UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2017

  • Jared O’Mara – 2017 Statement on Hate Speech

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jared O’Mara, the Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam, on 24 October 2017.

    I am deeply ashamed of the comments I made online, which have emerged today.

    I was wrong to make them; I understand why they are offensive and sincerely apologise for my use of such unacceptable language. I made the comments as a young man, at a particularly difficult time of my life, but that is no excuse.

    Misogyny is a deep problem in our society. Since making those comments 15 years ago, I have learned about inequalities of power and how violent language perpetuates them. I continue to strive to be a better man and work where I can to confront misogyny, which is why I’m so proud to sit on the Women and Equalities Select Committee. I will continue to engage with, and crucially learn from, feminist and other equalities groups so as an MP I can do whatever I can to tackle misogyny.

  • Boris Johnson – 2017 Speech at Chatham House

    Below is the text of the speech made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, at Chatham House on 23 October 2017.

    Good morning everybody, it is fantastic to be here in this wonderful hotel, that I think that I opened or reopened. I opened many hotels across London in my time as Mayor and I definitely reopened this hotel at one stage and this is after all an example of the kind of infrastructure that you were just talking about Robin. It is an inspirational structure that was created many, many decades ago, over a hundred years ago, and it has been beautifully upgraded and it has stood the test of time and that is what I want to talk about this morning.

    All you young, thrusting Chatham House types look far too dynamic to remember the early 1980s or indeed the late 1970s. Do you? I certainly do.

    I remember being chilled to the marrow not just by the newspaper graphics, the hundreds of nuclear missiles trained on this country by the Warsaw Pact.

    Scarier still were the attempts by the UK government to reassure the population, the pamphlets and films that told you such things as how to build a fallout shelter.

    You took several doors off their hinges and propped them up diagonally against a wall, reinforced by suitcases full of books, and then you were told to tune to Radio 4, where the contingency plan was to play endless re-runs of Just a Minute.

    And there really was a time when British children knew all about the 4-minute warnings, and the perils of radiation sickness, and we all read a book called Where the Wind Blows by Raymond Briggs, and brooded, as I did as a teenager, on the horror of those weapons.

    For decades now that threat has seemed to vanish. It went with the end of the Cold War.

    We don’t want it back.

    That is why people are now watching with such interest – and the first stirrings of apprehension – the events in the Korean Peninsula.

    Kim Jong Un has tested 19 missiles so far this year, and has conducted 4 of the 6 nuclear tests ever carried out by that country.

    It is now widely accepted that Kim is coming closer to being able to launch a nuclear-armed ICBM at the continental United States.

    I should stress that this has not only prompted outrage in America, but it is a prospect that has been unanimously condemned by Russia, by China, by the EU, to say nothing of the dismay of those quintessentially peaceable countries – Japan and South Korea.

    It is this increased tempo of nuclear testing, coupled with florid outbursts of verbal belligerence, that have reawakened – even in this country – those forgotten fears.

    The public can be forgiven for genuinely starting to wonder whether the nuclear sword of Damocles is once again held over the head of a trembling human race.

    So now is perhaps a good moment, in a calm and dispassionate way, to take stock.

    Before we reissue that old pamphlet called ‘Protect and Survive’, before we teach our kids how to hide under the desks or lay on stocks of baked beans or spam, let us look at the history of nuclear proliferation, how nuclear weapons have spread, and how we have collectively sought to contain their spread.

    Back then, as now, most predictions were gloomy – and yet those gloomy predictions have been utterly confounded by events.

    America was of course the first to use the bomb, in 1945; then the Soviet Union detonated a device at Semipalatinsk in 1949; then we were next, the UK, in 1952; then the French did their test in the Sahara in 1960.

    At that point the then American presidential candidate, John F Kennedy, predicted that by 1964, within only 4 years, there would be 10, 15 or 20 nations that would acquire nuclear weapons.

    As things have turned out, it is now almost 60 years after he issued his warning – and yes, the NPT has some notable non-signatories including India and Pakistan; and yet the number of nuclear-armed countries has yet to reach double figures.

    This is on the face of it an absolutely astonishing statistic and an extraordinary achievement.

    When you consider that every previous military development – from firearms to fighter jets – has spread among humanity like impetigo, you have to ask yourselves: why? Why have nuclear weapons been the great exception?

    It can’t just be the kit. They can’t be so complex that only a handful of so-called advanced nations have the intellectual wherewithal to make them.

    It is true that the process is laborious and highly expensive – but the basic technology is more than 70 years old and indeed has been taught in universities – if not schools – for decades, for generations.

    The answer is partly that many countries wisely decided, after the war, that they were going to take shelter under the nuclear umbrella provided by the United States.

    Nations in both Europe and in Asia opted for this protection, a commitment that must be rated one of the greatest contributions by America to the unprecedented epoch of peace and prosperity that we have all been living through.

    I should observe that some European countries found themselves under a rival umbrella provided by the Soviet Union, though at that stage they had no choice in the matter.

    And it was that American offer – that guarantee – that made possible the global consensus embodied by the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    By this treaty 191 countries came together to recognise the special role of the 5 existing nuclear powers, and also to insist that there should be no further dispersal of such weapons.

    Nuclear technology would be made available to other countries, provided it was used exclusively for civilian purposes.

    That was a great diplomatic achievement.

    It was an effort in which the UK – as one of the leading upholders of the post-war rules based international order – played a crucial role.

    That diplomacy has helped to make the world safer, more secure, more confident and therefore more prosperous.

    It has helped avoid what might otherwise have been a Gadarene Rush to destruction, in which the world was turned into a great arena of Mexican stand-offs, a nuclear version of the final scene of Reservoir Dogs.

    That far-sightedness is now needed more than ever, not only to keep the NPT, but also one of its most valuable complementary accords, the nuclear deal with Iran.

    To grasp the importance of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, we should remember that just before it was signed in 2015, Iran had enough centrifuges and low-enriched uranium to be only months away from producing the essential material for at least one nuclear weapon.

    Let us remember what the consequences would have been – for Iran and the world – if Tehran had gone down that road.

    Never mind the response of Israel, or indeed the United States to the fact of nuclear weapons in the grip of the Iranians, a regime that has been capable of blood-curdling rhetoric about the mere existence of the ‘Zionist entity’.

    A nuclear-armed Iran would have placed irresistible pressure on neighbouring countries to up the ante, and to trigger an arms race in what is already one of the most volatile regions of the world.

    Imagine all those mutually contaminating sectarian, dynastic and internecine conflicts of the Middle East today. Then turn the dial, and add a nuclear arms race.

    Think of the nightmare that deal has avoided.

    It is a nightmare we can continue to avoid if we are sensible, if we show the same generosity and wisdom as the negotiators of the NPT.

    And first and most important it is vital to understand that President Trump has not withdrawn from the JCPOA. He has not junked it.

    He has continued to waive nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, and having spoken to some of the most influential figures on Capitol Hill – none of them fans of the Iranian regime – I have absolutely no doubt that with determination and courage the JCPOA can be preserved.

    This is not just because the essential deal is in the interests of Western security – though it is – but because it is profoundly in the interests of the Iranian people.

    This is a great nation, of 80 million people – 2 thirds of whom are under the age of 30.

    They are highly educated, both men and women.

    They watch Youtube; they dance to music videos, even if it is in the privacy of their own home.

    They use and understand technology and they are bursting with a capitalist and entrepreneurial spirit.

    If we can show them that they are welcome in the great global market-place of ideas and innovation then, in time, a very different relationship is possible with the modern heirs, of what is after all, one of the greatest of all ancient civilisations.

