the bomb.

    Now, as it happens, I drove down Fishergate Hill with my dad a couple of weeks ago and its gone back to being a laundrette.

    Over those years, Paranoia and aggression has given way to cooperation and hope.

    After decades of brutal conflict, European nations came together.

    Countries behind the iron curtain are our allies.

    The Warsaw Pact gave way to a unified Europe.

    Those who wish to turn their backs on Europe, turn their backs on history.

    When we face a dangerous world, I want to stand with my neighbours.

    I thank God that today, that our leaders sit around a table with leaders of countries who a generation ago had nuclear weapons on their soil pointed right here.

    If that was the only reason to remain, it would be good enough for me.

    So, our arguments are powerful, the cause is crucial but the campaign is not going to be easy.

    But we will make it even more difficult if we refuse to accept that things aren’t perfect.

    Just as we know that Westminster is not perfect. So Europe is not perfect.

    Just as we want to change Westminster, we should also want to change the European Union.

    And you don’t affect change by storming off in a huff.

    As any kid who’s picked up the ball in a sulk and stalked off home will tell you, that’s not the way you make friends.

    And it’s definitely not the way to win the match.

    Before we can convince the British people that Europe offers a great future for Britain, we should recognise that too often the Union appears out of touch and out of reach.

    It needs further renewal and reform to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

    By leading, and not leaving, we can maximise our influence to drive renewal and reform of the EU.

    This is Britain’s time to lead the way.

    Let’s reduce the moments where it has become too burdensome, bureaucratic and bloated, but let’s drive forward the things it does so well, to create opportunity, drive prosperity and open our eyes to the world.

    Let’s complete the single market, and drive forward the digital economy.

    Let’s give small business much greater representation in Brussels.

    And let’s spearhead green growth and sustainability.

    Some of the rhetoric in the campaign recently has been unpleasant to put it mildly

    Iain Duncan-Smith has said we’d be at greater risk of Paris style terror attacks if we remain, and people on both sides have tried to scare monger about borders, refugees and migrants.

    Using desperate people fleeing war and terror, as pawns to score points, is appalling and it is weak.

    This campaign needs the opposite.

    This campaign needs strength and compassion.

    If the leave campaign wish to play nasty, we can’t really affect that.

    The same forces who used images of babies in incubators to campaign in the AV referendum can’t wait for a race to the bottom on immigration, migration and refugees.

    But Liberal Democrats, I will not stand for it.

    There are many people on the leave side who are complaining about something they call ‘project fear’.

    Now, as you know, I believe that being in Europe is better for Britain, and I know I can run a campaign that is positive, that is hopeful, optimistic and praises the benefits of our membership.

    But, I can’t ignore the fact, that the prospect of leaving scares me.

    It’s quite sensible to be afraid of something that is dangerous.

    But to use fear of the other, to demonise those who are different to you, that is disgraceful and we will call it out whenever we see it.

    And to make matters worse, all this anti-European nationalism is charting the way for Neil Hamilton’s political comeback.

    The Hamiltons!

    Neil Hamilton is now the top of the list for UKIP in Wales.

    What on earth has Wales done to deserve that?

    And not only is Neil Hamilton on the list. Mark Reckless, the poor-man’s Douglas Carswell, is also looking to Wales for his comeback.

    Two Englishmen who took democracy for granted, assuming that Wales will accept what England has rejected.

    Another reason why Kirsty Williams’ leadership is so vital in giving Wales positive politics against the rise of nasty isolationism.

    So… the referendum, do you remember AV? That went well.

    Do you remember, at the time, there was a newly elected left wing Labour leader who wouldn’t put his back into the campaign?

    Sound familiar? History seems to be repeating itself.

    Jeremy Corbyn, please do not let your own internal party chaos get in the way of winning this campaign.

    I know you may have wanted to leave in the past, but we treat your conversion as genuine and so I ask you to show the zeal of the convert and get on board.

    If ever there was a time you needed to show your party, and the country, that you can lead, now is that time.

    Shall we cross party lines, put our party interests aside for the good of our country?

    Because if you won’t, I’ll make a direct appeal to those Labour party members now.

    The Liberal Democrats are a united force.

    We are Britain’s internationalist party.

    We believe in international cooperation, that Britain stands tall in the world because we stand tall in Europe, that British business is more successful, that our streets are safer, and we are better equipped for those challenges that don’t stop at borders.

    If your party leadership remains blinkered to the risk, then your party is sleepwalking to the exit.

    So, come with us, share a platform, and let’s make the positive, unified case that we all believe in.

    In together, let’s make Britain’s future better, by making Britain’s future one that is in Europe.

    Recently, Nicola Sturgeon gave a big speech, on why we should remain in Europe.

    It was a strong pro-European speech. She made this important speech in London, which is not in Scotland.

    Perhaps she didn’t want the Scottish people to hear it.

    She called for a positive case to be made for Britain to stay in Europe…

    And then focussed her entire attention on threatening the rest of the UK with a leave campaign of her own.

    In fact Nicola has spent the last month talking about what’s going to happen if we lose the referendum, rather than working with others to try and win it.

    We know that the EU referendum is just another opportunity for nationalists to pursue their single minded, destructive goal of separation at all costs.

    They are lining up to tell us that a vote to leave would inevitably lead to a second referendum on independence for Scotland.

    That will not help persuade a single wavering voter.

    What Nicola Sturgeon is doing is blowing a dog whistle giving permission to separatists to vote to leave the EU so that Scotland can then leave the UK.

    The EU referendum is too important to be treated as an excuse to hark back to the independence debate.

    When we look to Scotland we should remember how the referendum there was won.

    Charles Kennedy, Michael Moore, Jo Swinson, Willie Rennie – they were out on the streets with campaigners from all parties and none. Making the positive, liberal case.

    They shunned the aggression and nastiness of the online battles, and offered hands of friendship and cooperation.

    I am a patriot, and patriots love their country. Nationalists hate their neighbours.

    We will campaign as patriots, as liberals, we will campaign together.

    In Britain we have a menu of parties in this debate:

    Those that are resolutely anti Europe – UKIP

    Those split down the middle – Tories and Greens

    Those who are half hearted with ulterior motives – the nationalists

    Or the half-hearted and just a bit rubbish – Labour.

    And then there’s the party, the only party, passionate about a reforming Britain, in a reforming Europe.

    A prosperous Britain in a prosperous Europe, a green Britain in a green Europe, a secure Britain in a secure Europe.

    There are millions of people in Britain who know that this is the biggest choice for our country in their lifetimes, and that just as Britain is stronger together with others, so are we as individuals stronger when we join those of like mind to achieve what is right.

