UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Theresa May – 2019 Statement at Serious Violence Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at 10, Downing Street, London on 1 April 2019.

    Good morning everyone.

    Thank you very much for coming here to Number 10 today to discuss tackling the issue that is a top priority for government and for the organisations who are represented here around this table. But perhaps more important, it’s an issue that families, and young people and communities across the country, are concerned about and want to see us tackling.

    And in the recent months we’ve seen an appalling number of young lives that have been cut short or devastated by serious violent crime, including a number of horrifying incidents which took place just over this weekend. And as we look at what’s happened of course what we also see is that in many cases the perpetrators of these crimes are as young as our victims. And this is something that has to be of deep concern to us all.

    It is a challenge that collectively affects us as a society, and it is a challenge that as a society we need to rise up to and to act to deal with.

    And not deal with as individuals in isolation – as single organisations or single politicians or individuals in the community – but actually dealing with it in a great, co-ordinated, wide-reaching and long-term effort. With all of us coming together to address this issue.

    Of course we would always make sure that the resources and tools are there to be able to apprehend and deal with those who are carrying and using knives, and the police have what they need to do – but we cannot simply arrest ourselves out of this problem.

    This is a wider problem. It’s more deep seated and we need to have a more coordinated effort in response to it.

    If you think about it, if it was a devastating disease that was affecting young people yes, we would be treating the symptoms but we would also be asking ourselves the question of what is the underlying cause.

    And that is that in relation to this issue we need to take the same approach to the cancer of serious youth violence.

    It is more than just law enforcement.

    And that is what this week’s summit is about. It’s about bringing together people from different aspects of society, with different responsibilities ,with different experience to ensure that we can build on the work that’s being done as in the Serious Violence Summit, and the Youth Endowment Fund, but also to make sure we come together in this multiagency, whole-community approach to serious youth violence.

    And that’s where of course this approach, often referred to as the “public health approach”, is one of the things we want to be discussing this week.

    That’s where everybody is working together across the system in multiple agencies – sharing information – but crucially making sure that every contact counts.

    And to help make that happen, today we’ve launched a consultation on a public duty that would underpin such an approach.

    I can also announce that we are setting up a new Ministerial Taskforce that will co-ordinate the government’s role and make sure all departments are playing their part. It needs, again, to be a collective approach across government as it is between government and other organisations.

    And there will be a new Serious Violence Team which will be set up in the Cabinet Office as well which will have representatives from across government to ensure join-up, and will also be well-placed to assist local areas as they build operational equivalents in their own Violence Reduction Units.

    In a moment I’ll ask the Home Secretary to talk a little more about the size and scope of the challenge we face and the work we have already undertaken to tackle it.

    But first we will hear from some of the experts who have joined us today.

    I’m grateful to everybody around the table because everybody has come with expertise and understanding and experience of this issue. We have sitting around the table people who have delivered transformational change and real reductions in violence across the UK and the US.

    So let me introduce Professor Mark Bellis, from Public Health Wales, and Dr Jens Ludwig, from the Chicago and New York Data Labs. I know you’ve travelled to be here today so thank you – particularly to Dr Ludwig for travelling as far as you have to be with us here today. We want to be able to learn from you and I know that in the chat that I’ve had with Mark in the past about the different roles and the importance of the work that you’ve done, and we very much look forward to learning from both of you.

    Nothing that is said today of course will bring back the young people whose lives have been so cruelly taken by serious violence.

    But what we can do today is to send a very clear message that “this must stop” and a very clear message that collectively we will do everything we can to make sure that it stops.

    And we can begin to shape this new approach that will meet the scourge of youth violence head on, so that more families are spared the unimaginable suffering that sadly too many families have endured in recent months.

    So with that I’ll pass over to Jens.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Statement After Meeting Theresa May

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, on 3 April 2019.

    There hasn’t been as much change as I expected but we will have further discussions tomorrow to explore technical issues.

    I put forward the view from the Labour Party that we want to achieve a customs union with the EU, access to the Single Market and dynamic regulatory alignment, that is a guarantee of European regulations as a minimum on the environment, consumer and workers’ rights. I also raised the option of a public vote to prevent crashing out or leaving on a bad deal.