    That is the possibility the JCPOA holds open – not just averting a perilous and debilitating arms race, but ending the long and largely self-imposed exclusion of Iran from the global mainstream that so many millions of Iranians yearn to join.

    Of course, we in the UK, we share with our American friends and with many of our allies – in Europe and across the Middle East – their legitimate concern over the disruptive behaviour of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in countries hundreds of miles from their borders.

    It is simply provocative and dangerous that Iran has supplied tens of thousands of rockets and missiles to Hizbollah in Lebanon – weapons that are even now pointing at Israel – but whose use would bring the most destructive retaliation not upon Iran – the responsible party – but upon the people of Lebanon.

    It is no conceivable benefit to the tormented people of Yemen that Iran should be supplying missiles that Houthi rebels use routinely to strike targets in Saudi Arabia; behaviour which alas can only strengthen the convictions of those in the region who believe they have no choice but to respond to Iran’s actions.

    And frankly it’s astonishing that the Iranians – who rightly complain that the world looked the other way when they suffered so tragically from the chemical weapons deployed by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s – should even now be abetting and concealing the crimes of Bashar al-Asad who has used the same methods against his own people.

    So I think it’s right that we should join with our American friends and allies to counter this kind of behaviour wherever possible.

    But that does not mean for one minute that we should write Iran off, or that we should refuse to engage with Iran or that we should show disrespect to its people.

    On the contrary, we should continue to work to demonstrate to that population in Iran that they will be better off under this deal and the path of re-engagement that it prescribes.

    And that is the model – of toughness but engagement, each reinforcing the other – that we should have at the front of our mind as we try to resolve the tensions in the Korean Peninsula.

    It is right that Rex Tillerson has specifically opened the door to dialogue.

    He has tried to give some sensible reassurances to the regime, to enable them to take up this offer.

    Remember the 4 Noes – that have been offered by the South Korean president and reinforced by the US Secretary of State.

    No seeking regime change in North Korea; No seeking to force the collapse of North Korea’s regime; No seeking to deploy US forces beyond the 38th parallel; No attempt to accelerate the reunification of Korea.

    These are the commitments that we hope will encourage Kim Jong Un to halt his nuclear weapons programme, to come to the negotiating table, and thereby to take the only path that can guarantee the security of the region as a whole. You will often hear it said that in weighing up those options Kim must bear in mind the woeful precedents of those who disarmed.

    Of Libya, where the leader listened to the blandishments of the West and gave up his nuclear weapons programme – only to be overthrown with Western connivance.

    Or of Ukraine, which actually surrendered its nuclear arsenal, only to suffer the first forcible loss of territory in Europe since 1945.

    It is therefore suggested that Kim would be sealing his own fate if he were to comply.

    I reject those analogies.

    What finished Gaddafi was an uprising of his own people, including on the streets of Tripoli.

    Even if he had been able to perfect a nuclear arsenal in time, and even if it is true he had a justified reputation for mercurial and unpredictable behaviour, it seems unlikely that he would have decided to nuke his own capital – including himself.

    As survival strategies go, that would have been eccentric even by his own standards.

    As for Ukraine, the fundamental difference is that no one, not South Korea nor any other neighbour, has any designs on the national territory of North Korea.

    And the crucial question Kim Jong Un surely needs to ask himself is whether his current activities are making Pyongyang any safer for himself and his regime.

    No one, I’m sure no one in this room, certainly no one in the UK or around the world wants any kind of military solution to the problem. No one actively desires that outcome.

    But Kim Jong Un and the world need to understand that when the 45th President of the United States contemplates a regime led by a man who not only threatens to reduce New York to “ashes”, but who stands on the verge of acquiring the power to make good on his threat, I am afraid that the US President – whoever he or she might be – will have an absolute duty to prepare any option to keep safe not only the American people but all those who have sheltered under the American nuclear umbrella.

    And I hope Kim will also consider this: that if his objective is to intimidate the US into wholesale withdrawal from East Asia, then it strikes me that his current course might almost be designed to produce the opposite effect.

    Already President Moon of South Korea – hitherto seen as one of the political leaders most open to engagement with the North – is installing the US-made THAAD missile defences.

    And in Japan and South Korea it is easy to imagine the growth of domestic pressure for those governments to take further steps to protect their own populations from a nuclear North Korea.

    In short Pyongyang faces the same dilemma as Tehran:

    By continuing to develop nuclear capabilities Kim risks provoking a reaction in the region that is at once defensive and competitive, that reduces not increases his security and therefore reduces not increases the survival chances of the regime.

    And therefore I hope that Kim will see that it is no part of Juche – his family doctrine of national self-reliance – nor is it in his interest of national security to end up with an escalation of America’s military presence in East Asia, let alone to run risks that could imperil his regime.

    And until he understands that I am afraid that we have no choice collectively but to step up the pressure on Pyongyang.

    It is one of the most encouraging developments this year that the UN Security Council – with the strong support of the UK – has unanimously passed three resolutions to tighten the economic ligature around the regime.

    When I joined a debate on North Korea in the Security Council earlier this year, I was struck by the unaccustomed absence of discord.

    For the first time the Chinese have agreed to impose strict limits on the export of oil to North Korea, which until now was taboo.

    There has been an unmistakable change in Chinese policy, and that is warmly to be welcomed.

    In his speech to the 19th Party Congress last week, President Xi hailed China’s standing as a world power

    And I would say there is no more urgent problem for China to address – nor any where Beijing has greater influence – than the threat to international security represented by the behaviour of North Korea.

    There is also unprecedented discussion between China and the US on how to handle this crisis, a closeness, by the way, that I believe bodes well for the world; and I should again pay tribute to my colleague Rex Tillerson for his efforts.

    Whatever we may think of the regime and its behaviour, the ruling elite of North Korea is in the end composed of human beings.

    We must find ways of getting through to them, and at the same time not just toughening the sanctions regime but enforcing those already in place; and in this respect again, the Chinese hold the key.

    This is the moment for North Korea’s regime to change course – and if they do the world can show that it is once again capable of the diplomatic imagination that produced the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – arduously negotiated – and that after 12 years of continuous effort produced the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran.

    It will not be easy, but the costs of failure could be catastrophic.

    We cannot dis-invent nuclear weapons or wish them away; and the events on the Korean Peninsula are the clearest possible rejoinder to those who say that we should unilaterally cast aside our nuclear weapons.

    To wield a nuclear deterrent, as this country does, is neither easy nor cheap; indeed it imposes a huge responsibility on this country.

    We are one of the handful specifically recognised by the NPT to possess such dreadful weapons, and we do so not just in the name of our own security but – via NATO – for the protection of dozens of our allies.

    And by holding that stockpile – a minimum stockpile, I should say, which has been reduced by half since its Cold War peak – we play our part in deterring the ambitions of rogue states.

    It is 25 years since the end of the Cold War, and a new generation has grown up with no memory of the threat of a nuclear winter, and little education in the appalling logic of mutually assured destruction.

    Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Their destruction, the full horror of what took place is now literally fading from living memory.

    When people like Alun Chalfont drew up the NPT, those horrors were still fresh in the hearts of the world.

    We must not be so forgetful or so complacent as to require a new lesson in what these weapons can do, or the price of failing to limit their spread.

    The NPT is one of the great diplomatic achievements of the last century. It has stood the test of time.

    In its restraint and its maturity it shows an unexpected wisdom on the part of humanity, and almost evolutionary instinct for the survival of the species.

