UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Karen Bradley – 2017 Statement on the Sky/Fox Merger

    Below is the text of the statement made by Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 12 September 2017.

    I apologise for beginning my statement by correcting you, Mr Speaker, but I am now the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The Department has a new word in its name.

    I am here to give an update on the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky plc and on my decision about whether to refer the transaction for a full six-month investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority. I should first remind the House that in my quasi-judicial role I must, first, come to a decision on the basis of relevant evidence; secondly, act independently in a process that is fair and impartial; and, thirdly, take my decision as promptly as is reasonably practicable. I am committed to transparency and openness in this process and have been clear that my decisions can be influenced only by facts, not by opinions, and that they can be influenced only by the evidence, not by who shouts the loudest.

    I turn, first, to media plurality, and I can confirm that none of the representations received has persuaded me to change my position. Accordingly, I can confirm my intention to make a referral on the media plurality ground to the CMA. On the question of commitment to broadcasting standards, over the summer my officials reviewed the almost 43,000 representations received. A significant majority of them were campaign-inspired, arguing against the merger going ahead but generally without providing new or further evidence or commenting on Ofcom’s approach. Overall, only 30 of the 43,000 representations were substantive, raising potentially new evidence or commenting on Ofcom’s approach. Almost all were related to commitment to broadcasting standards.

    In the light of those representations, I asked Ofcom to provide further advice. May I put on record my gratitude to Ofcom for its efforts to respond to the questions that were raised? I am, today, publishing the exchanges between my Department and Ofcom. In those exchanges, I sought clarification on, first, the threshold that Ofcom applied to its consideration of the commitment to broadcasting standards ground; secondly, the consideration made of broadcasting compliance; and, thirdly, the consideration made of corporate governance issues. I also asked Ofcom to consider whether any of the new, substantive representations that I received affected its assessment.

    I have taken careful account of all relevant representations and Ofcom’s advice, and I have today, as required by the legislation, written to the parties to inform them that I am now minded to refer the merger to the CMA on the grounds of genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. I will now set out the technical reasons for that decision.

    Questions were raised about the threshold for referral. The legal threshold for a reference to the CMA is low. I have the power to make a reference if I believe that there is a risk that is not purely fanciful that the merger might operate against the specified public interests. In its original report, Ofcom stated that​
    “we consider that there are no broadcasting standards concerns that may justify a reference”.

    At the time, Ofcom appeared to be unequivocal. Following the additional representations,

    Ofcom has further clarified that

    “while we consider there are non-fanciful concerns, we do not consider that these are such as may justify a reference in relation to the broadcast standards public interest consideration.”

    The existence of non-fanciful concerns means that, as a matter of law, the threshold for a reference on the broadcasting standards ground is met. In the light of all the representations and Ofcom’s additional advice, I believe that those concerns are sufficient to warrant the exercise of my discretion to refer.

    The first concern, which was raised in Ofcom’s public interest report, was that Fox did not have adequate compliance procedures in place for the broadcast of Fox News in the UK and that it took action to improve its approach to compliance only after Ofcom expressed concerns. Ofcom has confirmed it considers that to raise concerns that are non-fanciful but not sufficiently serious to warrant referral. I consider that those non-fanciful concerns warrant further consideration. The fact that Fox belatedly established such procedures does not ease my concerns, and nor does Fox’s compliance history.

    Ofcom was reassured by the existence of the compliance regime, which provides licensees with an incentive to comply. However, it is clear to me that Parliament intended the scrutiny of whether an acquiring party has a “genuine commitment” to attaining broadcasting standards objectives to happen before a merger takes place. Third parties also raised concerns about what they termed the “Foxification” of Fox-owned news outlets internationally. On the evidence before me, I am not able to conclude that that raises non-fanciful concerns. However, I consider it important that entities that adopt controversial or partisan approaches to news and current affairs in other jurisdictions should, at the same time, have a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards here. Those are matters the CMA may wish to consider in the event of a referral.

    I turn to the question of corporate governance failures. Ofcom states in its latest correspondence that such failures raise non-fanciful concerns in relation to the broadcasting standards ground. However, it again concludes that those concerns do not warrant a reference. I agree that corporate governance issues at Fox raise non-fanciful concerns, but in my view it would be appropriate for those concerns to be considered further by the CMA. I agree with the view that, in this context, my proper concern is whether Fox will have a genuine commitment to attaining broadcasting standards objectives. However, I am not confident that weaknesses in Fox’s corporate governance arrangements are incapable of affecting compliance in the broadcasting standards context. I have outstanding non-fanciful concerns about these matters, and I am of the view that they should be considered further by the CMA.