  • Lord Owen – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Owen, the Independent Social Democrat Lord, in the House of Lords, on 4 April 2019.

    My Lords, I speak at a very difficult time for our whole country. However we see this debate in this Chamber, we have to consider how it will be seen outside of it. For what it is worth, if I had still been a Member of another place, I would have voted in principle against this Bill. It raises serious constitutional implications for another place, and I hope that very soon it will look at its rules of order and conventions and change them, so that this type of legislation can never again be presented either to this House or to the country.

    It is true, in strict terms, that this Bill is not related to the real question before us: the withdrawal agreement and a treaty between 27 other EU countries and the United Kingdom. However, we cannot have this debate without recognising that it has wide implications for that consideration. It seems to me, on the balance of argument which has been presented, that if I were going to vote—but I am not—I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. This is a reasonable way of proceeding, although I know it may seem to some to be a blocking measure.

    I understand the anger and frustration, and the belief that the procedures of the House of Commons have been changed in a way that was almost impossible to foresee for those of us who spent years there—I was there for 26 years. Nevertheless, it has done it; nevertheless, the Speaker has ruled; and, nevertheless, even by one vote, the Bill has been passed. We in this House have to be very careful about stopping this Bill. We may take a long time on it, and we may raise very serious constitutional questions about the way the House of Commons has behaved and urge it to change its procedures for the future, but if the word were to go out that the House of Lords had blocked the Bill, it would raise a very serious question. I have never made any secret of my view that this House needs very substantial reform, and if noble Lords want to bring on the day that this House is changed in a very substantial way, it will happen. Noble Lords need to be extremely careful.

    One thing I urge the House to remember is that, at long last, the Prime Minister of this country and the leader of the Opposition are meeting in what appears to be a climate of compromise with a readiness to try to put the country’s interest first. It may or may not succeed, but it is profoundly to be hoped that it does.

    How will this whole thing look, against that atmosphere and that priority, to the 27 countries that will have to consider this Bill, if it were to become an Act? The Prime Minister has already indicated what she wishes to do, but they are in control of the procedure. Many times in this whole debate about Europe, I warned this House about Article 50, which we should never have used. It is deliberately designed to stop the sort of normal compromise and agreement which has proceeded in both Houses over many years. We are not in a so-called negotiation, and people are now seeing it. In front of us, we have a proposal from 27 countries. It may be that the Prime Minister is ready to go along with it, and perhaps the House will eventually, but it is not a negotiated procedure in the normal sense of the word, and those countries have the right to make the decision about whether to allow a postponement.

    Furthermore, something we should consider is that it has to be unanimous, so just one country can refuse. We know they are thinking very carefully about whether they will allow this. Even if we get around it procedurally, they are worried about its implications for the whole tone and debate in their countries when electing the new European Parliament. The way we debate here and in the other place will go a long way to deciding whether they will wish to accept a postponement, which I profoundly hope they do. Do not think that we are in a little bubble here which has no implications for anything else.

    This country has a long record of accepting international treaties. This country has a long record of sending its Ministers, particularly its Foreign Secretary, out to negotiate under the royal prerogative. It was a great mistake when we changed the royal prerogative and the right of a Minister to go into an international treaty to trade across the table and to come back to Parliament and ask for a yes or no. That is how we have dealt with international treaties. The obligation has been on Ministers—the Foreign Secretary and everyone else—to talk with their opposite numbers throughout a treaty-making process so that there was built-in consideration of the bipartisanship of foreign policy. Do we deny that virtue that we have had over centuries in this House and in another place, whereby international politics was, if possible, conducted under bipartisanship? Are we throwing all that out too?

    Time after time during this process we have failed to understand that our own constitution is a check. Parliament—we here and those in the House of Commons—voted for a referendum, yet what does the country see? It sees an elite in both Houses, and in London, blocking the decision democratically made by the electorate in the referendum. Shame on you if you do anything to let that happen.

  • Mark Field – 2019 Statement on Brunei

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Field, the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, in the House of Commons on 4 April 2019.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about Brunei and sharia law.