    The Liberal Democrats offer you the chance to work with those who think like you about our future in Europe.

    We need you, you need us – join us today, join the party that is united in the shared belief that Britain’s position in Europe is vital to the country’s future security and prosperity.

    And this campaign will be a major focus as we rebuild our party.

    In together we will fight for a stronger and more prosperous nation, creating opportunity for future generations, respected all over the world.

    The global issues that we face can only be overcome by international cooperation.

    Those who believe we can be stronger alone are turning their backs on the real world, a modern world, lost in a sepia tinted view of memories and false nostalgia.

    We could once separate our politics between domestic and international.

    But not anymore.

    The questions is not whether Britain can survive alone,

    it is whether Britain can better thrive with others

    When we face the world together, there is no doubt in my mind that for our future prosperity and safety, we should vote to remain.

    There is no doubt in my mind that to work alongside those countries who share our interests and share our values, we need to remain.

    And there is no doubt in my mind that to be the beacon of hope and freedom, in a turbulent and dangerous world, we must vote to remain.

    We are a proud nation that stands tall in the world.

    We are home to freedom, ingenuity, creativity.

    In these next 14 short weeks, the post-war European project of peace, co-operation and prosperity lies in Britain’s hands.

    Europe looks to us.

    We are clear.

    Britain must not leave.

    Britain must lead.

  • Tim Farron – 2016 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    timfarron

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Farron, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, to the party’s Spring Conference on 13 March 2016.

    You will be unsurprised to hear that I was recently interviewed by Stylist magazine.

    They asked me lots of exciting questions regarding my colossal sense of glamour.

    They also wanted me to write about a woman who had been my hero.

    I wanted to be completely honest, and pick the woman who was indeed my hero.

    Neva Orrell.

    She was a local councillor in Leyland when I first joined the Liberals… but Stylist magazine said that they wanted me to pick someone a bit more well known.

    So I tried Shirley Williams – they said no.

    I tried Elizabeth Warren. Nope.

    So in the end, they asked me to write about that well known woman. Bill Clinton.

    ***

    So, Neva Orrell.

    First off, she was actually a woman.

    But also, Neva was a teacher.

    She was a local councillor in our area when I first joined the Liberals.

    She was four-foot-ten, had a tangerine rinse and – to the best of my knowledge – was the only person Tony Greaves was scared of.

    Neva had lived through the war.

    She’d lost loved ones, witnessed the devastation, the grief and the tragedy of war – and she became convinced that we must work together to build a world where hatred and war might be overcome.

    She wanted to join a movement that would fight for tolerance, peace and freedom, for the things that would make a repeat of that war least likely.

    In 1949 she joined the Liberals. Neva spent the next 53 years of her life being the greatest servant that her community in Leyland had ever known.

    Getting people rehoused, improving roads, cleaning up the environment, meeting the needs of individuals throughout the town.

    Maybe some would be dismissive about this; A great internationalist, a great liberal? Who then spent her time on pavement politics?

    But that is how it should be.

    Because if you are a liberal then you will walk the walk, committed to your community.

    Your community.

    The place you live

    The experiences and identities you share

    The people with whom you feel you belong

    Community is what you make it, and where we – where you – make a difference.

    We say we care about people, and we prove it by serving people, empowering people, getting things done.

    And it is what makes us liberals.

    We stand for election not to be something, but because we want to do something.

    We campaign not to be grand, but to do grand things – make a difference.

    It is what makes us different.

    I joined the Liberal Party at 16.

    Now, you may be surprised to discover this, but this was not a carefully calculated career move.

    Not a career move, but not a cop-out either.

    I didn’t join a pressure group. I joined a movement.

    Determined to use power to make a difference – and give people opportunities.

    Because every family, every small business, everyone in Britain deserves a clear path to fulfil their own ambition.

    ***

    Now, as well as stylist, I’ve also made the hallowed feature pages of Autocar magazine.

    They had heard that my car had been written off in the floods.

    They were impressed by my dedication and commitment to something so battered and beaten up…

    They also wanted to know about my Volvo…

    It was early December and I had agreed to do an interview with BBC News about the floods.

    Half an hour before I was on air, I was in the car with my kids and the river wall in front of me broke.

    In two seconds flat the car had filled up to our waists…

    We had to bail out and do it quickly.

    We were a few miles from the nearest village, stranded, and completely soaked by the side of the road… and then the phone went, it was the BBC.

    So, John Simpson style, me and the kids reported live from the scene while my Volvo, and a very large number of precious prefab sprout CDs disappeared from view.

    Now, we lost a car. That’s nothing.

    I lost my beloved pre-fab sprout CDs. Even they can be replaced,

    But friends of mine lost their homes, their businesses.

    ***

    And here in York more than six hundred homes and businesses, some just a couple of hundred yards from where we are today, were under water.

    Many are yet to recover.

    And yet, when I look around York, as I did on Friday, I see the same tremendous spirit I see at home in Cumbria – testament to the determination of people who come together and support one another.

    When a community is tested, you see it’s true character.

    And as we can see by being here for Conference, York is open for business – Cumbria, the Scottish borders, the north, we’re all open for business.

    Even when this Government is barely lifting a finger to help, the spirit of the people is the real northern powerhouse.

    ***

    Within a few weeks of my birth in 1970, two disastrous things happened.

    1. England got knocked out of the world cup by West Germany

    2. The Liberals had an electoral disaster that made last May look quite good by comparison.

    We almost disappeared altogether.

    But we fought back. Not by accident, but by careful design.

    And we fought back by making a virtue of the fact that there is more to life than Westminster.

    Young Liberals led the rebuild of our party by taking our philosophy and our ideals into their communities and putting them into practice.

    They got their hands well and truly dirty, turning a belief in the individual into action, galvanising communities, winning change, challenging the self-satisfied power of the town hall and Whitehall.

    In 2016 let us choose that path back to power.

    Community politics is what we are for.

    The establishment is increasingly out of reach and out of touch, locally and nationally, it is down to us to make the difference.

    In every community I want us to be the antidote to the kind of politics that makes people go off politics altogether.

    ***

    In 1997 The Liberal Democrats made a tremendous leap forward, securing 46 MPs.

    One of those MPs was our excellent Chief Whip Tom Brake.

    I recently found out that Tom has also been a magazine star.

    It was an interview that had originally been offered to me, but without me knowing, my team decided Tom was much better suited for such a challenge.

    So you all have the press office to thank for the fact that last April’s centrefold in Men’s Health magazine, was not this gut on stage before you, but the rather more toned one of the chief whip.

    The feature involved posing without a shirt on, exercising every day for seven weeks, and eating healthily.

    Alistair was devastated not to have been asked.