    Before I come to a final decision, I am required, under the Enterprise Act 2002, to allow the parties to make representations on my proposed decision, and that is the reason why my decision remains, at this stage, a “minded to” one. I have given the parties 10 working days to respond. Following receipt of any representations from the parties, I will aim to come to my final decision in relation to both grounds as promptly as I can.​

    I remind the House that should I decide to refer on one or both grounds, the merger will be subject to a full and detailed investigation by the CMA over a six-month period. Such a referral does not signal the outcome of that investigation. Given the quasi-judicial nature of this matter, my decision cannot be guided by the parliamentary timetable. If I come to my decision during recess, I will write, as I have done previously, and return to this House at the earliest possible opportunity to provide an update. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Nick Gibb – 2017 Speech at ResearchED National Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for School Standards and Minister for Equalities, at the ResearchED National Conference on 9 September 2017.

    Summarising the aims of ResearchED, Tom Bennett recently wrote that ResearchED is determined to break things. Not for the sake of destruction, but to break the shibboleths that have, for too long, dominated education policy and stifled the spread of evidence-led teaching.

    As The West Wing’s President Bartlet said to Will Bailey (borrowing a quote from the anthropologist Margaret Mead):

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.

    ResearchED is a grassroots, teacher-led revolt against the old order in education, a challenge to received wisdom and a rejection of the status quo. You are the small group of thoughtful, committed teachers who are changing the world of education.

    These conferences are changing the relationship between teachers and education research. As many teachers have told me and as many teachers in this room will no doubt recognise, the research historically presented to teachers was monotone in content and seldom used.

    ResearchED is different. By granting a platform to a wide range of views, the currency of speakers is the quality of the evidence they are presenting. And teachers can vote with their feet. As Tom Bennett put it in a recent blog:

    In one room you might have a government minister taking questions of the evidence base of their latest policy, and next door there might be a teaching assistant discussing how she launched journal clubs at her school. I love that sense of levelling, of democratic representation that it embodies.

    I think this perfectly sums up ResearchED. Although, I am now wondering who is speaking next door.

    Not only is this conference the embodiment of teacher empowerment. It is a triumph of science over assumed authority.

    Irreverence for authority is arguably the most liberating consequence of the scientific method. Whilst there is still cause to listen to and learn from learned men and women, no opinion – however authoritative – can be cause to dismiss evidence out of hand.

    Science, facts and objectivity don’t care about your reputation. Science cares about your evidence, your data and your hypothesis. In science, P-values trump PhDs.

    So today, I hope all participants will take advantage of the cast list of speakers that Tom has assembled and seize the opportunity to challenge Dr Becky Allen on her analysis of this year’s GCSE data, probe the validity of comparative judgement with Daisy Christodoulou, debate direct instruction with Kris Boulton, explore the effectiveness of academies with Karen Wespieser or quiz Amanda Spielman on the reliability of Ofsted inspections.

    There are many examples from the history of science to show reputation need be no barrier to making meaningful contributions to human knowledge and understanding. Few are more inspiring than the story of Srinivasa Ramanujan, portrayed in the film ‘The Man Who Knew Infinity’.

    Having had almost no mathematical training, he began a postal relationship with English mathematician GH Hardy in 1913. From the quality of the mathematics in the letters, Ramanujan’s genius was immediately apparent.

    By 1914 he was working in Cambridge, following a month-long voyage across the globe. In the next 6 years, before his untimely death at age 32, this previously unknown son of a sari shop clerk made important contributions to mathematical fields such as analysis and number theory, becoming one of the youngest fellows of the Royal Society.

    The romance of this story shows the emancipatory power of scientific thought, but it also goes to demonstrate that any source of evidence and new ideas can cast doubt on received wisdom and generate better understanding.

    And it is by permitting and embracing doubt, that humanity has made some of its greatest strides. Doubt is to be embraced, not eschewed.

    Consider the early debates on quantum mechanics – as I often do – between two of the greatest physicists to have ever lived: Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. Famously, Einstein was reticent to accept the full consequences of the uncertainty principle. He famously declared: “I, at any rate, am convinced that God does not throw dice.”

