UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2019

  • Amanda Spielman – 2019 Speech at Wonder Years Curriculum Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector at Ofsted, at the Wonder Years Curriculum Conference on 26 January 2019.

    It’s a real pleasure to be here today at the delightfully titled ‘Wonder Years’ conference. I’m also pleased to be here and able to talk to you all so soon after we’ve published the draft new Education Inspection Framework.

    Some of you might have taken a look at our proposals – the download stats tell me quite a lot of you probably have – and you may already have fired off your thoughts. If not, you’ve still got another 10 weeks to do it.

    And I said when I launched them, this is a genuine listening exercise. I want your collective wisdom and expertise to help us make what I think are already a strong set of proposals even better.

    And for me, the new framework really is about making sure that children’s time in education are their wonder years. The time when they get to grips with the power and flexibility of the English language and the fundamental mathematical concepts, when they learn about the scientific principles that shape the world around them and the universe, and the events that have forged history.

    It should also be the time that children discover the possibilities of foreign languages, develop an appreciation of music and the arts, as well as the rudiments of some principles and practice of design and technology. Those opportunities should be a basic expectation for all children during their school and college years. And that, more than anything else, is why we’ve designed a framework that rewards those who deliver them.

    Put another way, a high-quality education, built around a rich curriculum, is a matter of social justice. We know that those who are born in more advantaged circumstances get a major head start in life. All of you know the much-cited findings about language disadvantage for children from poorer families. Time in nursery and primary school is the best opportunity to tip the playing field back towards the level. That is why we have stressed, in the draft schools handbook, the importance of reading to young children frequently, and of introducing new vocabulary in contexts that stimulate their understanding and thinking.

    But the role of education in delivering social justice doesn’t stop at the beginning of children’s education. We know from our curriculum research that it is disadvantaged pupils who are disproportionately affected by the narrowing of key stage 2 and the shortening of key stage 3, or who in various ways become less likely to take more academic subjects in key stage 4.

    And though this is on the face of it plainly wrong, I understand why it happens. If you’re a school in a challenging area, and you feel that outcomes data is the sole proxy for measuring the quality of what you do, your job inevitably becomes oriented towards finding the best way to secure those grades and in turn those performance tables points. Especially when you face the double whammy of an intake that starts some way behind, and the difficulty of recruiting teachers to some of our most deprived towns.

    But the consequence of this narrowing is that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds do lose out on building that body of knowledge that should be every child’s entitlement. For that reason, if we really want to reduce economic and social inequality, the place to start is what is taught in the classroom.

    That isn’t a personal prejudice of mine, but has been well demonstrated. For example, I’ve mentioned before Cristina Iannelli’s finding – that most of the advantage associated with attending a selective school is accounted for by the curriculum studied there, and in particular the greater likelihood of taking the core academic subjects. And this doesn’t just apply to economic disadvantage either.

    Serious attention to curriculum is just as important for the children with special needs and disabilities. One of the occasional frustrations I have when it comes to children with special needs, is that we sometimes seem to forget that as well as having particular needs, they are still children. A child with severe or complex needs may well take longer to acquire and build that knowledge than other children.

    But that doesn’t mean we should assume it is irrelevant for them, or limit our efforts to help them achieve it. For children with SEND, the decisions that leaders make about the curriculum make a huge difference. They can’t afford for leaders to get it wrong. Even more than other children, they haven’t got the time for leaders to get it wrong.

    Quality of education

    Many of you will have seen that our draft handbooks talk about the importance of developing cultural capital. I know this can be a contested phrase.

    But to spell out what that looks like in practice for Ofsted, it means our inspectors will consider how schools are equipping pupils with the essential knowledge they need to be educated citizens: how they are introduced to the best that has been thought and said, and how they are helped to a real appreciation of human creativity and achievement.

    At the same time, I know that given PTE’s strong focus on standards, some of you have worried that removing the outcomes judgement might allow schools to take their foot off the pedal when it comes to attainment. But nothing could be further from the truth. Outcomes have not become irrelevant or unimportant to Ofsted. Try telling any teenager that their GCSEs don’t matter, or telling parents that we shouldn’t care how well their children do in reading tests at age 11.

    Schools should be held to account for how well their pupils achieve and that will not change. What this framework does, however, is to make sure that outcomes are considered in their proper context, to understand whether they have been achieved in a way that sets young people up to succeed in further study and life beyond, rather than just to pass a particular set of exams.

    Again, I believe that is how we will not only level the playing field for the most disadvantaged, but also how we make sure that we drive forward the real standards agenda.

    And I am also fairly sure, to return to the ‘Wonder Years’ title, that the way to kill a real love of knowledge and learning is to give children 12 years of jumping through mark scheme hoops, with some nods towards developing some desirable but ill-defined skills thrown in alongside. If we really want to develop all children’s intellects and curiosity, they need to be taught the right, connected knowledge about Shakespeare, about the Battle of Trafalgar, and about the structure of the cell – that will pique their interests and passions!

    Concepts and accessibility

    The audience here is full of people I very much admire and respect. Many of you – speakers and audience – have been part of the fascinating recent discussions, such as those about substantive and disciplinary knowledge, which I am sure will get plenty of airing today. But, and I hope you won’t mind me saying this, it is probably fair to say that your levels of interest in education research and theory are probably not entirely representative of the teaching profession as a whole.

    Which is why, in order to be successful under these draft proposals, we are not expecting every head to become an expert on Michael Young or Daniel Willingham, or to match the erudition that you will hear from many speakers today. Our evaluation of the quality of a school’s curriculum will reflect the quality of their practice, rather than their ability to use the ‘right’ curriculum language. Indeed we have also shown, through the third phase of our curriculum research, that we can quite quickly distinguish between those who have a genuinely good curriculum, implemented well across a school, and those who simply talk a good game.

    To demystify the proposed new process we have tried to make our language and definitions in the handbook as straightforward as possible. Alongside the handbook, Sean Harford, our National Director of Education, has also put out a special edition of the school inspection update (SIU) that gives some further clarification and definition in the schools context – remember, the main framework covers everything from childminders through to adult education.

    That update explains that when it comes to learning, we have used the definition from cognitive psychology, as a change in long-term memory. So “if nothing has altered in long-term memory, nothing has been learned”. That leads to our understanding of progress as knowing more and remembering more. The connections between knowledge give rise to understanding, and as pupils develop unconscious competence and fluency, this will allow them to develop skills, ie the capacity to perform complex operations, drawing on what is known.

    We also know that we learn by relating new knowledge to what we already know. Therefore, the more pupils know, the more they have the capacity to learn.

    This won’t be new to you, and I hope that the clarifications in that update help to put to bed any suggestion that we are asking too much of teachers. Alongside the SIU we have also put out a series of curriculum videos, further explaining our thinking – but if you think there is more we can do to shed light on the process, please do let us know.

    Diversity

    I also want to address another worry that I have heard being expressed around curriculum diversity. Some of the people here are at the forefront of innovative curriculum design in your schools. To that I say, all power to you. This draft framework is absolutely not about trying to put a straitjacket on innovation in schools’ curriculum or to impose an Ofsted model.

    Instead we are using the statutory expectation of a broad and balanced curriculum and the national curriculum, which all maintained schools are expected to follow, and which academies are expected to match in ambition, as our baseline. So long as schools achieve that, they are free to design and build their curriculum as they see fit, and Ofsted will reward the curricula that demonstrate thought and care about how to build rich and deep learning. Similarly for those who want to adopt existing designs, textbooks or other products that work well, that is equally fine and very often to be encouraged.

    Breadth

    That concept of breadth will necessarily mean different things at different stages of young people’s education. We’ve been clear in the handbook, for instance, that the priority for key stage 1 is for children to master early reading and mathematics. Otherwise so much of what comes later will be inaccessible.

    For that reason, and building on what we’ve learned through our ‘reading champion’ programme of inspections over the past year, inspectors will be looking at the extent to which pupils in key stage 1 learn to decode text through systematic synthetic phonics and whether they develop into fluent confident readers.

    Similarly in early mathematics, inspectors will be looking at whether primary schools have considered the sequence in which mathematical concepts are taught and whether there are opportunities for recall of facts, concepts and procedures, which should lead, for example, to automatic recall of number bonds for addition and subtraction, and of times tables.

    I want to be clear: no school will be criticised by inspectors for focusing its key stage 1 curriculum on literacy and mathematics. But that said, equally no school will be criticised for providing greater breadth: primary schools are best placed to know what it takes to get their children reading early, expand their vocabulary and to put in place the fundamentals of maths.

    As children move through primary school, we will expect to see that focus on the fundamentals maintained, but that should be alongside broader learning across all the foundation subjects. These are subjects which we know, from our inspections and curriculum research, are too often being squeezed in many primary schools. Of course the statutory tests remain important, but here again, our inspectors will be looking to see that children’s performance in English and maths is achieved through proper teaching, practice and reading, rather than simply learning how to sit SATs papers. That, after all, is what will set them up properly to succeed in secondary school.

