UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Sajid Javid – 2018 Statement on Northamptonshire County Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 27 March 2018.

    Mr Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a statement about the independent inspection report on Northamptonshire County Council.

    Everyone in this House, regardless of party, appreciates the crucial role that local government plays as the frontline of our democracy.

    Delivering vital services on which we all depend and helping to create great places to live.

    And, in doing so, making the most of every penny they receive from hard-pressed taxpayers to secure better outcomes.

    All of which builds confidence and trust between local authorities and those they serve.

    Which is why the situation in Northamptonshire is of such concern.

    Prior to my instigation of the report, there were signs that Northamptonshire’s situation was deteriorating.

    External auditors at Northamptonshire had lodged adverse value for money opinions in audit reports…

    …suggesting that the council was not managing its finances appropriately.

    The former leader resigning in May 2016, also signalled the need for change.

    As late as last year, the Local Government Association conducted a financial Peer Review…

    …which concluded there were issues with delivering the Next Generation reforms and, again, with the mismanagement of its finances.

    The then Chief Executive Paul Blantern resigned in October 2017.

    These reports, along with the concerns raised by district councils in Northamptonshire…

    …and by Hon Members of this House with local constituencies…

    …prompted me to act, as I was concerned that there were potentially fundamental issues within the authority.

    On 9 January 2018, I informed the House that I had concerns regarding the financial management and governance of the council.

    I therefore decided to exercise my powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 to initiate a Best Value inspection of the council.

    And I appointed Max Caller, an experienced former Chief Executive and Commissioner, to conduct this…

    …and report on whether the council was complying with its Best Value duty.

    Mr Caller submitted his report on 15 March.

    And I placed a copy in the library of this House so that everyone could see what he had found and see his recommendations.

    And before I go any further, I would like to thank Mr Caller, and his assistant inspector, Julie Parker…

    …for their dedication and focus in conducting such a thorough and prompt review.

    When I commissioned the Best Value inspection, I asked the Inspector to consider 4 things in particular:

    First, whether the council has the right culture, governance and processes to make robust decisions…

    …on resource allocation and to manage its finances effectively.

    Second, whether the council allowed adequate scrutiny by councillors.

    Third, whether there were strong processes and the right information available to managers and councillors…

    …to underpin service management and spending decisions.

    And fourth, whether the council was organised and structured appropriately to deliver value for money.

    Mr Speaker, I have reflected on the contents of the Caller report.

    It is balanced, it’s rooted in evidence and compelling.

    The Inspector has identified multiple apparent failures by Northamptonshire County Council in complying with its Best Value Duty.

    Failures on all counts.

    Whilst I recognise that councils across England have faced many challenges in recent years, the Inspector is clear that…

    … Northamptonshire’s failures are not down to a lack of funding or because it is being treated unfairly or is uniquely disadvantaged compared to other councils.

    In fact, his report says that:

    “for a number of years, NCC has failed to manage its budget and has not taken effective steps to introduce and maintain budgetary control”.

    Furthermore, the complex structure of financial support meant oversight was difficult and accountability blurred.

    This report says that Northamptonshire’s Next Generation approach – which envisaged outsourcing many of the council’s functions – had no:

    “hard edged business plan or justification to support these proposals”.

    This “…made it difficult to ensure a line of sight over costs and operational activity”…

    …and “made it impossible for the council, as a whole to have any clarity or understanding as to what was going on”.

    Similarly, the inspector found that Northamptonshire County Council used capital receipts to support revenue spend…

    …without documentary evidence demonstrating compliance with the Statutory Guidance and Direction.

    Furthermore, until this February, there was no report to full council on the proposed projects and their benefits.

    He says that “Savings targets were imposed without understanding of demand, need or deliverability…

    …and it is clear that some Chief Officers. did not consider that they were in any way accountable…

    …for the delivery of savings that they had promoted.”

    On the question of scrutiny, the report says that:

    “The council did not respond well, or in many cases even react, to external and internal criticism…

    …Individual councillors appear to have been denied answers to questions that were entirely legitimate to ask…

    …and scrutiny arrangements were constrained by what was felt the NCC executive would allow.”

    Mr Speaker, I want to emphasise that the report also indicates that the hardworking staff of Northamptonshire County Council…

    …are not at fault and have worked hard to provide quality services.

    With all of this mind, it is clear that I must consider whether further action is necessary to secure compliance with the Best Value duty.

    In doing so, I want to reassure the residents of Northamptonshire that essential services will continue to be delivered.

    The Inspector is clear that “the problems faced by NCC are now so deep and ingrained that it is not possible to promote a recovery plan…

    … that could bring the council back to stability and safety in a reasonable timescale.”

    He recommends that “a way forward, with a clean sheet, leaving all the history behind, is required”.

    I am therefore minded to appoint Commissioners to oversee the Authority…

    …using my powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999.

    From day 1, I propose that they take direct control over the council’s financial management and overall governance.

    Getting these basics right must be the first step in stabilising this authority.

    I also propose giving them reserved powers to act as they see fit across the entirety of the authority’s functions…

    …if they consider that they must step in.

    My officials are writing to the council and district councils today to this effect and they can make representations on my proposal.

    I will consider any representations carefully before reaching a final decision.

    The Caller report makes a clear recommendation on restructuring, and notes there are a number of options available.

    So, in addition, I’m inviting Northamptonshire County Council and the district and borough councils in the area…

    …to submit proposals on restructuring local government.

    I would like those councils to think about what is right for their community and the people they serve…

    …and to come forward with proposals.

    This invitation and the letter to Northamptonshire that I mentioned earlier have been published today and copies placed in the Library.

    It is clear to me that any proposals from the councils should seek to meet the criteria for local government restructuring…

    …that I have previously shared with the House.

    Namely, that proposals should:

    improve local government

    be based on a credible geography

    and command a good deal of local support

    I will be particularly interested in hearing how the councils have consulted with their communities…

    …to ensure that Northamptonshire’s future is truly locally-led.

    Mr Speaker, the findings of Mr Caller’s inspection report on Northamptonshire County Council are extremely serious.

    Which is why this government is prepared to take decisive action…

    …to ensure that local people receive the high quality services they need and deserve.

    And to restore faith in local government in Northamptonshire.

    I commend this Statement to the House.

  • George Howarth – 2018 Speech on Cable Standards and Fires

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2018.

    Mr Speaker I am about to call the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). It seems to me quite inexplicable that significant numbers of Members are leaving the Chamber, but if they feel inclined to do so—[Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) chuntering that he has been here for several hours; he could stay here another half an hour and indulge the right hon. Member for Knowsley. If people wish to leave the Chamber, they should do so quickly and quietly, so that the rest of us can attend to the intellectual oratory of the right hon. Member for Knowsley.

    Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) I will try to live up to your splendid introduction, Mr Speaker.

    Last year’s Grenfell Tower tragedy was, without doubt, one of the most shocking and disturbing building safety failures in living memory. As we know, the likely cause was a shocking failure of our building control regulations, and as a result, the Government established an independent review of building regulations led by Dame Judith Hackitt. A long-overdue national debate about buildings and safety has been taking place alongside the review. In her interim report, Dame Judith rightly stated that Britain’s building regulations are “not fit for purpose”.

    I would like to place on record my thanks to the Safer Structures campaign, Electrical Safety First, the Association of British Insurers, the Fire Brigades Union and the Merseyside fire and rescue service for providing me with a briefing for the debate.

    The focus for Grenfell Tower is on the specification and installation of the cladding used on the building. This debate concerns the need to eradicate substandard cabling from the market, because there is an overwhelming argument that our existing regulation is too weak and, as a consequence, exposes structures and those who live and work in them to unacceptable levels of risk.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this salient debate. Does he agree that, with electrical fires being the cause of 20,000 fires in United Kingdom homes per year, we have a duty to ensure that people are able to check their cabling and understand how to do so to ensure that it is safe, for not only the people themselves but the councils, which have responsibility?

    Mr Howarth I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will be giving some statistics that exemplify what he just said.

    According to the Approved Cables Initiative, more than 27% of all electrical fires are attributable to faulty wire and cables, and there are serious concerns about the risks in our built environment that need to be urgently addressed.

    A related concern is that current regulation is not being sufficiently well enforced. For example, in October 2017 the BBC published evidence from an investigation it carried out which exposed the fact that a now-defunct Turkish cable manufacturer, Atlas Kablo, has sold ​11 million metres of cable to the UK that pose a deeply concerning fire risk. The Health and Safety Executive, which labours under severe resource restrictions, decided against a compulsory recall of all 11 million metres of that cable. Consequently, as far as I am able to ascertain, so far only 7 million metres has actually been recovered. That poses a real fire safety threat in cases where that cable is still being used.

    Interviewed by the BBC, Sam Gluck, the technical manager at the electrical fire consultants Tower Electrical Fire & Safety, said that this approach had

    “planted a bomb in the system”.

    Mr Gluck added that

    “if it overheats, it will ignite anything that touches it. If it’s against a plasterboard wall that will ignite”.

    Dr Maurizio Bragagni, chief executive of Tratos—it has a factory in my constituency—and a founder of the Safer Structures campaign, added that

    “it could be in any shopping centre, any venue, any building”.