    Through debate, experiments, data and evidence, Niels Bohr’s interpretation triumphed over that of Einstein – arguably the greatest scientific authority since Newton.

    Real science and proper research is open to doubt. It does not baulk at challenge, but embraces it and evolves to improve knowledge and understanding.

    ResearchED is now established around the world – with teachers in 3 continents coming together to share and debate the research that has inspired their teaching. It is a forum that allows teachers to debate what the evidence says about best practice in schools.

    This movement – as I said last year – will improve the education and life chances of millions of children. Year on year, the speakers at the conference become more diverse. Importantly, this diversity includes hosting speakers with contrasting political, philosophical and educational viewpoints.

    And yet, there are still some education academics who question the motives of Tom Bennett, ResearchED and all of the volunteers who help to make these conferences a success. To my mind, this is an indictment of those researchers who choose to disparage this movement, rather than engage and contribute.

    Refusal to debate one’s research and share it with teachers, begs a number of questions. Notably, what is education evidence for, if it is not to be shared with teachers? And what is there to fear from presenting and discussing your research at a politically, philosophically and educationally diverse conference?

    But presenting one’s research to classroom teachers shouldn’t be countenanced as a fear, but as an opportunity. As should the chance to present, discuss and debate in a vibrant marketplace of ideas such as ResearchED.

    The Heterodox Academy is a politically pluralistic group of professors working in various academic fields, drawn together to improve academia by enhancing viewpoint diversity and the conditions that encourage free inquiry. This group – which includes the likes of Philip Tetlock and Jonathan Haidt – has highlighted the cost of a lack of ‘viewpoint diversity’ in social science and humanity departments.

    Thankfully, there are many respected academics who are seizing the opportunity to present today. Teachers attending this conference will have the opportunity to listen to Dr Pedro De Bruyckere dispel myths and point to promising avenues for the role of technology in education. Dr Christian Bokhove of Southampton University will be arguing that some myth busting in education is oversimplistic and creates new myths. And Professor Ayako Kawaji is running a session on what we can learn from expressive writing in Japan.

    But it is a shame that some would rather stay in their ivory towers than participate today.

    The intellectual timidity of those who choose to smear ResearchED, whilst refusing to debate their evidence, stands in stark contrast to the efforts that ResearchED makes to be inclusive for all.

    On a very limited budget, armed with little more than the goodwill of speakers and volunteers, ResearchED will run conferences in New York, Toronto and Amsterdam in the coming months. Included in the meagre entrance fee is lunch, snacks and a crèche for parents of young children. All for a fraction of the price of some education conferences. Here endeth the advertisement!

    Responding to some recent criticism, Tom Bennett decided to restate the objectives of ResearchED, arguing that it is “important to continually define ourselves, in order not to be misrepresented or misunderstood.”

    He eloquently explained his mission to disrupt shibboleths and tip sacred cows:

    ResearchED delights in debate, changing paradigms, and helping to generate a polite revolution in the classroom. I started it because I believed passionately – and still do – that education needs a revival, if not a reboot. It labours under so many false dogma and uninformed suppositions that in many ways it resembles medicine in the 18th century, when the doctor’s authority was privileged, and his hunch was the final word. Just as medicine finally succumbed to empirical science, so too should education – as an aid to our decisions, not as an authoritarian mosaic tablet. It should intersect with our every action, so that when evidence is available we use it to inform our pedagogy and policy rather than stifle it. Bogus fads like Learning Styles and Brain Gym are the least of it; wild, unchecked pseudoscience abounds, untested, unrestrained. It is still possible for a teacher to be told that group work is the best way for children to learn, without any consideration of when, and where and how it might be applicable. Teacher talk is reviled, despite the enormous amount of research that suggests that careful, dialogic teacher talk is one of the most effective ways to convey information that is then retained. There are many more example of such things. None of these matters are settled, but every educator should be entitled to hear the evidence on both sides and make up their minds on the matter.

    The contrast with those who eschew the international ResearchED conferences could hardly be greater.

    Tom is right that it is important to restate one’s beliefs. Not only can we be misrepresented and misunderstood, but we can lose arguments that we thought we had already won.

    In this country, we are winning the argument in favour of a knowledge-rich curriculum; we are winning the ‘reading wars’; and parents are voting with their feet on the question of free schools.