    I appreciate that this issue has been of widespread concern in the House and was the subject of two requests for an urgent question earlier in the week by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). I apologise, too, that, given how late we sat last night, there are slightly fewer Members in the House today than there might have been, as many of them have an understandable desire to head off. I thought that it was worth making a full statement on this issue. There was no criticism of you, Mr Speaker, that you did not allow the urgent questions, not least because we were able to touch on this matter in the slightly unsatisfactory way that one does during Foreign and Commonwealth questions.

    Brunei introduced sharia criminal law in 2014, to operate alongside the common law system in that country. Implementation of the final phases of the associated sharia penal code was delayed from 2014 until yesterday. These final phases now introduce the possibility of hudud corporal and capital punishments, which may include amputation for theft, and execution by stoning for witnessed adultery and anal sex.

    The sharia penal code requires four witnesses or a confession from the offender for a conviction to be secured. It is a fairly tall ask, but that does not mean it is impossible to achieve. Under the common law in Brunei, homosexuality is already a criminal offence. Whippings are also quite frequently used as a punishment for a variety of offences, and the death penalty remains on the statute book—although it has not been enforced since 1992.

    I want to be absolutely clear about the UK’s position on this: this Government consider it appalling that, in the 21st century, people anywhere are still facing potential persecution and discrimination because of who they are and whom they love. We strongly support and defend the rights of the LGBT+ community here in the UK and all around the world.

    We absolutely oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and in all forms, and we do not believe that amputation or stoning are legitimate or acceptable punishments. Indeed, we consider them to be illegal under international human rights laws relating to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.

    We also note that, since the introduction of sharia criminal law in Brunei in 2014, the vast majority of crimes have continued to be brought to justice under the existing common law system, which runs in parallel in that country. However, if implemented, we believe that these extreme hudud punishments would contravene Brunei’s international commitments to respect human rights and individual freedoms. That is why we have expressed deep concerns to the Government of Brunei. I personally raised the matter with His Majesty the Sultan, the Minister of Religious Affairs and the Foreign Minister, Dato Erywan, when I visited the country in August 2018.

    Last week, I wrote to Dato Erywan to re-emphasise our concern about the use of hudud punishments, which contravene the international standards and values that the UK and Brunei both uphold. Earlier this week, our outstanding high commissioner Richard Lindsay also raised our concerns with senior Bruneian Ministers, including the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Religious Affairs and Finance. He received assurances that common law would continue to be the primary means of administering justice and that the burden of proof under the sharia penal code has been set to be almost unattainably high, and, obviously, we welcome that.

    I understand that the Foreign Secretary will speak with the Bruneian Foreign Minister later today and urge the Government of Brunei to take further steps to ensure that those extreme punishments cannot be used, and to respect the rights and freedoms of all their citizens.

    Colleagues may be concerned about the potential impact of sharia criminal law in Brunei on British nationals, for whom we have a specific consular responsibility. I assure the House that our travel advice has been updated to ensure that all British citizens are aware of the introduction of the new laws under the sharia penal code. Supporting British nationals remains our No. 1 priority, and we will continue to provide consular support for all British folk in Brunei should it be required. As many Members will be aware, we have a specific responsibility towards British military personnel and their families who are stationed in Brunei, including as part of our long-standing garrison agreement that dates from the coming into existence of Brunei as an independent state in 1962. I assure the House that necessary protections are in place with the Government of Brunei.

    For historical and ongoing reasons we have a close friendship with Brunei, and from my experience both in Brunei and with Bruneians in this country, I know that they regard themselves—with good cause—as a generous, friendly and tolerant people, and they are worried to see the tarnishing of that reputation, given recent press in the UK and across the world. We have an important bilateral security relationship with Brunei, of which the garrison agreement is one part, but that has never prevented us from raising difficult issues. Indeed, I believe that the strength and richness of that relationship permits us to share our views and express those concerns—sometimes openly, sometimes more in private, but always frankly—as we seek to work together to address these issues.

    I am sure I speak for the entire House when I say that this Government, our high commissioner and I will continue to urge the Government of Brunei to take all necessary steps to reassure their own people, the United Kingdom and the wider international community that they are fully committed to allowing all citizens and residents of Brunei to live with dignity, and free from violence, discrimination or persecution. As an integral part of our foreign policy work around the world, we will continue to oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances and promote the rights of LGBT+ people. Nobody should face punishment for who they are or whom they love. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Robert Goodwill – 2019 Statement on the Agriculture and Fisheries Council

    Below is the text of the statement give by Robert Goodwill, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the House of Commons on 2 April 2019.