    It is the job of our generation now to preserve that agreement, and British diplomacy will be at the forefront of the endeavour.

    Thank you all very much for your attention.

  • Theresa May – 2017 Commons Statement on the European Council

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 23 October 2017.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council.

    Long after we have left the European Union, the UK will continue to be a strong and committed partner, standing alongside our neighbours and working together to advance our shared values and interests.

    This Council provided a further opportunity to demonstrate that ongoing commitment, through discussions that included migration, the digital single market, North Korea and Iran.

    And it made important progress in moving towards the new, deep and special partnership with the European Union that we want to see.

    Migration

    First on migration, the UK is playing its full part.

    The Royal Navy has intercepted 172 smuggling boats and saved over 12,000 lives since Operation Sophia began.

    While our National Crime Agency is working with Libyan law enforcement, enhancing their capability to tackle the people smuggling and trafficking networks.

    At the Council we welcomed the reduction in migrant crossings and the renewed momentum behind the Libyan political process.

    But we must also continue to address the root causes driving people across the Sahara and the Mediterranean.

    So the UK is also continuing to invest for the long term in education, jobs and services both in countries of origin and transit.

    Digital single market

    On the digital single market, it is right to keep up the pressure on completing its implementation by the end of 2018.

    This will bring new opportunities to British businesses and consumers, contributing to growth and jobs.

    At this Council, I also argued that the free flow of data is key to unlocking the potential of Europe’s digital trade and we secured conclusions which recognised this.

    As the Government set out in a paper over the summer, such arrangements will be an important part of the future relationship between the UK and the EU.

    North Korea and Iran

    On North Korea, we welcomed the EU sanctions adopted last week and reaffirmed our clear condemnation of North Korea’s aggressive and illegal missile and nuclear tests.

    We urged all states, including China, to play their part in changing the course Pyongyang is taking.

    And on Iran, the Council built on the joint statement made by Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and myself last week, reiterating its firm commitment to the nuclear deal.

    This was the culmination of 13 years of diplomacy and a major step towards ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is not diverted for military purposes. That is vitally important for our shared security.

    Exit from the EU

    Mr Speaker, turning to our negotiations to leave the European Union, I shared the vision I had set out in Florence for a creative and pragmatic approach to a new, deep and special partnership between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

    A partnership based on the fundamental beliefs we share – in democracy and the rule of law, but also in free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer rights, and high regulatory standards.

    Both sides have approached these talks with professionalism and a constructive spirit – and we should recognise what has been achieved to date.

    Citizens’ rights

    On citizens’ rights, both sides share the same objective of safeguarding the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU.

    This has been my first priority from the very beginning of the negotiations – and it remains so.

    The negotiations are complicated and deeply technical but in the end they are about people – and I am determined that we will put people first.

    EU citizens make an extraordinary contribution to our national life, enriching the economic, social and cultural fabric of our country – and we want them to stay.

    I know that EU Member States also value the UK nationals living in their communities and I want them to have their rights protected too.

    We are united on the key principles, and while there are a small number of issues that remain outstanding, we are in touching distance of a deal.

    This agreement will provide certainty about residence, healthcare, pensions and other benefits.

    It will mean that EU citizens who have paid into the UK system – and UK nationals who have paid into the system of an EU27 country – can benefit from what they have put in.

    It will enable families who have built their lives together to stay together.

    And it will provide guarantees that the rights of those UK nationals currently living in the EU, and EU citizens currently living in the UK, will not diverge over time.

    We will also ensure that the implementation of the agreement we reach does not create complicated and bureaucratic hurdles.

    So we are developing a streamlined digital process for those applying for settled status in the UK in the future.

    This will cost no more than a UK passport. People applying will not have to account for every trip they have taken in and out of the UK and they will no longer have to demonstrate Comprehensive Sickness Insurance.

    And there will be a simple process for any EU citizen who holds permanent residence under the old scheme to swap their current status for UK settled status.

    To support this, we are setting up a User Group that will include representatives of EU citizens in the UK as well as digital, technical and legal experts.

    And we will do everything possible to work closely with EU Member States to ensure their processes are equally streamlined for British nationals living in their countries.

    Northern Ireland

    We have also made significant progress on Northern Ireland, where it is absolutely imperative that joint work on the peace process is not affected in any way.

    The Belfast agreement must be at the heart of our approach and we have clearly agreed that the unique circumstances across the whole of the island of Ireland will require specific solutions.

    There will not be any physical infrastructure at the border and we have also developed joint principles to ensure the continuation of the Common Travel Area.

    These principles will fully preserve the rights of UK and Irish nationals to live, work and study across these islands – and protect the associated rights to public services and social security.

    No UK or Irish national will need to apply for settled status anywhere in the Common Travel Area at any stage in order to protect their entitlements.

    And to provide legal certainty, the joint principles we have developed recognise that the Withdrawal Agreement should formally acknowledge that the UK and Ireland will continue to be able to uphold and develop these bi-lateral arrangements.

    Moving forwards

    Mr Speaker, this Council provided an opportunity to assess and reflect on how to make further progress in the negotiations.

    My speech in Florence made two important steps which have added a new impetus.

    First, I gave two firm commitments on the financial settlement: that the UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership and that none of our EU partners should fear they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave.

    As the House would expect, we are going through our potential commitments line by line and that detailed work continues.

    And second, I proposed a time-limited implementation period based on current terms, which is in the interest of both the UK and the EU.

    At this Council the 27 Member States responded by agreeing to start their preparations for moving negotiations onto trade and the future relationship we want to see.

    The Council conclusions call for work to continue with a view to – and I quote – “consolidating the convergence achieved and pursuing negotiations in order to be able to move to the second phase of the negotiations as soon as possible.”

    And President Tusk, in his press conference ,was clear that the EU’s internal work “will take account of proposals” presented in the Florence speech.

    And indeed that this agreement to start preparatory discussions would not be possible without the new momentum given by that speech.

    Conclusion

    So Mr Speaker, I am ambitious and positive about Britain’s future and these negotiations.

    If we are going to take a step forward together it must be on the basis of joint effort and endeavour between the UK and the EU.

    But I believe that by approaching these negotiations in a constructive way – in a spirit of friendship and co-operation – we can and will deliver the best possible outcome that works for all our people.

    As Chancellor Merkel said: “We haven’t reached a final agreement, but it’s going to happen.”

    Mr Speaker, Chancellor Merkel is right.

    We are going to leave the European Union in March 2019, delivering on the democratic will of the British people.

    But while we must and will prepare for every eventuality, I am confident that we will do so in a smooth and orderly way and that we will be able to negotiate a new, deep and special partnership between a sovereign United Kingdom and our friends in the European Union.

    That is my mission.

    That is this Government’s mission.

    And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • Sajid Javid – 2017 Statement on Grenfell Tower

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2017.

    It is now just over four months since the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. Since then, the Government, the local council and the wider public sector have been working hard to ensure that everyone affected by the fire gets the support they need and that all tall residential buildings across the country are safe.

    Since I last updated the House on 5 September, the number of households seeking rehousing has risen to 202. As before, this increase has been caused by members of larger households choosing to be rehoused separately. The local council has now secured more than 200 suitable local permanent properties. Negotiations are under way on others, and by Christmas it expects to have more than 300 available. As of this week, 112 households have accepted an offer of either temporary or permanent accommodation. Of these, 58 have moved in, 44 into temporary accommodation and 14 into permanent accommodation.