    We must continue to expound the evidence in favour of how a knowledge-rich curriculum benefits all pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged. In the same breath, we must continue to make the argument for the EBacc. This policy is crucial to ensuring that all pupils benefit from a broad and balanced core academic curriculum at GCSE.

    Research suggests that lower participation from disadvantaged pupils in these core academic subjects can negatively affect social mobility. Yet overall, disadvantaged pupils remain half as likely to be entered for the EBacc subjects as their non-disadvantaged peers, and the gap in EBacc subject entry persists even among the most academically able disadvantaged pupils.

    Evidence from the Sutton Trust found pupils in a set of 300 schools that increased their EBacc entry, from 8% to 48%, were more likely to achieve good English and maths GCSEs, more likely to take an A level, or an equivalent level 3 qualification, and more likely to stay in post-16 education.

    The authors of that study noted that “pupil premium students benefitted most from the changes at these schools”. That is why this policy is so important and why we must continue to make the case.

    But there are some who argue that the EBacc is not right for some pupils – too often these are pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    I firmly disagree with this view.

    A recent publication from the Institute of Education examining the effect that GCSE choice has on education post-16 added yet further weight to the evidence demonstrating that the EBacc is crucial to driving social mobility.

    The paper found the following:

    Students pursuing an EBacc-eligible curriculum at 14-16 had a greater probability of progression to all post 16 educational outcomes, while taking an applied GCSE subject had the opposite effect. There were no social class differences in the advantages of pursuing an EBacc-eligible curriculum which suggests that an academically demanding curriculum is equally advantageous for working class as for middle class pupils.

    On launching the report, one of the authors, Professor Alice Sullivan, said:

    The results show that controlling for both prior attainment, and a range of socio-economic and other factors, pupils who had taken EBacc subjects at GCSE were 7 percentage points more likely to stay on at school.

    The EBacc is of benefit to all pupils, irrespective of their prior attainment, background or sex. Indeed, the report found that:

    Pursuing an EBacc-eligible curriculum increased the chances of educational progression particularly strongly for girls and white young people, and studying an applied subject decreased the chances of girls staying on. In particular, studying an EBacc-eligible curriculum at age 14-16 increased the chances of studying subjects favoured by selective universities at A Level.

    Given the importance of raising attainment for white working-class boys and increasing the proportion of girls taking STEM subjects – particularly post-16 – these results are very encouraging.

    The government will continue to make the case for more pupils studying the EBacc. We believe that a core academic curriculum comprising the EBacc subjects alongside other high-quality, knowledge-rich subjects – including the arts – should be available to the vast majority of pupils, because that is what the evidence shows.

    As Tom Bennett has said:

    You know who benefits most from working with evidence? Children. And of them, who benefits most? The least advantaged. Those with no second chances, no tutors, no jobs waiting for them in publishing no matter how they do. The children who are poor, marginalised, miles away from the opportunities and privileges of the elite. They are the ones who need this the most. It is our duty to overturn every dogma we have, obtain the best evidence we can, and turn that into rocket fuel for the ones that need it the most.

    Many schools – including those making the most progress in the country – are providing their pupils with opportunity to study the EBacc suite of qualifications. The government is determined that schools around the country follow the evidence and grow the number of pupils given access to these core academic subjects.

    With every new piece of research that confirms the importance of a core academic curriculum to social mobility and improved attainment, we must push back the voices of opposition. We must make the moral and evidence-based case for an academic curriculum for all pupils, regardless of background.

    Making the case at conferences such as this, at TeachMeets or in the school staff room is vital. Consider another evidence-based argument, which is now close to being won thanks to tireless work by teachers and academics pursuing the evidence.

    For over a century, war has waged in education over the most effective means of teaching children to read. Finally, this fight is coming to an end thanks to the strong evidence in favour of systematic synthetic phonics.

    One of the most important interventions in this war came from America’s Rudolph Flesch in 1955. In his book titled ‘Why Johnny Can’t Read: And What You Can Do About It’ Flesch concluded that Johnny was being held back at age 12 for his poor reading ability because he had not been properly taught how to read.

    Johnny had been taught to read using a method known as ‘look and say’, in which children repeat written words they see on the page until they recognise the whole word on sight. As they begin to recognise more and more words, so the theory goes, they pick up the ability to read.