    Even where cable regulation is properly enforced, the standards are too weak. By way of background—the Minister will be aware of this—on 1 July 2017, the European Union introduced the construction products regulation. As a result, all cables sold in the EU now have to adhere to common standards, which should result in safer, more consistent building regulations and much improved public safety. The EU, however, has not been prescriptive in specifying which classification of cable performance should be used for buildings and infrastructure in each country. Instead, it is the responsibility of each EU member state’s regulator to decide this, and in the UK, this is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

    At present, the Department has not specified which class of cable should be used for buildings, and instead requires all electrical installations in buildings to comply with British standard 7671—a minimum requirement equivalent to European class E. This means that flames can spread through a cable to 3 to 4 metres in under five minutes, and the fire will continue to propagate at the same rate, while at Euro class C, for example, the fire growth rate is limited to below 2 metres. On the range of Euro classes A to F, the A standard is virtually fireproof. Adoption of a higher standard at Euro class A, B1, B2 or C would lead to much greater resistance for permitted cables. In short, it would mean much improved levels of fire safety.

    The official statistics on domestic fires make for sober reading. In 2016-17, 14,821 primary fires were caused by electrical distribution, space heating appliances and other electrical appliances. These three categories resulted in 44 fatalities and 1,353 non-fatal casualties. Another cause for concern is the electrical safety of white goods such as dishwashers, tumble dryers and fridge freezers, which are a major cause of electrical fires. In 2016, 1,873 fires were caused by domestic electrical white goods.

    As you will recall, Mr Speaker, on 1 November 2017 there was an excellent Westminster Hall debate on the subject of product safety and fire risk in residential premises, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I will not go over that ground again, other than to say that this is a serious problem and it needs to be addressed urgently.​
    Analysis by the Fire Brigades Union indicates that the number of fires and fire deaths is increasing. In the year ending September 2017, there were 346 fire-related fatalities compared with 253 in the previous year, which is a 37% increase—and it was even up by 9% if the tragic deaths at Grenfell Tower are not included. An improvement in standards must, by definition, lead to reduced fire deaths, less property damage and lower demands on already overstretched fire and rescue services. We should bear in mind that, since 2010, more than 11,000 firefighter jobs have been cut across the UK, and that represents one in five frontline firefighter jobs.

    There are, as I have highlighted, genuine concerns about buildings such as Grenfell Tower and fire safety. I also have serious concerns about the growing private rented sector, which is far too lightly regulated. Electrical Safety First recommended that properties in the private rented sector should be subject to mandatory five-year checks and the fitting of residual current devices. This would enable substandard cabling to be identified, rather than, as at present, leaving it undetected until it causes serious property damage, injury or even death.

    The post-Brexit landscape for regulation and compliance must, at the minimum, maintain the current protections afforded to consumers. There should be no deregulation of the product safety standards currently implemented. Following our exit, the UK should continue working closely with European friends to ensure that products entering the UK market are safe, and dangerous products are intercepted and reported.

    One further point I want to make before I move to a conclusion concerns regional variations. Merseyside had 53% of its fires recorded as being electrical in origin, which is below the national average. During the same time, Manchester had 61%, and Norfolk, the Isle of Wight and Cornwall had in excess of 70%, of dwelling fires recorded as electrical. Of the 628 incidents defined as electrical fires on Merseyside, 133 were deemed to be “structural/fixtures/fittings”, and cables would fall into that category.

    To conclude, I ask the Minister to consider the following questions. First, Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building regulations must inevitably go through all the evidence thoroughly, and I accept that that will take time. However, in the case of cabling, would the Minister consider introducing immediate measures to properly regulate cable standards along the lines I referred to? The evidence is already there.

    Secondly, will the Minister consider providing the resources to enable the Health and Safety Executive to identify the remaining 4 million metres of Atlas Kablo cable so that it can be recalled? Thirdly, will she undertake to see what further action can be taken on white goods to more fully identify the risks and any action that could be taken to eradicate those risks?

    Fourthly, will the Minister carry out a review of the regions most prone to electrical fires to identify the common characteristics and what more can be done to deal with the problem? Finally, following our exit from the EU, will she commit to ensuring that there is no deregulation of cable standards in the UK?

    I hope the Minister will accept that this is a very serious issue and that it is in need of urgent attention ​from her Department. I hope she will inject some energy into the work the Government need to do to combat it.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Statement on European Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2018.

    Introduction

    Mr Speaker, before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed in the appalling terrorist attack at Trèbes on Friday.

    The House will also want to pay tribute to the extraordinary actions of Lt-Col Arnaud Beltrame who, unarmed, took the place of a hostage and gave his own life to save the lives of others. Son sacrifice et son courage ne seront jamais oubliés.

    Mr Speaker, just last week we marked the first anniversary of the attack on Westminster and remembered the humbling bravery of PC Keith Palmer.

    It is through the actions of people like PC Palmer and Lt-Col Beltrame, that we confront the very worst of humanity with the very best.

    And through the actions of us all – together in this Parliament and in solidarity with our allies in France – we show that our democracy will never be silenced and our way of life will always prevail.

    European Council

    Mr Speaker, turning to the Council, we discussed confronting Russia’s threat to the rules-based order. We agreed our response to America’s import tariffs on steel and aluminium, and we also discussed Turkey and the Western Balkans, as well as economic issues including the appropriate means of taxing digital companies.

    All of these are issues on which the UK will continue to play a leading role in our future partnership with the EU after we have left. And this Council also took important steps towards building that future partnership.

    Russia

    First, on Russia, we are shortly to debate the threat that Russia poses to our national security – and I will set this out in detail then.

    But at this Council, I shared the basis for our assessment that Russia was responsible for the reckless and brazen attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury – and the exposure of many others to potential harm.

    All EU leaders agreed and as a result the Council conclusions were changed to state that the Council “…agrees with the United Kingdom government’s assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible and that there is no alternative plausible explanation.”

    Mr Speaker, this was the first offensive use of a nerve agent on European soil since the foundation of the EU and NATO.

    It is a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and – as an unlawful use of force – a clear breach of the UN Charter.

    It is part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour – but also represents a new and dangerous phase in Russia’s hostile activity against Europe and our shared values and interests.

    So I argued that there should be a reappraisal of how our collective efforts can best tackle the challenge that Russia poses following President Putin’s re-election.

    And in my discussions with President Macron and Chancellor Merkel, as well as other leaders, we agreed on the importance of sending a strong European message in response to Russia’s actions – not just out of solidarity with the UK but recognising the threat posed to the national security of all EU countries.

    So the Council agreed immediate actions including withdrawing the EU’s ambassador from Moscow.

    And today 18 countries have announced their intention to expel more than 100 Russian intelligence officers from their countries.

    This includes 15 EU Member States as well as the US, Canada, and the Ukraine.

    And this is the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history.

    I have found great solidarity from our friends and partners in the EU, North America, NATO and beyond over the past three weeks as we have confronted the aftermath of the Salisbury incident.

    And together we have sent a message that we will not tolerate Russia’s continued attempts to flout international law and undermine our values.

    European nations will also act to strengthen their resilience to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear-related risks as well as bolstering their capabilities to deal with hybrid threats.

    We also agreed that we would review progress in June, with Foreign Ministers being tasked to report back ahead of the next Council.

    Mr Speaker, the challenge of Russia is one that will endure for years to come.

    As I have made clear before, we have no disagreement with the Russian people who have achieved so much through their country’s great history.

    Indeed, our thoughts are with them today in the aftermath of the awful shopping centre fire in Kemerovo in Siberia.

    But President Putin’s regime is carrying out acts of aggression against our shared values and interests within our continent and beyond.

    And as a sovereign European democracy, the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with the EU and with NATO to face down these threats together.

    US steel tariffs

    Turning to the United States’ decision to impose import tariffs on steel and aluminium, the Council was clear that these measures cannot be justified on national security grounds, and that sector-wide protection in the US is an inappropriate remedy for the real problems of overcapacity.

    My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade travelled to Washington last week to argue for an EU-wide exemption.

    So we welcome the temporary exemption that has now been given to the European Union, but we must work hard to ensure this becomes permanent.

    At the same time we will continue to support preparations in the EU to defend our industry in a proportionate manner, in compliance with WTO rules.

    Brexit

    Turning to Brexit, last week the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union reached agreement with the European Commission negotiating team on large parts of the draft Withdrawal Agreement.

    This includes the reciprocal agreement on citizens’ rights, the financial settlement, aspects of issues relating to Northern Ireland such as the Common Travel Area, and crucially the detailed terms of a time-limited Implementation Period running to the end of December 2020.

    I am today placing copies of the draft agreement in the House libraries and I want to thank the Secretary of State and our negotiating team for all their work in getting us to this point.

    The Council welcomed the agreement reached – including the time that the Implementation Period will provide for governments, businesses and citizens on both sides to prepare for the new relationship we want to build.

    As I set out in my speech in Florence, it is not in our national interest to ask businesses to undertake two sets of changes.

    So it follows that during the Implementation Period they should continue to trade on current terms.

    Whilst I recognise that not everyone will welcome continuation of current trading terms for another 21 months, such an Implementation Period has been widely welcomed by British business because it is necessary if we are to minimise uncertainty and deliver a smooth and successful Brexit.

    For all of us, the most important issue must be focussing on negotiating the right future relationship that will endure for years to come.

    And we are determined to use the Implementation Period to prepare properly for that future relationship – which is why it is essential that we have clarity about the terms of that relationship when we ask the House to agree the Implementation Period and the rest of the Withdrawal Agreement in the autumn.

    Mr Speaker, there are of course some key questions that remain to be resolved on the Withdrawal Agreement – including the governance of the Agreement, and how our commitments to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland should be turned into legal text.

    As I have made clear, we remain committed to the agreement we reached in December in its entirety.

    This includes a commitment to agree operational legal text for the “backstop option” set out in the Joint Report – although it remains my firm belief that we can and will find the best solutions for Northern Ireland as part of the overall future relationship between the UK and the EU.

