UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • King Edward VII – Statement on Death of Queen Victoria

    Below is the text of the statement issued by King Edward VII on the death of his mother, Queen Victoria, which was read out in the Houses of Parliament on 25 January 1901.

    The King is fully assured that the House of Commons will share in the deep sorrow which has befallen His Majesty and the Nation by the lamented death of His Majesty’s mother, the late Queen. Her devotion to the welfare of Her country and Her people, and Her wise and beneficent rule during the sixty-four years of Her glorious reign will ever be held in affectionate memory by Her loyal and devoted subjects throughout the dominions of the British Empire.

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech to the Conservative Group of the Local Government Association

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May to the Conservative Group of the Local Government Association on 5 July 2005.

    And so, as sure as night turns to day, a General Election defeat has now been swiftly followed by another Tory leadership contest.

    Of course we will need, in time, to elect a new leader.

    But my concern is that, as usual, we are already rushing to a personality-based beauty contest.

    When what we need most is to have a substantial debate about the future of our party.

    So my message to our colleagues in Westminster is simple:

    Stop looking for quick fixes.

    There is no silver bullet.

    Put the work in.

    Face up to the scale of the problem.

    Keep your eyes open, your thinking clear.

    And empty your heads of ideological prejudice.

    You see, there is a massive job to do, and so far I’m afraid most of our colleagues in Westminster have shown little or no sign that they understand just how big it is.

    One of my faults, or so I’m told, is that I have a habit of quoting from Democrat Presidents.

    Well tonight I will only quote from a fictional one, every Tory’s favourite Democrat, President Jed Bartlet from The West Wing.

    In one episode, he’s talking about the mixed messages he’s receiving from his economic advisers.

    “Everyone’s got a magic lever they want you to push,” he says, “…but in this job only a fool is ever certain. You don’t push any one lever. You want to push a little on all of them.”

    Bartlet could have been talking about the current Conservative debate.

    Because that’s the problem everyone seems to have a single policy answer to the massive problems we face.

    For some, that policy is low taxes.

    For some, it’s choice in the public services.

    And for others, it is localism.

    But the truth is that no single policy or idea will be sufficient to rebuild the Conservative Party’s relationship with the British people.

    Just look at the evidence in the research published last week by Lord Ashcroft.

    His polling showed that through January and February, Conservative policies on schools and the public services were never recalled by more than two per cent of the electorate at any one time.

    It was simply not the case that people heard digested and rejected our policies.

    They just didn’t think we were worth listening to.

    It therefore cannot be the case that a renewal of our policies this time around will be the answer.

    And yet here we are in danger of elevating certain policies to the status of ideological cure-alls.

    And you know what?

    We’ve done it before.

    For years, we saw low taxes and privatisation as ends in themselves, rather than as means to delivering the kind of open, free enterprise culture we value.

    As a result, people thought us dogmatic rather than pragmatic more interested in pursuing our ideology for the sake of it, than in making a difference to their lives.

    We did it again at the General Election, when there was no better example of our failure to connect with people and their values than our approach to the public services.

    While people wanted the right to good quality public services, on May the Fifth we offered them the right to choose.

    Yes, we aspired to good quality schools and hospitals.

    But, while Labour talked the language of aspiration and improvement, people perceived the extent of our vision to be choice-driven managerial jargon.

    And now, along with our lingering ideological obsessions with low taxes and choice, a growing number of voices have identified localism as the theory that will mend our broken party.

    In recent weeks, some in the party have told us that they’ve found the secret to winning the next election.

    They’ve called it localism.

    Apparently all we have to do is talk to local people, get interested in local issues, focus on local campaigning, and get involved with our local communities.

    What on earth do they think councillors have been doing, day in, day out, year after year?!

    But when you get into specifics, you find that the implications of their brand of localism are quite different to what I and, I suspect, most of you have always believed in.

    It is a blueprint for nothing less than the almost complete dismantlement of government — at both a national and a local level.

    Instead of government, they want to see Britain run by a plethora of locally-elected mayors, authorities, and officials.

    A Britain more like America where people have the power to elect everyone from their local MP to their local dogcatcher.

    Quite apart from what you may or may not think of this brand of localism, the really important question is who’s going to vote for it?

    There are two clear political dangers of a radical agenda that seeks to bypass and replace all levels of government, and that allows people instead to elect their own local police chiefs and school boards

    First, the concept of elected boards and authorities has the potential to undermine the long-standing, and genuinely popular, Conservative commitment to civil society and voluntary action replacing it with yet more politicians and elected officials.

    For example, how many people, who currently offer their time for free in order to act as school governors, do you think would be willing to put themselves up for public election to a school board?

    Second, these policies might sound to us, and to friendly policy wonks, like clear and compelling proposals.

    But many voters will choose to hear a far less desirable message.

    As far as they’re concerned, the message will be:

    “You choose who you want to run things, you elect them, so now it’s your problem, not ours.”

    Now I believe our values should include an instinct for local, people-based solutions, over Whitehall-bureaucratic centralisation.

    I believe we should always seek to push down power from national government, through local government, and ultimately to people.

    And I believe it is through the work of people like you and the base you have established at a local level that the Conservative Party can best approach the long journey back to government.

    For the record, I was one of the co-founders of Britain’s leading localist think tank, Policy Exchange.

    And I remain a committed localist.

    But, I also want to be clear that a local approach to our politics and our policies can only ever be a part of the answer we are looking for.

    And, in rushing to narrow policy specifics, my colleagues risk missing crucial wider points about what needs to happen to get the Conservative Party back into shape.

    In short, neither localism nor any other single policy idea will ever be sufficient to guarantee the revival of the Conservative Party.

    Lord Ashcroft’s polling also showed that, during the campaign, six times as many people saw the Conservative Party as ‘old-fashioned’ rather than ‘modern’. And twice as many people saw us as ‘dishonest’ rather than ‘honest’, and ‘not concerned about people’ rather than ‘concerned about them’.

    These depressing results reflected the fact that the Conservative brand is seriously badly damaged.

    If we are going to fix that, we will have to accept and respond to the way politics has changed and this is where you, as councillors, are way ahead of the Party in Westminster.

    Today, politics is more than ever about individual people and families, and what government can do for them.

    It is about making a difference to their day-to-day lives.

    I know this because, like all of you, I was once a local councillor.

    I was a councillor for eight years, and it taught me a lot.

    Not least, I learnt that what people want is delivery on issues that matter, and not warm words and fuzzy jargon.

    When I was Chairmen of Education on Merton Council, I was privileged to be able to champion the completion of an incredibly bold programme that was years ahead of its time.

    We made sure that there was a free nursery school place available to every three and four year-old child whose parents wanted one.

    This was way before central government had woken up to the importance of nursery education for children and their parents.

    The lesson of how local councils can lead the way, because they operate at such close range to the lives of the people they are elected to serve, has never left me.

    I think the Conservative Party, at a national level, now has to demonstrate that same kind of commitment to delivering the things that really matter to people.

    And it has to demonstrate an absolute flexibility of thinking and approach, in striving to achieve those ends.

    But initially at least, the Conservative Party has to focus far more on what those ends should be, and far less on the means of delivering them.

    The time will come for the policy lever.

    But four years away from a General Election, with the world changing faster than ever, this would be a very silly time indeed to start committing ourselves to narrow policy specifics.

    So what now, if not policy?

    I’ll tell you what.

    Values, vision, beliefs, hopes, and dreams.

    Now I know that these things are hard to summarise easily.

    I know others are looking for answers that are crisper and more tangible.

    But the time for ten-word slogans will come.

    You see, politics is about people.

    Politics is about delivering a vision, based on a core set of values.

    Politics is about telling a powerful story with real substance.

    Only then can you reduce that story to policy specifics that are snappy enough to influence the ‘ballot-box moment’.

    Your story can begin, and it can end, with ten words, or even just five but, in between, it needs to be made flesh with hundreds, if not thousands of them.