    And when it comes to secondary school, that rich breadth of curriculum should continue. For almost all children, there is no reason to start narrowing down their learning before the age of 14. It really does pain me to think about how many potential historians, artists, linguists, musicians and designers we’ve lost because we made them drop subjects almost before they’d begun, so they may never have discovered their talents in them.

    Now that does not mean that Ofsted believes that there is only one approach to structuring key stages 3 and 4. There may well be a good rationale for starting some GCSE content in year 9, especially in linear, core subjects, or because it offers pupils the opportunity to study a broader curriculum right through year 7 to year 11.

    Where our concerns arise is when the desire to start teaching GCSE content early either comes at the expense of a broad and rich curriculum, or when it is used as an excuse to dedicate excessive time to drilling exam technique at the expense of the learning of new knowledge.

    Knowledge versus skills

    This is also probably the right place for me to address the vexed arguments about whether teaching of knowledge sits in opposition to teaching skills.

    From a pragmatic inspection point of view, opposition between knowledge and skills is unnecessary. Yes, we want to see pupils being taught powerful knowledge, but it is also clearly essential for pupils to develop skills. We consider a skill to be the capacity to perform, whether cognitively or physically, drawing on what is known, and the new framework directs inspectors to consider what schools are doing to develop both pupils’ knowledge and skills.

    That is why we want pupils to be able to analyse, evaluate and solve problems using what they have learned. And there are clearly desirable physical skills and capabilities that develop in the sports, arts and also technical and vocational capabilities.

    What the evidence does show, however, is that these skills are largely domain-specific – evaluation of evidence in science is not the same as evaluation of evidence in history; being creative in dance is not the same as being creative in mathematics. And we would expect schools’ approaches to curriculum design to reflect this.

    EBacc

    In a similar way we have made it equally clear that knowledge must not be reduced to or confused with simply memorising facts. A pub quiz is not a curriculum.

    Nor, and I hope we’ve made this clear by now, is a curriculum simply a list of subjects to be studied. Which is why I disagree with those who claim that references to the EBacc in the new inspection framework represent Ofsted dictating the curriculum. They do not.

    The government has decided that its ambition is for the EBacc subjects to be studied by the vast majority of young people up to the age of 16. It is an ambition I support.

    In almost every other OECD country, young people study an academic core that includes their home language, maths, science, a foreign language (most often English) and a humanity up to the age of 16, if not 18. We also know that the very wide latitude given to both schools and pupils in England came to mean too many students, particularly disadvantaged and lower-attaining pupils, giving up core academic subjects at a startling early age.

    Even when, as I have said before, getting a grade 3 in history GCSE may ultimately prove more beneficial than a Merit in a BTEC. I also happen to think that if you were to ask the proverbial woman on the street whether young people should study these 5 subjects up until 16, most would be shocked to find out that this is not already a requirement.

    So the draft new inspection framework proposes that we will be looking at the extent to which schools are working to increase EBacc uptake. What that does not mean is that we will expect every school to be at the same stage, or even to be heading towards the same end point in terms of EBacc entries.

    The government has been very clear that the 75% and then 90% targets map out the national expected picture, not requirements for every single school. Schools in disadvantaged areas will be starting from a lower base, and many will have struggled with recruitment, especially when it comes to modern foreign languages – our inspectors will take account of this. In the same vein, they are likely to look unfavourably on a leafy grammar that is not already securing high levels of uptake in these subjects.

    So yes, we will be playing our part, as required under statute, to support government policy, but we will not be applying a blunt instrument to do so.

    Consultants

    And that means I do not want to see schools rushing to quick solutions – such as hiring consultants to help them prepare in some way for the new framework. No school should have to spend a single penny on consultants to prepare for it.

    That is why we have put out so much explanatory material, and why we continue to run events on the proposals across the country. You already have enough demands on tighter budgets without the supposed necessity of preparing for a new Ofsted framework adding more.

    I hope you will agree, that we have been consistent over the past 4 years in communicating the message that inspection is not a hoop-jumping exercise.

    I was pleased to see from our latest polling of teachers that our myth-busting campaigns have reached so many of you. That will continue with this new framework.

    In fact, I strongly believe that by focusing on the substance, rather than performance metrics, we have created something which is far less gameable by supposed inspection experts than any framework which has come before it.

    My hope is that once embedded, this framework will help to sound the death knell of a school improvement industry that has too often pushed approaches to improvement that are designed to push results without necessarily making any improvement to real standards. If anyone tries to sell you the ‘Ofsted inspection curriculum’ I hope that you will – politely – tell them where to go.

    Conclusion

    I want to leave some time to get to your questions, so all that remains is for me to thank you for inviting me here today, and to thank all of you who have already played a part in shaping the draft framework.

    As I started by saying, I hope that many more of you will send us your thoughts in the weeks to come, so that we really can make sure that every child’s years in nursery, school and colleges really are their wonder years. Thank you.

  • George Hollingbery – 2019 Comments on EU Free Trade Agreements

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Hollingbery in the House of Commons on 24 January 2019.

    As a member of the European Union, the UK currently participates in around 40 free trade agreements with more than 70 countries. These free trade agreements cover a wide variety of relationships, including economic partnership agreements with developing nations; association agreements, which cover broader economic and political co-operation; and trade agreements with countries that are closely aligned with the EU, such as Turkey and Switzerland. Of course, more conventional free trade agreements are also part of the package.

    Businesses in the UK, EU and partner countries are eligible for a range of preferential market-access opportunities under the terms of the free trade agreements. Those opportunities can include, but are not limited to, preferential duties for goods, including reductions in import tariff rates across a wide variety of products, quotas for reduced or nil payments of payable duties, and quotas for more relaxed rules-of-origin requirements; enhanced market access for service providers; access to public procurement opportunities across a range of sectors; and improved protections for intellectual property.

    For continuity and stability for businesses, consumers and investors, we are committed to ensuring that the benefits I have outlined are maintained, providing a smooth transition as we leave the EU. The Department for International Trade, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development are working with partner countries to prepare to maintain existing trading relationships.

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2019 Statement on Future Maritime Policy

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nusrat Ghani, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, to the House of Commons on 24 January 2019.

    I am today announcing the publication of Maritime 2050: Navigating the Future, the government’s landmark strategy setting out our vision and ambitions for the future of the British maritime sector.

    Our nation depends on the wide range of benefits the maritime sector delivers. It contributes over £14 billion a year to the UK economy and directly supports an estimated 186,000 jobs. Around 95% of British imports and exports are moved by sea. The leisure and marine sectors are vital to our enjoyment of the seas. Our maritime clusters around the UK showcase the diversity of our regional economies, from professional services in London to ship management and educational excellence in Scotland.

    We rightly take pride in our maritime past. Maritime 2050 is about looking forward; anticipating the challenges and opportunities ahead and recognising the UK’s strengths so we are well placed to capitalise on them. Maritime 2050 looks at these across 7 themes and under each makes short, medium and long-term recommendations:

    UK competitive advantage
    people
    environment
    technology
    infrastructure
    trade
    security and resilience

    It highlights multi-billion pound commercial investment in maritime infrastructure at ports and beyond. Our unwavering commitment to safety and security. Our reputation for innovation, paving the way on regulatory frameworks and technology to facilitate smart shipping and autonomy; leading the way in clean maritime growth. But no matter how far advances in ships and technology take us, it sets out how the people graduating from our maritime training and academic institutions will reflect the world around us and continue to be sought after across the globe for their skills.

    As the global maritime sector adapts to challenges such as climate change, rapid technological advances and security concerns, Maritime 2050 sets a series of strategic ambitions around which government and the sector will focus its efforts, and core values which we will be guided by.

    The partnership between government and the maritime sector has been vital to the development of this strategy. It began in March 2018 with a call for evidence, seeking to reach all branches of the sector, complemented by workshops around the UK to capture the views from across our maritime clusters, and interviews with leaders in industry and academia. Maritime 2050 has also benefited from the advice and scrutiny of an independent panel of 13 internationally respected academics, industry leaders, maritime business services providers and promotional bodies. As a result, Maritime 2050 reflects the depth and breadth of the UK’s rich maritime sector.

    A copy of Maritime 2050 has been placed in the library of both Houses and is available on GOV.UK, together with the trade and technology route maps setting out in greater detail the steps needed to achieve the UK’s strategic maritime ambitions.

  • Heather Wheeler – 2019 Speech at Council for Licensed Conveyancers Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Heather Wheeler, the Minister for Housing and Homelessness, at the Council for Licensed Conveyancers Conference on 23 January 2019.

    Introduction

    First, I want to thank Dame Janet Paraskeeva for inviting me to join you today – my first time as a government minister here with you.