    I have explained that the specific European Commission proposals for that backstop were unacceptable because they were not in line with Belfast Agreement and threatened the break-up of the UK’s internal market. And as such they were not a fair reflection of the Joint Report.

    But there are many issues on which we can agree with the Commission and we are committed to working intensively to resolve those which remain outstanding.

    So I welcome that we are beginning a dedicated set of talks today with the European Commission – and where appropriate the Irish Government – so that we can work together to agree the best way to fulfil the commitments we have made.

    We have also been working closely with the Government of Gibraltar to ensure that Gibraltar is covered by our EU negotiations on withdrawal, the Implementation Period and future relationship.

    I am pleased that the draft Agreement published jointly last week correctly applies to Gibraltar, but we will continue to engage closely with the Government of Gibraltar and our European partners to resolve the particular challenges our EU withdrawal poses for Gibraltar and for Spain.

    Mr Speaker, following my speeches in Munich and at the Mansion House setting out the future security and economic partnerships we want to develop, the Council also agreed guidelines for the next stage of the negotiations on this future relationship which must rightly now be our focus.

    While there are of course some clear differences between our initial positions, the guidelines are a useful starting point for the negotiations that will now get underway.

    And I welcome the Council restating the EU’s determination to “have as close as possible a partnership with the UK” and its desire for a “balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging” free trade agreement.

    For I believe there is now an opportunity to create a new dynamic in these negotiations.

    The agreements our negotiators have reached on the Withdrawal Agreement and the Implementation Period are proof that with political will – and with a spirit of co-operation and a spirit of opportunity for the future – we can find answers to difficult issues together.

    And we must continue to do so.

    For whether people voted leave or remain, many are frankly tired of the old arguments and the attempts to refight the referendum over the past year.

    With a year to go, people are coming back together and looking forward.

    They want us to get on with it. And that is what we are going to do.

    And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Statement on National Security and Russia

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2018.

    Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion on the order paper standing in my name.

    Three weeks ago, the Russian Federation was responsible for an attempted murder here in our country.

    This was not only a crime against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

    It was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk.

    It was an assault on our fundamental values and the rules based international system that upholds them.

    And it was part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour, but which – with the first offensive use of a nerve agent on European soil since the foundation of NATO – also represents a new and dangerous phase in Russia’s hostile activity within our continent and beyond.

    So this debate is taking place, Mr Speaker, because there is no greater responsibility for this House – for this government and for me as Prime Minister – than recognising threats to our national security and acting to meet them.

    So let me set out for the House what we now know about the recklessness of this act and its exposure of innocent people to potential harm, the evidence that Russia was indeed responsible, the wider pattern of Russia’s illegal and destabilising actions within our continent and beyond, the extensive actions this government has already been taking, and our determination to work with our international partners to confront the evolving nature of this threat, to defend the rules based international system and to keep our people safe.

    Mr Speaker, let me start by updating the House on the situation in Salisbury.

    Sergei and Yulia Skripal remain critically ill in hospital.

    Sadly, late last week doctors indicated that their condition is unlikely to change in the near future and they may never recover fully.

    This shows the utterly barbaric nature of this act – and the dangers that hundreds of innocent citizens in Salisbury could have faced.

    An investigation continues into all the locations where the Skripals had been present on Sunday 4th March.

    As a result, we now have a fuller picture of the recklessness of this act against our country.

    While Public Health England have made clear that the risk to public health is low – and this remains the case – we assess that more than 130 people in Salisbury could have been potentially exposed to this nerve agent.

    More than 50 people were assessed in hospital, with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey taken seriously ill.

    I know everyone in the House will welcome the news that he has been discharged and continue to hold him and his family in our thoughts as he makes his recovery.

    Mr Speaker, we are quite clear that Russia was responsible for this act.

    As I set out for the House in my statements earlier this month, our world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down positively identified the chemical used for this act as a Novichok – a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by the Soviet Union.

    We know that Russia has a record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations – and that it views some former intelligence officers as legitimate targets for these assassinations.

    And we have information indicating that within the last decade, Russia has investigated ways of delivering nerve agents probably for assassination – and as part of this programme has produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichoks.

    Clearly that is in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention and so it is right that we have been working closely with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons whose team arrived in the UK last week and collected samples.

    This is a normal part of us discharging our obligations under the Convention, although we are clear as to what the evidence is.

    As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, upholding these non-proliferation regimes with our partners is central to our international security, while Russia has recklessly undermined and violated them.

    In conclusion, as I have set out, no other country has a combination of the capability, the intent and the motive to carry out such an act.

    There is no other plausible explanation.

    And that is not just the view of the UK government.

    It was the unanimous view of every single leader at last week’s European Council.

    And the view of our Allies in NATO and around the world.

    Mr Speaker, I know there are some who question whether there could be alternative explanations.

    So let me be absolutely clear.

    We have been led by evidence not by speculation.

    And when faced with the evidence we gave the Russian government the opportunity to provide an explanation.

    But they did not do so.

    They provided no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of international law.

    No explanation that could suggest they had lost control of their nerve agent.

    And no explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom.

    Instead they have treated the use of a military grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.

    Incredibly, they have deployed at least twenty-one different arguments about it.

    They have suggested that they never produced Novichoks; or that they produced them but then destroyed them.

    They have tried to claim that their agents are not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    They have pointed the finger at other countries – including Slovakia, Sweden and the Czech Republic – and even tried to claim that the United Kingdom was responsible for a chemical attack on our own citizens.

    For a nation state like Russia to resort again to peddling such preposterous and contradictory theories is unworthy of their people and their great history.

    It is merely an effort to distract from the truth of Russia’s violation of international law.

    And this unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom, is a clear violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a breach of the UN Charter.

    This act against our country is the latest in a pattern of increasingly aggressive Russian behaviour attacking the international rules based system across our continent and beyond.

    Russia’s illegal actions in Crimea were the first time since the Second World War that one sovereign nation has forcibly annexed territory from another in Europe.

    Since then Russia has fomented conflict in the Donbass, repeatedly violated the national airspace of several European countries, and mounted a sustained campaign of cyber espionage and disruption.

    It has meddled in elections and hacked the Danish Ministry of Defence and the Bundestag among many others.

    It is seeking to weaponise information, deploying its state-run media organisations to plant fake stories and photo-shopped images in an attempt to sow discord in the West and undermine our institutions.

    During his recent State of the Union address, President Putin showed video graphics of missile launches, flight trajectories and explosions, including the modelling of attacks on the United States with a series of warheads impacting in Florida.

    And of course Russia used radiological substances in its despicable assault here in London on Mr Litvinenko.

    Russia is also failing to honour its responsibilities in the international community as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

    In particular, Russia has covered up for the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in Syria – especially in its attempts to impede the OPCW’s Joint Investigative Mechanism. This has allowed the Syrian Regime to continue to perpetrate atrocities against the Syrian people.

    For the last month, in contravention of UNSCR 2401, Russian airpower and military coordination has enabled the Regime offensive in Eastern Ghouta, causing more appalling suffering and impeding the heroic efforts of the humanitarian relief agencies.

    Indeed, over the course of many years of civil war, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died and many times that number have been displaced. Yet Russia has repeatedly failed to use its influence over the Syrian Regime to bring an end to this terrible suffering.

    Mr Speaker, from the outset, the UK has been at the forefront of the European and transatlantic response to these actions.

    In response to the annexation of Crimea, we led the work with our EU and G7 partners in constructing the first sanctions regime against Russia.

    We have stepped up our military and economic support to Ukraine, including directly training almost 7,000 Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel.

    We are the second largest contributor of monitors to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission.

    We are driving reform of NATO to better deter and counter hostile Russian activity and our commitment to collective defence and security through NATO remains as strong as ever.

    Indeed, our armed forces have a leading role in NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence with British troops leading a multinational battlegroup in Estonia.

    In the Western Balkans, we stepped up our support to our newest ally, Montenegro, when it suffered an attempt by Russia to stage a coup.

    While our Western Balkans Summit in July will enhance our security co-operation with all our Western Balkans partners, including on serious and organised crime, anti-corruption and cyber security.

    We are building up our defences against Russia’s cyber threat more broadly – investing almost £2 billion in our National Cyber Security Strategy and have opened a new National Cyber Security Centre which is actively working with international partners, industry and civil society to tackle this threat.

    We are also working with our European partners to support the Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats in Helsinki.

    We are calling out Russia’s malign behaviour in cyber space – as we did last month when together with the US and other allies we attributed the NotPetya cyber-attack to the Russian military.

    And we are investing millions in countering Russian disinformation efforts – including more investment in public service and independent media operating in the Russian language, both through projects in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. And through reinvigorating the BBC Russia Service as an independent source of news for Russian speakers.

    As the House knows, we already have the largest Defence budget in Europe and second largest in NATO, meeting the 2% standard and set to increase every year of this Parliament.

    We have also commissioned the National Security Capability Review, which will report shortly, and the Modernising Defence Programme to ensure that our Defence and Security capabilities are optimised to address the threats we face, including those from Russia.

    Following the incident in Salisbury we have of course taken further measures.

    We are dismantling the Russian espionage network in our country and we will not allow it to be rebuilt.

    We are urgently developing proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of Hostile State Activity.

    This will include the addition of a targeted power to detain those suspected of such activity at the UK border; and considering whether there is a need for new counter-espionage powers to clamp down on the full spectrum of hostile activities of foreign agents in our country.

    We are making full use of existing powers to enhance our efforts to monitor and track the intentions of those travelling to the UK who could be engaged in activity that threatens the security of the UK and our allies.

    This includes increasing checks on private flights, customs and freight and freezing Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents.