    That’s why we need to start today not by launching numerous detailed, distinct, and specific policies but by painting vivid pictures, and telling compelling stories, about what life would be like in Conservative Britain.

    I believe the Conservative Party’s aim should be to give people security and hope and to help them achieve fulfilment in their lives.

    Government alone cannot make people happy.

    But it can ensure that its net contribution to people’s happiness and well-being is always a positive one.

    So when we, as Conservatives, seek to set people free, to trust them, and to give them the best possible opportunities in life it’s actually helping them fulfil their potential today, and giving them hope for an even better tomorrow.

    Because we believe that people, in the pursuit of their own happiness, will take better decisions for themselves that any politicians or bureaucrats ever could.

    When we think about issues like healthcare and social security, we should do it knowing that, without such universal safety nets, people would feel hugely insecure.

    When we argue for a strong economy and for growing wealth, we should be mindful that they are just means to an end.

    Because we know that, by supporting our public services, and by helping people to live their lives as they want, wealth helps to generate security and happiness.

    When we consider the values that the British people associate with their country – decent, tolerant, fair-minded, respectful, and equal – we should remember that it makes them feel secure and hopeful for the future to live in such a country.

    And we should remember that it would make them unhappy ever to think that their country, or their government, was failing to live up to those values.

    And finally, when we argue for tough-minded approaches to things like policing, asylum, or government spending it should not be because particular policies give us some ideological thrill.

    It should be because there are growing problems to be dealt with that, if not addressed, will end up reducing people’s well-being in the long run.

    Now is not the time for details.

    It’s only July 2005 and we should not get ahead of ourselves.

    Right now, if we could just begin to convince people that we’re serious about making a commitment to the big and the small things that make their lives that little bit better, then we would have taken a giant step on the road back to power.

    I think you, as local councillors, know all this.

    I think it’s what you do every day for the residents you serve.

    And I think you understand, better than anyone, how politics is all about what you do for people, not about how you do it.

    That’s why I believe it’s so important that you play a full part in the election of our next leader.

    That’s why I find it ironic that, at a time when my colleagues seem so keen to hand over endless powers to local people, they want to take all powers away from our own local community.

    They’ll let you vote for your local sheriff, but not for your party leader.

    And that’s why I urge each and every one of you to write to your MPs, to your members, to the Party board and fight for all you are worth to protect your right to have a say in the future of our great party.

    Because if we want to change this party, and, ultimately this country for the better we can only do it together.

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech on Improving Lives of Children in Care

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May on 12 July 2005.

    Can I begin by thanking you all for coming here today. The events of the last few days have had a huge impact on the lives of everyone living and working in London. It is a sign of the resilience and determination of the people of London that we are all getting on with our business as usual. And I am doubly glad that you are able to join us today to discuss such an important issue, helping some of the most vulnerable in our society.

    As you may know, the Conservative Party is currently engaged in a debate about it’s future direction, and about who should be the person to lead us. We have been given this opportunity by Michael Howard – an opportunity to take time to consider who and what it should stand for in modern Britain. It is an opportunity we cannot afford to waste. That is no idle threat. The reality is that, if we draw the wrong conclusions and set the wrong course as a result of the outcomes of this debate, then it will not only be our party that will suffer. In other words, this isn’t just about us.

    Britain needs a strong opposition, it needs a Conservative alternative. Only then can we ensure that the Government is held properly to account, and that we have a genuine debate about the problems that we as a community face. So long as we fail to come up with radical solutions to the ills that are affecting modern society, then we will fail to leave the British public with our vision of a caring, compassionate society. By being seen as not addressing the issues that effect society today, we allow ourselves to be perceived as out of touch with the views of society.

    The Conservative Party can do so much better than this. Our approach to politics and policy-making – based on an instinct for people, for local decision making, for trusting charities and voluntary groups, and for supporting civil society – can add so much to the quality of so many people’s lives. We genuinely have a positive and distinct story to tell about how we would deal better with problems like child support, family breakdown, about issues such as children in care, quality housing provision, improved educational standards, enhancing life and job opportunities, and urban renewal.

    But if we are to do so we must first remind ourselves that there are no Conservative issues – there are just Conservative instincts, values and methods. That is why it is so important that we should address issues like the one we are discussing today.

    As the political landscape has changed and as people’s priorities have changed, so must the focus of our efforts. In a democratic society such as ours, it is nothing less than our duty to do so. If we fail to do so, then we too will be failing the vulnerable in society. The challenge for us as a party is to give voice to our vision of what that society would be like, and how we would achieve it.

    And that is why I am so pleased that so many of you have come along today to discuss this vitally important problem. Of course, the problem is that all too often, the work done by everyone sitting around this room today goes unnoticed.

    Your difficult and often heartbreaking job of dealing with the aftermath of the breakdown of families, and the devastating effect that this can have on young lives is not glamorous or exciting. Often it is thankless and difficult. On most occasions it only reaches the headlines when something goes wrong. The breakdown in the system, the child that slips through the checks. The Victoria Climbie, the Adam case or the headline grabbing cases of ritual abuse. These are all shocking and terrible. We must never reach a point when such items do not wrench us from our comfortable television viewing, or shock us to the point of silence.

    But what is equally as shocking, is that throughout this country, there are children who aren’t slipping through the net. They aren’t the children who will be headline grabbing cases of abuse or neglect. They are just the children who never quite get the life they deserve. The children who are quietly resigned to a life that they and that we should not accept. Everyday, there are too many children to whom this tragedy happens.

    It isn’t because people don’t care enough. It isn’t because government or councils, social workers or charities aren’t concerned by the problem. It isn’t for any of those reasons. But it continues to happen, day in and day out. Young lives that should have been so happy and so promising are filled with tears, young people destined for a life on the streets, in and out of work, or even in prison.

    These aren’t doomsday words, set out to paint the blackest picture to score political points. Many thousands of children leave care with hope and in families who love them. But too many children do not.

    The figures speak for themselves. There are more than 61,000 children in care, the highest figure in over 20 years, an increase of 20% since 1997. More than 13 % of all looked after children were moved to a new placement three different times last year, 12 % of which were children under the age of 2, when emotional attachment and stability is so important.

    But the harsh realities of life in care do not get any better as children get older. Despite the efforts of social workers and teachers, more than 1 in ten children in care miss 25 days of school or more a year. 6 in 10 children leave care without achieving a single GCSE to their name, and only 1% go on to university.

    Government have failed miserably to achieve the target they set themselves that 75% of children leaving care should achieve a single GCSE. That the government has failed is not the thing that should lead us to take action. The thing that should force us to take action is the acceptance by government that one GCSE, one single qualification, in any way equips these young and vulnerable people for a life in the real world.

    Whenever we hear government trumpet its aim to encourage 50% of all young people to go to university, we should all remind them, whether we vote Labour or not, that only 1%, a miserable one in a hundred children from care ever make it to university. This is a scandal that none of us would accept for our own children. Yet every day, we accept it for the children of others. Children that we the state, are supposed to care for.

    How can we say that these are “looked after children”. The Government have the best of intentions and have made headway. But surely, if we are truly to “look after them” we must do more than resign them to a life that for many is without hope – where they are two-and-a-half times more likely to become teenage parents, where between a quarter and a third of people sleeping rough on the streets were in care as a child: where a quarter of those in our prisons were in care as children; we can and we must do better!

    There are of course many good things going on to help these children. There are many initiatives to support families and prevent children being taken into care in the first place, and we will hear some examples later. There is some magnificent work to support such children in school, to help them achieve their goals, and make an independent and successful life for themselves. And there are many hardworking people, social workers working under difficult conditions, foster parents giving the time and the love that children need so badly, people working to reunite families, and to make new families and new homes for so many children., who are working day after day to give hope and a better life to these youngsters.

    What I want to hear about today is how we can help. What more can we do? What can we as politicians do to help you make a better lives for our children? All our children deserve the best chances in life. We must work together to deliver them a better life.