    One of the things I’ve loved about my role so far is the chance to work with people on some of the most important challenges that we face. Issues like housing and homelessness – issues that cut to the heart of who we are as a society.

    When you become a minister, they give you a box. It’s literally like the red box the Chancellor holds up on Budget day! And each day it’s filled with statements, advice from policy officials and lots and lots of letters!

    I don’t think I’m betraying any confidences by telling you that a lot of those letters concern buying and selling houses…

    … and in truth I’m yet to receive a letter congratulating me on their smooth and stress-free process!

    It’s hardly a surprise. A recent poll found that buying a house can be as stressful as a bankruptcy or a divorce. Or even a bereavement.

    So many of the letters I receive frankly are heart-breaking.

    The elderly couple who want to move closer to their children, only for the sale to fall through at the last minute, after they’ve sold their possessions and packed their bags.

    Or the new parents who have lost precious money and time with their new-born because of a collapse in the chain.

    I’m sure you’ve heard the stories, and no doubt a number of you have experienced it first-hand.

    It has to change.

    Working with Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC)

    It’s why this government has made a commitment to reform the process; to make buying and selling quicker, cheaper and less stressful.

    And that’s why I’m very grateful for the work of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers: protecting consumers, fostering competition and promoting innovation.

    It’s been a pleasure to work with you, and I’m grateful for all the support you’ve given me and my team, we really do work very closely together.

    Because our plans, no matter how ambitious they are, can only succeed with the support of people like you.

    People who understand the sector. People with first-hand experience of the challenges of the sector, day in and day out.

    Challenges

    And I’m under no illusion about those challenges.

    Government research has shown that somewhere between a quarter and a third of all transactions fail.

    This costs consumers around £270 million a year. That’s hard-working families shelling out for surveys and searches on properties they won’t even get to buy.

    A survey carried out by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in October last year, showed it usually takes around 19 weeks from when you put your house on the market to when you actually complete on your new home.

    To put that in context, if you put your home on the market today, you’ll be lucky to get the keys to your new place by June.

    That’s a long time to put your life on hold.

    Government action

    No doubt a number of you are thinking: “We know, we don’t need a minister to tell me the process isn’t great”.

    You’re quite right; you want to know what we’re doing as a government.

    We’re working on a number of fronts to help bring about the change that we need.

    I want to reassure you now, I don’t believe driving down your fees is the solution.

    Reducing the failure rate and those wasted costs remains the key, and the priority for this government.

    Information: How to guides

    That must begin with better information.

    Buying and selling a house isn’t an everyday process. In fact, last year Barclays found that, on average, people are only moving once every 19 years.

    Under these circumstances, you can hardly expect buyers and sellers to be particularly savvy consumers or navigate the process with any confidence.

    It’s why in the spring, we’ll be publishing our How to buy and How to sell guides – to help consumers navigate every stage of the process.

    The guides will sit alongside our How to rent and How to lease guides, which we published last year.

    Speeding up processes

    But we recognise that there’s more to do that we in government can be getting on with – that means putting on the pressure to speed things up where needed.

    Last year, I wrote to all local authorities to set out our expectations that they will turn around property searches within 10 working days.

    I’m pleased to see that, based on the latest data, more than 80% of local authorities are hitting this target. The quickest can turn searches around in under a day. Now that’s what I call progress!

    Because I think the chance to live in the house of your dreams shouldn’t depend on which authority it happens to be in.

    We still have a way to go to speed things up – especially where leaseholds are concerned.

    Having a leasehold property in the chain can add at least an extra week, due to difficulties getting information from freeholders and managing agents.

    As it stands, there aren’t any guidelines around the provision of this information, leaving leaseholders at the mercy of freeholders, who can charge whatever they like and take as long as they like.

    We’re changing this, setting out a timetable and fees for providing this information.

    This will also include a fee to update this information, as I know conveyancers begin to get nervous when data starts getting old.

    Taken together, these changes will speed up the process.

    Accountability

    But it’s not only about speed – we also need greater accountability.

    Research from the Department for Business revealed that 70% of buyers and 66% of sellers thought their sale wouldn’t go through to completion – even after the offer was accepted.

    Too many people are walking on a tightrope from the moment they put in that offer.

    Things can happen over 19 weeks that can genuinely scupper a move – and I wouldn’t want to force anyone to move if they don’t want to.

    But I also don’t want people pulling out without consequences, just because they’ve now decided they don’t like the avocado bathroom suite.

    When this happens, it can take a whole chain down.

    That’s why we’re taking forward our work to develop a standard reservation agreement, working with the industry-led Home Buying and Selling Group.

    We want to increase people’s commitment by ensuring that they’ve got some skin in the game.

    While an agreement can’t compensate the emotional stress of a failed transaction, people should be able to recover their costs.

    And there’s no reason why this can’t become standard practice; I believe the appetite is there.

    Government research shows that 50% of buyers and 70% of sellers would have been prepared to enter into a legal agreement, if they had known it existed.

    We’re commissioning behavioural insight research to help us design an agreement that’s supported by consumers and industry alike, and we’ll be running a field trial later this year.

    Consumer confidence

    And with greater accountability should, I believe, come greater confidence.

    Confidence that they’re not going to be out on a limb, yes. But equally, confidence in their choice of professionals to help them with this important milestone.

    Buyers choose the house, not the estate agent. But this shouldn’t mean that they choose their conveyancer by default.

    And while referral fees are an important feature of the industry and a way of reducing marketing costs and building business, I’m concerned about the current lack of transparency.

    These concerns I know you share.

    Consumers should always know they have a choice.

    That’s why we’re changing the system, to ensure consumers know the amount of referral fees before they make any decision to purchase.

    I’ve asked National Trading Standards to produce new guidance for estate agents, setting out how and when estate agents should disclose referral fees and this guidance will be published next month…

    … and the ombudsman will be amending their guidance in the light of this advice.

    I have provided the National Trading Standards Team with extra funding to support their efforts to ensure transparency and I have asked them to report back to me in 12 months.

    I expect this to mean an end to excessive referral fees but if behaviour doesn’t change, then I will look again at the case for a ban.

    Competition and innovation

    Because, the prize in our sights is a market that works for everyone.

    A competitive, innovative and transparent market, where consumers have clear reasons to choose which firm they go with.

    Technology also offers us a chance to think anew about the services on offer.

    I’m old enough to remember when houses for sale were listed in the local paper.

    But today, I know that there are lots of ‘proptech’ companies who are developing innovative ways to shake up the home buying process and speed up conveyancing.

    And we want to help them, which is why we have been looking at whether we can streamline ID verification and make more use of electronic signatures in the homebuying process.

    Because the days of people passively accepting what’s on offer are long gone…

    …and I’m looking forward to seeing how consumers feedback, interact and shape the tools we will come to use.

    Conclusion

    Ultimately, we not only want to protect consumers, we want to be their champion, because frankly, they deserve better than the current system allows.

    And that is, I believe, an ambition we can all share.

    I’m grateful for your invaluable advice and integrity, because only by working together can we build a better process…

    …one worthy of (what is after all) one of life’s biggest milestones: buying and selling your home.

    And maybe, just maybe, some of the letters I receive in future will reflect that joy that comes from moving home: being closer to your children; more money to spend on your new baby.

    But until then, we’ve got a lot of work to do!

  • Chris Skidmore – 2019 Speech on Making Science Work

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, on 25 January 2019.

    Thank you for inviting me here to Culham today. On a chilly day, it’s a pleasure to visit what Ian Chapman tells me is hottest place in the solar system! And this isn’t the only superlative that Culham can claim. The Joint European Torus is one of the most impressive international scientific facilities not just in the UK, but perhaps in the world. It symbolises the application of world-leading research and engineering to tackle one of the world’s greatest challenges: the challenge of clean energy. At the same time, it’s providing the skills our country needs for the future, training both the next generation of nuclear researchers and apprentices for businesses across Oxfordshire and beyond. What could be a better place to give my first speech on science, research and innovation?

    I feel very fortunate to be Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. Several of my predecessors have said they felt it was the best job in government. It has a special significance for me because I began my career as a historian: I profoundly believe in the importance of research. I recognise the joy, and the occasional frustrations, of the pursuit of knowledge. And I deeply respect the passion that drives people to dedicate their lives to it.

    Science, research and innovation represent this country’s best hope for the future. From an economic point of view, scientific developments underpin prosperity and growth and help create rewarding, high-wage jobs in every part of the UK. From a societal point of view, they offer ways to tackle the grand challenges of the future. And crucially, they are valuable in their own right. Pushing the boundaries of knowledge, seeking to understand the universe, the human race, our past and our future – these are all things we should be proud to invest in.

    I’m proud of Britain’s world-leading scientific and technological heritage. And of our wider strengths: the invaluable work done in the arts, humanities and social sciences; the ground-breaking interdisciplinary research that goes on in our universities; and the R&D done outside academia – in businesses, independent research institutes, charities and public labs.