    We are also cracking down on illicit and corrupt finance, bringing all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites – neither of whom have any place in our country.

    We have given our law enforcement agencies new powers in the Criminal Finance Act and we will table an amendment to the Sanctions Bill to ensure that the UK cannot be a home for those who trade illicit finance or commit human rights abuses.

    And crucially, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this threat from Russia is an attack on the whole international rules based system and the collective security of the UK and its allies, so we must continue to work closely with all our international partners.

    That includes through the new security partnership we want to build with the European Union as part of our new relationship after we have left.

    And as I said in my speech in Munich, when we leave the EU it is right that the UK will pursue an independent foreign policy. But around the world the interests that we will seek to project and defend will continue to be rooted in our shared values.

    And nowhere is this more true than in standing up to Russia’s hostile actions and refuting its attempts to undermine the international rules based order.

    As President Macron said on Friday, Russia’s actions in Salisbury were “…an act of aggression against the sovereignty of an ally, which demands a reaction.”

    And as I set out in my statement earlier, the EU and its Member States have already taken some immediate actions, including withdrawing the EU’s ambassador from Moscow.

    And as I announced today, 18 countries have announced their intention to expel more than 100 Russian intelligence officers, including 15 EU member states as well as the US, Canada and the Ukraine.

    And this is the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Kremlin’s goal is to divide and intimidate the Western Alliance then their efforts have spectacularly back-fired.

    Today’s actions by our allies clearly demonstrate that we all stand shoulder to shoulder in sending the strongest signal to the Kremlin that Russia cannot continue to flout international law and threaten our security.

    As I argued at last week’s European Council, we must reappraise how our collective efforts can best tackle the challenge that Russia poses.

    But we must and will proceed on a rigorous and legally sound basis, which is why the Council mandated Foreign Ministers to consider how best to proceed and to report back ahead of the next Council.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have made clear before, we have no disagreement with the Russian people who have achieved so much through their country’s great history.

    Indeed, our thoughts are with them today – and especially the friends and families of those who died in that awful shopping centre fire in Kemerovo in Siberia.

    Neither should we wish to be in a permanent state of perpetual confrontation with Russia.

    Many of us looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope.

    We would much rather have in Russia a constructive partner ready to play by the rules.

    But while we should continue to keep open this possibility, we must also face the facts. President Putin’s regime is carrying out acts of aggression against our values and interests within Europe and beyond.

    The challenge of Russia is one that will endure for years to come.

    As a European democracy, the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the European Union and NATO to face down these threats together.

    We will defend our infrastructure, our institutions and our values against attempts to undermine them.

    And we will act to protect our national security and to keep our people safe.

    And I commend this motion to the House.

  • Vicky Ford – 2018 Speech on Phenylketonuria and Kuvan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Vicky Ford, the Conservative MP for Chelmsford, in the House of Commons on 22 March 2018.

    I would like to bring to the House’s attention the condition known as phenylketonuria and the drug sapropterin, which is known under the trade name Kuvan. I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for being here today; he raised the same matter in an Adjournment debate six years ago. I also thank the Minister—another fantastic Essex MP—for being present, as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has a constituent with the condition. I co-chair the all-party group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, but I raise this issue primarily as a constituency MP.

    This is my first Adjournment debate, and I would like to discuss the case of one of my youngest constituents. It was at one of my first constituency surgeries that I met Natasha Cotter, who told me about her daughter, Cait. Cait and her father are in the Gallery. Cait has phenylketonuria, otherwise known as PKU. It is very, very rare.

    I am sure that all of us who are parents remember those first moments when we hold our new-born baby in our arms before it is taken away and given the heel-prick test. For the vast majority of children, that test is clear, but for one in 10,000 babies, it will show that the child has PKU. Without treatment, these children can become very suddenly and very seriously ill.

    People with PKU cannot metabolise phenylalanine, an amino acid found in protein. Without correct treatment, the amino acid can build up to levels that are toxic to the brain. If PKU is unmanaged, it results in severe and irreversible brain damage. The treatment for children affected is to remove almost all natural protein from their diet.

    My constituent Cait is 10 years old. She can metabolise only 11 grams of protein a day. She is restricted in every eating experience of her life. Her day is ruled by limited food and constant protein supplements—those drinks taste foul and smell unpleasant. When other children are sharing a meal, or perhaps a birthday cake or chocolate, Cait can only have her protein drink. Her parents tell me that she is permanently hungry. They say that every day since she was born has been filled with the joy that she brings, but also the misery associated with the daily management of her lifetime condition.

    The severe restrictions of a PKU diet place a great burden on patients and their families. The phenylalanine content of all food needs to be carefully restricted, including with vegetables such as potatoes and cauliflower. Cait’s grandmother has given up work to care for her. In fact, research shows that more than half of the carers of a child with PKU have stopped working, reduced their hours or changed their job so that they can help to manage the child’s diet. Unsurprisingly, the constant worry about what their children are eating, and whether brain damage may be caused by everyday food, puts a huge emotional strain on families. A recent study found that 59% of mothers caring for PKU children had clinical levels of psychological distress themselves. Furthermore, problems with learning difficulties are ​frequently reported in children with PKU. A survey of families found that 43% of children had problems staying focused at school, with 30% of families reporting that their child had depression or anxiety.

    But there is hope. For one month, Cait was put on a trial of sapropterin, a drug made by BioMarin and marketed under the name Kuvan. During that trial, Cait’s ability to metabolise phenylalanine increased threefold from 400 mg to 1,200 mg a day—the equivalent of 24 grams of protein—which allowed Cait to eat a normal vegetarian diet. Her parents told me that she was a different child and so happy to be able to eat real food. Even a visit to the supermarket was a real adventure. Her mood lifted, the nightmares stopped and she increased in alertness. Her teacher asked what had changed, because she was a different pupil at school.

    Sapropterin is the only licensed non-dietary treatment for PKU. It does not work for all genetic variants of the condition, but it benefits about 20% to 30% of sufferers. That is a tiny number of people: about 150 children in the whole country, or, including adults, fewer than 350. These people are so rare, but for those such as Cait, the drug is life changing.

    Sapropterin is available in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine, as well as the United States of America. However, except for a small number of women during pregnancy, it is not available in England on the NHS.

    I have written to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to draw Cait’s case to his attention. I have also written to my local NHS clinical commissioning group, which sent me to NHS England. NHS England recommended an individual funding request, but for such a request to be successful, the patient has to be considered exceptional. So far, only those with additional conditions have been able to access the drug via that route. The patient has to prove that they have PKU and another condition, but how likely is that? PKU children are exceptionally rare—there are only 150 of them in the country—so they are already exceptional. For patients such as Cait, this is an impossible barrier. In fact, I have been told that only three patients have ever successfully managed to be prescribed the drug through an individual funding request.

    Last summer, NHS England said that it would review the decision on sapropterin. Last month, it wrote to the patient organisation, the National Society for Phenylketonuria, to say that the decision would now be made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Last week, the patient organisation wrote back to NHS England because it is not clear what process will be used or when the decision process will begin.

    I understand that funding for all treatments is not unlimited and that decisions do need to be made in a rational manner, but patients with PKU believe that, as well as the positive health benefits, there would be positive financial benefits to the public purse from commissioning this drug. The NHS estimates that Kuvan could cost between £14,000 and £45,000 per patient per year, but BioMarin, the manufacturer, has told the patient organisation that it is willing to make substantial discounts.​

    Furthermore, the price needs to be weighed against the costs of not having the drug. For adults, the protein-restricted diet alone costs the NHS £12,000 a year. The average cost to the taxpayer of each parent who gives up work to care for their child is another £5,500. A third of children need additional help at school, the cost of which varies, but the typical notional budget for a child with special educational needs is another £6,000.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I am not normally in the Chamber for the Adjournment debate on a Thursday afternoon, but I am here today because of the timing of this debate and because, as my party’s spokesperson on health, I am very interested in this subject. The hon. Lady has very passionately, and in a forensic and detailed way, outlined the case for making this drug available. Not only does the individual need the drug, but the family sometimes need it as well, because of the mental and physical impact the situation has on them. I support the hon. Lady’s request that the Minister makes this happen. For 150 people, it is a small price to pay. As the hon. Lady said, when we add it all up, the good health of a child or an adult is worth such a price.

    Vicky Ford I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his comments. I completely agree that we need to look at the wider issues. In fact, we should also look at what happens if the condition is not successfully managed, because that can be even more expensive. For example, if a woman with PKU gets pregnant and the condition is not well managed, the child she bears will be at very high risk of having substantial long-term disabilities. If a child with PKU does not manage to stick to their diet, they are at risk of permanent brain damage. All those wider costs should be taken into consideration when making this assessment.

    The patient organisation is concerned that NICE may decide to restrict the drug and offer it only to those it considers to be high-need patients. The drug might be given only to patients who have refused to follow the strict diet, so it would actually discriminate against those who have done the right thing and worked so hard to maintain that very difficult dietary control. I say the Minister: let us to try to break this deadlock. BioMarin and NICE need to engage with each other in a transparent way that has the full support of the patient organisation. The whole patient population should be considered, and those who do the right thing with their diet should not be put at a disadvantage.

    There is a bigger issue. This is not just a debate about one patient or one drug, but a wider one about how we in Britain approach new medicines and treatments, especially for rare diseases. Britain is a world leader in science, especially the life sciences, and we are home to the human genome campus. The amazing, visionary 100,000 genomes project has set us at the forefront of the global revolution in medical research. Our unique NHS gives researchers the ability to access large quantities of reliable and detailed patient data, which helps them to identify very, very specific genetic divergences. That means that medics can increasingly pinpoint the exact cause of a rare condition, and discover specifically which one of a new generation of personalised medicines will give the most effective treatment for an individual’s condition. Life sciences lie at the heart of the Government’s industrial policy. However, if we are to ​stay at the forefront of world medical research, it is vital that discoveries are not only made here, but trialled, tested, and prescribed here.