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May to the Conservative Party Conference held on 3 October 2005.

    “It’s great to be back amongst so many friends.

    When I was Chairman, I met thousands of you as I visited constituencies across the country.

    I know how hard you all work — not just at election time, but week in, week out — to spread the Conservative message.

    And, as an MP, I know that none of us would be here without you.

    So thank you.

    Of course, if you listened to the Liberal Democrats before the election, I wasn’t supposed to be here at all.

    Well so much for Mr. Kennedy’s decapitation strategy.

    There’s only one head that Liberal Democrats want to see roll now.

    And that’s yours Charlie!

    I want to talk this afternoon about the next Conservative Government.

    Not just about what we will do when we are in power — as if we only have to wait four more years before it happens.

    But about the roadmap — the hard work and the tough choices — that will take us there.

    Government is about people.

    And right now, the people of this country need our help more than ever.

    But, if we are to win the opportunity to help them, and to change life in Britain for the better…

    There are three things we will have to do.

    First, we are going to have to change the way we conduct our politics.

    Tony Blair chose to use his first major speech after the election to talk about restoring ‘respect’ on our streets.

    Can you imagine how sweet those words sounded to someone whose life is affected daily by Britain’s drink-fuelled yob culture?

    And then think how they feel now with the Prime Minister insisting on 24-hour drinking laws.

    Cheated, betrayed, conned.

    And a little less likely to trust anything a politician promises, ever again.

    There is a problem with respect in Britain.

    We do need urgently to restore respect for people and property.

    But it’s more than that too.

    It’s the respect for government that has been steadily eroded by years of broken promises.

    And it’s the respect for government that we will have to restore — if we are to persuade people there is a better way.

    You see, the status quo always favours the incumbent.

    Labour know that no-one trusts them, but they still won in May, so they don’t care.

    All they care about is that no-one trusts us either.

    So we have to change that.

    It won’t be easy.

    I know some people say that the main job of the opposition is to oppose.

    And, as an opposition, the temptation is always to throw the punch — to grab the headline.

    But we’ve done that for eight years.

    And where has it got us?

    The real job of this Party — the real way we will win people’s respect — is to stop being today’s opposition and start being tomorrow’s government.

    So, from now on, we will have to be scrupulously honest and painfully reasonable.

    We’ll have to stop opposing for opposition’s sake — and resist all temptation to be opportunistic.

    And we will have to show people what we stand for — and then stick to those ideals and principles — even when that means supporting the Government if they get things right.

    The second thing we have to do is reform our Party.

    We have to show that we are a Party comfortable with Britain as it is today.

    A Party representative of men and women — of every age, race, and religion.

    A Party as at home in the cities as it is in the country.

    A Party as confident about the future as it is about the past.

    And we must reflect that — not just in our words — but in our attitudes.

    In today’s Britain, the vast majority of people regard equality between man and women as so obvious it doesn’t even need stating.

    And yet, for too long, in too many parts of this Party, the assumption has been that politics is a man’s job.

    And the other parties aren’t much better.

    But Margaret Thatcher proved that your ability to lead your country depends on your talent and your courage, not on whether you are a man or a woman.

    And for the small minority who don’t accept women — or black or gay people — as their equals, I’ve got a message.

    Don’t think you’ll find a refuge from the modern world here.

    There is no place for you in our Conservative Party.

    Because every day that we are unwilling to embrace a future in which all men and women respect each other as absolute equals — is another day we will be out of government.

    But I’m optimistic.

    I know we’re moving forward.

    That’s why our benches have been swelled by great new MPs like Adam Afriyie, Shailesh Vara, Maria Miller, and Anne Milton.

    I know that all of you, the real Conservative Party, are with them and with me.

    And anyone who wants to stop us had better get out of our way.

    I spend much of my time focusing on how the Conservative Party has to change.

    I do it for a reason.

    I want us to win.

    And not just win, but govern — and govern well.

    That’s the third thing the Conservative Party needs to do.

    Focus on exactly what it means to govern well.

    In 1979, the bonds of state dependency were obvious.

    They tied down our economy and made us a laughing stock.

    Today, the bonds of state control are often invisible.

    But they are there — and they are tightening.

    The difference is that New Labour prefer to run everything remotely by dictat and regulation.

    That way they get to interfere all they want, but can pass the buck when things go wrong.

    We should be willing to turn all that on its head.

    I want us to reject BIG government — government that tries to do everything and ends up achieving nothing.

    The hands-on, control-freaky, government-knows-best mindset that Labour, new or renewed, can never escape.

    But I want us to reject SMALL government too — and with it the assumption that politicians have no responsibility for peoples lives.

    So let’s put the myth to rest once and for all.

    Size doesn’t matter!

    Just because government is often part of the problem…

    Doesn’t mean it can never be part of the solution.

    Instead, I want the Conservative Party to stand for GOOD government.

    Government’s job is helping people live their lives — throughout their lives — as they raise and protect their families, build their careers, and save for their retirements.

    Listening to people’s needs, and taking responsibility for the things that matter to them.

    Making sure they get the education and healthcare they deserve, keeping them safe, providing a fallback should life take a wrong turn, and helping them with the childcare or the care home place they need but can’t afford.

    Of course, we all know that, often, the best thing government can do is simply stay out of the way.

    To allow people to give their time freely to help others — as I know so many of you do.

    But sometimes, to do its job, government needs to get stuck in.

    So good government has to be prepared to be active, strong, and effective — whenever it needs to be.

    Good government should be both idealistic and pragmatic.

    Idealistic in what it aims to achieve.

    Ruthlessly pragmatic in how it sets out to achieve it.

    There is no need to choose between the two.

    And if it does its job well, the impact of government can be enormously beneficial.

    If it does it badly, it can be oppressive and corrosive.

    Labour don’t understand that.

    We do.

    If the Conservative Party could only change the way we conduct our politics, and restore respect in government…

    Then people would take a fresh look at us.

    If we could show not only that we are comfortable with modern Britain — but that we reflect modern Britain…

    Then people might listen to what we have to say.

    But they won’t listen for long if we don’t hold their attention.

    We don’t just need to convince them that we want the things they want — world-class education, better healthcare, safer streets.

    We need to show them— how we can make it happen.

    And we won’t KEEP them interested — if we just talk about dry academic concepts like localism, decentralization, and the size of the state.

    So let’s start speaking the language of people — talking about the concrete things we would do to improve their lives — focusing on what should happen in the public services, not just on how they are structured.

    Because if we paint a picture of the good Conservative Government that we know we can be — then we can win the next election.

    I stand before you today as the Conservative Party’s first ever Shadow Secretary of State for the Family, and for Culture, Media, and Sport.

    Supported by my excellent team, Malcolm Moss, Hugh Robertson, Hugo Swire, Andrew Selous, Tim Loughton, William Astor, Arthur Luke, and Trish Morris.

    You know, I’ve been struck recently by the similarities between politics and sport.

    Just a few years ago, England lost to New Zealand and we were called the worst cricket team in the world.

    This summer England beat Australia — to become the best in the world.

    So have faith — anything is possible if you work hard enough to achieve it.

    The other highlight of the summer was London winning the Olympic Games with the bid team lead by Seb Coe.

    Wasn’t it great to see a Tory winning a vote against the odds?

    Winning AT the Olympic Games requires years of sacrifice, hard work, and single-minded dedication.

    Winning an election is much the same.

    A successful athlete must give up the nights out and the fast food.

    If the Conservative Party is going to win the gold medal in four years’ time — it too is going to have to give up some enjoyable but ultimately damaging vices.

    Ya-boo, opportunism, intellectual self-indulgence, ideological obsessions, quick fixes, and easy answers.

    I’m afraid they’ve all got to go.

    But then there’s something else as well.

    London’s bid to host the Olympic Games involved not just graft but vision — not just perspiration but inspiration.

    And that’s what we, the Conservative Party, have to offer too.

    You see, you can win a race without the crowd on your side — by training hardest, by being the best.