    The Government are determined that everyone who needs support gets it regardless of their immigration status. We have previously established a process to grant foreign nationals who were resident in Grenfell Tower or Grenfell Walk 12 months’ leave to remain in the country with full access to the relevant support and assistance. Last week, the Immigration Minister announced a dedicated route to permanent residency for the survivors. This policy will allow them to apply for free for two further periods of two years’ limited leave. After this time, they will be able to apply for permanent residence.

    Meanwhile, our work to ensure the safety of other tall buildings continues. A total of 169 high-rise social housing buildings in England feature some of the aluminium composite material cladding, and our programme of testing has identified 161 that are unlikely to meet current fire safety standards. The particular focus of current efforts is now on supporting remedial work on those 161 buildings. We are also improving our understanding of the situation for the privately owned high-rise residential buildings with ACM cladding, so that all such buildings can be as safe as possible.

    We have made clear to councils and housing associations that we expect them to fund measures that they consider essential to making buildings safe. However, if councils have concerns, they should get in touch with us. We will consider the removal of financial restrictions if they stand in the way of essential work. To date, 32 local councils have expressed concern to us in principle. We have liaised more closely with seven of those, and one of them has now submitted supporting evidence for consideration by my Department.

  • David Morris – 2017 Speech on First World War Memorial Plaques

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Morris, the Conservative MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, in the House of Commons on 20 October 2017.

    A number of years ago, before I was a Member of Parliament, I went to a local car boot sale and looking through all the bric-a-brac and things from days gone by, I came across a bronze plaque. It looked for all the world like a huge old Victorian penny. It had Britannia on the front, being shadowed by a lion, there were two dolphins and, at the bottom, a smaller lion was ripping apart an eagle. The lion with Britannia was the lion of courage, and the other lion was ripping apart the German eagle, while the dolphins signified the dominance of the seas enjoyed by the UK at the time. There was writing around the edge because the plaque was intended to commemorate the life of a fallen soldier. Such a plaque was known—rather crudely, given that it was to commemorate the life of one of our fallen soldiers—as a dead man’s penny. The service people were from the fledging Air Force of the time, from the Navy or those who had fallen on the battlefields.

    I remember looking at the plaque—I did not know what it was; I researched it later—and wondering what had happened to the family of the fallen soldier, why the plaque had ended up there, what was the story behind the plaque and what was the story of the soldier’s life and the family he left behind. It struck me that, more often than not, such plaques reach the market—militaria shops, auction sites—because the family has died. I emphasise strongly from the outset that militaria shops do us a great service by helping to keep alive the spirit of historical campaigns and conflicts that we only read about in the history books.

    I found out later that 1,355,000 of these plaques were given out. They were struck from 450 tons of bronze. They arrived in a box, sometimes with the medals of the soldier, airman or seaman, and every one of them had a certificate signed by King George V. They were given predominantly after the war, although some were given before its end, to the families of the fallen.

    What does this mean in our day and age, 100 years on? We have had other wars, but world war one was the only occasion on which these plaques were struck in honour of the fallen. Each plaque was individually struck, not engraved, with the name of a serviceman, but no mention of their rank. It was struck simply to commemorate the serviceman or woman who gave their life doing their duty in the service of their country. In fact, 1,500 were given to women service personnel. They were given out all across the Commonwealth, to everybody engaged in the conflict. In the great war, we lost 22 Members of Parliament, 20 Lords and in the region of 98 sons of people who worked here or who were Members. This particular debate therefore has meaning not just for the rest of the country, but for Parliament itself.

    Members have probably seen me walking around the Chamber today. I know it is not customary to display a dead man’s penny, but I have one with me. It says on the outside of the plaque, “He died for freedom and honour”. Some plaques say, “She died”, depending on the sex of the service person. As Members can see, the plaque is ​quite large and weighty. The gentleman named on it is Charles Edward Woodward. The hole in the plaque makes me a little emotional, because it means that it would have been hung on the wall, over the mantelpiece in his parent’s home. It is all they had left of him.

    I bought this plaque from a militaria shop not far from here, and the staff were very helpful and honourable in the exchange. With it came this man’s history. It says that it is a great war memorial plaque issued in memory of Charles Edward Woodward, who served as Private No. 1,200 of the 1/5th Battalion the Lincolnshire Regiment, Territorial Force, and was killed in action at Ypres on 30 September 1915. Having no known grave, he is commemorated by name on the Ypres Menin Gate memorial. He was aged only 20. He was younger than my son.

    Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) My hon. Friend has mentioned the Lincolnshire Regiment and I suspect that he is about to explain the special part that this brave young man from my constituency played.

    David Morris I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention, because I was welling up. He was 20 at the time of his death and was the son of Parker and Mary Jane Woodward of Rose Cottage, Halton Fenside, Spilsby, Lincolnshire. This plaque is all that is left of him—he was a person.

    I want to raise awareness. One day I hope that we will be able to follow Lord Ashcroft’s commendable example by collecting the plaques for these fallen people and displaying them in a room—although it will be difficult to find one big enough to house more than 1.3 million of them—in order to commemorate those who died preserving the integrity of democracy and the freedom of our country.

    Sadly, over the years, some of these plaques have been scrapped, because nobody knows what they are, although I do not think that many of them are finding their way to scrapyards. The previous Member for Croydon South promoted a private Member’s Bill that resulted in legislation preventing war memorials from being attacked and melted down, and I would like these plaques to be covered by its provisions, because they mean something.

    Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) My hon. Friend is making a very moving and passionate speech. He speaks of the Members we lost in this place in the great war. We see their shields in the Chamber every day. I would like to share a very positive initiative in one of the villages in my constituency, Crawley Down. A group of volunteers, led by Roger Webb and Philip Coote, is putting up memorial plaques on each of the homes of the servicemen who died in that awful conflict 100 years ago. It is wonderful to see that happening and I am hugely honoured to have been present when students from Crawley Down School have unveiled those memorials, keeping alive the memory of that generation of which my hon. Friend is speaking so eloquently.

    David Morris I thank my hon. Friend for that nice story. It is right that we should commemorate. This is only part of the story, but it is fitting for those homes to bear those plaques.

    What is the Government’s role? The Government would like to do everything they possibly can, but it is really up to the community to recognise that the plaques ​mean something. I would love to see a national memorial to the fallen, or for the plaques to go to local regiments, local museums or even the Military Heritage Society. Personally, I would like for Charles Edward Woodward’s plaque to be displayed here in the House of Commons. I understand, however, that because he does not have any ties with the Commons, that cannot be the case—maybe it could be displayed in the green case downstairs for a short time. I would therefore like to round off this emotive speech by letting him go home and handing the plaque to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins).

  • Theresa May – 2017 Press Statement on European Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 20 October 2017.

    The United Kingdom will take its seat at the European Council table for another year and a half, and we have important work to achieve together in this time.

    But cooperation with our European friends will not stop in March 2019.

    The UK will stand alongside the EU, as a strong and committed partner, working to promote our shared interests and values.

    Nowhere is this more important than in our approach to the global challenges we face.

    Whether security and defence, migration or foreign policy issues – we face common opportunities and risks, and we must continue to address them together.

    As I’ve said before, the UK is unconditionally committed to the security and defence of Europe. We share the vision of a strong, secure and successful EU, with global reach and influence. An EU capable of countering shared threats to our continent, working alongside a confident, outward-looking UK.

    Yesterday we discussed a range of subjects including migration, the digital economy and some of the most pressing foreign policy issues, such as North Korea and Iran.

    We stand united in our clear condemnation of North Korea’s aggressive and illegal missile and nuclear tests and urge all states, including China, to play their part in changing the course Pyongyang is taking.