    Today, here at Culham, I will be visiting a remarkable firm called Reaction Engines that is designing a new type of engine called SABRE, which could revolutionise air and space travel and make it possible to fly from the UK to Australia in just four and a half hours. The development of the engine, which has had £60 million in backing from the UK Space Agency and £50 million from the private sector, is a clear example of the UK being at the forefront of technological and scientific discovery, and exemplifies the aims of the government’s modern Industrial Strategy.

    There is no better backdrop to talk about my priorities and ambitions for science, research and innovation in the UK, and how we can work together to make it a reality.

    Priorities

    I believe there are two overarching priorities for UK science and research in the year to come.

    The first is the most urgent: ensuring, as the UK leaves the European Union, we have the right relationship with European research programmes and with the wider world of science and research.

    The second may be less urgent, but it is no less important. How we chart a path to an economy that invests more in science, research and innovation, and puts R&D at the heart of our economy.

    This second goal may seem to some to be a distraction from the issue of Brexit. But it is crucial to the future not only of science and research in the UK, but to our wider destiny as a country. And we would be unwise to put it off.

    The decisions we take now, ahead of the Spending Review later in the year, will be crucial to our ability to invest more in R&D, and to crowd in investment from business and from overseas.

    Today I’d like to talk about these two priorities in turn.

    Brexit and the future of UK research

    First, the urgent question that is on so many of our minds: the question of the UK’s place in the global research community as we prepare to leave the EU.

    My thinking on this is guided by an old conservative principle: the idea of Chesterton’s Fence. It was 90 years ago that GK Chesterton came up with this warning to political reformers: never tear down a fence, he said, until you understand why it was there and what its purpose was. This is especially pertinent today as we inch towards Brexit.

    With this in mind, I’ve been grateful to the researchers, universities and National Academies who have taken the time to speak to me and my officials about this, as well as to the participants in the High Level Group on Brexit set up by my Ministerial predecessors.

    The message I’ve had is clear: participation in EU framework programmes is vital to UK researchers and innovative firms for a host of reasons.

    The money is one: through our EU membership, the UK gains £1 billion of R&D funding each year. The fact we are so successful is a measure of our excellence. But I know it is not just about the money: Horizon 2020 connects our labs, universities and businesses to researchers across Europe. I also recognise the importance of the prestige of ERC grants or the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions.

    I acknowledge the importance to Britain’s labs and universities of researchers and staff from overseas, including from the EU. Indeed, I want to express my gratitude to the tens of thousands of researchers, whether from elsewhere in Europe or the wider world, who have chosen to make the UK their home, and bring their talents to work here.

    Leaving the EU with a deal remains our top priority and the PM has been clear that we want to have the option to associate to future EU programmes including Horizon Europe and the Euratom Research and Training Programme. But we are also preparing in the event of no-deal. The government’s underwrite guarantee will cover the payment of awards for all competitive bids to EU funding programmes submitted before Brexit. We’ve taken steps to ensure that this will work as smoothly as possible if it needs to, notably with the UKRI grant registration portal that was set up in September and which already has 5,000 registrations. I urge all researchers working on EU-funded projects to make sure their project is signed up.

    I’ve heard loud and clear the message that leaving the EU presents unique challenges to science, research and innovation in the UK. So, I ask you and your fellow researchers and innovators to work with me to deliver a Brexit that works for your sector, and to help design the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU that builds on our scientific strengths and ingenuity.

    At the same time, we continue to strengthen our relationships with researchers across the world. As I announced earlier this week, we are investing more than ever in partnerships with both the leading science and innovation nations and with the developing world. Joint projects which bring together the best with the best enable us to further our ambitions under the modern Industrial Strategy and to tackle the global challenges which affect the poorest and threaten the future prosperity and security of us all. To support such joint ventures, we will build upon our global strategic partnerships at government level, for example with the US, Canada, Israel and China – the latter of which I intend to visit in the coming months to progress our Joint Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy.

    Making 2.4% target a reality

    My other priority for the coming year is how we ensure a bright future for R&D in the UK. In particular, how we deliver the commitment this government has made to increase the amount the UK invests in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027, and 3% in the longer term.

    Measuring R&D in percentages of GDP is perhaps not the most vivid way to capture the wonders of science, the power of technology, or the ingenuity of innovation. But the change it will make will be truly transformational. 2.4% of GDP may sound like a dry statistic: but if we can realise it, it will represent national renewal. Increasing our R&D investment to 2.4% is equivalent to around 3 new GlaxoSmithKlein and 4 new Rolls-Royces and 5 new Unilevers. This will help keep the UK’s economy competitive, and create good, meaningful jobs and prosperity across the country.

    It will also help us make great strides to tackle the big societal challenges facing Britain and the world at large.

    But reaching the 2.4% target must not be an end in itself. It is the opening of a new chapter for UK R&D and the cornerstone to building a great future based on the collective strength of science, engineering, technology, the arts, humanities and social sciences.

    Just this week, we have seen an extraordinary project announced by the University of Strathclyde with the potential to help patients suffering from osteoporosis. Experts will use technology originally used to help measure the collisions of black holes in space to vibrate stem cells in people’s bones to turn them into new bone. This is an example of government funded, interdisciplinary research having real world benefits to help people living, longer, healthier lives.

    On Tuesday, we also announced 28 new international research projects, backed by £279 million of government funding. Many of these projects are led by experts in UK universities and tackle global challenges, from reducing the impact of oceans pollution, to controlling the spread of infectious diseases.

    The work of the UK Atomic Energy Authority here at Culham is a great example of what we want to achieve. World class science, tackling a big global challenge, deeply embedded in the real world and in its community. I’m especially glad that the government has committed to double down on our ambition when it comes to nuclear fusion, committing £20 million to begin development of a new UK based Nuclear Fusion reactor, STEP the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production, paving the way to practical, energy-producing fusion power.

    The UK already leads the world in innovative, compact fusion devices; the Duke of Cambridge turned on the UK’s upgraded fusion test reactor, the Mega-Amp Spherical Tokamak, just last October. The work of UKAEA here at Culham will help make British fusion power a reality – this kind of national endeavour is a great example of the vision we need to pursue to deliver the 2.4% R&D target.

    In the coming months, we will be developing and publishing our roadmap on how to reach the goal of investing 2.4% of GDP in R&D. We have already shown that we are serious: the £7 billion of additional funding we have announced in recent years represents the biggest increase in public R,D&I funding for four decades.

    I want us to go even further. Making the 2.4% target a reality will be a top priority for me in the coming year, as we manage our departure from the EU and agree the terms of the Spending Review that will dictate public investment over the coming years.

    A few principles will guide my thinking here.

    The first is the right public investment. While it is too early to pre-judge the results of the Spending Review, analysis by both my own officials and by others, including the National Academies, shows that meeting 2.4% of GDP will require significant increases in public investments in R&D across the UK.

    OECD statistics show that the UK’s mix of public to private R&D is relatively strong: for every pound of public R&D we fund, the private sector funds around £2.60. This compares favourably with many other rich countries: it is slightly more than Germany and Finland, and quite a bit more than Canada, France or the Netherlands, but somewhat behind that in the USA or Switzerland.

    An important takeaway from this is that even if the ratio of private to public contribution were to increase to that of the US or Switzerland, but public investment kept at the same level as a proportion of GDP, we would still be some way from meeting the 2.4% target. This means that to meet the target, an increase in public investment will almost certainly be required. This is the case I will be making to the Treasury, and I’d call on everyone who cares about the health of research and innovation in the UK to work with me to do so.

    Yet, it is also clear from the statistics that the public sector cannot meet the target on its own. Innovation and R&D happen in an ecosystem, where government, academia, businesses, and other institutions all have complementary roles to play.

    We will only meet the target if businesses and charities also increase their investment in innovation. That’s why we have been working and will continue to work with businesses to identify what policies will help them commit to investing in R&D across the UK in the decade to come. This is also why we have developed new funding streams to back important and impactful work, including the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and the Strategic Priorities Fund, which support research with the potential to transform the economy and the world.

    The willingness to invest in innovation will also be determined by the quality of our institutions, the relationships between them and the way we approach the culture that underpins them.

    For example, how we can ensure greater access to research careers. How we can ensure the UK’s research community leads the world on research integrity. How we will make sure we adopt digital technologies to do better research. How we will assess and manage research effectively. And how we can build the right links between the worlds of research and practice, and between science and industry.

    In this respect, the establishment of UK Research and Innovation, planned and launched by two of my predecessors, will be vital.

    UKRI are in a position to use analysis and the wealth of data they possess to work with researchers, businesses and policy makers to understand where our research and innovation strengths are, how our interventions are enabling the growth of high-tech businesses, and how we are delivering against our four Grand Challenges.