    And, of course, you won’t win if you’re not.

    But you can’t win an election like that — no matter how good you are.

    To win an election — to be confident of victory — you have to inspire people — you have to make them want you to win.

    I hardly need to tell you how successful the Conservative Party can be — when it inspires people with the possibilities of change and progress.

    Margaret Thatcher inspired people.

    She gave them a glimpse of a better future.

    And she delivered it!

    So let’s inspire people again.

    Let’s find that confidence and belief that for so long we seemed to have lost.

    The confidence to dream.

    The belief in our power to achieve.

    This week we begin to set our new course.

    We have four years’ of work in front of us.

    They will go past in the blink of an eye.

    So we have to choose the right path — right now.

    Let’s remind people what a Conservative Government can achieve.

    Let’s inspire them with what the next Conservative Government would achieve.

    And let’s be ready — once again — to transform our great country.

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech on Women 2 Win

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May on 23 November 2005.

    I think today could mark a turning point for the Conservative Party. What is clear from what you have heard is that throughout our party, at every level, there is a growing realisation that we must change. And fundamental to that change is the role of women within the Conservative Party.

    What this event has proved, without a shadow of a doubt that championing the cause of women in our party is no longer a minority sport. For a while there it seemed somewhat of an exclusive club – myself, my Shadow cabinet colleague Caroline Spelman, and a few doughty supporters.

    But today that is simply no longer the case.

    6 members of the Shadow Cabinet, former cabinet Ministers, senior members of the House of Commons and newly elected alike. Candidates, constituency chairman, activists, we all agree that we must ensure that more conservative women are elected to parliament at the next election. They have all chosen to sign our Women 2 Win declaration.

    And perhaps most importantly, this view is shared just as equally by men in our party as it is by women. You will remember that just a few weeks ago, 6 male MPs were brave enough to put their heads above the parapet and say that it was time we took positive and radical action to guarantee more women candidates. Since then, a number of others have joined us. This is no longer an all girls club, the men have gate crashed the party.

    I have been told by a number of senior labour MPs and journalists that the Labour party didn’t take electing women to parliament seriously until the men began to realise the impact it had on voters. The cut through that having women in senior positions, developing policy, and talking to the public had on the voter’s view of the labour Party.

    And it worked. As we have heard, in 1997, Labour led the Conservatives among women by 12 points. And they have continued to lead us ever since.

    Well the good news, the news that should cheer every member of our Party, and make the Labour benches sit up and take notice, is that now we realise it too.

    Not all of those believe that the answer is all women shortlists. Not all believe that an ‘A’ list or a gold list is the best solution. But what we all agree is that waiting and hoping for more women to be elected is never going to deliver the results we need.

    Women 2 Win is the signal that the Conservative Party is determined to win back the women vote and to win back power. It is a sure sign that we know what has to be done to represent modern Britain, and that we are prepared to take those steps.

    Over the coming months and years, we will work to ensure that more women re selected. We will raise the profile of Conservative women in the Party and in the media. We want to raise the money to provide the training and support they need.

    We want to work with the Party, with candidates department and training team to ensure that the finest candidates we can find are selected to represent our Party

    And we want to arm our candidates with the skills they need to win back seats from Labour and the Lib Dems at the next election.

    But of course, we can only play our part. As I have said, the support for our aims is wide ranging, and it is continuing to grow. But there are two people who we need to recognise what needs to be done if we are to guarantee success.

    Of course, I am talking about the David’s!

    It is a little known fact that there are more men in the Shadow Cabinet called David than there are women.

    It is for that reason, that Women 2 Win are making this challenge to anyone who views themselves fit to lead our party and to govern our Country. Over the course of the remaining leadership election campaign, make clear your commitment to reform the Conservative Party into a Party that represents, reflects and understands Britain today. We urge you to sign up to the women 2 win declaration, and make a positive commitment to securing our parties future success.

    In short recognise what we all recognize. That the Conservative Party really does need women to win!

  • Theresa May – 2005 Speech on the Causes of Crime

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the then Shadow Secretary of State for the Family, at Conservative Central Office on 22 April 2005.

    Drugs are at the root of a lot of crime, especially violent crime. They ruin families and destroy communities too. As the dealers and junkies take over, families move out, turning neighbourhoods into ghettos.

    We cannot afford to sit back as drugs ruin more families and destroy more communities. We need a coherent, committed, consistent anti-drug programme.

    Some people say that drugs are a matter of personal freedom. I disagree. It’s time we stopped blurring the distinction between right and wrong. We need to send a clear message: “Drugs are wrong”. No quibbling. No hedging.

    Increasing drug abuse is not inevitable. Look at America where drug abuse by young people has declined. In two years there has been a more than ten per cent drop in the number of high school pupils taking illicit drugs – the first fall for a decade.

    Why? Well partly because American children are getting a clear message about drugs – that they are wrong, that they aren’t glamorous, that they ruin lives.

    But here in Britain youngsters all too often get mixed messages. We have a government that tells children what to eat – that sweets and crisps make you fat – but isn’t prepared to take a clear line on cannabis.

    That is why a Conservative Government will reclassify cannabis – sending a clear message that the drug is dangerous.

    And we’ll fund a major advertising campaign with a clear, consistent anti-drugs message.

    We’ll tackle drugs at school too.

    Head teachers need to be able to take firm action against drugs at school.

    So the Conservatives will help schools introduce random drug testing, if parents and teachers want it.

    We will provide the resources for testing machines in every local authority area.

    Life is too precious simply to be written off – we have to give youngsters who get hooked on drugs the chance to get back on the straight and narrow.

    All the evidence shows that residential rehab is the most effective means of treating addicts.

    But in Britain today there are fewer than 2,500 residential rehab places available.

    A Conservative Government will expand this massively, providing 25,000 residential places for hard drug users where they can spend six-months getting intensive treatment to get them off drugs.

    That’s enough to help 50,000 addicts a year.

    It will allow us, over the course of a year, to treat every young teenage drug addict in Britain.

    And we will give the police the power to send young drug addicts ‘straight to treatment’ at a residential treatment centre without first going to court.

    Young drug users will be faced with a choice. Take up these places and come off drugs. Or go to court and face the possibility of time in prison.

    There will be no soft option or half way house. Young drug abusers will have to face up to the consequences of their actions. They will have to seek treatment or accept that they will be punished by jail.

    Those that do seek treatment will have a fresh start. They will not face criminal proceedings and will not have a criminal record. That’s what we mean by the chance to change. Those that refuse treatment, or who do not complete their course, will be sent to court for their case to be dealt with by the criminal justice system.

    Too many people in Britain today think that there is little or nothing that we can do about problems like drugs. Conservatives think differently. We don’t promise the earth. But we are committed to tackling the problems that matter to families today.

    We will implement a coherent, consistent committed anti-drug programme.

    The potential rewards are enormous. Imagine helping a generation of addicts back into society so that they can once again make a contribution to their communities. Imagine tackling one of the root causes of violent crime. Imagine passing on to our children a safer, more secure society than the one we have inherited.

    It’s an ambition worth fighting for. David will now set out our action plan on violent crime.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2019 Speech on Brexit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, in the House of Commons on 11 January 2019.

    I cannot help but reflect on the fact that the speech of the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) followed that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who called for calm and moderation in this debate. I am afraid that some of the language the hon. Gentleman used rather failed to rise to that challenge. For him now to call for a people’s vote when he never for an instant accepted the result of the people’s vote we have already had underlines the point about double standards raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray).

    Peter Grant rose—

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    No, I am not giving way; the hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time. But I will say this: like him, I believe in the sovereignty of the people, and in fact I believe in the sovereignty of the Scottish people, and the Scottish people spoke in 2014 and voted to be part of the United Kingdom. And then the Scottish people, as the British people, took part in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum and the British people spoke, and I believe in their sovereign right to be respected.