    On Iran, we have reiterated our firm commitment to the nuclear deal, which we believe is vitally important for our shared security.

    Exit from the EU

    And last night at dinner, I spoke to my fellow leaders about my vision for a new, deep and special partnership between the UK and the European Union after Brexit.

    A partnership based on the same set of fundamental beliefs – in not just democracy and rule of law, but also free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer rights, and high regulatory standards.

    I am ambitious and positive for Britain’s future and for these negotiations. But I know we still have some way to go.

    Both sides have approached these talks with professionalism and a constructive spirit. We should recognise what has been achieved to date.

    The UK and the EU share the same objective of safeguarding the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU.

    EU citizens have made a huge contribution to our country and let me be clear that – whatever happens – we want them and their families to stay.

    While there are a small number of issues that remain outstanding on citizens’ rights, I am confident that we are in touching distance of a deal.

    On Northern Ireland, we have agreed that the Belfast agreement must be at the heart of our approach and that Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances demand specific solutions. It is vital that joint work on the peace process is not affected in any way – it is too important for that.

    Both sides agree that there cannot be any physical infrastructure at the border and that the Common travel area must continue.

    We have both committed to delivering a flexible and imaginative approach on this vital issue.

    This Council is an important moment. It is a point at which to assess and reflect on how to make further progress.

    My speech in Florence made two important steps, which have added a new impetus to the negotiations. I gave a firm commitment on the financial settlement and I proposed a time-limited implementation period based on current terms, which is in the interest of both the UK and the EU.

    Both sides agree that subsequent rounds have been conducted in a new spirit. My fellow leaders have been discussing that this morning and I believe that it is in the interests of the UK that the EU 27 continues to take a united approach.

    But if we are going to take a step forward together it must be on the basis of joint effort and endeavour.

    We must work together to get to an outcome that we can stand behind and that works for all our people.

  • Paul Maynard – 2017 Speech on Rail Supply Chain

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paul Maynard, the Rail Minister, at the Railway Industry Association conference on 20 October 2017.

    Introduction

    Thank you, David Begg

    It is a pleasure to speak this morning. And it is a particular pleasure to see our country’s great rail supply chain so well represented.

    A time of challenge and opportunity

    Now, if I was to try and summarise what the government’s rail policies mean for the rail supply chain I would say that this is a time of opportunity.

    But also a time of challenge.

    It is a time of opportunity because of the way the numbers of those using our railways have grown.

    In almost 25 years since privatisation, customer numbers have more than doubled.

    While rail freight has grown by 75%.

    More people are using our railways than in any year since the 1920s.

    And we’re responding to that record demand with record investment.

    Last week we announced the next round of rail funding.

    Between 2019 and 2024, we’ll spend around £48 billion to improve and maintain the network.

    That maintenance is important.

    We’ve increased the focus on renewals, to provide passengers with better reliability and punctuality

    And this funding comes on top of record rail funding over the past 5 years as the government delivered the biggest rail modernisation programme for over a century.

    But it’s not just the money we’re delivering.

    Last week we announced that there will also be a new funding process for major upgrades and enhancements which will provide more rigour in investment decisions to make sure public spending best meets the needs of passengers and freight.

    This is recognition of the vital importance of working closely with the industry and the rail supply chain.

    All this investment is an opportunity to restore Britain’s place in the world as a leading rail-building nation.

    And an opportunity to deliver a railway fit for the future.

    Time of challenge

    But as well as being a time of opportunity, we must also recognise that this is a time of challenge, too.

    And that’s because we’re attempting work of a complexity and scale unseen in a century.

    And as a result, our railway is changing.

    We are building new stations and refurbishing old ones.

    We’re getting Crossrail ready to open.

    And we are bringing thousands of new train carriages into service.

    And on top of all that, we’ve begun the groundwork for building HS2.

    A year ago, the HS2 Bill for Phase One – the stretch from Birmingham to London – was a concept that had yet to be approved by parliament.

    The route for much of the second phase of HS2 – from Crewe to Manchester and Birmingham to Leeds – had yet to be announced.

    The procurement for the main engineering works, the rolling stock, and the franchise for operating the railway – all had yet to be triggered.

    A year ago, HS2 was still in planning.

    A distinct, stand-alone project.

    But things have moved on.

    Those plans are now being implemented.

    On sites up and down the route, the enabling works are underway.

    We have awarded the engineering contracts.

    We’ve launched the competition to design, build and maintain HS2’s trains.

    We’ve begun the utility diversions, land clearance and environmental surveys.

    We have announced our route for sections from Crewe to Manchester and Birmingham to Leeds.

    By the end of this year, we’ll deposit the bill for the stretch of track beyond Birmingham and on to Crewe.

    And I have added the HS2 project to my responsibility for the rail industry.

    So we’re seeing the start of the integration of HS2 into the existing network.

    And that’s an important development for the whole industry.

    It’s time to start thinking of HS2 not as a railway apart.

    Or as some kind of better, faster alternative to the classic rail network.

    But rather as an expansion and enhancement of the existing network.

    The greatest for a hundred years.

    And that, naturally, has implications.

    HS2 will inject greater competition into this industry.

    It will give greater options for how we use the existing railway, providing more space for freight and local stopping trains.

    And it will enhance the image of rail in this country.

    None of this progress could have been achieved without our rail supply chain – many of whom are here this morning.

    And it’s because of this supply chain that we have the confidence to press ahead with plans such as HS2.

    But you will know, as I do, that we can and must make the rail supply chain stronger still.

    In many cases, we’re making good progress on improving capability.

    Our Infrastructure skills strategy, for example, sets out a plan to get an extra 30,000 apprentices working in transport to help deliver £60 billion of transport investment up to 2020.

    But the best, most effective and most far-reaching changes are always those led by the industry itself.

    And that is why I was so glad to see the Rail Supply Group publish its sector strategy last year.

    The strategy means that, for the first time, the rail supply chain has a common plan for how it will grow in numbers, productivity and expertise.

    A plan for how, by 2025, the industry will:

    – attract new talent

    – develop new technology

    – harness the energy, drive and innovation of the sector’s SMEs

    – become a global leader in high speed rail

    – more than double exports

    It’s a strategy with some great ideas that are now being implemented.

    For example, the rail industry, in partnership with a number of universities, has advanced plans for a network of innovation centres to speed up the introduction of new ideas and technologies into rail.

    I know many of you contributed to the strategy, and are now working hard on putting it into action.

    I would urge you not to lose the impetus but to continue to work hard.

    The government will help wherever we can.

    For instance, later this month we will be launching the rail ‘first of a kind programme’ with Innovate UK. This will help you to break down the barriers to commercialising high-value innovations that are close to market and allow passengers to experience today how your innovations will meet their needs tomorrow.

    We will help to ensure that the radical rail innovations emerging from your investments play their vital role by improving their take up.

    Earlier this year, we also launched what we’re calling sector seals, as part of government’s industrial strategy.

    I know that RIA has been, and will continue to be, involved in the Rail Sector Deal – along with the Rail Supply Group and the Rail Delivery Group.

    And I understand that it’s due to be submitted to the government on Monday.

    It should shape the future relationship between the government and the rail industry, putting the supply chain squarely at the front of this relationship, and should help the industry digitalise, and get the most value out of its data.

    I would very much like to see the rail sector deal succeed, and I hope it will be included in the second wave of published deals in spring 2018.

    2018 the Year of Engineering

    Yet there’s another great opportunity coming in the future.