    UKRI also has the potential to tackle the cross-cutting issues that will determine the health of the UK research and innovation system in the years to come.

    One of these is research integrity. If we are relying on research to boost our economy and tackle societal challenges, we need to know the system is working. Research that is not replicable or that fails to meet ethical standards is not just bad in itself: it is a waste of resources that could have contributed to the common good.

    Similarly, we need to ask ourselves whether we are making the most of our talent. Recent economic research has documented the phenomenon of “Lost Einsteins” – people who could have been researchers or inventors but who seem, by reason of background, to have missed out on the opportunity. We also hear accounts of those driven out of promising research careers by harassment or bullying. These issues matter both for their own sake – as they are the kind of “burning injustices” this government has set out to tackle – and because tackling them will make for better science and research, from which society at large will benefit.

    Finally, UKRI should work toward making sure the benefits of research and innovation are felt widely across the country and across society. This is partly a matter of involving the public effectively in the processes by which decisions about science and research are made. In an age when technologies from AI to robotics are raising big social questions, public engagement is important both from an ethical point of view and from a democratic one.

    It also has a bearing on where UKRI makes investments. Historically, public research funding has been concentrated in particular places, notably the Golden Triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London. It is right that we fund excellence and support successful clusters. But we need to make sure we recognise the potential of other areas and the case for investing in them. That’s why we recently launched the first round of the Strength In Places Fund, to back excellence broadly across the UK.

    Another necessary complement to a strategic UKRI is the diversity of funding at the institutional level, including the charitable sector. With this in mind, I recognise the great value of Quality Related (QR) funding, and the role it plays in both building research capability across the disciplines and in providing additional sources of intelligence in our funding system.

    I will be working closely with UKRI to make the most of their potential – and aiming to make sure they become recognised as one of the world’s great funders of research and innovation, and a lynchpin in a successful knowledge ecosystem.

    So, I’d like to finish with an appeal to anyone dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge.

    We have the opportunity to make a step-change to the world of science, research and innovation in the UK – with more investment, better training, and a renewed focus on changing the world. To do that, we need to work together, both to make the case for investment, and to make sure that investment has the greatest possible effect. The next few months may be a time of political uncertainty. But if we work together, the best days for research and innovation in the UK could well be ahead of us.

  • Chloe Smith – 2019 Speech at SOLACE

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chloe Smith, the Minister for the Constitution, at SOLACE (the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives) on 24 January 2019.

    Thank you very much indeed for asking me to be here today, it’s an absolute pleasure to come back and see many of you and Louise thank you for the invitation.

    It’s very good to see a number of familiar faces in the room, but also I understand some new members, so I hope you all had a very good conference morning.

    There is a lot that we do together, and first of all I would like to thank Dave Smith all of his work in the last year, and to welcome Louise to the role for Elections and Democratic Renewal. It’s a role where I really hope we will be able to achieve together.

    As the past few years have clearly demonstrated, facilitating and sustaining a flourishing democracy is a very important thing – it is essential that we all understand the weight behind all of our democratic decisions and that everyone has their say.

    We all recognise our shared responsibility to inspire participation and tackle democratic exclusion among under-registered groups.

    When I was here twelve months ago, I set out the approach the government is taking to these issues following the publication of our ‘Every Voice Matters’ Democratic Engagement Plan.

    It was the first time government had announced a comprehensive strategy for addressing exclusion in our democratic system.

    Today, we are publishing a ‘One Year On’ update, so I want to tell you what we have achieved, but also what we hope to do, to respect, protect and promote our democracy.

    Because there is still so much more to do.

    As I look at what’s possible in the coming years, I know that we cannot achieve our aims alone.

    Meeting the challenges that our democracy faces, and reaching the many different groups that we all must serve, requires us to work collaboratively with a range of experts across the public, private and third sector.

    So today I have come here to ask you all for your continued commitment to helping citizens have confidence in our historic, strong and successful electoral system.

    It is you who hold local knowledge and relationships. I really thank you for the tremendous work of your elections teams supporting their Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers.

    You do that hard work and I would love for that gratitude to be passed on to the teams behind you.

    Local authorities – you and your teams – are the frontline of our democracy.

    Our approach to democracy has to be one based on respect – underpinned by the principle of fairness, of course.

    We believe everyone in this country should have confidence that their vote matters, that they are making a difference, and that their voice is being heard.

    Votes of course should not carry any more weight for one than for another.

    That is why the government is committed to making our democratic system fairer by supporting the independent and impartial reviews from the Boundary Commissions, which will deliver equal representation for voters across the UK at the next scheduled general election.

    Channeling a culture of respect and inclusion should be a priority for anyone involved in the democratic sphere at this critical time.

    For if we, at the forefront of the democratic agenda, do not promote a culture of respect – how can we expect those we serve to follow it?

    As a Member of Parliament, I have been lucky enough to travel to places like Myanmar and countries in East Africa where they are only just beginning their journeys to full democracy.

    As last year’s Suffrage Centenary reminded us, the UK’s democracy has come a long way.

    But 100 years on since some women won the right to vote and 90 years since women received equal voting rights in this country, there is a lot more still to achieve.

    I am playing my part in this journey by working to ensure that everyone understands and respects the need for debate that is robust and healthy.

    At a time of rising levels of intimidation in public life, it’s important we work to prevent this worrying trend from stopping talented people going into public service.

    I think our politics will be the poorer if talented people do not get involved, whether as candidates or campaigners, or indeed in local authorities, because they see the unacceptable abuse hurled at those who do volunteer for public life.

    That is why last year we launched a consultation on Protecting the Political Debate which sought views on new measures to tackle this growing trend. We are analysing the evidence that we received back from that consultation and I look forward to publishing our response and next steps early this year.

    Respect for our democracy is also rooted in the public having confidence that our processes and systems are secure – that elections will always take place on a level playing field. And so I take my responsibility to protect our democracy very seriously indeed.

    We have taken action across a range of areas.

    Part of the consultation I just touched on also looked at the requirement for digital campaigning material to include the details of who has produced it and paid for it.

    We believe voters should be able to see which organisation or individual is targeting them, and thus be informed and empowered.

    Protecting our democratic processes also means recognising the importance of cyber security – a point the newly appointed Government Chief Security Officer has made in a letter to the President of SOLACE this week.

    My colleagues in the Government Security Group will also be providing much advice through the Local Government Association’s weekly bulletin – which I hope you’ll be able to see in the coming weeks.

    All of us have an important role to play then, in protecting the operation of our elections from from those who seek to undermine them.

    For example, electoral fraud is not a victimless crime.

    We must work together to stamp this problem out.

    We can do so through a solution so simple it is already used by people everyday – and I’m referring to showing ID at the polling station. We do of course already use ID in many, many walks of life and showing ID to prove who you say you are before you vote is a common sense approach to tackling voter fraud.

    Indeed, voters in Northern Ireland have been required to show a form of ID since 1985 without adverse effect on turnout or participation.

    So, last May local authorities held Voter ID pilots in five local elections. Both our own evaluation and that of the independent Electoral Commission showed that the trials were a success. The overwhelming majority of people were able to cast their vote without any problems.

    It is a real credit to the local authorities involved that their awareness-raising campaigns were effective in making voters aware of the change. So it’s a big thank you to those Chief Executives and Returning Officers who helped deliver those five pilots last year. And thank you to those who have agreed to hold pilots again or for the first time.

    I am delighted by the collaborative, supportive work between each pilot authority and my staff to ensure the success of the 2019 pilots. Doing so will no doubt benefit you by improving your preparedness for national roll-out. It will also help us prepare for that moment because the more pilots and subsequent data we have to analyse and learn from, the better the final proposal for Voter ID will be. So I would urge everyone here to think about following in their footsteps by volunteering to pilot in future.

    I do think this work is absolutely essential to be able to look those arriving at polling stations in the eye and tell them: ‘your vote is yours and yours alone’. But we have to get it right, which is why I am also currently holding meetings with representative groups from a broad range of charities and civil society organisations.

    My conversations with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Stonewall, Shelter, Operation Black Vote and Age UK – to give some examples – will ensure that we fully understand the impact of voter ID and the needs of all voters in our country.

    That positive engagement with groups which reflect our diverse society reflects our broader approach towards driving up participation. As well as respecting our democracy and protecting it, we must also promote it. We have made excellent progress in this area.

    Reforms to our electoral registration system now completed have resulted in record levels of people registering to vote. Nevertheless, this year’s Hansard Society Audit of Political Engagement showed that just a third of people believe they can affect political change by getting involved. So we must always be reminding ourselves that our democracy is only ever as strong as the people who are part of it. That’s why I’ve made it my ambition to make the next general election more accessible.

    As things stand, for example, there are just over one million people with a learning disability who are of voting age in the UK. I’m very concerned that less than a third of those are exercising their democratic right to vote – and I’ve been determined to do what I can to change this.