    So I will rise to the hon. Gentleman’s challenge and say that the benefits the Scottish people are getting from leaving the EU are that they are taking control of their own laws and money, and—something dear to his heart, I imagine—that the Scottish Parliament is going to have more power as a result of us leaving the EU. He seems to be very quiet about that.

    In the emergency debate on Tuesday 11 December I emphasised the democratic legitimacy of the referendum vote. The Commons voted to give the decision to remain or leave to the voters by 544 votes to 53, and then we accepted that decision and invoked article 50 by 494 votes to 122.

    Nobody could possibly question the courteous determination and sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has striven so hard to secure an agreement acceptable to this House from our EU partners, but it now looks most unlikely that this draft agreement will be approved, because it would leave the UK in a less certain and more invidious position than we are prepared to accept.

    Nevertheless, the EU withdrawal Act, which sets the exit date as 29 March 2019, did pass this House. It could have included an amendment that the Act should not come into force without an article 50 withdrawal agreement, but we approved that Act, which provides for leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement—I think even my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex voted for that Act. Parliament has now spoken. The Act makes provision for the so-called “meaningful vote”, but not for any kind of vote in this House to prevent Brexit without a withdrawal agreement. Democracy has been served.

    For some MPs now to complain that they did not intend to vote for what the Act provides for is rather lame. They may have held a different hope or expectation, but the Government gave no grounds for that. The Government always said, and still say, that no deal is better than a bad deal. Parliament has approved the law and set the date. There is no democratic case for changing it, nor could that be in the national interest.

    The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) reminded us of some of the less pleasant elements on the spectrum of British politics, but elsewhere in the EU, extremism is becoming far more entrenched than here, with AFD in Germany and the gilets jaunes on the streets of Paris, as well as Lega Nord, which has actually taken power in Italy. Popular revolt against the immovability of the established EU consensus in the rest of the EU cannot be blamed on Brexit. On the contrary, our broad and largely two-party democracy has proved to be the most durable and resistant to extremism because we absorb and reflect the effects of political and economic shocks. UKIP died at the 2017 general election because both the main parties pledged to implement the referendum decision without qualification.

    But what are some in this House trying to achieve now? What would be the consequences for the stability and security of our democracy if the Government let the politicians turn on the majority of their own voters and say, “The politicians are taking back control, not for Parliament but to keep the EU in control”? The voters did not vote to accept whatever deal the EU was prepared to offer. They voted to leave, whether or not the EU gave us permission. Ruling out leaving without a withdrawal agreement is not a democratic option. They did not vote to remain as the only alternative to a bad deal, they did not vote for the EU to hold the UK hostage, nor did they vote for a second referendum.

    Of course, a second referendum is what the EU really wants, which is why it will not give the UK a good deal. It is shameful that so many leading political figures from our country have been shipping themselves over to Brussels to tell the EU not to make concessions in the negotiations with their own Government, in order to try to get a second referendum. The EU is a profoundly undemocratic and unaccountable institution, whose biggest project, the euro, has inflicted far worse disaster on businesses, individuals and families in many countries than even the direst Treasury forecasts for the UK. The economic and political storm clouds are still just gathering over the EU. It is the EU that is on the cliff edge of disaster, not the UK. In the years to come, in the words of Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England:

    “If you give people a chart of British GDP and ask them to point to where we left the EU, they won’t be able to see it.”

    Our domestic policies, as well as our trade with the rest of the world, have already become far more important than our present trading relationship with the EU. We will have the freedom to develop them more quickly. Our EU membership does not just cost the net contribution of £10 billion per year and rising, which does no more than avoid some £5.3 billion of tariffs, but it has locked the UK into an EU trading advantage, leaving the UK with an EU trade deficit of £90 billion a year. Why are we trying to preserve such a disadvantageous trading relationship?

    Even if we leave without a withdrawal agreement, there will be immediate benefits. WTO is a safer haven than the backstop. Far from crashing out, we would be cashing in. We would keep £39 billion, which would immediately improve our balance of payments and could be invested in public services, distributed in tax cuts or used to speed up economic adaptation. That would boost GDP by 2% over the next few years. We would end uncertainty; the draft agreement would perpetuate it.

    Business needs clarity about trading conditions with the EU from day one. Jamie Dimon of J. P. Morgan campaigned for remain, side by side with George Osborne, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. J. P. Morgan now says that extending article 50 is the “worst case scenario” because it does

    “not see what it provides us in reaching a clear, final outcome that provides certainty for businesses”.

    It adds that paralysis is

    “not good for the economy”,

    yet that is what the article 50 extenders are arguing for. We will not be caught in any backstop if we leave without a withdrawal agreement, nor will there be a hard border in Ireland. Even Leo Varadkar has said that

    “under no circumstances will there be a border. Full stop.”

    The EU and the UK Government have said the same.

    All of the more ludicrous scare stories are being disproved. There will be no queues at Dover or Calais. The president of Port Boulogne Calais could not have been more emphatic—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, because they do not want to hear the truth. The president of Port Boulogne Calais said:

    “We have been preparing for No Deal for a year….We will be ready….We will not check trucks more than we are doing today…We will not stop and ask more than we are doing today”.

    He added that the new special area for sanitary and phytosanitary checks was somewhere else, and would

    “not influence the traffic in Dover.”

    The Government and the pharma companies say that they can guarantee supplies of medicines, and the EU Commission has proposed visa-free travel for UK citizens in the EU for up to six months of the year. The EU statement of 19 December already proposes its own transition period of up to nine months, including no disruption of central bank clearing, a new air services agreement, access to the EU for UK road haulage operators and special regulations on customs declarations.

    Leaving on WTO terms is far preferable to the protracted uncertainty of either extending article 50 or this unacceptable withdrawal agreement. The leadership of this country—that includes the Government and the Opposition—should stop reinforcing weakness and start talking up our strengths and building up our confidence. History has proved that our country can always rise to the challenge, and our people will never forgive the politicians who allow the EU to inflict defeat. It saddens me greatly that even some in my own party are promoting such a defeat.

  • Amber Rudd – 2019 Speech on Universal Credit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, at Kennington in London, on 11 January 2019.

    Introduction

    It’s great be here in Kennington this morning.

    I’m particularly pleased to be joined by frontline colleagues and work coaches in the audience today and I’d like to acknowledge the incredible work you do, each and every day, to ensure our claimants receive the payments and support they need. I’d also like to welcome Alok Sharma, the Minister for Employment who I’m pleased could join me here today.

    And I am delighted to be here to speak about Universal Credit – a vital reform delivering a fair and compassionate welfare system, which helps people into work.

    Let’s not forget that Universal Credit began with near universal support – across party lines, and from charities and stakeholders.

    Because everyone agrees with the principles of helping people into work, making work pay, and providing support in times of need.

    And I want Universal Credit to retain that support as we deliver it in practice.

    This means delivering it in a way that meets the needs of claimants, who come from every conceivable background and each with the potential to achieve their ambitions.

    In welfare, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and Universal Credit offers the opportunity to move away from that.

    It must treat individuals as individuals – and I will set-out the first steps I will take to achieve this today.

    The principle of UC and why it matters

    Our welfare system is based upon 3 fundamental principles.

    First: work – those who can, should; and those who cannot should be protected from poverty.

    Second – work should always pay.

    And third, the system should be fair. Fair for taxpayers who pay for it and fair to those who receive it, and fair to future generations – who do not deserve to become trapped in it.

    As a nation, I believe we all want a decent safety net: if you’re facing a difficult moment in life, the state should be there to help you.

    Whether that’s becoming unemployed, falling ill, or facing bereavement – nobody should find themselves alone in desperate circumstances.

    But it is vital that people are supported by this safety net, not trapped beneath it.

    It is there to help people get through difficult times – it is not meant to be a mode of long term subsistence for those who can work.

    For the vast majority of people, it is ultimately work, not benefits, which provides the route to a better life. And the welfare system should clear a path for that route, not block it.

    Work gives purpose, dignity and security. The opportunity to provide for your family, progress in earnings, and build a fulfilling life.