    I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 18 March.

    The main item on the agriculture-focused agenda was the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2020, covering three legislative files:

    the regulation on CAP strategic plans,

    the horizontal regulation, which is a regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP,

    the regulation on common market organisation (CMO) of agricultural products.

    Member states highlighted that further discussions were needed in areas such as the delivery model, wine labelling and greening. I intervened to introduce myself and expressed the UK’s interest to share thinking on our domestic arrangements as they develop. During the discussion Ministers also debated the outcome of the congress titled “CAP Strategic Plans – Exploring Eco-Climate Schemes” which took place in Leeuwarden, Netherlands on 6-8 February 2019, as well as the future of coupled income support in the CAP.

    Council also held an exchange of views on the bioeconomy. Commissioner Hogan gave an overview of the implementation of the EU’s new strategy while member states exchanged examples of areas where the bioeconomy is being developed in their countries. ​I intervened on the item, welcoming the EU bioeconomy strategy and pointing to the UK’s national bioeconomy strategy which was published in December 2018.

    A number of other items were discussed under ‘any other business’:

    Slovenia informed Council about small-scale coastal fisheries and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.

    The Netherlands informed Council about a decision by the Technical Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office regarding the possibility to patent the results of classical plant breeding.

    The Commission provided an update about the outcomes of the workshops organised by the Commission Task Force for Water and Agriculture on 27 November 2018 in Sore, Denmark and on 5-6 February 2019 in Bucharest, Romania.

    Poland provided an update on the potential impact on the meat market considering new trade challenges. As the discussion reflected on the possible impact of the UK leaving the EU, I intervened to set out the reasoning behind our recently published temporary tariff regime for no-deal.

  • Rory Stewart – 2019 Statement on HMP Birmingham

    Rory Stewart

    Below is the text of the statement made by Rory Stewart, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, in the House of Commons on 2 April 2019.

    Today the Secretary of State and I can confirm the future plans for HMP Birmingham following the step in initiated by HMPPS and also the urgent notification received by the Secretary of State from HM chief inspector of prisons on 20th August 2018.

    We have concluded with the full agreement of G4S that the best way forward now is for us to end the contract and bring back the prison under public sector management.

    The situation at HMP Birmingham was totally unacceptable which is why we “stepped in” in August 2018 and why we continued to do so in February 2019. We were always clear that the prison would not be handed back until we were satisfied that sufficient progress had been made.

    The prison has made some good progress—both we and G4S have however recognised that there is still much more to do to deliver further improvements. It has become increasingly clear that G4S alone is not able to make the improvements that were so badly needed, and that additional ongoing support from the public sector Prison Service is required to ensure that the prison gets the stability and continuity that will be necessary for sustained progress.

    This means that on 1 July 2019, HMP Birmingham will return to public sector management. We have agreed a settlement with G4S of £9.9 million, which covers the additional cost to the MOJ of its “step in” action—meeting our previous public commitment and which also includes an amount to cover essential maintenance works.

    Our responsibility is to make sure that prisons are properly run for prisoners and the public. At Birmingham, we must accelerate the good work that has already commenced to stabilise the prison for the longer term. The foundation for that is making sure that we have a clean, decent and safe prison. That is the foundation ​from which we can do all the other things we want to do—in particular, rehabilitate people, change lives and ultimately protect the public.

    What we need to focus on now is building on the positive work achieved to date at HMP Birmingham. We are clear that we have made progress and got some of the necessary basics on the right track to drive improvement; specifically, with the deployment of experienced HMPPS staff, managers and specialists we have significantly increased staff confidence, gained greater order and control and improved day-to-day regime delivery. I am confident that we are beginning to get a grip on the issues driving violence and that we will see the results of this in the coming months.

    Progress on decency has also been made; two of the three large Victorian wings which did not meet our expectations have been taken out of use. The third will also soon be fully out of use, as another newly refurbished wing builds to full occupancy. Cleanliness has improved across the site and the visitors centre is being refurbished. This work forms part of the family strategy supporting prisoners and their families to stay in touch, which is key to rehabilitation.