    NICE is a world leader in assessing medical health technology, and many other countries have chosen to follow its approach. Nevertheless, the world of medical research is changing exponentially, and if NICE is to continue to hold the confidence of researchers, physicians and patients, it must prove that it can evolve and evaluate even the most innovative treatments, and especially advanced medicines such as cell and gene therapies. When NICE approves a new treatment, we must ensure that the NHS can commission it effectively. Today the NHS cannot commission a drug unless it has been to NICE. Before a drug is granted marketing authorisation, there is the option for the company to make it available through the early access to medicines scheme, but after that marketing authorisation, and before NICE approval, there is no route to funding except through individual funding requests.

    As the Minister knows, most rare diseases are very, very rare—at least some of them are—and the overall cost of treating them is a small part of the NHS budget. We must find a better way for all parties to work together to facilitate the passage of orphan drugs for rare conditions through NICE and the commissioning process.

    I thank colleagues and the Minister for listening to my remarks, and I thank the Cotter family for being here today. Britain is a world leader in medical research, so let us ensure that British patients, such as my constituent, Cait, can be among the first in the world, not the last, to benefit from medical discoveries.

  • Mark Field – 2018 Speech at Global FinTech Investor Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Field, the Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific, at the Global FinTech Investor Forum on 21 March 2018.

    Thank you Nikhil and thanks to your team here at the London Stock Exchange for the opportunity to address so many Fintech pioneers.

    FinTech sits at a crossroads of my professional responsibilities and my personal interests:

    As Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, I have responsibility not only for nurturing our relationships with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, but also for international economic diplomacy, including the financial services sector. As MP for the constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster for the last 17 years, I know better than most just how important the City is for this country’s economy, and just how important innovation is to maintaining the UK’s global prominence in financial services.

    And as a politician and father, I am very conscious that the success and prosperity of our children’s generation will in large part be determined by how we seize the opportunities that new technologies offer, and how we adapt to the disruption they cause.

    The current generation of Fintech entrepreneurs in the UK has risen to the challenge; continuing a long-standing tradition of financial innovation in this country. They have come a long way in a very short time. The dynamism and growth of the sector is envied by much of the world.

    I would like to think that this Government, through being responsive to the needs of the sector, and by creating the conditions in which the sector can thrive, has also played its part in this success story.

    So today I want unashamedly to make the case for London and the UK as a pre-eminent global hub for financial services in this fast evolving digital age; and I want to demonstrate how this Government is backing UK Fintech all the way.

    Emergence of Fintech

    New technologies are transforming lives in ways that could not have been imagined even a decade ago. They are connecting people who used to be isolated; they are democratising information, education and opportunity; and they are creating jobs and industries that didn’t previously exist.

    Innovation has been a big part of the success of the UK’s financial services industry, ever since it was unleashed by the reforms of Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. Its pioneering of Islamic and Green Finance is a case in point. In 2013, London was the first capital of a non-Muslim majority country to host the World Islamic Economic Forum. Soon after that we became the first Western nation to issue a sovereign sukuk – or Sharia-compliant bond.

    Today, this place, the London Stock Exchange, is seen as the global hub for these bonds, with 65 issues to date – worth over $48 billion dollars. In 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority authorised the first Sharia-compliant FinTech company – Yielders – and more are expected to follow. The City of London is also a natural hub for Green Finance, offering access to unrivalled liquidity and professional services with expertise in the sector.

    The falling cost of renewable energy, in part driven by the competitive investment environment, and demand for ethical investments in centres like London, is driving the global shift to a low carbon economy at a faster pace than many had imagined.

    That same foresight which made London an early adopter of sukuk and green finance also meant it was quick to identify how new technologies could be used to deliver new financial services, and refine old ones. We have rapidly emerged and grown into a Fintech superpower.

    I could not put it better than Deloitte, who last year ranked London as the world’s best FinTech hub, and said – I quote:

    London has the world’s largest financial services sector, supported by a booming tech sector. The ecosystem has the “Fin” of New York, the “Tech” of the US West Coast and the policymakers of Washington, all within a 15 minute journey on public transport. These factors make London one of the greatest connected global cities in the world, with the key ingredients for digital success: capital, talent, regulatory and government support and demographic diversity.

    You will have heard my ministerial colleague Robert Jenrick talk about some of these ingredients for success this morning. I am going to focus on two more: first, the regulatory environment, and secondly, what this Government is doing to support UK Fintech thrive beyond these shores.

    Regulatory environment

    The success of the UK’s FinTech industry has been enabled and supported by a policy and regulatory environment which has innovated in almost equal measure to the industry itself.

    In the Financial Conduct Authority, we have the first regulator in the world to introduce a regulatory “sandbox” in which businesses can test products and ideas in a live environment. Such was its success that it has been widely replicated elsewhere.

    Alongside this inspired regulation, HM Treasury have been on the front foot in promoting an environment here in the UK in which innovative businesses can apply technology to deliver efficiencies and benefits to both business and consumers. The roll-out of the world-leading Open Banking-standard enables the sharing of data making it easier for consumers to use third parties to access their accounts to improve financial information and payment services, allowing greater competition and security.

    HMG promotion of UK Fintech

    To maintain the UK’s position as a world-leader in FinTech, the Government has entered into bespoke agreements with some of the key Fintech early adopters and markets. These agreements will reduce barriers to trade and link companies in both nations with opportunities for international trade and investment. We call these agreements ‘FinTech Bridges’.

    We began by building bridges eastward, to some of the most dynamic economies on my patch as Minister for Asia and the Pacific. We already have FinTech Bridge agreements in place with Singapore, Hong Kong, China and Republic of Korea. These are soon to be joined by a fifth – with Australia.

    Each Bridge is governed by an agreement signed by the Financial Conduct Authority and establishes links between government, regulators and the private sector, with the aim of attracting international capital investment into the UK’s FinTech sector and foreign direct investment as international firms choose the UK.

    The UK’s comparative advantage for investing in FinTech is not just about regulation. As I am sure you know, this country boasts one of the most competitive business environments in the world, and consistently ranks in the top 10 for ease of doing business.

    We are a low taxation economy with corporation tax that is the lowest in the G20 at 20% and will be reduced to 17% by 2020. The UK also offers tax incentives for R&D, low social taxation, a competitive location for holding companies and the most flexible labour regulations in Europe.

    Conclusion

    To conclude ladies and gentlemen, it is not surprising that the FinTech sector is thriving here in the City of London. It has all the right ingredients:

    Not only is it a financial capital of the world, the largest exporter of financial services, and an unparalleled centre of excellence, offering stability, predictability, ingenuity and integrity. It also boasts talented software developers, supportive regulators and a reliable supply of investment finance.

    That is why we in Government never miss an opportunity to promote the qualities of the City, and the UK’s financial services sector more broadly – including its particular FinTech strengths – both at home and overseas.

    And that is why I would strongly encourage potential investors here today to come on board. I am confident that the growth we have seen in the sector so far is just the start. London is leading the way: come and join us.

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2018 Speech on Violence Against Women in Politics

    Andrea Leadsom

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrea Leadsom, the Leader of the House of Commons, on 20 March 2018.

    ‘Deeds, not words’.

    That, as you all know, was the motto of the suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst.

    In 2018, these remain symbolic words for us all, as the UK celebrates 100 years since the first women were able to vote.

    A century later, and the topic of this conference is a stark reminder that whilst we have achieved so much, we still have a long way to go in the fight for equality.

    I’d like to pay tribute to the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, who for over 25 years now, have shared the UK’s expertise in those two vital institutions of democracy – political parties and parliaments.

    The Foundation has played a vital role in promoting women’s rights around the world through the promotion of democracy.

    From the Coalition of Women MPs from Arab Countries Combating Violence Against Women to the Women’s Parliament in Uganda and the support for women candidates in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Foundation has achieved so much.

    And that phrase – deeds, not words – resonate with us all to this day – reminding us that for everything we say, it is ultimately what we do that counts.

    So I hope this conference has motivated everyone to go back and take action in their jobs, and in their communities – in whichever way they can –

    To ensure we can meet the 21st century challenges to gender equality.

    My role as leader

    Now, many of the steps we can take as parliamentarians and as parties are closely related to my own work as Leader of the House of Commons in the UK.

    The role of the Leader is unique, and I wear two ‘hats’ on a daily basis.

    My first ‘hat’ is as a representative of the Government in Parliament.

    It is my responsibility to oversee the Government’s legislative agenda – which, as we prepare to leave the European Union, is a particularly significant and challenging task.

    My second ‘hat’ is as a representative of Parliament in Government.

    That means ensuring that Parliament strikes the right balance between giving the opposition, and backbenchers, the chance to conduct robust, effective scrutiny of the executive, whilst also ensuring the Government has the opportunity to deliver its manifesto.

    In practice that means encouraging ministers to engage with Parliament in a responsive and consultative fashion.

    Steps have been taken over the decades to make Parliament a more accessible place for women and families – including changes to the sitting hours, and even an on-site creche –

    But we also owe a great deal to fantastic candidacy campaigns such as Women2Win – a Conservative group which helps identify women to stand as MPs. I know other parties have similar initiatives.

    Even now though, as Leader of the Commons in 2018, there are still practical challenges for women in politics such as formal baby leave for new mothers.