    In this respect, the old system was broken; it is why we had to reform it.

    Despite what some people suggest, the legacy system – 6 different benefits administered by 3 government departments – was not a utopia that we should return to.

    Indeed, 700,000 claimants on that system are currently failing to claim their full entitlement because they find it so confusing. These people – some of the most vulnerable in society – are failing to receive, on average, £285 a month.

    Under the old regime, claimants who moved off benefits into full time work lost welfare payments almost immediately, which resulted in effective ‘tax rates’ of up to 90% on their income.

    As an MP, I frequently met people who wanted to earn more but were too scared to take-on extra hours, knowing they’d have so little to gain.

    In 2010, 1.4 million people in this country had been out of work for at least 9 of the previous 10 years.

    1.9 million children lived in households where nobody worked, making it more likely that tragically, they too would live a life on welfare – with little chance of any kind of progression.

    We have re-introduced fairness into the system.

    We have capped benefits – so that where the adults in a household are able to work, they cannot claim more than what many working families earn.

    We have taken millions of the lowest-paid out of income tax altogether.

    And we’ve introduced the first National Living Wage, giving many a much-needed pay rise.

    But by far the most important and crucial reform is Universal Credit.

    Let me explain why Universal Credit is a force for good. It is based on these principles:

    a social security system that provides a safety net, but doesn’t trap people in welfare
    certainty that every extra hour of work pays more than staying on benefits, with these being withdrawn at a consistent taper rate
    help to enter work – through increased, tailored support provided by work coaches at jobcentres like this one
    accuracy of benefits payments, with those made to in-work claimants responding in real-time, each month, to income earned. A digital system – where claimants can access information about their payments online, at their convenience

    These principles pumped much-needed fresh air into a failing system, and failed thinking on welfare.

    Which is why it is vital that we turn these principles into success in practice. We have steadily invested in Universal Credit, adding £4.5 billion in the last budget, following the extra £1.5 billion allocated in 2017 – giving claimants more money as they transition to Universal Credit.

    And in many areas we are succeeding. More people will enter work as a result of Universal Credit and work coach support.

    The provision of Universal Support – to provide tailored help for people to make and complete their Universal Credit claim – is a significant new step in creating personalised support for claimants.

    And it’s very exciting that from April this year, Citizens Advice will be working to deliver this new support across the country.

    But in other areas we can improve – in particular, we must ensure that Universal Credit always meets the different needs of different claimants.

    And today, I will outline 3:

    First – the delivery of the next phase of Universal Credit, known as managed migration, must be handled carefully so it works for all claimants.

    Second – flexibility in payments, especially on rent and frequency, should support people financially in a way that works for them.

    And third – the system must do even more to support women.

    A standard offer cannot work for everyone. People’s work patterns, the pressures they face, their families – everyone’s circumstances are unique.

    I want to make sure Universal Credit has enough flexibility to adapt to personal circumstances – particularly the needs of the most vulnerable.

    So let me set-out in detail the changes that I’m going to make.

    Delivering UC in a way that works for individuals

    In the first instance, I am not going to be rushed into the mass migration of existing claimants onto Universal Credit. My priority is to ensure that the transition is done well.

    As we embark on this next stage, I want to be absolutely sure that every person switched over to Universal Credit is getting a personalised service.

    I will tread cautiously – not rushing but instead proceeding with the utmost care.

    I want to ensure every individual is thoroughly supported to access Universal Credit quickly and successfully.

    We need to reach out to claimants – so the onus should be on us to deliver managed migration in a way that meets everyone’s needs.

    So I am going to change the current regulations, removing the powers government previously planned to migrate all legacy claimants onto the new system. The regulations will continue to uphold our commitment to protecting claimants receiving the Severe Disability Premium.

    Instead, I’m only going to seek powers for a pilot: the chance to support 10,000 people through the process. This is an opportunity to learn how we can best facilitate the transition – before returning to Parliament with the legislation which we will need for future managed migration.

    This will begin, as planned, from July 2019.

    These next 6 months will be a period of careful preparation, working closely with claimants and partners – many of them who are in the room today – to design our communications and support systems effectively.

    We want to ensure the process goes smoothly for claimants, so we will provide tailored communications, help with applications, and even home visits – with bespoke support for the most vulnerable claimants.

    From July, we will carefully migrate up to 10,000 claimants, monitoring and adjusting our approach as needs be, before reporting our findings to Parliament.

    The lessons from the pilot will inform our next steps, but there will be no overall delay.

    Universal Credit migration will be completed, as planned, by the end of 2023. However, I will consider carefully the results of the pilot, and its implications for scaling-up migration.

    It would not be sensible to move immediately from the pilot phase of 10,000, to full scale managed migration.

    Instead we should start small and build up over time, as we develop our processes and learn more. This is the approach any big organisation would take when delivering a complex project.

    I want to be clear: I will only proceed with this process when I know it can deliver the best possible service for everyone who relies on it.

    Alternative Payment Arrangements

    But equally, I don’t need to wait for the results of the pilot to see there are issues with Universal Credit’s implementation which can be fixed now.

    Much of the premise of UC, and the positive change it offers, is based on the fact that it mirrors the world of work. Payments are made monthly, in arrears, and all the money goes straight to claimants.

    For many people this is an advantage – providing financial independence and preparation for monthly bills and salary payments.

    But for others this approach does not work; managing their money month-to-month can be challenging, even impossible.

    That can cause difficulties for people who are already vulnerable, and I am determined to do more to help those claimants.

    There is already some flexibility in the system, thanks to the changes that we have already made.

    Around 60% of Universal Credit claimants apply for advances to tide them over the initial wait for their first payment.

    20% of claimants with housing costs have their rent paid directly to landlords, because a vulnerability or special need has been identified.

    And for people unable to budget, there are provisions to receive payments twice, or even four times, a month. But currently only 2% of claimants have taken this option.

    So although these ‘Alternative Payment Arrangements’ exist to provide people with the bespoke payments they need, they aren’t yet helping as many claimants as I believe they could.

    One third of UC claimants in social rented housing have their rent paid directly to their landlord. But in the private sector, that number is only 5%.

    People in the private rented sector already face a far higher risk of losing their tenancy, and I know from talking to claimants and landlords that the current system isn’t working for some of them.

    So we need to make it easier for tenants in the private sector to find and keep a good home, by giving landlords greater certainty that their rent will be paid.

    Therefore, I have asked the Department to build an online system for private landlords, so they can request (where necessary) for their tenant’s rent to be paid directly to them. And I will consider what else we can do, because I am determined to help keep people in their homes.

    I am also looking at what more can be done to support those who find monthly payments hard to manage.

    We need to go back to first principles: reviewing how we identify claimants who might struggle to manage on monthly payments, and ensuring work coaches are moving them onto more frequent payments where necessary.

    I have asked Jobcentre Plus to test how we can to improve the provision of more frequent payments for new claimants; these pilots will start shortly, and once we have evidence of what works, we will roll it out further.

    We must ensure that provision of frequent payments doesn’t slow the system for users who don’t require them – but I believe we can offer this facility more widely, so those in genuine need can take it up more readily.

    Women’s economic empowerment

    Indeed, some of the most exciting results we’ve seen from Universal Credit have resulted from personalised and targeted support reaching the right people.

    This is particularly true for groups who have historically been left out of the labour market.

    Women can never be truly free until they have economic independence.

    It is fantastic that 1.6 million women have entered employment since 2010 but for some women, economic empowerment remains the final frontier.

    Many women still don’t have access to the opportunities and independence that comes from earning their own money.

    This can be particularly true of communities that hold a more traditional view of gender specific roles.

    Under the old system, millions of women could be written off as “dependents” and left without any encouragement or support from the system. Under Universal Credit that won’t happen.

    For example, last week I visited our Jobcentre in Birmingham Yardley – which has piloted a brilliant project focusing specifically on how to support Bangladeshi and Pakistani women into work.