    This was regarded as easier than the time-honoured method of teaching the sounds of the alphabet and how to blend these sounds into words, the method known as phonics. Flesch was deeply critical of the existing orthodoxy in the USA about how best to teach reading.

    For decades, educationalists formed 2 camps – a small group in favour of using phonics was opposed by a larger body that promoted this so-called ‘look and say’ or ‘whole word’ method. According to this now-discredited theory, children would learn to recognise whole words or use context or other stimuli to guess what the word might be.

    Thankfully, due to the overwhelming evidence in favour of phonics, there are now few educationalists prepared to deny that phonics should play a role in early reading instruction. Sadly, though, as so often when a losing argument is in its death throes, many decry the false dichotomy between teaching using phonics and using these now discredited approaches to reading.

    Instead, many educationalists advocate using a mix of methods, combining guessing at words using context with some phonics training thrown in. Again, the evidence clearly shows that this is not an effective means of teaching children to read.

    These fallacious and unevidenced beliefs about reading instruction have blighted the early education of generations of children around the world.

    I vividly recall meeting a 9-year-old girl in a school I visited shortly before the 2010 general election. This girl had never been taught to decode. Instead, she had been given books accompanied by descriptive pictures. Rather than using her knowledge of the phonetic code, she was encouraged to guess words using pictures and the context of the story. The tragedy was that at the age of 9 she simply could not read – a situation that should not and need not have been allowed to happen. But, alas, she was not unique.

    But in recent years there has been a reading revolution in England’s schools. Last year, thanks to the hard work of teachers and the emphasis the government has placed on teaching phonics, there were 147,000 more 6-year-olds on track to become fluent readers than in 2012.

    This achievement is the culmination of evidence-based policy and teaching.

    In 2016, 81% of pupils reached the expected standard in the phonics screening check, up from just 58% in 2012. And with 91% of pupils reaching this standard by age 7, there is room for even greater achievement.

    There are few – if any – more important policies for improving social mobility than ensuring all pupils are taught to read effectively. Literacy is the foundation of a high-quality, knowledge-rich education. Those opposed to the use of systematic phonics instruction are, in my view, standing between pupils and the education they deserve.

    Unfortunately, the pernicious arguments that ignore the evidence in favour of phonics still abound and are having a detrimental effect on the take up of phonics in some parts of the country.

    By 2014, about two-thirds of primary teachers surveyed by the government agreed that the teaching of systematic synthetic phonics has value in the primary classroom. However, 90% also ‘agreed’ or ‘agreed somewhat’ that a variety of different methods should be used to teach children to decode words.

    The evidence in favour of using phonics during early reading instruction is overwhelming. Now, the battle is to spread this message to all classrooms. Events such as this one provide an excellent platform for disseminating evidence-based practice. It is important to make and remake the arguments so that all pupils benefit from the very best teaching methods in primary school.

    And just as it is important to expound the evidence in favour of effective teaching practice, it is vital to reflect on and celebrate the structural reforms that are driving improvements in England’s education system.

    The expansion of academy freedoms to nearly 7 in 10 secondary schools and 1 in 5 primaries has improved parental choice and increased diversity of provision in schooling, injecting challenge and spreading innovation throughout the school system.

    Whilst there is plenty of data to demonstrate this success, the most compelling evidence for providing teachers and schools with greater freedom comes from visiting some of the highest-performing academies and free schools in England.

    This year, yet another group of free schools saw their first cohort of pupils receive their GCSE results. Whilst we do not have confirmed pupil-level or school-level data, there are a number of schools who appear to have done very well. Schools such as Reach Academy Feltham and Dixons Trinity Academy – both of which serve disadvantaged communities – have reported excellent results.

    As with other leading academies and free schools, these innovative free schools pride themselves on having a strong approach to behaviour management and teaching all pupils a stretching, knowledge-rich curriculum.

    As more and more of the country’s leading academies and free schools – such as Harris Academy Battersea, King Solomon Academy and the Tauheedul Islam Boys and Girls High Schools – register country-leading academic results for their pupils, we will see a change in expectations and approach in schools around the country.

    These high-performing academies and free schools serve as evidence of what it is possible to achieve. They demonstrate the power of having the very highest expectations of all pupils and they have raised what we now conceive of as high expectations. Importantly, they show that a core academic curriculum, serves the interests of all children.