    A number of cross-party MPs have been looking at how we can make the system of baby leave more effective for all parents in parliament.

    And I am pleased that the Procedure Committee are now looking closely at the options and solutions available.

    Sexual harassment

    In my role, I have taken on an important additional responsibility in recent months, which I would like to tell you about in more detail.

    In the late autumn of last year there was widespread shock as allegations emerged of sexual harassment and bullying in Westminster.

    Whilst this is clearly a problem that affects many in parliament, a majority of the complainants are women.

    A fundamental part of the challenge was that it was felt existing procedures for dealing with problems like this are just not good enough.

    That was leading some to feel they had no option but to go to the press.

    Others were deterred from escalating their cases precisely because of the risk that they would find themselves on the front pages of national newspapers –

    so their solution was to deal with the unhappiness by resigning.

    The Prime Minister moved quickly to bring all the political parties in Parliament together to address this problem.

    She asked me to chair a cross-party working group across both the House of Commons and the House of Lords which aimed to establish a new independent process in which complainants could place their confidence.

    Our proposals have been approved by both Houses – and they include establishing:

    a behaviour code that will cover all those working in or visiting Parliament;

    two separate processes to deal with cases of bullying and of sexual harassment – with the appropriate support provided for each;

    a review of the sanctions available to the the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards – who deals specifically with complaints against Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords;

    and the right to confidentiality and representation for all involved.
    My ambition throughout this whole process has been to bring about a fundamental change to the culture of Westminster – so that we can make this one of the best parliaments in the world in which to work.

    Staff and parliamentarians alike deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

    And our work to achieve that will not stop there.

    Report on violence against women in politics: global perspectives of a global issue

    Harassment in workplaces like Westminster, is of course just one of the contributing factors to a world where women and girls experience violence on daily basis, and it came as no surprise that in a survey of female parliamentarians across 39 different countries, 44% of women have received death threats or threats of rape, assault and of abduction.

    And it saddens me that I, and far too many of my colleagues, are included in these statistics.

    A woman in politics should not have to pay this price.

    From trolling and the echo-chamber of social media – through to the shocking and violent deaths of female politicians, like our own Jo Cox, and just a few days ago, Brazil’s Marielle Franco.

    Violence against women, particularly during elections, is not confined to one country or society – it is a global problem.

    In recent UK elections, we have seen shocking levels of intimidation and abuse – including swastikas graffitied onto campaign posters, as well as vitriolic homophobia, sexism, and antisemitism.

    There was even a coffin delivered to the constituency office of one of my colleagues.

    In a speech last month, the Prime Minister stated that ‘the ideal of a truly plural and open public sphere, where everyone can take part, is in danger’.

    We have introduced steps to tackle this:

    The Government will consult on a new electoral offence of intimidating candidates and campaigners;

    The Conservative Party has published its Respect Pledge covering all candidates who are standing for election – and we have encouraged all parties to do the same;

    We are introducing a new Domestic Abuse bill, which will challenge the acceptability of abuse and address the underlying attitudes and norms that perpetuate it;

    We have established a new, Annual Internet Safety Transparency Report, to provide data on offensive content and the response to it;

    We are doing more to protect candidates by changing the requirement to publish a home address on ballot papers.

    In parliament I am working closely with the security teams to upgrade the security of members in their London and constituency homes.

    The threats faced by prospective candidates, for either local or national office, are driving potentially brilliant public servants away from politics.

    We cannot allow this sort of behaviour to jeopardize our long-standing tradition of free speech and inclusive politics – the hallmarks of what make us a proud democratic

    What we need to do domestically and globally within parties and Parliament
    So, I am delighted to see such a diverse representation of people here today.

    Delegates from different countries, different societies, different histories and different political systems.

    Everyone will have a sense of how far their own political culture has come on the journey to a better parliamentary democracy – one that serves the interests of women as well as men – and how much further there is to go.

    But we are all bound by the need to tackle violence against all women in politics.

    Not only is it unacceptable, and often criminal, and not only does it lead to wider exclusion of women in public life, but it has a detrimental impact on the people we represent.

    Women around the world need women in politics.

    It gives them a voice, and a seat at the table.

    We can make our democracies a welcome place for women by creating the most inclusive environment possible:

    One that educates our young people to respect the views of others, and to value women equally;

    One where our electoral laws are respected and upheld;

    One where women are given equal pay for equal work;

    And one where opportunities for women open up across all sectors – from the engine room to the boardroom.

    Whether working in parties or in parliaments, as elected representatives or the officials who support them –

    Women make an enormous difference to our democratic life.

    That is as true in the United Kingdom as it is in every other country around the world.

    So when I look at the recommendations this conference has produced, I see real lessons for the UK –

    Particularly in what our political parties can do to stop violence against women.

    We’ve got to stamp out this pervasive culture of bullying and harassment, which so often deters women from working in politics –

    And it is my sincere hope that the new independent complaints policy I am implementing in the UK will provide the support, confidentiality, and most importantly the sanctions –

    That will fundamentally change our parliamentary culture for the better.

    Conclusion

    Before I finish, I would like to take a moment to share with you some of the lessons I have learned in the work that I have been doing.

    The first is, when women speak out, and say ‘there is a problem’, the answer is not ‘no there isn’t.’

    Even if we worry about what that answer might mean, the response cannot be to close ranks.

    And when women speak out, and say ‘these processes aren’t working for me’, the answer is not ‘yes they are’.

    Just because things have always been done ‘a certain way’ does not mean that is ‘the right way’, particularly as the scale of the problems becomes clear, and the evidence that the responses to it have failed in the past.

    All parties have got to recognise that changing the way we respond to bullying, harassment, and sexual violence is not just inevitable, but it is the right thing to do.

    These issues transcend politics.

    When I became Leader of the House I did not expect my job to become so focused on tackling the darker side of the culture in parliament, but I think it’s important that it has, and I hope the groundbreaking changes we are making will support women working in parliaments in the decades ahead.

    This conference holds important lessons for all of us who want to change society for the better.

    Your actions, your deeds, will make the world a better place, just like the suffragettes before us, and for that, you should all be immensely proud.

    Thank you very much.

  • Amanda Spielman – 2018 Speech to Annual Apprenticeships Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of OFSTED, to the Annual Apprenticeships Conference on 22 March 2018.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.

    Introduction

    This is a very important conference, at a critical time for the development of apprenticeship provision. It is gratifying to see apprenticeships on the news agenda regularly: whether as mentions in Prime Minister’s speeches or the subject of thoughtful newspaper columns from journalists you wouldn’t normally expect to care. Apprenticeships are, quite rightly, recognised as a vital component of our education and skills sector. Less gratifying, perhaps, is that too much of this recognition is about the system, not yet, working as it should.

    That’s why I am so pleased to be here today. I see it as essential that providers, policy makers and employers can have open and frank discussions about what works and what needs to be improved.

    It is almost a year now since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy–one of the most significant changes to apprenticeship funding that we have ever seen. Alongside the slow but inexorable move from apprenticeship frameworks to apprenticeship standards, providers and employers are working to secure the training and support that businesses need to develop a well-trained and productive workforce.

    And at Ofsted, we carry on supporting the reform programme. Indeed we’re putting our money where our mouth is, with our own award-winning band of 29 business administration apprentices.

    Challenges

    We know that it has been a challenging year for providers. The levy has required a different relationship with employers. There have been challenges in applying for, and receiving, non-levy allocations. There have also been problems getting on the Register of apprenticeship training providers. And, in too many instances, in finding a replacement standard for a framework–particularly at levels two and three.

    I suspect that the fall in apprenticeship starts is due to a combination of these factors. Nevertheless, any barriers that prevent employers taking on an apprentice, or standing in the way of good providers delivering high quality training, must concern us all.

    The first quarter of 2017 to 2018 saw almost 50,000 fewer starts than the same quarter in 2016 to 2017. There is no denying, that the low number of starts continues to be a concern, which is why I was heartened to see Anne Milton’s recent confidence that numbers will pick up in the new academic year. We all have to hope that this is true.

    It is not just about overall volumes though. We are also experiencing some unintended consequences from the emerging trend towards higher-level apprenticeships. Of course, I understand, indeed applaud, more apprenticeships at higher levels, especially when there is clear progression in an occupation, from level 2 through to degree level. However, around 40% of the standards approved or in-development are at higher and degree levels, while only 7% of apprentices work at these levels.

    This shift may be good for the economy in the long run, but the reduced number of apprenticeships at levels two and three is another destabilising factor in the system. To put it more brutally, there is a risk that young people, fresh from school, get squeezed out of apprenticeship routes because employers prioritise higher level programmes. This makes it more difficult for young people looking for entry-level employment straight from GCSEs.

    In this context, I am pleased to see that the Institute for Apprenticeships is upping the rate at which it develops and approves apprenticeship standards. Up till now, this process really has been too slow. I am also pleased that there is now more flexibility to include qualifications within apprenticeship standards. I see these positive developments as a sign that the institute is listening to the concerns expressed by employers and training providers. However, I would still like to see a greater focus on achieving a set of standards that really reflect the balance of training and development needs of the economy.

    Ofsted’s role

    With all the change, and uncertainty in the system, I am sure you want reassurance about Ofsted’s agility and ability to adapt inspection to fit the new reality.

    We know the challenges you face. We are working hard with you to make sure that inspection takes account of the changing landscape. But, let me be absolutely clear, we will not be excusing poor performance. Regardless of the changes that we are all dealing with: apprentices deserve high quality training at, and away from, work.

    Pilot inspection findings

    We have already carried out a number of pilot inspections to make sure that we are looking at the right things in this new environment. And we found a need for inspectors to focus on the bottom line, not the money, but what knowledge, skills and behaviours apprentices actually develop and acquire.