    2018 is going to be a special year for engineering.

    It’ll be the year that Crossrail opens.

    The construction of HS2 will be well underway.

    And Thameslink will be complete.

    Rail engineering will have a prominence it hasn’t had for a long time.

    So we want to capitalise on it, and to make 2018 the Year of Engineering.

    It’ll be a chance to celebrate everything you do for our country.

    It’ll be a chance to show the world some of the brilliant railway projects delivered in the UK.

    And, even more importantly, it will be a chance to inspire a new generation of rail engineers.

    So we in the government would like to work with you over the next year to hear your ideas, to join forces, to make 2018 a landmark year for rail engineering.

    Conclusion

    And so in conclusion, I’d like to thank you for your commitment to our railways.

    And thank you for doing so much to keep Britain moving.

    Thank you.

  • Nick Hurd – 2017 Statement on Antique Firearms Consultation

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nick Hurd, the Minister for Policing, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2017.

    I have today launched a Government consultation on proposals for implementing legislation to define antique firearms.

    Antique firearms are exempt from most of the controls placed on firearms if they are held as a “curiosity or ornament”. There has previously been no statutory definition of an “antique firearm”— only non-statutory guidance. This has created legal uncertainty which has been exploited by criminals to obtain old but functioning firearms for use in crime. Since 2008, there have been four fatalities linked to antique firearms. The number of antique firearms recovered in criminal circumstances has increased from four in 2007 to 91 in 2016.

    The Government have included in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 provisions to define an “antique firearm” in regulations. This consultation will inform the content of those regulations and provide a statutory definition which will ensure that old firearms that still pose a danger to the public are no longer exempt from control. ​It will also provide legal clarity on the definition of an antique firearm to help law enforcement tackle criminal use.

    The consultation seeks views on the obsolete cartridges and propulsion systems used by old firearms that can be considered antique; a cut-off date of manufacture, after which a firearm will not be considered antique; and arrangements for the ongoing review of the regulations.

    The Government welcome responses to this consultation from everyone involved with antique firearms, including the police, dealers, museums and individual collectors. We will take account of all views before deciding on the final shape of the regulations. The consultation will run for eight weeks. A copy of the consultation paper will be placed in the Library of the House and will be available on the Government’s website at www.gov.uk.

  • Nick Gibb – 2017 Speech on Knowledge-Based Education

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for School Standards and Minister for Equalities, on 19 October 2017.

    It has been a pleasure to work with the Association of Schools and College Leaders (ASCL) over the years as Minister of State for Education. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Malcolm Trobe for all of the work he did as interim General Secretary, and Deputy General Secretary before that. It has been a pleasure to work with him and I look forward to working with Geoff Barton in the years ahead.

    The way the curriculum is discussed in this country has changed dramatically over the last 10 years. In 2007, the previous government launched a national curriculum that had been stripped of knowledge content in favour of skills.

    ‘Could do Better’ – a review of the then National Curriculum carried out by Tim Oates in 2010 – found that the National Curriculum for England had been subjected to a protracted process of revision, with the 2007 reforms failing to adequately draw from emerging analysis of high-performing systems around the globe.

    A change of government in 2010 prevented the Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum recommendations being brought in. This review argued that the primary national curriculum should place less emphasis on subject areas and a greater emphasis on so-called areas of learning and development:

    – personal, social and emotional development

    – communication, language and literacy

    – problem solving, reasoning and numeracy

    – knowledge and understanding of the world

    – physical development

    – creative development

    This review of the primary curriculum drew on the example of Finland – still the doyenne of the international education circuit – which had moved away from emphasising knowledge just at the time it reached the summit of the international education league tables. The review described the Finnish position as follows:

    Core content is described as activities and skills, rather than detailed subject-based content. This places the onus on the municipality, and more importantly on the school, to develop their curriculum to meet learners’ needs as well as national expectations.

    The Finnish curriculum also had seven cross-curricula themes:

    – growth as a person

    – cultural identity and internationalism

    – media, skills and communication

    – participatory citizenship and entrepreneurship

    – responsibility for the environment, well-being and a sustainable future
    safety and traffic

    – technology and the individual

    The review drew on numerous other international examples of countries that have moved away from a traditional focus on knowledge and towards generic, cross-cutting skills. The romantic notion that teachers need not focus on knowledge and instead turn their attention to developing creativity or communication skills has gripped many countries around the world.

    But as Gabriel Sahlgren argued in Real Finnish Lessons, Finland’s success – often a catalyst for skills-focused education reforms in other countries – is probably not explained by their more recent curriculum changes. These changes have been wrongly credited with education success, which is more likely to be due to Finland’s traditional educational culture until that point at about the turn of the millennium when it changed.

    Instead, Sahlgren argues persuasively that Finland’s recent fall in performance – albeit from a very substantial height – is due to a movement away from this culture. In particular, the teacher-centred educational culture is being replaced by more pupil-led ways of working.

    Thanks to the result of the 2010 general election, the English education system did not undergo further skills-focused reforms. Thanks to the work of Tim Oates and others, the new National Curriculum put knowledge back at the centre of schooling.

    And knowledge is – rightly – back at the heart of discussions about the curriculum. ‘The Question of Knowledge’ is an important pamphlet, making the case for a knowledge-rich curriculum with essays written by leading experts and headteachers. It is a significant contribution to our national education conversation.

    In her foreword, Leora Cruddas describes the importance of E. D. Hirsch – someone who has deeply influenced my thinking on education:

    The influence of E. D. Hirsch on educational thinking has been profound. At its heart is the idea that returning to a traditional, academic curriculum built on shared knowledge is the best way to achieve social justice in society. His work has also encouraged schools to focus on the concept of building cultural capital as a way to close the attainment gap.

    A knowledge-based curriculum is too often tarred by opponents as entrenching social divisions, whereas a well taught knowledge-rich education is a driver of true meritocracy – as the headteachers who contributed to this pamphlet well know.

    Dame Rachel De Souza – of the Parent and Teachers for Excellence (PTE) and the Inspiration Trust – understands the importance of knowledge as well as anyone:

    Knowing those things – and not just recalling the bald facts but deeply understanding them – gives you an upper hand. It gives you the confidence to discuss a wide range of live topics with those around you, it gives you social status. It makes you part of the club that runs the world, and the inside track to change it.

    And the pendulum swing towards knowledge and away from skills that has taken place over the past few years has been profound.

    Academies and free schools have control over the curriculum they teach, and with the National Curriculum setting the standard high, innovative schools led by exceptional head teachers have developed world-class curricula. But shifting a school’s focus towards a knowledge-based curriculum is not a short-term commitment, as Stuart Lock – the newly appointed headteacher of Bedford Free School – explains:

    I think there is a real danger that developing a knowledge-based curriculum might be seen as “done” after a year or two. In reality, we are just over one year into a long-term job. There is no moving on to another initiative; we are playing the long game. This is what is important in schools, and hence is our continued focus for development over the next few years. Everything is subservient to curricular questions. So pedagogy, assessment, tracking and qualifications must lead on from us developing further our understanding of what makes a pupil knowledgeable, and ensuring we get as close to that understanding as possible.

    This view is shared by Luke Sparkes and Jenny Thompson of Dixons Trinity Academy, which achieved outstanding results this year. Their excellent free school serves a disadvantaged community in Bradford, and is one of a number of high performing free schools and academies that demonstrate that a stretching, knowledge-rich curriculum, a sensible approach to behaviour and evidence-informed teaching result in exceptional results for all pupils.