    They also dispel the myth that teacher-led instruction and the highest behavioural expectations are only right for certain children in specific regions of the country.

    No longer is it tenable to argue that the success of the trailblazing King Solomon Academy can only be achieved in London. One only needs to visit Tauheedul Schools in Blackburn or Dixon’s Trinity in Bradford to dispel that myth.

    These arguments are not theoretical anymore. They are empirical.

    As well as providing a high-quality education to their pupils, free schools have served as petri dishes. They have shone a light on what works in schools. What whole school policies, which curricula and which pedagogies work best.

    And teachers can visit these schools, taking inspiration and ideas from what they see back to their school. Through their excellence and by sharing their stories, these free schools are providing and disseminating evidence.

    By pursuing the evidence, fostering innovation and sharing findings with others, free schools have started an education revolution that cannot be ignored. In this way, they mirror what is happening at ResearchED.

    Through innovation and a desire to challenge and create new solutions, teacher-led organisations are changing the education landscape. Evidence and empiricism now trumps dogma and received wisdom. And teachers, academics and – most of all – pupils stand to gain.

    Thank you.

  • Alan Duncan – 2017 Statement on Hurricane Irma

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Duncan, the Minister of State for Europe and the Americas at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 12 September 2017.

    At last Thursday’s statement I undertook to update the house as appropriate and I thank you Sir for the opportunity to do so now. My Right Honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary is on his way at this very moment to the Caribbean to see for himself our stricken Overseas Territories and further drive the extensive relief efforts that are underway.

    The thoughts of this House and the whole country are with those who are suffering the ravages of one of the most powerful Atlantic Hurricanes ever recorded. It followed Hurricane Harvey and was set to be followed by Hurricane Jose.

    Over half a million British nationals – either residents or tourists – have been in the path of Hurricane Irma, which has caused devastation across an area spanning well over a thousand miles.

    The overall death toll in the circumstances is low, but unfortunately 5 people died in the British Virgin Islands, and 4 in Anguilla.

    At this critical moment, our principle focus is on the 80,000 British citizens who inhabit our Overseas Territories of Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

    Commonwealth Realms in the Caribbean have also suffered, including Antigua and Barbuda and the Bahamas, as well as other islands such as St Maarten and Cuba.

    We have around 70 British nationals requiring assistance on St Maarten and are working with the US, German and Dutch authorities to facilitate the potential departure of the most vulnerable via commercial means today.

    To prepare for the hurricane season, the government acted 2 months ago by dispatching RFA Mounts Bay to the Caribbean in July.

    This 16,000-ton landing ship from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is one of the most capable vessels at our disposal.

    And before she left the UK in June the ship was pre-loaded with disaster relief supplies; facilities for producing clean water; and a range of hydraulic vehicles and equipment.

    In addition to the normal crew, the government ensured that a special disaster relief team – consisting of 40 Royal Marines and Army personnel – was also on board.

    This pre-positioning of one of our most versatile national assets – along with an extra complement of highly skilled personnel – allowed the relief effort to begin immediately after the hurricane had passed.

    By Friday night, the team from RFA Mounts Bay had managed to restore power supplies at Anguilla’s hospital, rebuild the emergency operations centre, clear the runway and make the island’s airport serviceable.

    The ship then repositioned to the British Virgin Islands, where its experts were able to reopen the airport.

    Meanwhile in the UK, the government dispatched 2 RAF transport aircraft on Friday – carrying 52 personnel and emergency supplies for over 1,000 people.

    On Saturday, another 2 aircraft left for the region to deliver a Puma transport helicopter and ancillary supplies.

    This steady tempo of relief flights has been sustained – yesterday it included a Voyager and a C-17 – and I can assure the House this will continue for as long as required.

    And already 40 tonnes of UK aid has arrived, including over 2,500 shelter kits, and 2,300 solar lanterns. Nine tonnes of food and water are being procured locally today for onward delivery. Thousands more shelter kits and buckets are on the way from UK shortly. HMS Ocean is being loaded with 200 pallets of DFID aid and 60 pallets of Emergency Relief Stores (ERS) today. Five thousand hygiene kits, 10,000 buckets and 504,000 Aquatabs, all DFID funded, are going onto the vessel.