    Last year we launched a call for evidence on access to elections and have since worked out a number of steps to improve the voting experience of disabled people.

    We are making polling stations more accessible – physically speaking.

    We are improving the accessibility of the Register to Vote website – including by introducing an ‘Easy Read’ guide on the homepage of the service to enable people with learning difficulties to apply online without so much trouble.

    And we have updated the Certificate of Visual Impairment so that local authorities are better able to help those with sight loss register to vote and then vote at elections.

    I would also say that disabled people are also not sufficiently represented in public office.

    To help address this, in December 2018, government also launched the interim EnAble Fund for Elected Office. This is a £250,000 commitment to support disabled candidates – primarily for the forthcoming local elections in May. It will help cover disability-related expenses people might face when seeking elected office.

    I really hope this money will encourage more disabled people to become candidates and enrich our public life as a result.

    As a further example of opening up elections, we have changed the law, allowing anonymous voter registration to help protect survivors of domestic violence and others.

    As you will know, we want to help make legislation match more closely to the way people need to make those requests.

    Another group facing unnecessary obstacles to participating in our democracy are those UK nationals who live overseas – our expats.

    We think that no matter how far you have travelled, participation in our democracy is still a fundamental part of being British.

    This is why in Parliament we are supporting the Overseas Electors Bill, which will end the current 15-year time limit on British expats voting in UK Parliamentary elections, delivering on votes for life, and why we are pursuing bilateral arrangements with EU Member States – to secure the voting rights for UK nationals living in the EU and vice versa.

    It is right that both sides of this are considered together – that is both UK citizens living abroad and EU citizens living in the UK.

    It is right in this time of change that we provide certainty to EU citizens living here where we can – many of course who are citizens who play an active role in our society and our democracy.

    So I can therefore confirm that EU citizens currently living in the UK will retain their voting and candidacy rights in the next local elections in May.

    I have been working closely with my colleagues in other departments, and earlier this week we announced an agreement with Spain that will allow UK nationals living in Spain, and Spanish nationals in the UK, to continue to vote and stand in local elections.

    This agreement is the first of its kind and it secures the democratic rights of over 300,000 UK nationals living in Spain – the country with the biggest population of British expats living in the EU.

    One final area of progress I want to highlight is our proposed reform of the annual canvass, which will make the process easier for citizens, and for your teams.

    It will deliver the most accurate electoral register to date, while saving £27 million a year.

    I know that the current canvass process is seen by EROs and others as too paper-based, too prescriptive, and too complex.

    I am aiming to modernise it, allowing for a data-led approach and giving EROs more flexibility over their use of communications channels – and to target your precious resources where it is most needed to the properties where household change has occurred.

    My team will shortly be communicating plans for Local Authorities to start preparing to use their own data and to test the data match step in early 2020.

    I encourage you to support your electoral services teams in accessing and using local data, whether it is local authority owned or third party, where they are keen to do so. Including local data in the data match test will provide important information on the accuracy and usefulness of those data sets. This will be highly beneficial when it comes to the full roll-out of canvass reform.

    I hope to legislate to allow for the reformed canvass to be implemented in 2020.

    We make these changes as part of our broader commitment towards promoting a more inclusive democracy.

    The Democratic Engagement Plan that I was able to speech about last year, charted a course towards that goal by identifying and tackling barriers that prevent some people – particularly those in under-registered groups – from participating in our democracy.

    The update we will be publishing later today sets out the government’s future approach to democratic engagement – it outlines the role the government plays as a legislator, funder, convenor for registration activity and in promoting good practice.

    I ask you – as leaders – to consider the significant role you can continue to play in sustaining a flourishing democracy, by encouraging improvement and building capability within your own organisations.

    Good practice is at the heart of building capability.

    I was pleased to begin to discuss this with Louise yesterday, and I am looking forward to continuing to work together to identify and promote good practice so that it becomes embedded in all of our teams.

    Today’s publication makes clear how government intends to convene the various parts of the electoral community to make best use of our evidence, skills, knowledge, and our resources.

    I see that the Cabinet Office role includes supporting others’ capability to lead and ultimately to act independently, to encourage people to register, to participate and to vote.

    For instance, the Cabinet Office published details of what works on student registration; a brokering role that the government undertook as part of implementing the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.

    The government will share more examples this year where we are best placed – for example we are leading on research on how to remove registration barriers for people who are homeless or move frequently. I really look forward to sharing the results of this.

    But there is much to learn and benefit from at a local level. So let’s do this together.

    As part of this, I am pleased to launch the Atlas of Democratic Variation – a collection of maps which, for the first time in this format, displays the geographical data variations on electoral registration – and data relevant to that.

    The project was a collaboration between government and the Office for National Statistics.

    I hope that it allows EROs , you and your colleagues, the wider electoral community, democracy organisations and others to:

    examine the variations in the data, and seek to identify any trends or relationships between registration activity and population demographics, and use it to inform and support the development of your democratic engagement strategies

    In other words, to get more people involved.

    I don’t see it as being used to evaluate EROs performance nor the quality of the registers, we encourage stakeholders and interested parties to examine the maps included in the Atlas, to reflect on how they can support their democratic efforts.

    This publication also highlights our commitment to ensuring everyone can make their voice heard free from abuse, making voting easier and more accessible for vulnerable and under-registered groups, and introducing measures to protect electors’ votes.

    Government has a unique role to play in respecting, protecting and promoting our democracy.

    I understand that in order for you to accommodate the very diverse needs of voters in your communities, there are certain things that only government can progress on your behalf.

    Government naturally has a large impact in facilitating funding and promoting good practice.

    We are working with counterparts in Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that funding for delivery of elections at both local and national level is effective.

    Also, only government, with the Parliament and the Devolved Administrations, can change the law. And I do hope to make the most important changes to keep our body of electoral law up to date and effective – even if I can’t do all the change that some call for.

    But such things form only part of the equation and together we are greater than the sum of our parts.

    It is essential to me that government creates an environment in which democracy can thrive: one which enables our democratic partners – such as yourselves here today – to put your unique knowledge, skills and resource, to work for your voters.

    My message to you today is that I am committed to working with all of you to respect, protect and promote our democracy.

    I look forward to doing that and I thank you for having me today.

  • Caroline Dinenage – 2019 Statement on Social Care

    Below is the text of the statement made by Caroline Dinenage, the Minister for Care, in the House of Commons on 23 January 2019.

    Today I would like to update the House on social care funding following the Opposition day debate of 17 October 2018.

    Modern society is in the fortunate position where people are living longer and life expectancy for those living with complex health conditions, including disabilities, has dramatically increased. However, with 1.5 million more people aged over 75 expected in the next 10 years, we recognise the pressures this places on the health and social care system and the Government are taking steps to support the sector in responding to these challenges.​

    In the short term, the Government have given Councils access to up to £3.6 billion more dedicated funding for adult social care in 2018-19 and up to £3.9 billion for 2019-20. This injection of funding is the biggest that councils have ever received and is helping the NHS and social care to support people to live for longer and more independently.

    Despite the fact that the NHS is busier than ever before, the majority of patients are discharged quickly. We know that adult social care capacity can become increasingly pressured over the winter months and this can have a knock-on effect on NHS hospitals. This funding is helping to reduce delays, get patients home quicker and free up hospital beds across England for more urgent and acute cases. This is having a tangible effect with delayed transfers of care accounted for 4,580 occupied beds per day in November 2018—a decrease of 2,081 per day against the February 2017 baseline.

    The autumn Budget also announced an additional £650 million of new money for social care in 2019-20. This includes another £240 million for adult social care to alleviate winter pressures on the NHS next year and a further £410 million to improve social care for older people, people with disabilities and children. Councils will also benefit from an additional £55 million increase in the disabled facilities grant in 2018-19. This additional capital funding will provide home aids and adaptations for disabled children and adults on low incomes to help them continue to live independent lives in their own homes.

    References to £1.3 billion of cuts are entirely misleading as the figure refers only to the revenue support grant which should not be considered in isolation when councils have access to council tax, business rates and other local income to deliver their local services. In fact, funding for local government will increase in real terms in 2019-20. This means more money for councils to deliver for their local communities.

    This Government’s actions mean that funding available for adult social care is set to increase by 9% in real terms from 2015-16 to 2019-20 and the additional funding is allowing councils to support more people and sustain a diverse care market.

    All councils have statutory duties to look after the vulnerable, elderly and disabled people in their area. The Care Act established a national threshold that defines the care needs that local authorities must meet which eliminates the postcode lottery of eligibility across England. In addition to providing social care services, last year local authorities in England advised over 500,000 people on how to access other services to meet their care needs. This includes services provided by leisure, housing, transport and care providers as well as voluntary groups.