    High performing free schools and academies are providing empirical evidence of what it is possible to achieve when teachers and headteachers – given freedom to innovate with their curriculum – pursue an evidence-based approach. The exceptional results achieved by schools such as King Solomon Academy, Mossbourne Community Academy and Harris Academy Battersea demonstrate that disadvantage need be no barrier to achieving academic excellence.

    But the excuse-making has shifted. Increasingly, there is a chorus of nay-sayers who claim that only schools in London or the south east can achieve top results. Dixons Trinity Academy – along with the likes of the Tauheedul Education Trust – shows conclusively that geography need be no barrier to academic achievement.

    According to Luke Sparkes and Jenny Thompson, the secret to success isn’t the socio-economic make up of your cohort or the location of your school. For them:

    A knowledge-based curriculum is about harnessing the power of cognitive science, identifying each marginal gain and acting upon it; having the humility to keep refining schemes of work, long term plans and generating better assessments.

    Unlike the easy-sounding promise of generic skills, there is no doubt that developing a knowledge-rich curriculum is hard. But, unlike a skills-based curriculum, the rewards are worth it.

    The West London Free School – run by Hywel Jones – is determined to provide a classical liberal education for all of its pupils. Too often, when considering what comprises a knowledge-rich curriculum, the arts are not given the prominence they deserve.

    In tired arguments against the English Baccalaureate, opponents of the policy sometimes characterise proponents of a knowledge-rich curriculum as opposing the development of human creativity and appreciation of the arts. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Analysis published earlier this year by the Department for Education showed that there is little correlation between the change in EBacc entry and the change in arts uptake in state-funded mainstream schools. The small correlation that does exist suggests that schools where EBacc entry has increased tend to have also seen an increase in their arts uptake.

    In an earlier NSN report showing the same trends, the Culture Minister Matt Hancock and I wrote that there should be no battle between the arts and other subjects, but instead a battle for stronger, better, well-rounded education.

    I am clear that the arts are a vital component of every pupil’s education. Arts and culture are part of the fabric of our society and the government firmly believes that every child should be taught a high-quality arts curriculum.

    At Hywel’s school, music has pride of place in the curriculum – a school in which the vast majority of pupils are entered for the EBacc suite of core academic subjects. That is because music – along with other important arts subjects – has an important role to play in ensuring that pupils leave school with the cultural literacy they will need. And cultural literacy is a vital goal of a knowledge-rich curriculum, as Hywel explains in his essay:

    We want children to leave our school with the confidence that comes from possessing a store of essential knowledge and the skills to use it. We believe that independence of mind, not compliance with socio-economic expectations, is the goal of a good education. We believe the main focus of our curriculum should be on that common body of knowledge that, until recently, all schools were expected to teach. This is the background knowledge taken for granted by writers who address the intellectually engaged layman – the shared frames of reference for public discourse in modern liberal democracies. Sometimes referred to as “intellectual capital”, at other times as “cultural literacy”, this storehouse of general knowledge will enable all our pupils to grow to their full stature. Passing on this knowledge, as well as the ability to use it wisely, is what we mean by a classical liberal education.

    The implementation of a core-academic curriculum currently occupies less bandwidth in our national conversation, but it is no less important. And the deep subject knowledge of teachers is vital to the successful delivery of the curriculum, as Ian Baukham made clear in his excellence review of modern foreign language pedagogy for the Teaching Schools Council.

    In his essay for ‘The Question of Knowledge’ he expertly dissects the key relationship between a teacher’s subject and curriculum knowledge, and their appropriate choice of pedagogy. He writes:

    The core knowledge pertaining to a foreign language when learnt by a novice consists of vocabulary (words, the lexis), grammar (the rules, syntax, morphology) and pronunciation and its link to the written form (phonics, phoneme-grapheme correspondences). It is essential that language teachers understand this and that their curriculum planning must sequence the teaching of this knowledge and its practice to automaticity in structured but decreasingly scaffolded contexts.

    He also adds an excellent critique of the dominant pedagogical approaches that grip far too many modern foreign language classrooms in our country:

    The modern languages equivalent of ‘discovery learning’ or ‘child centred’ approaches, which we now understand to be not only time inefficient but also unfairly to disadvantage those pupils with least educational capital, is a ‘natural acquisition’ approach to language learning. A ‘natural acquisition’ approach emphasises pupil exposure to the language, exaggerates the role of ‘authentic resources’ at the expense of properly constructed practice or selected material, and tends to favour pupils spotting grammatical patterns for themselves rather than being explicitly taught them. It tends to emphasise the ‘skills’ of linguistic communication, listening, reading, speaking and writing, over the ‘knowledge’ which is a prerequisite for these skills (grammar, vocabulary and phonics), and it often turns the skills into the content leading to an ill-conceived curriculum. Moreover, it tends to plan courses around thematic topics (so holidays, the environment and so on) and in so doing to de-emphasise grammatical progression towards a coherent whole picture, as in such a schema grammar is secondary to the ‘topic’ so is introduced in small disconnected chunks as pertaining to the thematic topic.

    Again, this critique returns to the core purpose of the movement for a core academic curriculum for all, embodied by this pamphlet. The driving motive behind the reforms the government has embarked upon since 2010 is shared by this teacher-led movement; the desire for every child in this country to receive a world-class education that equips them with the knowledge they need, taught to them by expert teachers, using evidence-based approaches to teaching.

    It is a simple aim, but realising this ambition requires and will require great effort and our continued joint endeavour. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who is here and everyone who contributes each and every day to this movement. Together, we are changing this country’s education system for the better.

  • Sajid Javid – 2017 Speech on the Regulation of the Managing Agent Market

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the Association of Residential Managing Agents (ARMA) conference on 18 October 2017.

    Thank you, Nigel, and good morning everyone.

    It’s a real pleasure to be here today.

    And I’m delighted to have been asked to open this conference in a year when housing issues have rarely been far from the front pages.

    There has been plenty of good news.

    Back in February our white paper set out our ambitious plans to fix this country’s broken housing market.

    The Prime Minister has announced billions of pounds of funding for new affordable homes, including homes for rent.

    And, month after month, we see official, independent figures showing that house-building is bouncing back from the record-breaking recession.

    While there’s a lot still to do, we’re clearly heading in the right direction.

    But of course, that’s only half the story.

    Because looming over the whole sector is the tragedy of Grenfell Tower.

    80 people lost their lives.

    Many more lost their homes.

    It is a disaster without parallel in recent British history.

    A disaster we are determined to get to the bottom of, through the public and police inquiries.

    And it is a disaster that thrust the management of residential buildings firmly into the spotlight.

    Since the fire, a lot has been written and said about the role of property managers like yourselves.

    There’s been a lot of criticism – some of it fair, much of it not.

    And whatever failings are identified by the investigations and inquiries – and, make no mistake, where things have gone wrong we must and will learn from them – I know that most residential managing agents are not solely focused on profit.

    I know you’re not the Rachman-esque ogres that some on the internet claim.

    I look around this room today and I see the good guys.

    Responsible people who are working hard to keep tenants safe, to keep buildings safe.

    Who wouldn’t dream of cutting corners or ripping people off.

    You’re members of ARMA because you subscribe to their code of conduct.

    You’re here today because you want to be better, because you want to learn from each other and understand the latest best practice.

    And in an age when the private rented sector and the number of leasehold flats has grown enormously we need more people like you.

    So before I go any further I want to say a big thank you to Nigel, and to everyone here today, for all the good work that you do.

    Thank you.

    In an ideal world I’d finish there and join you all in the bar!