    It is early days, but projects like these suggest there are ways to free untapped female potential. And in doing so, we’ll benefit communities across the country, and inspire the next generation to understand the value of financial independence.

    Since taking office, I have also listened to a number of concerns – from Refuge, Women’s Aid and others – about how the current structure of household payments penalises women.

    Although one payment per household is an established feature of the welfare system (Housing Benefit, for example, has always been paid in this way) I recognise the validity of these concerns.

    This is why I am committed to ensuring that household payments go directly to the main carer – which is usually, but not always, the woman.

    For those couples currently claiming UC, around 60% of payments already go to the woman’s bank account. However, I am looking at what more we can do to enable the main carer to receive the UC payment, and we will begin to make those changes later this year.

    Childcare is essential to enable parents to work. Although UC’s provision of funding up to 85% of a claimant’s childcare costs is higher than its predecessor, this is paid in arrears only once actual costs are known.

    So I recognise that this can cause financial difficulty, with some claimants struggling to pay upfront or report their costs on time.

    Therefore I’ve instructed jobcentres that if the initial month’s childcare costs prevent a claimant from starting work, the Flexible Support Fund should be used to help smooth the transition for this priority group.

    Secondly, I’ve decided we should be flexible when parents are unable to report their childcare costs immediately, so that these costs will be reimbursed.

    Taken together, these improvements will help to drive the take-up of childcare, as we strive to close the lone parent employment gap and further boost female employment rates.

    I believe passionately that economic independence liberates women, and I will continue to look at what more Universal Credit can do to support them into work.

    Cancelling the extension of the Two Child policy

    There is one additional change I am going to make.

    I know that many people are concerned about the two-child limit in the welfare system.

    Most families make a conscious decision about how many children they have, considering in part their income and the additional costs each child will bring.

    I think it is fair that those on welfare are asked to make the same considered decision as other taxpayers, who support themselves solely through work. So I believe it was right to limit the number of children for whom support can be provided through Universal Credit – funded by the taxpayer.

    However, I believe it is unfair to apply that limit retrospectively.

    As it stands, from February the two-child limit will be applied to families applying for UC who had their children before the cap was even announced. That is not right.

    So I can today announce that I am going to scrap the extension of the two-child limit on Universal Credit for children born before April 2017.

    All children born before that date will continue to be supported by Universal Credit. And that will help approximately 15,000 families a year.

    And it means that by removing any retrospective application, the two-child policy retains its fundamental fairness.

    Conclusion

    I am determined to deliver Universal Credit’s vital principles in practice. A system that supports people into work, supports those in need and provides fairness to the taxpayer.

    So here’s what’s going to change:

    a more considered approach, so we can provide a better service for everyone moving onto Universal Credit from the old system
    greater flexibility on payments, so the benefit fulfils its promise to adapt to individual needs and circumstances
    more support for women: moving payments to the main carer, and making childcare payments more accessible
    and every child born before April 2017 will now be supported by Universal Credit

    I know there is more to be done to support the most vulnerable, and finesse the system – so that Universal Credit truly works for everyone.

    The goal is clear: a safety net, but also a system that can transform lives through work – not just financially, but in life chances, health and social wellbeing

    I am optimistic – because I know the basic principles are sound – which is why I am so excited to have the chance to get this right.

    A British welfare system should reflect the values of our country.

    We believe in fairness and compassion.

    We believe in standing-by people when times get tough.

    We believe in helping each individual reach their full potential.

    These values are at the heart of the Universal Credit I am determined to deliver.

  • Claire Perry – 2019 Statement on the Energy Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Claire Perry, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2019.

    The Energy Council took place on 19 December 2018. The UK was represented by the Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Katrina Williams.

    Communication from the Commission: A Clean Planet for all

    Miguel Arias Cañete, Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, introduced the European Commission’s Communication “Clean Planet for all: A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral economy”. It stressed the need to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century, and that the EU was well placed to lead efforts to mitigate climate change.

    All member states intervened, and all broadly supported the Commission’s communication. A number supported the Commission’s call for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The importance for businesses and citizens to inform the debate on reducing emissions and for the transition to be realistic was mentioned, as was the need for Europe to reduce its dependency on coal and invest in renewables. The importance of interconnection and the need to take account of energy security and competitiveness was raised. The importance of gas infrastructure was also mentioned.

    In its intervention, the UK welcomed the communication and emphasised the urgency of addressing climate change. It pointed out that the UK Government had sought advice from the Committee on Climate Change on long-term targets. It also gave an overview of the action being taken to make the transition to a more flexible and smarter energy system.

    Some member states considered nuclear energy to be an important option for decarbonisation, and called for technology neutrality. The UK said that it is important that member states are able to choose from all routes to decarbonisation.

    Clean energy package

    The presidency reported that it had reached agreement with the European Parliament on all elements of the clean energy package. It noted that the European Parliament and Council had now formally adopted the directive on renewable energy (recast), the regulation on governance of the energy union and the directive on energy efficiency (recast). Publication in the Official Journal was expected on 21 December 2018.

    On the regulation on risk preparedness in the electricity sector, the presidency said that the regulation should give member states enough time to develop their plans for responding to risk. Regarding the regulation establishing a European Union Agency for the Co-operation of Energy Regulators (recast), it thought the outcome would allow the agency to function efficiently.

    The presidency informed Ministers that in the early hours of the 19 December it had closed the two most complicated files: the regulation on the internal market for electricity (recast) and the directive on common rules for the internal market in electricity (recast). It commented that the deal would allow the internal energy market to operate efficiently and that contracts awarded under capacity mechanisms will be subject to limits on ​emissions of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, consumers will be able to choose their suppliers freely, and request dynamic price contracts and smart meters.

    The Commission, congratulating the presidency, noted that completion of the energy union was one of President Junker’s 10 legislative priorities.

    Comments made by individual member states included recognition of the value of national energy and climate plans, but regret about the deal struck on limits on carbon dioxide emissions for contracts awarded under capacity mechanisms, and concern at the difficulties involved in opening up interconnector capacity and in meeting energy efficiency objectives.

    Any other business items

    The presidency informed the Council about the state of play on the revision of the gas directive. A number of member states, including the UK, called for faster progress and challenged the latest compromise proposals, but others expressed concern about proceeding with the revision.

    The presidency updated Ministers on the connecting Europe facility negotiations, saying that it had secured a partial general approach at the Transport Council. It then provided an update on the hydrogen initiative.

    The Commission provided an update on the status of marine energy and external energy relations. A number of member states supported the Commission’s calls for more action to make marine technology competitive.

    There was a brief discussion on the appointment of the director general for the International Renewable Energy Agency.

    Finally, the incoming Romanian presidency presented its work programme, stating its priorities to be formal agreement on the clean energy package, to make progress on the gas directive, the tyre labelling regulation and the mandate for changes to the energy community treaty.

    Ministers had an informal discussion over lunch on energy security and external dimensions of energy policy.

  • John Howell – 2019 Speech on the Europa School

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Howell, the Conservative MP for Henley, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2019.

    I am grateful for the Minister’s attendance. He and I have talked about the Europa School at some length on a number of occasions, and he was, of course, responsible for the reply from the Department for Education to a petition that I presented in the Chamber not so long ago. My purpose this evening is first to highlight the importance and the unique history of the approach to languages that is demonstrated at the school, secondly to highlight the approach to providing the European baccalaureate as the final qualification for those leaving it, and thirdly to ask some questions and make some comments arising from the Department’s response to my petition.

    The background to all this is, of course, the situation in which we find ourselves as a country in the context of our relationship with the European Union. I am sure we all feel the need to end the current uncertainty as soon as possible, but that is felt nowhere more keenly than at this school, where the educational future of children is at stake.

    The Europa School is one of the free schools created as a result of this Government’s initiative. It is in Culham, in my constituency, but it serves a wide area, mostly in Oxfordshire and in the surrounding areas of neighbouring counties. Under the terms of the free school, parents have agreed to the provision of a certain type of education that I will describe in more detail shortly, but let me first say something about the school’s importance and its unique history.