    In 2001 and 2005 our numbers increased to 52 and 62.

    We got to 63 when Willie won Dunfermline.

    Indeed we reached that peak at a point when we didn’t even have a leader…Don’t go getting any ideas.

    In 2010, you know the story, we did the right thing, but paid a heavy price.

    We put country before party and I am dead proud that we did.

    But were the seeds of our setback in May sown many years before?

    Because Westminster can be a beguiling place.

    When you are there, there’s constant temptation to try and be like everyone else.

    We’ve had a full shadow cabinet. We’ve had junior spokespeople.

    We’ve even had enough for some troublesome backbenchers.

    Mind you, even with 8 we still have some of those.

    But, we must always ask ourselves, when we are a Westminster force, is it too tempting to get obsessed with Parliament that we forget the community politics that put us there?

    Westminster’s rules are laid down by parties that have an opposite agenda to ours – with powerful vested interests to protect, not people to liberate.

    For the establishment parties it is the best Old Boys’ Club in town, and they have stacked the rules to protect it.

    We arrive in the big league on our terms. But we too often attempt to remain on theirs.

    When we ran the biggest councils in this country, Liverpool and Newcastle, Bristol and Cardiff, Edinburgh and Sheffield. We did so because of who we were.

    We were never the council’s representatives to the people, we were the people’s representatives to the council.

    And as we rebuild we will – and must – continue to be the people’s representatives in Parliament too.

    We must return to our roots.

    No matter the office, always remaining true to our instincts.

    It’s time to focus not on parliamentary games, but on real life.

    It’s time we got back to community politics.

    ***

    In 2008 I started a campaign to bring a chemotherapy unit to my local hospital.

    We walked the 44-mile journey to the nearest unit to highlight our case, gathered 10 thousand signatures, and 600 people wrote personal stories to the local trust.

    We campaigned, we lobbied and we stood up for our community. In 2011, we got it.

    Shortly afterwards, an elderly couple called me over in the street and the lady told me that they had decided she wasn’t going to go through with treatment for her cancer because she couldn’t cope with the vast round trip…

    But when the new unit opened, she changed her mind.

    It’s about making a difference to people’s lives.

    In Bradford, Jeanette Sunderland saw that a library was closing. She pulled together local businesses and not only saved the library, but raised £1.4million to turn it into an enterprise centre, creating jobs and new businesses.

    It was Simon Hughes, who heard the plight of a gay Iranian man. He was facing deportation to a country that had killed his boyfriend. To this day he says that Simon’s action saved his life.

    In Sutton, the Liberal Democrats have just secured funding for the second largest cancer centre in the world, that will create 13,000 jobs, and develop two new cancer drugs every five years.

    Here in in York, Keith Aspden passed a budget protecting frontline services and have increased investment in community-based mental health care.

    And it was Michael Moore who secured a commitment from the Government to spend 0.7% commitment on international aid. Our commitment to the international community. Money which is currently saving hundreds of thousands of lives across the world.

    Community politics at every level.

    Lives across the country and across the globe are better because of the work we do.

    The work that you do.

    ***

    “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the sunrise of their life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life—the sick, the needy and the disabled.”

    Those are the words of Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson’s Vice-President.

    There is no doubt.

    Hubert Humphrey would mark this Conservative Government an abject failure.

    Just this week they voted through plans to cut £30 a week from the benefits of sick and disabled people.

    They are pushing ahead with cuts to Universal Credit, so low income working families will lose on average £1000 a year.

    And they still plan to exclude youngsters from being able to claim housing benefit, leaving vulnerable young people with nowhere else to go.

    Their benefit cuts are a calculated political choice – hurting millions of people.

    And their latest move is to cut Personal Independence Payments, by more than £1billion.

    640,000 people with disabilities are set to lose vital support that helps them live truly independent lives.

    As is his style, this Chancellor uses smoke and mirrors to distort the truth.

    His clever accounting and theatrical budgets mask the true scale of what he has planned.

    His agenda isn’t just a parliamentary game, it strikes right at the heart of the communities we represent.

    And we will not stand for it.

    ***

    We start, not with politics but with people, with communities.

    But the chancellor is currently placing the very foundations of a happy and healthy community – under threat.

    Our schools, our homes, our environment, even our health.

    The basic building blocks for life that can have the biggest impact.

    On housing…

    A decent home isn’t just a roof over someone’s head; it’s an opportunity to get a job, it’s an opportunity for security and peace of mind.

    So tackling the housing crisis must be the first priority for any community politician.

    Build more affordable homes… Invest in house-building… set up local housing companies by councils…create a Housing Investment Bank to bring in private capital… and allow councils to borrow to build.

    On education…

    The pupil premium not just a few pounds chucked into the pot; It’s tailored support to help a child thrive.

    Education is what creates the level playing field so that every individual can play a full part in their community.

    We will defend the pupil premium we fought to introduce, fight short-sighted cuts to school budgets, and challenge political interference.

    On the environment…

    Climate change isn’t just a fashionable campaign, it is a battle for the future of our planet.

    The environment is local. Home insulation, solar panels, flood protection. The world around us, the air we breathe and the land we rely on to survive, are under threat.

    And on health…

    Parity of esteem between mental and physical health isn’t just technical jargon.

    We will stand alongside Norman Lamb as he leads our battle to make sure someone with a life-threatening eating disorder has the same right to treatment for their condition as a patient with cancer.

    Housing. Education. Environment. Health.

    Essential for our communities. Essentials in life.

    All relying on Britain’s incredible public sector, and the people who work in it.

    ***

    And at a time when they should be focussing on improving public services, this Government is locked in a dispute with junior doctors.

    Instead of taking action to safeguard the future of the NHS – the Conservative government is running it into the ground.

    In Coalition the Conservatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming just to fund the very basics.

    Norman refused to back down when they tried to diminish our health service, and now on their own, the Tories are hoping we won’t notice what’s happening.

    Instead of working to strengthen and protect the NHS, Jeremy Hunt is jeopardising it.

    Junior Doctors are working tirelessly for the good of the British people and they have people’s lives in their hands – yet as we heard on Friday from Dr Saleyha Assan, they feel under attack.

    We should be working with them to save the NHS. They are the future of healthcare.

    Jeremy Hunt, enough is enough.

    You have mishandled this dispute with junior doctors.

    You have lost their confidence.

    You have lost the confidence of NHS staff.

    You have lost the confidence of the British people.

    You have proved that the NHS is at risk in Tory hands.

    The battle with junior doctors is the tip of the iceberg.

    The scale of this crisis is too big.

    It’s time for a full cross party commission.

    As Norman said, we need a new Beveridge deal for the 21st century.