    HMPPS staff are also tackling some of the key security risks. A dedicated search team has been introduced and improved, intelligence-led searching has been yielding good results. Specifically, a full lock down search was conducted recently in a major operation involving staff from across the wider service, which was successful in finding and confiscating contraband, and taking disciplinary action taken against the relevant prisoners as a result.

    It is also important for staff and prisoners to know what the future of the prison looks like and to remove uncertainty. Paul Newton, the governor who has been running the prison during step in, will remain in post following the transfer back into the public. We will continue to work closely with G4S to support the prison and to make the transition as smooth as possible in the meantime for both staff and prisoners.

    This is the right decision for HMP Birmingham but we continue to believe that prisoners and the public benefit from a mixed economy of provision. We are going to remain in a situation where the majority of our prisons will continue to be run by the public sector, but the private sector has a role to play. The private sector has delivered real value for money and some new approaches that have been really impressive.

    We have now been running private prisons for 25 years. By and large, that experience has been positive. In fact, G4S’s itself, its performance at Oakwood, Parc and Altcourse has been impressive. They are good prisons. So are Bronzefield, Ashfield, Forest Bank and Thameside, run by other private sector providers.

    It makes sense to us that for the next couple of new prisons we give the private sector a chance to bid, but we have set a public sector benchmark. We have explained what the costs would be of the public sector providing the quality of service we want at a prison, and if private sector bidders are not able to provide better value for money, we would look again at the public sector running those establishments.

    We will of course be learning lessons from Birmingham which must support our approach to contracting for private prisons in the future.​
    I strongly believe that this decision is the right one for HMP Birmingham at this time. I am pleased that G4S have also recognised this and are working with us to deliver better outcomes for prisoners and a better working environment for staff. I look forward to being able to report further good progress at HMP Birmingham in the coming months.

  • Chris Grayling – 2019 Statement on the EU Transport Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 3 April 2019.

    The Romanian presidency hosted an informal meeting of Transport Ministers in Bucharest on Wednesday 27 March. This was not a formal Council meeting and no decisions were taken. This statement provides a summary of discussions. The UK was represented by officials.

    The meeting discussed multimodality, sustainability, infrastructure and road safety. On multimodality, participants underlined the importance of developing a comprehensive approach to multimodal transport. Integrated ticketing systems, promotion of car-sharing or public transport, digitalisation and interoperability were identified as means for developing multimodality.

    On sustainability, participants discussed the importance of action to reduce the impact of transport on climate change, recognising the challenges raised by an increasing need for mobility and the negative impact on the climate. Policy and practical approaches to encouraging multimodal transport were discussed, with many interventions focusing on possible measures to be taken in order to decarbonise ​transport such as: promotion of alternative fuels, digitalisation, better planning of services, uptake of new technologies, and incentives for use of public transport or cycling.

    The Commission set out its thinking on the revision of the TEN-T regulation, following the launch of its review process in March, and its plans for consultation with stakeholders and member states in the next few months. Participants welcomed the Commission’s initiative to start the revision process of the TEN-T regulation and discussed future funding options for the promotion of priority projects.

    Over lunch the meeting heard some presentations on road safety. The European Commission stressed the importance of member states implementing the “Vision zero” to reduce fatalities and severe injuries on roads. The European Commission will be seeking to re-focus its efforts in this area by introducing a new policy framework on road safety for 2021-30. In addition, it will seek to foster a partnership with the European Investment Bank to provide the “Safer Transport Facility” with the aim of providing a “one stop shop” to support member states in achieving the objective.

    The UK did not intervene substantively.

  • Sajid Javid – 2019 Statement on Windrush Compensation Scheme

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 3 April 2019.

    I have today announced the details of the Windrush compensation scheme. The Government deeply regret what has happened to some members of the Windrush generation and when I became Home Secretary I made clear that responding to this was a priority. The compensation scheme being launched today is a key part of righting the wrongs experienced by some members of the Windrush generation, under successive Governments.