    Now I hope many of you will know that one of my big interests as Chief Inspector is looking at the substance of education. By this, I mean the entirety of what is actually learnt, whether at school, college or on an apprenticeship.

    As I said at the launch of my first Annual Report, our early research has shown that, all too often, the knowledge that we want young people to acquire is lost in the dash for grades and stickers.

    These pilot inspections of apprenticeship providers have revealed that many of the concerns we have uncovered at a school level are also evident in apprenticeships.

    We are seeing an over-emphasis on simply ticking the box to show that the next part of the qualification has been achieved. There is not enough focus on the actual skills, knowledge and behaviours learned.

    Indeed, most providers in our pilots found it difficult to demonstrate what actual progress their apprentices were really making. As providers, you need to consider how you make sure that apprentices are making progress. This isn’t for inspectors, not for Ofsted, but for apprentices’ and employers’ benefit. It is also to inform the training and development programme that apprentices need to be following to pass end-point assessments.

    The findings from our pilot inspections are informing changes to the inspection handbook. We will carry on iterating and adapting these as the systems develop.

    Inspections of apprenticeships

    More broadly, we are now developing our new education inspection framework for September 2019. How we inspect and report on apprenticeships are important considerations in our thinking and planning for this new framework. What we learn on inspections now, and what we learn from our work with organisations like AELP, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI, will inform our development. And of course, we will consult on our proposals.

    But the changes in the system aren’t just about new frameworks and new ways of inspecting. I know that many of you have concerns about the number of untested providers entering the market and the effect this could have on quality. Well, rest assured, we are not standing idly by and waiting for new providers to fail. We are doing all that we can to make sure that no apprentice’s future opportunity is ruined by poor provision. It is essential that poor quality provision is spotted and tackled quickly, so that it doesn’t damage an individual’s prospects or the overall apprenticeship brand.

    We have already begun a series of early monitoring visits to assess the quality of these new providers. Some of you will have heard about our first monitoring visits, which hit the headlines, at least in the trade press, last week. There is no hiding the fact that what we found at Key6 Group was worrying. And I’m very pleased that there has been a prompt reaction by ESFA [Education and Skills Funding Agency].

    But, it is important that we don’t over-interpret this one result as a judgement on all new providers coming on stream with the levy. We are doing more monitoring visits of this type. And I very much hope that positive results will significantly outnumber the disappointments.

    Besides these monitoring visits to new providers, we have increased our inspection focus on subcontractors, many of whom are providing apprenticeship training. We are doing this in two ways. Firstly, as part of our standard inspections, where providers have a significant proportion of subcontracted provision, we are increasing our focus on this part. This will mean that teams can evaluate and report, in more detail, on the quality of education and training in individual subcontractors.

    In addition, we are making monitoring visits to a number of directly-funded providers to look specifically at subcontracted provision. This way, we can make sure that apprentices are getting the best possible training. We expect the first of these to be published in the next couple of weeks.

    Our message here is simple. As the direct contract holder, you are responsible for your learners. If you subcontract, for whatever reason, you are still responsible for making sure your apprentice gets high quality training. If you are sitting back and collecting the money, without taking proper responsibility for quality, you are failing your apprentices. We are determined to expose this in the system.

    And, just in case, any of you were being kind enough to worry about us, and whether Ofsted has the resources to deliver this increased volume of inspection, please don’t worry: we are being equally robust in our approach to government for funding. Indeed the DfE has already acknowledged that it needs to fund us properly for this work.

    Standards

    With the experience of Learndirect still prominent in all of our minds, I have no doubt that you are all acutely aware of the risks when large sums of money flow into a system.

    It is sobering, in that respect, to look at recent inspection outcomes. Between September 2017 and February 2018, we made a judgement on the apprenticeship provision at 55 providers. We found three-fifths of them to be good or outstanding, with 16 requiring improvement. Six were inadequate. This means that 4 in 10 providers did not offer high quality training for apprentices. There is no way of dressing this up – it is not good enough.

    But looking at it another way, the good and outstanding providers were generally the larger ones, so 33,000 apprentices were in good or outstanding provision – almost 80% of the overall places. And this is a lot higher than the provision looked at in the previous year. Then, only 60% of apprentices were being trained in providers of the same quality, we have excluded Learndirect from those figures. To be clear, it is not a perfect year-on-year comparison because inspection priorities and scheduling decisions affect which providers are selected for inspection. However, I do believe the figures are cause for optimism about quality in the sector.

    So, while we rightly shine a light on concerns in the system, and I do have to talk about where things are going wrong. I also believe it is important to celebrate where things are going well. We see outstanding apprenticeship providers like National Grid and Craven College and Fareham College. There we see leaders and managers who work very closely with local employers to make sure that apprenticeships meet the needs of the local economy. They expect the best of their apprentices who show exemplary skills, getting the qualifications and competencies they need.

    And whether it’s TTE Training with 160 engineering apprentices on various pathways, Busy Bees Nurseries and its range of early years apprenticeships or CITB supporting 10,000 apprentices in the construction industry–these very different types of outstanding provider are similar in one thing: the determination to give their apprentices top-notch training and to set them on a path to a successful and fulfilling career.

    Conclusion

    So, to conclude, we cannot escape the fact that this is a testing time for apprenticeships, a period of significant change that has inevitably brought a level of uncertainty alongside great opportunity.

    There is still a way to go before we can confidently declare the new approach a success, but it is possible to see it beginning to take shape.

    My inspectors are seeing some excellent provision around the country, but not enough of it and we need to see more. The sector is adapting confidently to change, but we need to make sure that the pace doesn’t slacken.

    Ofsted’s overarching goal, as set out in our corporate strategy, is to be a force for improvement in all the sectors we inspect and regulate. This is as relevant for apprenticeship provision as it is for schools or child protection. Through our work, we will provide the evidence of what is working and the early warning of where things are going wrong. For a system in the midst of change, this could not be more vital.

    After all, success of this ambitious apprenticeship programme is essential, not only to the needs of our wider economy, but for the young people and adult learners so desperate for the right opportunity to prosper.

    I know all of you in this room are working hard to ensure this success. I am delighted to be joining all the winners of the inaugural AAC apprenticeship awards at tonight’s ceremony in recognition of that commitment.

    Thank you.

  • Nick Gibb – 2018 Speech to the International Conference for the Teaching Profession

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for School Standards, to the International Conference for the Teaching Profession on 22 March 2018.

    It is a pleasure to be here in Lisbon at the ISTP 2018, a year on from the successful and fruitful ISTP 2017 in Edinburgh co-hosted by the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments.

    Last year, we agreed to promote greater equity through commitments to ensure that:

    Every pupil has the opportunity to achieve their potential, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds;

    We raise the status of the teaching profession; and

    Teaching is firmly grounded in high quality research.

    Over the course of the last year, England has continued to make strides in these important areas.

    In 2010, the government introduced the English Baccalaureate – known as the EBacc. This is a school performance measure rather than a qualification. It is designed to increase the number of pupils taking core academic GCSEs – English, maths, sciences, a language and either history or geography. These GCSEs provide pupils with the broad academic grounding up to the age of 16 that they need to be successful, whatever route they choose to pursue post-16.

    Many countries represented here today will consider it axiomatic that pupils study these subjects to at least the age of 16. But in England in 2010, only 1 in 5 pupils were taking this combination of academic GCSEs. That figure is now almost 2 in 5. The government is ambitious for this figure to rise further – to 90% of year 10 pupils studying the EBacc by 2025.

    Already, there are promising signs. This year, we saw the highest proportion of disadvantaged pupils, those who receive free school meals, pupils with special educational needs and pupils with English as an additional language taking these core academic GCSEs.

    Not only this, results show that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers has shrunk at primary and secondary school. Since 2011, the attainment gap at age 11 has decreased by 10.5%. Whilst at 16, it has shrunk by 10% since 2011.

    The government is raising standards for all pupils, but the tide is rising fastest for those who need it most.

    Academies and free schools – which now make up over 70% of secondary schools and over 25% of primary schools – operate independently of local government.

    Free schools are amongst some of the highest performing schools in the country and pupils in free schools made more progress, on average, than pupils in other types of school in 2017.

    Free schools are amongst some of the highest performing schools in the country and pupils in free schools made more progress, on average, than pupils in other types of free schools in 2017.

    Dixons Trinity Academy – a free school based in Bradford – achieved extraordinary results with its first set of GCSEs, placing it in the 10 top schools in England for the progress achieved by its pupils. Strikingly, the progress score for disadvantaged pupils was higher than for that of their more affluent peers.

    But the success of the free school and academy movement is not confined to individual schools. The growth of multi-academy trusts has seen excellence spread across schools. Multi-academy trusts are combinations of academies, from 2 or 3, to as many as 50 or 60 academies, all reporting to one group of independent trustees.

    Made up of a combination of schools that have been taken out of local authority control because of that poor performance, which we call sponsored academies; and high performing schools that have voluntarily opted out of local authority control, which we call converter academies; and newly created academies, which we call free schools. These high performing multi-academy trusts demonstrate what it is possible to achieve when power is placed in the hands of high-performing, competitive trusts.

    Irrespective of the history of the schools they run, these multi-academy trusts have generated excellent academic results for the pupils they serve, as they compete with other multi-academy trusts in terms of their reputation for academic rigour.

    So, the clear advantage of taking schools away from local authority control, is that for the first time, schools are now accountable to their trustees rather than to bureaucracies and there is genuine competition between groups of schools which forces them to respond to the concerns of parents for higher standards of behaviour and stronger academic results.