    We cannot allow our NHS to wither because of the shameful politics of short termist politicians.

    ***

    Talking of which… George Osborne.

    This week he will come forward with his budget.

    We have already heard that more cuts are coming our way.

    George Osborne’s approach to the budget is political theatre. It’s about politics, headlines and calculated positioning.

    Not a long term economic plan, but a short term political scam.

    Our focus is 100% on people. How will this budget impact the lives of those around us?

    Osborne asks how will this play in the Daily Mail.

    We ask, how will this play in daily life?

    Thanks to the tough choices we took, the structural deficit will be abolished by next year.

    So, the UK now stands at a crossroads.

    Osborne is taking an unnecessary political choice to cut further.

    If the Chancellor really wanted to help the economy, he should invest in, and help our local communities.

    Because its time to give public sector workers the pay rise they deserve

    It is time to be active and ambitious by investing in capital spending on housing, broadband and public transport.

    It’s time to support the skills people want and need for the future.

    It’s time to make the tax system work for small businesses.

    ***

    Communities thrive when enterprise and small business can thrive.

    But far too often the cards are stacked against them.

    Google and Facebook can negotiate with the tax office for months, yet small businesses can’t even get through on the phone.

    So. We all know the system favours the big multinationals.

    well, it’s time we transformed the way we treat small business in this country.

    Instead of Government fawning over the multi-nationals, how about putting small business at the centre of our business economy?

    And we need to ensure our taxation system is fit for the future.

    It will be the new micro breweries, the community hubs, the app developers, the new firms in our communities who will make the difference.

    Some small businesses are small for good, the backbone of our economy.

    Some small businesses are small for now. If we back them they will build our future.

    We need a system that works for all small businesses, the small for good, and the small for now.

    Ensuring the tax system is a level playing field will take some work.

    But that is why I am delighted to announce that Vince Cable has agreed to chair an expert panel for me to look at how we radically reform the way we tax businesses.

    Over the next year, Vince’s team will come forward with a new approach, that’s fit for the future

    Because when the system is broken, we Liberal Democrats will not defend it, we should fix it.

    ***

    We are a proud to be Britain’s internationalist party.

    We believe that Britain should lead a response to the refugee crisis, not bury our heads in the sand.

    We believe Britain thrives when we lead amongst our neighbours in Europe, and will be diminished when we walk away from of the most important group of nations on the planet.

    And that’s why it is deeply humiliating for Britain when Barack Obama criticised the Prime Minister for having a ‘free ride’ on defence.

    Nowhere is it more plainly seen than in this government’s dismal treatment of the Afghan interpreters.

    For thirteen years we relied on the skills of these brave and loyal individuals to keep our troops safe in a brutal, bloody conflict.

    Yet our Government is sending them back to Afghanistan to live at the mercy of the Taliban, or is leaving them in refugee camps as they desperately try to reach the UK, the country they served.

    David Cameron; your treatment of the Afghan interpreters is a disgrace.

    Britain is better than a ‘free ride’ at the expense of those who laid their lives on the line for us.

    Show the world that we value those who show the ultimate loyalty to our country and bring them back to Britain without delay.

    It’s hard to miss the inflammatory rhetoric creeping into politics. Rather than looking for solutions, people look for someone to blame.

    None of this is more apparent or scary than in the United States.

    Now, I confess, I am conflicted about Donald Trump.

    He can’t be all bad – he has a cameo role in one of the greatest films of all time, Home Alone 2, and his only line is to give McAuley Culkin’s character directions to the hotel reception desk.

    And, ladies and gentlemen, they are accurate directions.

    Mind you, McCauley Culkin then goes to the reception desk and commits credit card fraud to pay for ridiculous luxuries that he could not otherwise afford.

    This was a popular and influential film, and frankly it’s a short hop from this kind of short-sighted consumer credit greed to the subprime market scandal, the fall of the banking system and a world-wide recession.

    For which, on second thoughts, I now hold Trump personally responsible.

    Is he a joke or is he terrifying?

    Well, we see that building walls and splitting communities, spouting hatred and venom, and attacking the vulnerable and voiceless, now constitutes a political movement. And I think that is terrifying.

    But don’t scoff at our cousins across the water, thinking ‘only in America, it couldn’t happen here!’

    Because across British politics there are the flag waving nationalists, those who demonise the other.

    But this party is the polar opposite of all that.

    We will be the beacon of tolerance and acceptance.

    Standing for what unites us, not the differences that divide us.

    As we see the tension at Trump rallies rise, I want to be absolutely clear:

    No matter where you’re from, who you are, the colour of your skin, your faith or who you love, we stand by your side.

    ***

    When you are a new leader, you fight to get attention, to make a mark.

    A journalist said to me the other day ‘all I know about you is that you’re that bloke who keeps banging on about refugees’.

    He meant it as a rebuke.

    I took it as badge of honour.

    The biggest humanitarian crisis in Europe for 70 years, with no sign of this tragedy coming to an end.

    190,000 refugees entered Europe in 2014, a post war record.

    Last year that number increased to 1 million.

    This year, the UN thinks there could be 3 million.

    And most refugees aren’t even coming to Europe.

    There’s a million in Lebanon, 700,000 in Jordan, 2.7million in Turkey.

    So many facts and figures.

    Such big numbers.

    Every one of them an individual, a person.

    In Calais, Cologne, Lesbos and in refugee centres here in the UK I’ve only met a hundred or so of them. But they are meetings I cannot forget. I will not forget.

    I confess that I am personally affected by every one of them.

    And so I feel personally ashamed by our government’s response to this crisis.

    A crisis right on our doorstep, yet our government chooses to look the other way.

    All those desperate people and the Prime Minister will not take a single one of them.

    Not the orphaned 11 year old in Calais.

    Not the shivering 85 year old woman I met in Lesbos.

    Not the family sleeping rough in Macedonia.

    Now, I heard one conservative columnist this week say that ‘the Prime Minister is bound by public opinion, and that will of course limit his room to act on the refugee crisis’.

    Well, do you know what, maybe it’s time politicians stopped following and had the guts to lead.

    Now is the time to say that when thousands of innocent kids are stranded cold and alone in camps in Europe, we don’t give a monkeys what the focus groups say.

    Now is the time to turn and face this crisis, to choose to play our part.

    Now is the time to take a stand, to lead.

    Because this is not about statistics.

    This is about people just like you and me.

    This is about dignity and decency.

    Do to others as you would have them do to you.

    On the morning of October 27th last year, I stood on the beach on the island of Lesbos and I met a couple in their thirties: a carpenter and a nursery teacher from the Daesh occupied region of Iraq.