    A public consultation opened on 19 July 2018 seeking views on proposals for a Windrush compensation scheme. Since the consultation closed on 16 November, careful consideration has been given to the 1,435 responses that were received from people and organisations, as well as the feedback from the focus groups. These views have been considered in addition to the 650 responses to the call for evidence which preceded the consultation. Martin Forde QC, who was appointed to give independent advice on the compensation scheme, has attended events across the country to hear the stories of those affected, and his findings have contributed to the final design. I would like to extend particular thanks to Martin: I have met him to discuss his views on the scheme and his advice has been invaluable.

    The Government have listened carefully and I believe the proposals are in line with what the majority of respondents wanted to see in the scheme. I am pleased that Martin has concluded the scheme is accessible and ​fairly compensates those who have suffered. The scheme will ensure that those who have been affected are able to claim for the losses they faced and receive appropriate compensation. It is important that the scheme works well for those who have suffered a loss, so we are making it accessible and fair, with guidance available to help people understand what compensation they might be entitled to and how they submit a claim.

    Detailed information about the compensation scheme, with the forms and guidance that people need to make a claim, are available from today online at: www.gov.uk/windrush-compensation. Our free phone helpline is also open now 0800 678 1925 for those wishing to receive printed copies of the claim form or for any other queries. Copies of the response to the consultation (CP 81) are available from the Vote Office and will also be online at: www.gov.uk.

    The Home Office is committed to raising awareness of the scheme, and to encouraging eligible people of all nationalities to submit a claim. Eligibility for compensation goes beyond members of the Caribbean Commonwealth, and we are putting in place a programme of events with key stakeholders, faith and community organisations to communicate the detail of the scheme and give everyone who is potentially eligible, the opportunity to hear about the scheme and to apply.

    I would again like to thank all those who responded to the consultation and who took part in the wider engagement during the development of the scheme. The views and experiences that have been shared have proved crucial in shaping the Government’s policy, ensuring it addresses the matters raised by those affected.

  • Chris Skidmore – 2019 Statement on Education Technology Strategy

    Below is the text of the statement made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, in the House of Commons on 3 April 2019.

    Education technology (EdTech) refers to the practice of using technology to support teaching and the effective day-to-day running of education institutions. Technology has become embedded throughout society and yet the use of technology in education is mixed. There is potential for technology to play a stronger role in helping to address some of the key challenges in education.

    The Department for Education has developed an education technology strategy “Realising the potential of technology in Education: A strategy for education providers and the technology sector”. The strategy aims to support and enable the education sector in England to help develop and embed technology in a way that cuts workload, fosters efficiencies, removes barriers to education and ultimately drives improvements in education outcomes. It includes support to promote a vibrant EdTech business sector in the UK to provide proven, high-quality products that meet the needs of educators and fosters a pipeline of fresh ideas.

    At the core of the strategy is an understanding that the use of technology does not provide a panacea, but when used well, it can be highly effective in helping to deliver improvements and tackle challenges throughout education. The strategy marks the development of a partnership between the education sector, the technology industry and the Government to drive further progress in the use of education technology for schools, further education, higher education and other providers and announces a new leadership group to take this forward.

    The strategy makes clear how we intend to build upon existing good practice in the sector through launching a network of EdTech demonstrator schools and colleges across the country. The demonstrator schools and colleges will help showcase the possibilities for technology and will facilitate peer-to-peer learning about the good use of technology to help address challenges facing teachers, leaders and students, be this funding, teacher workloads, meeting the needs of pupils with special needs or more generally to help support teachers to deliver excellent teaching.

    It also makes clear that Government will help address the barriers facing education providers and the technology industry, through:

    Helping schools to secure the broadband and networking infrastructure they need through accelerating the roll-out of full fibre internet connectivity to schools and providing guidance.

    Supporting the creation of opportunities for teachers and school leaders to improve their skills and knowledge about good use of technology through creating opportunities for peer-to-peer learning and through supporting partner organisations to provide free online CPD courses and free nationwide roadshows showcasing products, services and good practice.​
    Improving support for procurement of technology, including exploring how to facilitate a better online marketplace for EdTech including through pre-negotiated buying deals, and supporting a digital service allowing schools to try products before they buy.

    Helping education providers and the technology industry understand the privacy, security and data guidance and standards they should adhere to.