    In the longer term, the NHS’s Long-Term Plan is committed to supporting people to age well. As part of this the Government will increase investment in primary medical and community health services by at least £4.5 billion by 2023-24. This will support people to get joined-up, integrated care closer to home and will increase the capacity and responsiveness of community and intermediate care services to those who will benefit the most. Furthermore, the plan recognises the importance of integration between health and social care and commits to upgrading NHS support to all care home residents ​who would benefit by 2023-24 through the enhanced health in care homes programme, which embeds healthcare professionals into care homes.

    The Government have committed to publishing the Green Paper at the earliest opportunity which will consider the fundamental issues facing the adult social care system and present proposals for reform while the social care funding for future years will be settled in the spending review where the overall approach to funding local government will also be considered.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2019 Speech on Newcastle United Football Club

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central, in the House of Commons on 24 January 2019.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I must start by declaring an interest: I am a Newcastle United fan. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. When I raised this with the House authorities, I was told I did not need to declare it as I “derived no real benefit” from it. I would dispute that. Supporting Newcastle United has brought me great joy, and a sense of belonging, shared purpose, and community as well as the opportunity to watch the beautiful game at its beautiful best in that cathedral to football, St James’ Park. But it has also brought me deep despair and disappointment, particularly in the last few years. I also wanted to present myself in my Newcastle team shirt today, but I was told in no uncertain terms that that was not allowed. Instead, I have settled for a Newcastle Libraries T-shirt with our city on it.

    Newcastle United is at the heart of the city. Unlike Liverpool or London, we have only one professional football team and we are united in our support. And what support it is! Hon. Members may recall that, back when we had regional development authorities and investment in our regions, the One NorthEast tourism slogan was “Passionate people, passionate places”. Well, the passion of Newcastle is football. We have consistently high attendances—some of the highest in the league until recent times—and the economy of the city is influenced by the success on the pitch. If we are winning, we are singing—and spending. If we are losing, the gloom hovers over all our heads like individual storm clouds. It is part of our culture.

    Anyone who moves to Newcastle—and we certainly have an unparalleled quality of life, so I recommend that everyone does so—will find it an open, welcoming and warm city, but whereas elsewhere they might get away with talking about the weather, in Newcastle they will need to know how the Toon are doing. It is part of our mental wellbeing—90 minutes spent at the Gallowgate end would be enough to convince anyone of that—and this is true not only in Newcastle, as my hon. Friends—and fellow fans—the Members for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) can attest. They would have liked to be here today.

    Football is the lifeblood of many cities, particularly in the north, and that remains the case despite changes that have seen money, not fans, become the driving force of football thanks to the creation of the Premier League and billions of pounds from Sky Sports. While I will speak mainly about Newcastle United football club, its finances and its owner, much of what I say applies to football as a whole.

    Since 2008, Newcastle United has been owned by Mike Ashley, who also owns Sports Direct, House of Fraser and several other retail businesses. In July last year, I presented a petition reflecting the concerns of fans groups, such as If Rafa Goes We Go and the Magpie Group, and that caught the attention of Mr Ashley, something which I had been unable to do as the MP for St James’ Park, despite writing to him to ask for a meeting. It is testimony to the power of Parliament that, after announcing this debate, I was able to meet Mr Ashley on Saturday. I committed to Mr Ashley that I would make no personal attacks on him—I will not avail myself of parliamentary privilege to do so—and I say to all the fans that personal attacks on Mr Ashley or his employees are wrong and hurt our cause.

    I shared with Mr Ashley my concerns about financial transparency and funding, and he was passionate in his defence of his investments and in saying that he has not taken any money out of the club other than, he said, short-term funding on a temporary basis. That, he said, was in contrast with the period prior to his ownership. He also emphasised that he had made it clear the club must stand on its own two feet and can only spend the money it generates. Well, to put it diplomatically, we disagreed. The meeting was open, frank and robust, with strong views on both sides, and I hope to continue the dialogue. Indeed, this debate is part of that dialogue. It has to be, because I have still to receive a reply to my letter of last year in which I raised several critical issues that I have also raised in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the previous Sports Minister, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).

    Mr Ashley said that the club can spend only what it is generates—a form of austerity economics of which those on the Tory Benches could be proud—but Newcastle United needs investment to reach its potential. Earnings have been hit by uncertainty and the bad feeling between fans and the owner, but even if we accept what he says, how are we to know what income the club generates? As the Secretary of State said in his letter to me, clubs are treated as any other private business and must submit accounts to Companies House. I am not an accountant, but I have an MA in business administration, studied corporate finance and worked in business for 20 years. However, I have looked at the NUFC accounts and cannot work out what is going on.

    Faith in Newcastle’s accounts has not been helped by comments made by Mr Ashley at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee last December, when he said:

    “People cheat. That is what businesses do.”

    He also said:

    “Accountants are able—this is their job, by the way—to move the numbers about pretty much at will.”

    That seems to be what is happening at Newcastle. Mr Ashley’s ownership of the club passes through four separate companies: Mash Holdings, St James Holdings, Newcastle United, Newcastle United Football Holdings. In addition, dozens of other companies are associated with the club and Mike Ashley, and managing director Lee Charnley has more than 30 other directorships. Newcastle United’s accounts do not include a cash flow statement, although having one is a requirement of reputable accounting. All that seems designed to make it harder to follow the money and see what income is being generated.

    I hope that the Minister will agree that that is unacceptable and that she will commit to ensuring that the following income streams can be identified. First, TV payments. These should be more than £123 million, but they are not reported separately. Secondly, merchandise. Mr Ashley turned the club shop into a Sports Direct shop, but the revenues from Sports Direct do not go to the club. Thirdly, player sales. The way in which the purchase and sale of players is booked and amortised is in itself arcane. Newcastle United are consistently reported as having one of the lowest spends on players in the English premiership, and many estimates indicate the club have actually made a profit on player sales overall during Mr Ashley’s ownership. Does the Minister agree that we should be able to calculate that sum?

    Fourthly, advertising. Sports Direct hoardings are all over St James’ Park and, yet again, we do not see the revenue in the accounts. Finally, land sales. Next to St James’ Park is an area called Strawberry Place, which Mr Ashley allegedly purchased from the club for less than it was worth—we do not know, because the price is not visible. What we do know is that Strawberry Place is being developed for student accommodation. Selling the land stopped any further expansion of the stadium, and fans believe that the profit from the sale of that land will not benefit the club, but how are we to know? There is also an issue about land and property apparently sold to companies called Project J Newco No.39 and Project J Newco No.40, which appear to be connected to Mr Ashley, but there is no evidence of any payment.

    Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)

    Has the hon. Lady seen Deloitte’s “Football Money League” report? It seems to identify some of those incomes, such as £27 million for match day, £143 million for broadcasting and £32 million for commercial, figures that we can only dream of for Walsall football club.

    Chi Onwurah

    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest in Newcastle United, and I have seen the figures in Deloitte’s report, which make Newcastle United the 19th richest club in the world. My concern is that those figures should be reported visibly for all clubs, particularly in the Premier League, where there is so much money going around.

    Mr Ashley appears to be able to move assets between his privately owned companies at will, despite the club being a historic cultural icon and the other companies being of somewhat less reputable status and longevity.

    We do not know what income the club is generating and whether that money is being used on the club. What is certain is that this transfer window, like the last one, is closing without money being spent on players or training facilities. Mr Ashley’s principal investment in the club has been in the form of loans, rather than equity—presumably to protect his financial exposure. Those loans are interest free, which is good, but as loans they can be called in if needed, so the sustainability of Newcastle United depends on his other businesses being successful.

    That leads me to Mr Ashley’s business practices more generally. The BEIS Committee likened them to a Victorian workhouse, with employees being paid below the minimum wage. A “Dispatches” investigation found employees were publicly shamed for talking, for spending too long in the toilet or for falling ill, and lived in fear of being fired. Now Mr Ashley says that he is going to save the high street. Forgive me for being somewhat cynical, having seen how he has saved Newcastle United.

    Newcastle United is an asset to our city, a cultural giant in our lives. I explicitly pay tribute to the fantastic Newcastle United Foundation, which uses the power and passion of football to do great work across the north-east and is, in part, funded by the club, although again that funding is not transparent. The Premier League also uses some of its vast wealth for the benefit of local communities, at least what can be spared from expenditure such as its £5 million farewell gift to departing executive chairman Richard Scudamore.

    Neither Newcastle United nor the Premier League consider themselves to be accountable to fans. As many constituents have made clear to me, fans feel powerless before the slow destruction of what we believe in. Newcastle United is the beating heart of our city, and we should be able to protect it.

    That goes to the heart of the matter. Why is it that a person can buy a stately home in the wilds of Wiltshire and not be able to change even a window frame, but they can buy Newcastle United, which is in the heart of Newcastle, and strip it of its assets without so much as an eyebrow being raised? Why is football left largely to regulate itself when other businesses, from pubs to social media companies, must meet social requirements?