    With them, still in their flimsy life jackets, they had their two little girls, aged three and five.

    To distract them from the terror of the journey over the sea to Europe they’d sung songs to the girls and told them stories for hours and hours.

    Why did they put them through this?

    They love their children as much as I love mine yet they risked their daughters’ lives…why? Because the bigger risk was to stay and not to flee.

    And the Britain I believe in, offers that family sanctuary, hope and a future.

    David Cameron has gone through Calais plenty of times recently on his way to Brussels.

    But he’s never got off the train there.

    He’s never seen for himself the heartbreak of those who have had to leave everything, to flee towards a country and a continent that you thought represented peace and security but got there only to be treated like dirt.

    He’s refused to meet the proud people, broken by the wickedness of those who sought to kill them at home, and broken again by the callous indifference of those to whom they looked for sanctuary.

    Being 12 and alone in a camp thousands of miles from home.

    Being in a boat tossed to and fro as you sought land in the darkness, hearing the screams of the people in the neighbouring vessel as it went down.

    Having to leave your town at night, the town you grew up in, the only home you ever knew.

    Seeing children as young as you slaughtered by Daesh.

    Their stories stay with me, they motivate me.

    No one should have to live as they have lived.

    But we don’t have to allow these stories to end with desperation and tragedy.

    They can be about hope and opportunity.

    Three weeks ago I went to Cologne.

    I met newly arrived refugees from Syria who were being integrated into German culture.

    I sat a dozen young Syrian men who were being taught intensive German.

    They had vital skills and were on the path to a career, on the path to being a massive asset to the country that had given them a second chance.

    And then a week ago I met 6 young people from Eritrea and South Sudan – refugees from persecution.

    They’d got their way to England, to Gravesend.

    They spend their days sat in a hostel with little to do.

    The UK authorities would not even provide them with basic English language lessons.

    One of these six had got herself onto a nursing course from September, but the rest were being left to rot.

    Their clear cases for asylum were being kicked off into the long grass.

    Bored, scared, directionless, young people overflowing with talent and denied opportunity by a government that is deliberately blind to their potential.

    Refugees in Germany, welcomed, trained, empowered – transformed into enthusiastic, tax-paying Germans.

    Refugees in Britain, held in contempt, trapped, their talents wasted, and let down by people who act in our name.

    Britain is better than that.

    And so I will continue bang on about it.

    To speak for British values, for common sense, for action to help the desperate, for fear to give way to opportunity.

    ***

    But we can be sure that the UK has no chance of exercising any kind of leadership if it opts for isolation and irrelevance.

    And in just over fourteen weeks, we will face a vote on Britain’s future in Europe.

    By the way, when I came in this morning, the leave stand was closed. They had indeed left.

    They did clearly did feel, it was better off out.

    So, it is exactly 25 years ago this very week – in what is a quite spooky coincidence – since my second favourite band, the Clash, had their one and only number one hit.

    ‘Should I stay or should I go’.

    The lyrics are, ‘if I stay there will be trouble, if I go it will be double’- project fear there from Strummer and Jones…

    Whether David Cameron’s renegotiation impresses you or not, this is so much bigger than Cameron’s deal.

    Here are the questions that we must all answer:

    We belong to the biggest most successful market on the planet. Are we more prosperous staying in, or getting out?

    We live in dangerous times. Are we safer alongside our friends and neighbours, or isolated.

    We face vast international challenges: climate change, the refugee crisis, a global economy. Do we best tackle these together or on our own?

    They are the big questions, and the answers to me are crystal clear.

    We are stronger together.

    We are stronger in.

    For our prosperity, our security, our relevance, Britain must remain.

    ***

    And our national security is being challenged by more than the referendum.

    Right now the Government are using it as an excuse to extend snooping powers.

    Theresa May won’t just have access to your Facebook messages, but to everything from your medical records to your child’s baby monitor.

    And it’s not just MI5 and MI6 – your local council will be able to know where you’ve been and who you’ve spoken to, as will the tax office.

    Not even the Home Office can pretend that this is purely about keeping people safe.

    Trying to fight terrorism by gathering more and more irrelevant information is illiberal and totally counterproductive.

    The haystacks of information will become so huge that finding the needle will be near impossible.

    No matter what the government calls it, don’t make any mistake – this is the Snoopers’ Charter back again and we won’t have it.

    ***

    This is what we’ve come to expect from the Conservative Government.

    Here’s a party which took office, backed by just 36% of British voters.

    They cling to a tiny majority of just 12, yet govern with a care-free arrogance, decimating social housing, demolishing green energy, and demonising refugees.

    And they are taking their chance to change the rules in their favour.. attacking public funding for the opposition to hold them to account, opposing Lords reform, gerrymandering boundaries and undermining the independence of the BBC.

    Even if you are a hardened Tory, you should be appalled by what this government is doing to our democracy.

    ***

    And you know what? It makes me unbelievably angry…. With Labour.

    Let me be clear about this.

    I’m not angry because Labour is now run by the kind of people who used to try and sell me tedious newspapers outside the Students’ Union. That’s their funeral.

    I am angry with Labour because their internal chaos is letting this government off the hook.

    The Corbyn agenda is about taking over the Labour party, not rescuing Britain.

    ***

    I will not stand by while the Tories dig in for a generation.

    We can be, we must be, what stands in their way.

    We have to build that force.

    Ward by ward, house by house, issue by issue.

    Pick a ward and win it.

    This May, next May, all year round.

    We can win anywhere, you can win anywhere if you immerse yourself in your community.

    You keep in touch, you get things done.

    We know, that no matter where you’re from, your parents’ wealth, the colour of your skin, your gender, your faith, or who you love, you must have every opportunity to succeed. And you have a home with us.

    Together we can show a liberal vision for Britain that isn’t obsessed with self interest, or the here and now, but the long term future of our country.

    With strategic capital investment.

    Strong, local public services.

    And a well paid public sector.

    Where enterprise is encouraged.

    Where clean energy creates jobs.

    And where everyone has the right to a decent home.

    And where desperate people fleeing war and persecution are not demonised, they are welcomed.

    We are the opposition that will talk to our country about our country.

    A champion for communities when they need it.

    The voice for junior doctors.

    Standing by our teachers.

    Backing innovation.

    A movement.

    We can be the voice that Britain needs, and become the movement to make that difference.

    Find your community, and make that difference.

    Liberal Democrats. This is our vision for Britain.

    Thank you.

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2016 Statement on Deaths of Journalists

    NusratGhani

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nusrat Ghani in the House of Commons on 1 February 2016.