    The initial meeting to discuss the establishment of a free school in Culham took place in 2011 with the then schools Minister, my noble Friend Lord Hill. The meeting was sponsored by me and attended by representatives of parents and educationalists who wished to speak in favour of the proposal. The aim was to meet three demands. First, residents of the county had given the clearest possible support for the new school; secondly, its founders wanted to bring a new form of education into the state school system; and thirdly, we all wished to build on a secure and well-established foundation of education in the European Schools curriculum, which leads eventually to the European baccalaureate.

    At its core—this is the first of my major points—was a proposal to offer something that had not been offered before in the UK state system, and, indeed, had not previously been offered in the whole of the European School system. The proposers offered a complete, thoroughgoing commitment to full bilingual education from reception class onwards. Pupils would not simply learn the other language, but would learn through that language. They would learn the linguistic rhythm of that language. This was planned to be truly deep language learning, not just the acquisition of a second language overlaid on the first.

    The Europa School was set up as a free school because that is what the parents wanted, which is a key component of the free school movement. The parents wanted that particular type of education to continue through the free school. It was a way of approaching subjects in languages. The pupils were taught subjects ​through all those languages, so they could end up learning history in German or geography in Spanish, and so on. That is a valuable way of teaching. The parents wanted that system to continue in the school, and it is being continued.

    During education questions, I asked the Minister whether he accepted that the school was proving popular with parents of all types, including those from the UK, and that it was a good model of language teaching to follow. He replied that he shared my admiration for the Europa School, and I want to build on that today. I understand that we are anticipating an Ofsted report. I believe that everyone expects the school to have done rather well out of it, and I hope that that expectation is fulfilled. However, this approach needs to be set in the context of Brexit, and the difficulties of negotiating a Brexit that does not see the school become a casualty.

    The European School, Culham—not the Europa School—had for some time been destined for closure, as the resourcing for such a school at Culham could not be justified within the European Commission’s budget for European Schools. A closure date of 2017 for the European School had already been announced. A plan was therefore advanced for the new free school to grow year by year as the European School diminished, and for the two schools to share the use of the Culham site on an agreed basis. An important aspect of this is that the free school was oversubscribed by some 30% at its opening in September 2012 and it has remained significantly oversubscribed at every subsequent admissions round since that date.

    What promises and commitments has the school made? First, it sought to open multilingual education to all the residents of Oxfordshire. Secondly, it determined that the new school would have an important commitment to sciences and mathematics, particularly when the plans for the secondary school came into play. The school started with two stream languages, German and French, each joined with English, but it has recently added Spanish as a third stream language.

    Critically, the freedom offered by the free schools programme to allow free schools to set their own curriculum has been essential. The founders of the Europa School adopted the European Schools’ curriculum, modified by the mandatory elements of the English national curriculum. Thus, by the time of the all-important interview at the Department for Education, there was a distinctive offering to support the bid for pre-opening status. From the deep educational theory came the view that giving a child a second language from their earliest schooling was like giving them a second life—that is, an alternative cultural world in which they could immerse themselves. From the practical world came the view that multilingualism is in no way elitist: what the taxi drivers of many European cities achieve linguistically must be within the reach of schoolchildren, given the right environment and experiences.

    Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) My hon. Friend is making a fascinating speech extolling the virtues of the Europa School in his constituency. I have had correspondence from constituents expressing their admiration for the school and I would like to associate myself with those comments. Does he agree with me on two brief points? First, does not the success of the Europa School show the success of the free schools ​programme? Secondly, does that success not also illustrate that, while Britain may be withdrawing from the political structures of the European Union, she remains an enthusiastic participant in the culture, friendships and co-operation of Europe?

    John Howell I agree with both my hon. Friend’s points. The school’s success shows the importance of the free school movement and our commitment to continuing our co-operation in Europe. I thank him for making those points.

    I was particularly proud when the Europa School was specifically mentioned here in 2011 when the then Secretary of State for Education announced that the school was to open as a bilingual free school in 2012. That was not the first time that the residents of Oxfordshire had reason to be grateful for the support of the House in determining the educational provision available to their children. The quality of education at Culham through the European Schools programme had long been held in high regard. David Cameron had supported the unique educational offer provided at Culham, seeking to preserve and enhance it.

    I should like to praise the system of education offered under the free schools programme. We must not forget that in this case the school was principally set up to deal with parents of mainland European origin in the area. However, the approach to teaching languages has proved immensely successful—so successful that we are now in a situation where British parents are keen for their children to enter the school and be taught in that way. I ask the Minister to acknowledge this and to confirm that he will do all he can to encourage the continuation of this form of education.

    Moving on to the question of the European baccalaureate, the Europa School became an accredited European School in 2014. This means that the school has approval to continue offering the European baccalaureate and to teach the European curriculum. This accreditation was confirmed at a more recent inspection in 2018 by the European Commission. No money flows from Brussels to the school as a consequence of that status; it is simply a validation of the quality of teaching and assessment in the school.

    What is so valuable about that accreditation and affiliation? The European baccalaureate uniquely obliges all candidates to take written and oral examinations in at least two languages. The examinations do not just test competence in the additional stream language; the students, as I have pointed out, actually study history and geography through those languages, and use the stream languages as the mode of learning and assessment. As a result, students have a linguistic competence in their stream language on leaving similar to the linguistic competence of university undergraduates. At the same time, all students must study mathematics and at least once science subject to an advanced level. That outcome is not delivered by the UK A-level system. This free school also requires a leaving qualification that properly recognises the numerous years of education that are involved in becoming bilingual and studying diverse school subjects in two languages.

    As a responsible step in school governance, the principal and governing body of the school have explored whether the international baccalaureate could be adopted as an alternative qualification. However, there are significant ​limitations: examination and study of subjects through two languages is not mandatory; support for the English and German stream combination is weak; the middle years syllabus differs in significant ways; and, most of all, there is a risk of losing expertise among the teaching staff.

    The school wants to be able to continue offering the European curriculum and to offer the European baccalaureate as its qualification for school leavers, and I support it most strongly in that aim. In conversation, the Minister likened the situation to the owners of a copyright. In this case, the copyright is owned by the European Commission, not by the Department for Education. I understand from the Minister that the Department is happy for the school to continue teaching the European baccalaureate, but the problem lies in the attitude of the European Commission. In this situation, I would like to ask the Minister to ensure that the Department for Education can continue to be a friend to this free school, to negotiate strongly on its behalf, and to offer a no-holds-barred assessment of how the school can continue even if the UK is not a member of the EU. I urge the Minister to explore every avenue as a matter separate from Brexit. I hope that this excellent educational establishment may continue its development in the direction that the founders of the free school have planned.

    Finally, let me turn to the Department’s response to my petition. I was glad that the Government were successful in securing a provision in the withdrawal agreement that allows for Europa School’s continued accreditation as a European school until the end of August 2021. Beyond the withdrawal agreement, accreditation to deliver the European baccalaureate is available only to schools located in an EU member state. Continuing to deliver the European baccalaureate beyond that depends on a decision by European Union member states and the European Commission, through the European Schools board of governors, to change the rules on accredited schools. What are the Government doing to help the school talk to the European Schools board to try to get an agreement to include the school within its ambit after 2021? The Minister said:

    “At present that seems highly unlikely.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 16P.]

    This may be a lawyer’s view, but I note the term “at present” in his statement, so I ask him to set out the full position and the likely changes he expects, so as to provide the school with the degree of certainty it requires.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) pointed out, there is something special about free schools, particularly in what they can teach and the way that they can teach it. The Europa School illustrates that above all, which is why I have spent the last few minutes telling Members about it. It is a good example of how free schools work, how they can take the attitudes of parents and make them a reality, and how they can, in this case, through the European baccalaureate, continue to offer something of enormous benefit to children. I would like to see the extent to which we can provide support for the school at this time.