    I know that the Minister recognises the importance of football clubs and the custodian role of owners, because she said so during the recent debate on Coventry City. Will she now put that recognition into action? Will she launch an inquiry into the reporting requirements of premiership clubs, using Newcastle United as a test case? Will she ensure that that inquiry answers the financial questions that I have raised? Will she ensure that supporters have a voice on football club boards, as Labour has called for? Will she make reputable custodianship a requirement of club ownership? The fit and proper person test is clearly not fit for purpose.

    It is with great sadness that I say that I have come to the conclusion that football is broken. Its governance has not kept pace with its income, and money has won over sport. We cannot turn back the clock, but we can put in place effective regulation so that financial transparency enables the beautiful game’s true splendour to shine forth once more.

  • Matt Hancock – 2019 Speech at World Economic Forum in Davos

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health, in Davos on 24 January 2019.

    The purpose of the World Economic Forum is to bring together world leaders and big business to solve the world’s most difficult problems.

    One of these problems is antimicrobial resistance, where the world has come together over the last 5 years, but so much progress needs to be made, to stop an otherwise terrible future.

    As health secretary responsible for one of the most advanced healthcare systems in the world, I could not look my children in the eyes unless I knew I was doing all in my power to solve this great threat. When we have time to act. But the urgency is now.

    Each and every one of us benefits from antibiotics, but we all too easily take them for granted, and I shudder at the thought of a world in which their power is diminished.

    Antimicrobial resistance is as big a danger to humanity as climate change or warfare. That’s why we need an urgent global response.

    The UK has taken a global lead by setting out a 20-year AMR vision explaining the steps we must take nationally and internationally to rise to this challenge. It fits into a pattern of work across the world to keep this driving forward.

    The plan incorporates 3 things we all need to do: prevention, innovation, and collaboration.

    First: preventing infections is vital. We have today set a target in the UK of cutting resistant infections by 10% within the next 5 years.

    We’re going to cut antibiotic use by a further 15% within 5 years by only using antibiotics when absolutely necessary. Everybody can play a part in only using antibiotics when they’re really ill.

    And we’re going to work with the livestock industry to build on the amazing 40% reduction in antibiotic usage in just 5 years – 71% in chicken farming, while increasing productivity by 11%.

    We’re going to do it through immunisation, better infection control and working with doctors, vets, farmers and patients to prevent unnecessary prescription of antibiotics.

    Second: innovation. There hasn’t been a single, new class of antibiotic since the 1980s.

    No new innovation in the most basic bedrock of every health service in the world – shocking. And deeply troubling.

    Any health secretary or minister, who doesn’t lie awake at night worrying about that last pack of antibiotics, must have a prescription to some seriously strong sleeping pills.

    We know the reasons why. Compared to expensive new cancer or heart drugs, putting time and money into developing new antibiotics is commercially unattractive for pharmaceutical companies.

    And under the traditional model of revenue linked to volume, there is an added disincentive for pharmaceutical companies with a product that must be conserved.

    So we need a new model, one that works with, and incentivises the pharmaceutical industry.

    And this is where the NHS, because of its unique position, can take a global lead in pioneering a new payment system, one that reflects the true value of antibiotics to society.

    At the heart of it is changing the way we think of antibiotics from a medical product to a medical service.

    It’s a service that we all rely on: patients, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies.

    So within 6 months, the NHS is going to start work on paying for the service, and security, of having access to critical antibiotics when we need them, rather than hoping there’s a product we can buy in the future.

    We’re going to be more of a Spotify subscriber than a vinyl record shopper.

    We will pay upfront so pharmaceutical companies know that it’s worthwhile for them to invest the estimated £1 billion it costs to develop a new drug.

    We will work with the industry to develop the next generation of antibiotics, ones that are available and accessible to all.

    But the only way this system can incentivise innovation globally, is if it is expanded globally.

    Which brings me to my third and final point: collaboration.

    I am proud of the work the UK has done to secure antimicrobial resistance on the global agenda. We’re playing our part both at home and on the world stage.

    Because we recognise that none of us can stand alone against AMR. It won’t be solved by one nation, no single action or intervention.

    It is a fight that requires continued collaboration, across borders, now and in the future.

    I’ve been meeting health ministers from across the world here to agree further action, and next week the UN inter-agency co-ordination group are publishing their draft recommendations on the next steps needed to tackle AMR.

    Hopefully that will take us one step closer.

    It is a challenge, I believe, we can rise to if every step forward, we push ourselves further. Together, I’m convinced that with a proper plan we can achieve that goal.

  • Chris Grayling – 2019 Speech on HS2

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 24 January 2019.

    Thank you and good afternoon everyone. I’d like to thank you all for inviting me to this event.

    It’s a real pleasure to be here today and to see so many familiar faces from the world of transport, as well as across the political spectrum.

    This government’s plans for projects such as High Speed 2 will not only revitalise the north and the Midlands, they will have a transformational effect on Britain.

    And many of you in this room have the responsibility of not only bringing these plans to fruition but also ensuring the entire country enjoys the full benefits.

    For it’s no exaggeration that good transport connections can have an extraordinary impact on people’s lives. They bring communities closer together, provide new work and educational opportunities and help businesses to thrive. But I am all too conscious that the last time we built new rail links to the centres of our great northern cities, Queen Victoria was still on the throne.

    Back then the north was home to some of the earliest railway innovations.

    For instance, in 1830 the first modern intercity passenger railway in the world ran between Liverpool and Manchester.

    The 35-mile trip was a thrilling experience for travellers, if not a rather bracing one – as many passengers sat in carriages virtually open to the north-west’s weather.

    But it inspired real excitement among the public about the potential offered by railways and it’s my aim to create that same sense of enthusiasm towards the benefits of our modern railway projects.

    However it is a great shame that half a century of underinvestment means cities in the north and Midlands don’t just have poor rail connections to the rest of the UK – they have poor connections to each other.

    These inefficient links have meant that opportunity is less accessible for people than in other parts of the country, such as the south-east.

    I am proud to be part of a government that has called time on that trend.

    And I believe the creation of HS2 will super charge economic growth for the north and the Midlands while providing the extra capacity required on busy north to south rail routes, which are currently among the most intensively used in Europe, and encouraging employers and businesses to not just focus on London and the south-east but the country as a whole.

    I’ve been delighted to see the progress HS2 is making.

    Last autumn I joined West Midlands Mayor Andy Street to meet the team delivering the HS2 station at Curzon Street in Birmingham where the railway will help transform the city centre, and could unlock up to 36,000 jobs and 4,000 new homes.

    But as people in this room know, HS2 is not just about improving train links between London and Birmingham.

    It’s a project that will benefit the whole country, boosting opportunity and breathing new life into towns and cities.

    You may have seen media stories suggesting that the second stage of the project might not happen. Those stories are completely inaccurate.

    Let me be very clear. High Speed 2 is vital beyond Birmingham and failure to deliver it would be a dereliction of our duties to improve the life chances of everyone in this country, an abandonment of our ambition for one of the most extraordinary engineering projects since the Victorian age and a huge betrayal of the people in the Midlands and the north.

    Some of you may have been at the event, where I was reported to have made these remarks.

    In fact I said we must keep on making the strategic case for HS2 and work hard to win over the public about its potential benefits.

    Let me reiterate. We are committed to a second stage between the West Midlands and Leeds and between Crewe and Manchester, completing the ‘Y axis’ and it is very heartening to see that the positive impacts of HS2 — both the first and second stage — are already being felt all over the UK.

    So far it has already created 7,000 jobs and 100 apprenticeships. While over 2,000 contracts for the railway are being delivered by businesses large and small everywhere from Colchester to Coventry.

    So HS2 is a project that will transform our country, regenerate our regions and rebalance our economy. But I want to be clear that it will not come at the expense of other transport projects for the north. And conversely nor will other railway projects come at the expense of HS2.

    It’s a complete misnomer to say we can only have either Northern Powerhouse Rail or HS2. We need both. In fact there are strong reasons why HS2 should actually pave the way for NPR and why the case for NPR is actually bolstered by HS2.

    That’s why we are integrating HS2 into the emerging proposals from Transport for the North for Northern Powerhouse Rail, as well as with our Midlands transport plans.

    I’d like to conclude by thanking our hosts TFN, Midlands Connect, Core Cities and the Northern Powerhouse Partnership for organising this event.

    Your help is vital in achieving our ultimate goal of a transport network that is fit for the future.

    We are committed to delivering HS2 for you and the businesses, people, passengers and local authorities that you represent.

    It’s your work today that will help ensure the growth and prosperity of the whole country for generations to come.

    We have a fantastic opportunity with HS2 to transform capacity, boost connectivity and spark even greater economic growth. Let’s seize it with both hands. Thank you.