    Marie Colvin was a The Sunday Times journalist killed in Syria in 2012, while reporting from the siege of Homs. She passionately believed that through her work she could be the voice of all those experiencing conflict, from whatever perspective. During the latter part of her life, her determination to be that voice had a physical manifestation: an eye patch, the result of injuries sustained in Sri Lanka, where she was hit by shrapnel as she tried to cross the front line.

    Following her death, the columnist Peter Oborne wrote:

    “Society urgently requires men and women with courage, passion and integrity to discover the facts that those in authority want to suppress.”

    Marie Colvin herself said:

    “In an age of 24/7 rolling news, blogs and Twitter, we are on constant call wherever we are. But war reporting is still essentially the same—someone has to go there and see what is happening. You can’t get that information without going to places where people are being shot at, and others are shooting at you.”

    The relationship between Members of this House and the fourth estate—our friends up in the Press Gallery—is complicated, but although much of modern-day politics could often be described as a conflict zone, we do not daily put our lives on the line in our place of work. When a member of our armed forces is killed in a conflict zone, the Prime Minister rightly takes a moment at the beginning of Prime Minister’s questions to remind the nation of the sacrifice that that brave serviceman or woman has made. But with the notable exception of people such as Marie Colvin, we do not hear anywhere near as much about the sacrifices made by a large number of professional and citizen journalists every year in the name of newsgathering.

    The Committee to Protect Journalists, which I want to thank on the record for its assistance in preparation for this debate, has recorded that 98 journalists were killed last year. It has been definitively confirmed that 71 of them were murdered in direct reprisal for their work; were killed in crossfire during combat situations; or were killed while carrying out a dangerous assignment, such as covering a street protest.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I sought the hon. Lady’s permission last week to intervene. Statistics from the International Federation of Journalists show that 2,297 journalists and media professionals were killed in the past quarter of a century. That is an enormous number. They were standing up for the freedom of speech that we take for granted in this country. Does she agree that the United Kingdom and other liberal democracies should be promoting free speech and liberty across the globe, through the media and through journalism?

    Nusrat Ghani The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: the numbers are vast in the past 50 years or so. I hope that the Minister will respond on that, and I will ask him to do so towards the end of my speech. The International Federation of Journalists puts the number even higher than the CPJ, saying that at least 112 were killed last year.

    Professional journalists in conflict zones, such as those working for the BBC and Sky, are fortunate to have extensive support from their employers. Employees of those organisations undergo hostile environment training in preparation for travelling to conflict zones to check that they are adequately prepared for the dangers that they will face.

    Recently, a member of staff working for a major British media outlet in the middle east was approached by a man who verbally abused him, accusing him of being a traitor and a collaborator. His companions intervened, but another eight people arrived on the scene carrying batons and knives. The journalist ran away and took refuge in a nearby shop. However, two of his companions were heavily beaten up and received hospital treatment from the injuries they sustained.

    The incident was reported by the staff member to the high risk team, which subsequently deployed a security adviser to the country to conduct a security review for that individual, and put additional security measures in place to support the staff. However, increasingly, our news comes not just from professional journalists, whose names, faces and employers we recognise, but from stringers and citizen journalists. Stringers are unattached freelance journalists and citizen journalists are members of the public—independent voices.

    The ability of citizen journalists to share stories has an effect on professional journalists. The pressure to go deeper into conflict zones is greater. One of the defining features of a war reporter these days is that they are embedded in the conflict. Today, they are on the frontline, or in enemy territory.

    Increasingly, we understand that many of the world’s conflicts today are conflicts of narrative. In the middle east, Daesh wants to control what the conflict looks like. It wants a monopoly over stories and images. More than ever, the narrative is what people are fighting over. Daesh wants to recruit with images, and the reality disseminated by journalists challenges that propaganda. Any citizen journalist can break the propaganda machine. Anyone with a phone is an opponent.

    Daesh sees journalists as spies. It sees them as western actors who seek to disrupt the Daesh narrative by reporting on its weaknesses and failures, and that makes them a target. The philosopher Walter Benjamin said:

    “History is written by the victors.”

    That remains true, but the victors, and the course of the fight, are now a consequence of what is written, and that is even more the case now than it was in Benjamin’s time. That makes it even more important that we protect and honour those journalists, whether professional or citizen.

    The BBC’s Lyse Doucet said last year:

    “We often say that journalists are no longer on the frontline. But we are the frontline…We are targeted in a way we never have been before… now journalists are seen as bounty and as having propaganda value.”

    Journalists in conflict zones are not ordinary members of the public. They tell the stories that allow us to understand what is truly going on in the confusion and propaganda of warfare, and they carry out a vital public service.

    Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate her on securing this very important debate. Does she agree that the pace of news in the modern age means that we can no longer wait for dispatches to be informed about what is going on in conflict zones? Journalists are best positioned to give us this real-time accurate information of what is really going on.

    Nusrat Ghani I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Conflict is changing incredibly quickly. Lots of chaotic terrorism acts are happening all over the world, and, quite often, we rely on journalists to be our eyes and ears on the ground.

    My discussions with journalists and their employers in recent days have highlighted what I consider to be a gap in the service provided by the Foreign Office to those taking risks to bring truth and to hold people to account. Will the Foreign Office consider making it the policy of British embassies and consuls abroad to hold a register of journalists working in conflict zones within the relevant country at any one time? At the moment this process is ad hoc. On registration, the embassy would and should provide a security briefing on the situation in that country or the neighbouring country if it is in conflict, increasing the ability of journalists to protect themselves, and their employer’s ability to ensure that they are acting according to legitimate and expert advice.

    The role of foreign Governments in the protection of journalists is an important one. Will the Minister outline what expectations the Foreign Office currently has of foreign Governments to do everything they can to protect journalists who are British, or working for British-based media outlets, and to challenge them to extend that protection to their own local journalists? Will he consider making it a requirement for negotiations with foreign Governments, especially when embarking on diplomatic relations with emerging democracies, that the protection of journalists is an issue on the table?

    The British Government have rightly identified Bangladesh and Pakistan as critical countries in the region and we have partnered with them as a result. Yet in Bangladesh, for example, bloggers are killed by al-Qaeda and others because of what they write. Last year, over 40% of journalists killed in Bangladesh were killed by Islamic extremists because they just disagreed with the words that were written.

    In Pakistan in 2006, it is documented that the Government prepared a list of 33 columnists, writers and reporters in the English and Urdu print media and tried to neutralise the “negativism” of these writers by making them “soft and friendly”, and one could interpret that as going a bit beyond a friendly chat. I have more up-to-date testimonies, but the journalists concerned were reluctant for me to raise that on the Floor of the House today. Will the Foreign Office consider making it a requirement that countries that we are partnered with show clear intent to protect the rights of journalists, both professional and citizen? We must not flinch from exporting our proud British values of freedom of the media and of expression.