    Helping the education technology industry to understand the full range of support available to them to help grow and scale their business through the Government’s industrial strategy.

    Improving the digital services that the Department for Education itself provides.

    The strategy also announces 10 challenges to educationists and the technology industry. These cover areas where we think there is real potential for technology to make a difference and where we are seeking to galvanise activity, promote innovation and to prove whether or not technology has the potential to deliver positive outcomes. This includes the use of technology in assessment, administration, learning throughout life, teaching practice and continuing professional development. We will deliver the challenges through research, competitions to promote innovation by industry and the development of test bed schools and colleges.

    This strategy marks the start of creating a technology revolution in education in England. We know that delivering this vision will take time, but we are committed to working in partnership with education and industry to deliver this vision.

    I will deposit a copy of the strategy in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Stephen Barclay – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Barclay, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in the House of Commons on 3 April 2019.

    We will oppose this Bill. It is being passed in haste, and the fact that we have a time limit of two minutes for a number of speeches this evening is an indication of the fact that the Bill is being passed in haste. It is constitutionally irregular and, frankly, it fails to understand the decision-making process by which any discussion of an extension or agreement of an extension at the European Council will be reached. I will come to that in the limited time I have in which to speak.

    It is not just me who has concerns about the Bill on behalf of the Government. Objections to the Bill have been raised by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker); and the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). All have raised concerns about the Bill—particularly the fact that it is being rushed through in such short order—and indeed about the precedent it sets for this and successive Governments.

    The Bill also calls into question the royal prerogative. It has been a long-standing practice that Heads of Government can enter into international agreements without preconditions set by the House that would constrain their ability to negotiate in the national interest. Let me give an example of how such constraints could have adverse effects and, in particular, given that the House has voted against no deal, how the Bill could increase the risk of an accidental no-deal exit. On Wednesday 10 April the European Council could propose an extension of an alternative length, yet under the Bill the Prime Minister would then have to return on Thursday 11 April to put that proposal to the House. However, by 11 April the European Council will have concluded and the leaders will have returned to their member states. We would then need to confirm the UK’s agreement to the European Council’s decision and get its approval for that by 11 pm on 12 April.

    At the heart of this is the fact that last Friday the House voted against the withdrawal agreement, which was the only legal right the House had to an extension to 22 May, which, as I understand it, Mr Speaker, was at the heart of your decision to grant that vote, because, as the Attorney General set out, that was an additional right bestowed on the House as a result of the previous European Council. We have no automatic right to a legal extension. That right was forgone as a result of the House’s decision last Friday. Yet the Bill would put the House in the position of having to agree after the European Council has concluded and the leaders have returned to their member states.

    Tom Brake

    The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Who ran down the clock?

    Stephen Barclay

    It is not usually my practice to quote from The Guardian, but I suspect that it is the right hon. Gentleman’s newspaper of choice. We all remember its front-page headline, “No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No”—it was quoted by many EU leaders—because this House failed to agree on the various options.

    The Prime Minister has sought to compromise. Indeed, part of the challenge she has had with her deal is the fact that people on both wings of the debate feel that it is too much of a compromise. She has sought to compromise in the national interest, reflecting the fact, as Members have said, that 48% of the public did not vote to leave. That is why she reached out to the Leader of the Opposition, but for several weeks he refused to meet her. Indeed, he even refused to meet just because the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) happened to be in the room, which was apparently beyond the pale. I am pleased that today I was able to join the Prime Minister at a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition.

    The fact that the House has consistently voted for what it is against, rather than what it is for, and indeed its decision on Friday not to approve the withdrawal agreement, is the very essence of running down the clock, because it waived our right to an extension to 22 May and therefore allowed an extension only to 12 April. It is very odd for the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), having voted for that reduction in time, now to complain about it.

    We are passing the Bill in haste and do not have adequate time to debate it in the manner that I would like us to—there is only one minute left on the clock. There are problems with the speed of its passage, the constitutional principle of it and the way it will interact with any decision reached by the Council that differs from the earlier decision taken by the House. I hope that the constitutional experts in the other place will address some of the Bill’s flaws. It is because of those defects that the Government will oppose the Bill, and I urge Members to oppose this defective Bill.