    Sadly, though, you can’t have good guys without bad guys.

    And, there’s no avoiding the fact that too many people in your industry are simply not good enough.

    The private rented sector is growing, as are the number of leasehold blocks.

    As we build the houses this country needs, we’re also seeing many new housing estates with shared public spaces that need taking care of.

    That has led to a growth in the demand for property management services.

    And as the sector has grown so has the file of horror stories.

    Some rogue agents over-charge for their services, adding a huge personal take for themselves or passing contracts to friends and subsidiaries.

    I heard of one situation where an agent had charged a commission of more than 30% when arranging an insurance policy, 3 times the recommended limit.

    In another case, leaseholders were charged 10 times the market rate to have a new fire escape fitted – with the £30,000 contract being handed to the freeholder’s brother.

    One landlord was billed £500 by his agent for repairing a shower door.

    Others boost their income by cutting costs, charging for a 5-star service while providing a budget version.

    Repairs are skipped, jobs are botched, as little as possible is done.

    There’s nothing wrong with efficiency savings, but cutting corners is simply unacceptable – especially when it puts lives at risk.

    I’ve seen reports of broken windows being repaired with cardboard and sticky tape.

    Of damp and mold simply being painted over.

    Of safety-critical systems being neglected.

    Then there are the agents who “can’t do enough” for their tenants.

    In fact they deliberately do too much, over-managing the property in order to rack up as many charges as possible and take the largest possible commission.

    With up to a fifth of managing agents getting paid based on a fixed percentage of the fees they charge tenants, it’s not surprising that some choose this option.

    The impact on the public is enormous.

    Some industry experts claim that, every year, British households are overcharged by as much as £1.4 billion.

    That means that, since I started talking to you this morning, rogue agents have pocketed around £15,000 in unjustified service charges.

    By the time I leave the stage, that figure will have reached nearly £40,000.

    The figures are so large because property management is a massive industry.

    Around £3.5 billion of service charges are collected each year.

    Yet despite its size and importance, it is almost completely unregulated.

    Literally anyone can put on a suit, order some business cards, and call themselves a managing agent.

    You don’t have to any qualifications or experience, or a criminal records check.

    You don’t even have to know what a managing agent does.

    That will come as a huge shock to many outside this room.

    People assume they’re paying their service charges to a skilled, experienced professional.

    In fact, they could be handing their hard-earned cash to the sort of self-regarding spiv who doesn’t even make it past the first challenge on The Apprentice.

    In a multi-billion pound industry that’s crucial to the safety and wellbeing of millions of people, that is simply not acceptable.

    Nor is it the only problem.

    If people decide they’re being over-charged or under-served, it can be almost impossible for them to do anything about it.

    And that’s because the system is stacked against them and in favour of rogue agents.

    It actively disempowers tenants, leaseholders and even some freeholders, stripping them of many rights and making it extremely difficult to enforce those they do have.

    Right to Manage is a great idea.

    It can and does work well.

    But the process behind it is far too complicated and too easy for unscrupulous landlords to abuse.

    In one recent case, claiming their right to manage took a group of pensioners 3 attempts, 6 years, and a trip to the Court of Appeal.

    Leaseholders risk losing their homes if they fall behind on paying even a tiny amount of service charges.

    Freeholders on new-build estates increasingly have to pay service charges for the upkeep of common areas.

    But they have absolutely no say over who provides services and at what cost, and no way of taking over management themselves.

    This is supposed to be the age of the empowered consumer, of unprecedented choice.

    If you don’t like your gas supplier, your phone company, your bank, then you can quickly and easily switch to another provider.

    Parents have a say in where their children go to school, patients have a choice about which hospital they get treated at.

    But in the world of property management, we’re still living in the past.

    In an age when ordinary working people are expected to put up and shut up.

    The result is a market in which the people who pay for and receive services have absolutely no say over who provides them.

    A market that simply does not work for the people it is supposed to serve.

    That can’t be allowed to continue.

    And I won’t allow it to continue.

    When our housing white paper was published, most of the attention and the headlines covered the vital task of building more homes.

    But it also talked about the need for urgent action to help people already on the property ladder or living in rented accommodation.

    I’ve already announced plans to regulate letting agents, including banning fees for tenants.

    I’ve also made clear that I want to see an end to unjustified use of leasehold in new-build houses.

    And today, I’m setting out plans for fixing the problems in property management.

    I’m publishing a call for evidence, a document that talks about the challenges facing the sector, suggests some possible solutions, and asks for the views of the people who know the market best, whether that’s people who work in it or the people who pay the service charges.

    Should leasehold tenants have a greater say over appointment of managing agents?

    How can we increase transparency in the system and give the people who pay service charges more access to accounts and decisions?

    What’s the best way to ensure fairness and openness around relations between freeholders and agents, and between agents and their subcontractors?

    How can we make it easier to challenge services charges or to change managing agent?

    And what about the current model of voluntary self-regulation?

    ARMA-Q has done a lot to raise standards, but has the system had its day?

    Many say we need an entirely independent regulator to oversee property management – is that the best way forward?

    This paper, which you’ll be able to read and respond to on our website, is the first step in creating a property management system that works for everybody.

    And that includes the property managers themselves.

    I say that because I’m a businessman at heart.

    I don’t like unnecessary red tape.

    I hate to see good companies and forward-thinking entrepreneurs struggling under the weight of burdensome regulation.

    I’m proud to be part of a government that has removed and continues to remove all manner of pointless, petty restrictions.

    But I also know that, sometimes, a completely unregulated market can turn into a kind of free-for-all wild west.

    And, as everyone knows, one thing the wild west doesn’t lack is cowboys.

    I’ve already talked about cowboy property managers are bad news for consumers.

    But, as ARMA has long recognised, they’re also bad news for hardworking, honest members of the profession like you.

    That’s because the current system effectively penalises the good guys.

    The ARMA members.

    The agents who sign up to standards, invest in their staff and provide the quality service that people deserve.

    You’re the responsible ones, but you’re not competing on a level playing field.

    You invest in training, the cowboys make it up as they go along.

    You put time and money into maintaining standards, some of your competitors cut corners in order to line their pockets.

    Your priority is delivering a quality service, theirs is making a quick buck.

    You can’t blame amateur or accidental landlords for picking the cheapest option when appointing an agent.

    Many don’t know any better.

    But a race to the bottom will always be won by agents who don’t care about standards and safety.

    That’s not fair on the people paying for services, and it’s not fair on you.

    It can also do untold damage to the sector’s reputation, making it easier for populist politicians to tar you all with the same brush.

    Appropriate regulation, properly designed, will force rogue agents to either raise their game or quit the business.

    That’s good news for tenants and it’s good news for responsible, professional agents like yourselves.

    It’s popular, in some corners of politics, to point the finger at everyone involved in the housing market.

    To say that you’re all just in it for yourselves, “Sheriff Fatman” capitalists taking advantage of desperate people and so on.

    I don’t believe that for a minute.

    The private rented sector and justified use of leasehold deliver millions of homes for millions of hardworking people.

    And the people in this room today do a vital job of servicing and maintaining those homes and protecting the people who live in them.

    Thank you for that.

    As we build more homes we’re going to need more people like you to help take care of them.

    That’s why it has never been more important for all of us – government and industry – to work together to celebrate what works in your sector and to fix what doesn’t.

    I want you to join me as this government cleans up the property management industry, evicts the cowboys who harm consumers and give you a bad name, and delivers better value and better services for tenants, for leaseholders and for hardworking people right across the country.

    Thank you.