    I will finish by talking about Ruqia Hassan, a citizen journalist in Syria who used her Facebook page to describe the atrocities of daily life in Raqqa, until she went silent in July last year. It has been reported that her last words were:

    “I’m in Raqqa and I received death threats, and when Isis [arrests] me and kills me it’s ok because they will cut my head and I have dignity it’s better than I live in humiliation with Isis.”

    It has been speculated that her Facebook page was kept open for months so that other citizen journalists could be lured in and so that they too, in turn, could be silenced.

    Naji Jerf, a 38-year-old activist who reported for the website “Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently”, was also murdered late last year following his final work, “Islamic State in Aleppo”, which exposed human rights violations in the city. His murderers disagreed with him that anyone should hear about those violations. I believe he is the fourth person from “Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently” to have been murdered so far.

    Individuals such as these are part of conflict, and through our consumption of news we are complicit in their participation, but they take the risks. We must honour their bravery, and their pride in what they were, and still are, doing, by highlighting their contribution not only to our understanding of what is going on in conflict zones, but also their contribution to ending conflict by shedding light on it, and we must do all we can to defend their right to do what they do, and protect them as they go about it.

  • David Lidington – 2016 Statement on the European Union

    davidlidington

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2016.

    At about 11.35 this morning, the President of the European Council, Mr Donald Tusk, published a set of draft texts about the United Kingdom’s renegotiation. He has now sent those to all European Union Governments for them to consider ahead of the February European Council. This is a complex and detailed set of documents, which right hon. and hon. Members will, understandably, wish to read and study in detail. With that in mind, and subject to your agreement, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will offer an oral statement tomorrow, following Prime Minister’s questions, to allow Members of the House to question him, having first had a chance to digest the detail of the papers that have been issued within the last hour.

    The Government have been clear that the European Union needs to be reformed if it is to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The British people have very reasonable concerns about the UK’s membership of the European Union, and the Prime Minister is determined to address those. He believes that the reforms that Britain is seeking will benefit not just Britain, but the European Union as a whole. Therefore, our approach in Government has been one of reform, renegotiation and then a referendum. We are working together with other countries to discuss and agree reforms, many of which will benefit the entire European Union, before holding a referendum to ensure that the British people have the final and decisive say about our membership.

    The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement after the December meeting of the European Council. At that meeting, leaders agreed to work together to find mutually satisfactory solutions in all the four areas at the European Council meeting on 18 and 19 February. My right hon. Friend’s meetings in Brussels on 29 January, and his dinner with President Tusk on 31 January, were steps in that negotiation process.

    We are in the middle of a live negotiation and are now entering a particularly crucial phase. The Government have been clear throughout that they cannot provide a running commentary on the renegotiations. However, I am able to say that much progress has been made in recent days, and it appears that a deal is within sight. The publication of the texts by President Tusk this morning is another step in that process, but I would stress to the House that there is still a lot of work to be done.

    If the texts tabled today are agreed by all member states, they will deliver significant reforms in each of the four areas of greatest concern to the British people: economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and immigration. On sovereignty, the texts show significant advances towards securing a United Kingdom carve-out from ever closer union.

    On the relations between euro “ins” and “outs”, the documents offer steps towards significant safeguards for countries outside the eurozone as euro members integrate further. On competitiveness, we are seeing a greater commitment by the entire Union to completing the single market for trade and cutting job-destroying regulations on business.

    On free movement, there are important ideas in President Tusk’s drafts on reducing the pull factor of our welfare system and on action to address the abuse of freedom of movement of persons.

    We believe that real progress has been made, but I would stress that there is more work still to be done and more detail to be nailed down before we are able to say that a satisfactory deal has been secured.

  • Michael Wilshaw – 2016 to the Fair Education Alliance

    michaelwilshaw

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Chief Inspector of OFSTED, in London on 14 April 2016.

    Good evening everyone. I am really pleased to have been asked to take part in this event to mark the launch of your latest annual report card.

    As I approach the end of my tenure as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, I am saddened, but not surprised, by many of your findings. My motivation and commitment to the cause of educational equality and social mobility remains as strong today as it did on the day I first entered a classroom in Bermondsey nearly half a century ago. And let me tell you about that first class, because it has a bearing on what I’m going to say tonight.

    Since Tracey disappeared into the mists of East London to do an unskilled job, somewhere on the Bermondsey dockside, the world has changed. The world economy has changed, and expectations have changed. Quite rightly we have much higher expectations of what our children can achieve to prepare them for this vastly different economic landscape.

    If Tracey were growing up in today’s world she would have more choices and better options. Children from all walks of life should now be able to achieve any goal. Expectations are higher, our schools are better – in part thanks to Ofsted – and there is definitely more opportunity for all.

    The fact that many more of our children from across the social spectrum are doing well is a cause for optimism.

    So why am I standing here making this speech? Because, although we are doing better, we are not doing anywhere near well enough to compete with the best jurisdictions in the world. And we are certainly not doing well enough for our poorest children. What is particularly worrying is that we are not doing well enough for our brightest children coming from poor backgrounds.

    There’s that damning statistic, the one that keeps me awake at night, from the Sutton Trust. Seven thousand of our brightest children, mainly from poorer backgrounds, were in the top 10% nationally at age 11 but were not in the top 25% at GCSE 5 years later.

    I therefore applaud the collective efforts of the people in this room who have come together under the umbrella of the Fair Education Alliance to try to do something about educational inequality.

    And let’s be clear. This isn’t simply about doing right by a certain sector of society. Tackling inequality benefits the whole of our education system. When we improve standards for the most disadvantaged then standards improve nationally. As Lord Adonis, the pioneer of the original academies programme, understood, if you tackle problems at the bottom end there will be a trickle-up effect through the whole sector.

    One of my first acts as Chief Inspector was to assemble an expert panel of head teachers, academics and educational leaders to undertake an in-depth study into the educational achievements of England’s poorest children. This was a follow-up to the landmark reports published by 2 of my predecessors in 1993 and in 2003.

    My report on access and achievement, entitled Unseen Children, concluded that poverty of expectation had become a greater problem than material poverty. The children of poor parents with high expectations were doing much better academically than those whose parents and teachers expected little of them.

    The report also found that the distribution of underachievement had shifted. Twenty or 30 years ago, the problems were in urban areas, especially inner London schools. At that time these were the worst-achieving in the country.

    By 2013, schools in inner as well as outer London had become the highest performing in England. Instead, we found that many of the poor children being let down by the system in recent times attended schools either in generally affluent areas with small numbers of free school meal children or in places that were relatively isolated, such as rural communities and coastal towns.