    Thanks to a forensic approach to curriculum design and the implementation of evidence-based approaches to managing poor behaviour, the Inspiration Trust and the Harris Federation – two of the best performing multi-academy trusts – have conclusively demonstrated that all pupils can achieve – whether they live in coastal Norfolk or inner-city London.

    They demonstrate that neither the socio-economic context of pupils nor the historic reputation of a school need be a barrier to excellence. And – just as importantly – they provide a model for ensuring that all children succeed. As with Dixons Trinity, schools in these leading multi academy chains are characterised by knowledge-rich curricula, high behavioural expectations and evidence-based teacher-led instruction.

    As well as providing the freedom and autonomy to leading free schools and multi-academy trusts, the government is determined to support and empower teachers to raise standards in their schools. The recently closed consultation on how to improve career support and progression for teachers was designed in tandem with the profession. We will respond to the proposals outlined in that consultation – including how we can take forward plans for an Early Career Content Framework – later in the spring. And we will continue to work closely with teachers and teacher representatives on these proposals.

    Another key strand of the government’s work to support and empower teachers is the government’s priority of reducing teacher workload. Teachers should be freed from spending hours on marking and entering progress-data, particularly when evidence suggests these do not improve pupil outcomes.

    And headteachers need the security of knowing that their autonomy won’t be compromised by rogue school inspectors. That is why the government – in tandem with Ofsted, the schools inspectorate – has been clear on what inspectors will, and will not, ask when they visit schools.

    We are also committed to clarifying the roles of different actors within the system, including what we call Regional Schools Commissioners, the 8 regional offices of the Department for Education. In order to provide teachers and headteachers with the opportunity to innovate and raise standards, they need to know that the accountability system within which they work is fair, transparent and – when needs be – supportive rather than punitive.

    The government has played an active role in raising standards in schools and in empowering and supporting teachers. But, it is by standing back and promoting teacher voices, that the government has helped to make the most progress in promoting evidence-based teaching.

    There is still a long way to go in empowering all teachers with the knowledge they need. But the success of ResearchED – a series of teacher-led research conferences founded by the teacher Tom Bennett now spanning 4 continents – shows teachers’ appetite for research. Tom Bennett wrote recently about the movement of teachers who are dedicating their Saturday’s to discussing and sharing research with one another. Writing powerfully and metaphorically he penned the following:

    My ambition is that we start to drive this voluntary professional development, which then cascades back into schools and starts conversations that starts sparks in classrooms that catch fire and burn down dogma. That initial teacher training makes evidence its foundation (where it does not do so already), platforming the best of what we know rather than perpetuating the best of what we prefer. For new teachers to be given skills to discern good evidence from bad. For that to bleed eventually into leadership and from there into the structures that govern us.

    But time and again, teachers run up against entrenched views held by those in positions of authority. For example, late last year, an academic from Durham University called the government’s promotion of systematic synthetic phonics ‘seriously flawed’; flying in the face of decades of evidence from around the world that phonics is the most effective method for teaching children to read. He went on to claim that drawing on scientific evidence to inform policy making in science “can be especially dangerous”.

    Thankfully, the results from the PIRLS international reading tests came out within a month of these comments. This assessment of 9 and 10 year olds’ reading comprehension showed that England had risen from joint 10th place in 2011 to joint 8th place in 2016, thanks to a statistically significant rise in our average score. And low-attaining pupils had gained most showing again that the government is raising standards for all, but the tide is rising quickest for those who need it most.

    These results were a vindication of the government’s evidence-based insistence on the use of systematic synthetic phonics in teaching children to read.

    Too often in education, academics use their positions of authority to ignore the evidence and promote their own beliefs. For too long, education has suffered from putting belief over evidence.

    As policy makers, if we are to empower teachers to pursue evidence-based approaches, we must confront the evidence as we find it, not as we would wish it to be.

    So, when we come to discuss so-called ‘pedagogies of the future’, I hope that we will treat unfounded claims sceptically. Instead, we should discuss the data from PISA 2015, which showed that in all but three countries, higher levels of teacher-directed instruction led to significantly higher science results. And we should interrogate the data showing that in the majority of countries, pupils reporting higher levels of enquiry-based instruction achieved significantly worse results.

    As we would expect of teachers, data and evidence should be the starting point for our conversation, not something to fit with our pre-existing conceptions.

    But we must not ignore these conceptions. These too must be interrogated and the nuance explored. The caricature of teacher-led instruction as turgid and dull must be dispelled. Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction make clear that teacher-led instruction should be interactive. These evidence-based principles suggest that teachers, amongst other things:

    ask a large number of questions and check pupil responses; and
    provide models and worked examples.

    And the evidence from PISA 2015 supports these findings. According to the data, the most successful science classrooms were those where teachers explained scientific ideas, discussed pupil responses to questions and clearly demonstrated an idea.

    Rosenshine’s principles, which draw heavily on cognitive science, are backed up by the PISA 2015 data.

    Reflecting on the relationship between researchers and teachers in the conclusion to his 2002 essay Classroom Research and Cargo Cults, E. D. Hirsch – the educationalist who has most influenced my thinking – stressed the need for this relationship to evolve.

    Drawing on the comments of a colleague, he laid out his vision for cognitive science research and teaching practice to mirror the relationship between biochemistry and medical science.

    In England, it is clear that schools are beginning to take this ambition to heart. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), whose General Secretary Carl Ward is here today, and PTE, Parents and Teachers for Excellence, a pressure group calling for more subject knowledge in the curriculum – and whose CEO Mark Lehain is also here – together they organised a pamphlet to support teachers to adopt a knowledge-rich curriculum.

    In this pamphlet, titled The Question of Knowledge, Luke Sparkes – headteacher of Dixons Trinity Academy – explained how that school uses cognitive science to inform their curriculum planning:

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

    Examples such as this show that Tom Bennett is right; teachers demanding better evidence is slowly changing education.

    Thank you.

  • Sajid Javid – 2010 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Sajid Javid in the House of Commons on 8 June 2010.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I speak with a particular sense of humility after so many hon. Members have given such admirable maiden speeches, including that just made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

    I have some worthy predecessors. My immediate predecessor was Miss Julie Kirkbride. She was first elected in 1997, and she was a fine constituency MP. I will never forget the spontaneous tributes that people paid to her, when I knocked on their doors during the campaign, for all the work that she had done on their behalf. I should also like to express my gratitude to her two most recent predecessors, Mr Roy Thomason and Sir Hal Miller, who both helped me in my campaign with great advice.

    Bromsgrove is a beautiful, traditional beacon of middle England. I know that many hon. Members have described their constituencies as beautiful, but Bromsgrove truly has breathtaking countryside. It is an old market town which was originally a bit of an industrial hub for the west midlands industrial complex. It still has a very active, traditional court-leet, with lovely traditions. In the east of the constituency we have many beautiful picture-postcard villages, including the glamorously named suburb of Hollywood.

    Over the centuries, we have had many heroes from Bromsgrove. I should like to pay tribute on this occasion to two of the most recent-both teenagers, both soldiers in the 2nd Battalion, the Mercian Regiment. The first, Private Robert Laws, was aged 18 when he lost his life fighting for our country in Helmand province last year. He had passed his training only six months previously. The second, Private Alex Kennedy, also aged 18, earlier this year became the youngest soldier since the second world war to receive the military cross. He fought hard to save the life of his commanding officer during a fierce battle with the Taliban. We must never forget the sacrifices that our soldiers-those who have served and those who are currently serving for us-make on our behalf.

    A notable person from Bromsgrove is A. E. Housman, whose stirring prose reflected the rural beauty of the heart of England. In Bromsgrove we have a wonderful heritage in the English countryside, and that is why I want to make sure that it is the people who are most affected by planning decisions who make those decisions. That is why I welcome the recent announcements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on that issue. They have been most welcomed by my constituents.

    Perhaps at this point I should say something about my own background, as hon. Members may be able to tell from my appearance and my name that I can hardly be of traditional Worcestershire stock. My parents were both born in British India. Although my father was just six years old in 1947, he remembers full well the tragedy that occurred upon the partition of India-12 million people were displaced and almost a million lost their lives. If we need an example of how political failure can lead to great human tragedy, surely that is one of the most heart-wrenching, and an example of how politics can really make a difference. That is what I say to people who ask me why I gave up a lucrative career in finance to enter this House.

    To the dismay of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), I have to tell him that for 19 years I have been an investment banker. In my case, this is one brain that was sucked up by the City and has now come to serve the people in this Parliament. I worked in London, Singapore and New York. I readily admit that being seen as an investment banker was not the most useful thing on the campaign trail, but it helped prepare me for a profession not well liked by the general public. Let us hope that all of us, on both sides of the House, can work together over the coming years to help restore the nation’s respect for our great Parliament.

    In view of my background in finance, I am particularly pleased to give my maiden speech during this debate on economic affairs. There are many global economic uncertainties at the moment, and they have potentially grave consequences for our economy. First, the euro is only just beginning to have problems. It was always a political contrivance that had virtually nothing to do with economics. Secondly, the world’s largest emerging market economies, which have buttressed global demand since the onset of the credit crisis, are about to go through a period of monetary tightening, and we can no longer rely on them for global growth.

    Thirdly, industrialised nations, including our own, that have issued vast amounts of sovereign debt over the past three years in particular can no longer go on that way. We have to make sure that when we look at these issues, we never forget the traditional disciplines that have stood Britain in good stead-sound public finances, low and simple taxation, and light and flexible regulation. It is when we forget these disciplines that we put our future prosperity at risk.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity, and thank you to the people of Bromsgrove for allowing me to serve them in this Chamber.