    I made a series of recommendations for politicians and policy-makers on the back of these findings.

    Among the most important of these were:

    – the development of a number of sub-regional challenges aimed particularly at raising the achievement of disadvantaged children

    – a more strategic approach to the appointment of National Leaders of Education and their matching with schools in need of support

    – the creation of a ‘National Service of Teachers’ to direct ambitious and talented professionals to underperforming schools in less fashionable or more challenging parts of the country
    the reshaping of vocational education

    The report also recognised the fundamental importance of early years in shaping the future prospects of young people.

    Of course there is no magic bullet or shortcut to success. The Fair Education Alliance (FEA) itself sets out an ambitious array of recommendations for how we can make things better. Tonight I would like to concentrate on progress we have seen and the challenges that still lie ahead.

    We need to get the early years right

    I have said many times before that underachievement starts from birth. Too many children are given a poor start in the essential early years. I whole-heartedly support the recommendations of your report for more use of qualified teachers in this sector.

    Children who fall behind in the early years of their life struggle to make up for it in later years. If by age 7, a child cannot read, the odds are stacked against them. If children cannot count, sit still, follow instructions or hold a pencil properly when they leave Reception, they will always be playing catch-up.

    This is why I have long argued that effective nursery and primary schools are the best places for very young children from disadvantaged homes. In these schools, clear routines bring order and security into the lives of young children and help build self-assurance as well as awareness of the needs of others.

    In our last Annual Report for the Early Years, I suggested that there was a strong case for schools taking many more of the poorest children from the age of 2. Schools have the in-built advantage of being able to offer continuity across the transition to Reception, have more access to specialist support, employ well-qualified graduate teachers and are familiar with tracking children’s development.

    I also called for much more to be done to encourage parents of the poorest 2-year-old children to take up the offer of a funded place in a high-quality provider. We found that nearly half of all 2-year-olds (around 113,000) eligible for 15 hours of free early education had not taken up their place in any type of setting. It is essential that more is done, through children’s centres and health visitors, to promote greater take-up.

    We need to get the best leaders and the best teachers to the schools that need them most

    It is vital that we do far more to attract and incentivise the best people to lead underperforming schools in challenging areas. All my experience has taught me that when schools are chaotic it is the poor and vulnerable who suffer most. The lack of structure at home is replicated at school and, unlike their peers from middle class backgrounds, poor parents often lack the capacity to compensate for deficiencies in the school and in the classroom. Therefore getting good leadership into these areas is of fundamental importance.

    The government’s recently published White Paper talks about “rebalancing incentives” and “investing in targeted initiatives” to boost leadership capacity in challenging areas and to create career pathways for people who want to work in the areas where they are most needed.

    This is certainly something I welcome, along with the emerging National Teachers Service, particularly given they were a key feature of my report, and I look forward to hearing more detail about these measures and, more important, seeing them bearing fruit.

    The FEA proposals for incentivising teachers to different areas, with schemes such as mortgage-deposit support, are exactly the sort of innovative thinking that we should be exploring to help with this challenge. We need to get vocational and post 16 education right.

    The Unseen Children report expressed my concerns about the overall quality of provision for the many children who would prefer an alternative to university. Our system is adept at guiding students into higher education. However, as the House of Lords social mobility committee found last week, it still struggles, despite the recent focus on apprenticeships, to inform them about alternative career pathways available to them.

    We simply have to improve the quality of our technical provision and present it as a valid educational path if we are to equip youngsters – especially those from poorer backgrounds – with the skills they need and employers want.

    We are making strides in the right direction here, with ambitious targets for the creation and quality of apprenticeships and a growing number of university technical colleges coming into the system.

    As the Alliance report card recognises, we need to ensure that careers advice in schools improves so that young people understand the different options in front of them and can make informed choices about their future.

    We need more political leadership and regional solutions
    We need more focus on those areas that are not delivering the necessary high standards for their children. I welcome the government’s White Paper proposals for focusing efforts in ‘Achieving Excellence Areas’. This version of my suggestion of ‘sub-regional challenges’ will only succeed if local politicians, be they mayors, council leaders or cabinet members, are prepared to take ownership of school performance no matter what the governance structure and status of the school.

    We need them to be visible, high-profile figures that people can recognise as education champions. The great success stories in London would not have happened without the drive and commitment of the likes of Jules Pipe and Sir Robin Wales in Hackney and in Newham, respectively.

    There is ultimately, however, only so much that the school can achieve without the commitment of parents and carers.

    We need to ensure schools do more to engage with those parents who don’t care enough about their children’s education.

    As the chief executive of Centre Forum observed last week, many white British pupils are falling behind students from other ethnic backgrounds by the time they take their GCSEs because of a lack of support from their parents.

    The family is the great educator. We need more leaders who have no qualms about reminding parents of their obligation to be a good parent – coming to open evenings, making sure their child does their homework, reading to them and listening to them read.

    I know this is a difficult task but it is not impossible.

    As I recounted in a radio interview just this morning, it can be tough to get these parents on board. I often speculate on how useful it would be for heads to have the ability to fine those who have the capacity but wilfully choose not to engage.

    Grounds for optimism

    Let’s not allow ourselves to be too pessimistic.

    I do not underestimate how difficult it is to educate children who are poor and who lack all the advantages that a more affluent background confers. I understand that it’s a lot easier to teach children who don’t come to school hungry, who live in homes filled with books, who have parents that are employed, let alone university educated.

    I spent most of my professional career trying to enthuse children whom others had written off. It isn’t easy for schools to compensate for social disadvantage. But never make the mistake that because it’s difficult, schools cannot make a difference. They can.

    We know that we can overcome the challenges of poverty because we have seen it happen. In London, with effective, tenacious leadership and political will, failure turned into stunning success over a relatively short period of time. There is no reason, in my view, that this sort of success cannot be replicated elsewhere.

    This FEA report has focused on the progress that is being made in the North East of England. We also know there are schools in places like Portsmouth and Barking and Dagenham that are now bucking the trend in terms of the achievement of poorer children, especially from white British backgrounds.

    Conclusion

    It is not only a moral imperative that we should do better for our poorest youngsters, but also crucial if we are going to become a more productive nation and a more socially-cohesive one.

    If we are to compete with the best jurisdictions in the world then we need more organisations, politicians and leaders to collaborate and support schools, and ensure that every young person gets the standard of education they deserve.

    It’s only through commitment, ambition and determination that we will break the pattern of underachievement in challenging areas of the country and create a more fair and equal society. A society where every child has the same life chances regardless of where they live.

    I commend all of you in this room for your commitment to those goals.