    As I speak, 997 British military personnel are in the Caribbean. RFA Mounts Bay arrived in Anguilla again yesterday at dusk as 47 police officers arrived in the British Virgin Islands to assist the local constabulary.

    We should all acknowledge and thank the first responders of the Overseas Territories’ own governments, who have shown leadership from the start, and are now being reinforced by personnel from the UK.

    And many people, military and civilian, have shown fantastic professionalism and courage in their response to this disaster, and I hope I speak for the whole House in saying a resounding and heartfelt thank you.

    Now this initial effort will soon be reinforced by the flagship of the Royal Navy, HMS Ocean.

    The government has ordered our biggest warship in service to leave her NATO task in the Mediterranean and steam westwards with all speed.

    HMS Ocean loaded supplies in Gibraltar yesterday and will be active in the Caribbean in about 10 days.

    Within 24 hours of the hurricane striking, my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister announced last Thursday a £32 million fund for those who have suffered, but in the first desperate stages, it is not about money – it is about just getting on with it.

    And the Foreign Office Crisis Centre has been operating around the clock since last Wednesday, coordinating very closely with DFID and MOD colleagues. They’ve taken nearly 2,500 calls since then and are handling 2,251 consular cases. The government has convened daily meetings of our COBR crisis committee.

    Over the weekend, my Right Honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Governors of Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands – along with Governor Rick Scott of Florida, where Irma has since made landfall over the weekend.

    I have spoken to the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe about the US Virgin Islands in respect of logistics support for the British Virgin Islands.

    As well as those affected across the Caribbean, some 420,000 British citizens are in Florida – either as residents or visitors – and UK officials are providing every possible help.

    My Right Honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to our Ambassador in Washington and our Consul General in Miami, who has deployed teams in Florida’s major airports to offer support and issue Emergency Travel Documents to those who need them.

    The House will note that Irma has now weakened to a tropical storm, which is moving north west into Georgia.

    And on Friday, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda. The hurricane inflicted some of its worst blows upon Barbuda and a DFID team has been deployed on the island to assess the situation and make recommendations. Put starkly, the infrastructure of Barbuda no longer exists. I assured the Prime Minister of our support and I reiterate that this morning.

    On Saturday, my Right Honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Prime Minister of Barbados to thank him for his country’s superb support, acting as a staging post for other UK efforts across the Caribbean.

    Mr Speaker, we should all be humble in the face of the power of nature. Whatever relief we are able to provide will not be enough for many who have lost so much. But hundreds of dedicated British public servants are doing their utmost to help and they will not relent in their efforts.

  • Chris Skidmore – 2017 Speech on Improving Accessibility at Elections

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Skidmore, the Minister for the Constitution, at the All Party Parliamentary Group on Learning Disabilities on 5 September 2017.

    Thank you, Mark, for inviting me to today’s meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Learning Disability. As the Minister responsible for elections, it is very important to me that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to do so.

    To play their part in choosing the person whom they believe will best represent their interests, whether as their Member of Parliament or local mayor or councillor or head of their police force. A thriving democracy depends upon the participation of all eligible electors.

    To meet this important aim I have visited every region and nation of Great Britain to learn about the barriers that prevent certain groups in society including people who have a disability from participating in the democratic process. I want to find out how these identified barriers can be best overcome.

    I have been very impressed by the enthusiasm for voting and level of understanding of its importance that has been told to me, including when I met with organisations who represent the interests of people who have a learning disability. These have included Mencap and, last month when I visited Brighton, Speak Out.

    As a direct result of this wide engagement I have been able to push changes to improve the accessibility of elections.

    At my request the Department of Health has recently made changes to the Certificate of Visual Impairment so it can now be used by local authorities to support blind and partially sighted people to vote at elections, once their consent has been provided.

    The government is also making the process easier for disabled people to register to vote by undertaking an accessibility audit of the website, so the process for online registration is as user friendly as possible. This will include considering providing a facility to request that election materials are available in alternative formats from local authority electoral service teams.

    I want to go further to strengthen our democracy and to ensure future elections are even more accessible to disabled people, and this is why today I have launched a Call for Evidence.

    The Call for Evidence is asking for people to provide information that will:

    – enhance the government’s understanding of the experiences of disabled people in registering to vote and casting their vote.

    – help identify if current mechanisms to support disabled people to participate in the democratic process are sufficient;

    – and identify examples of good practice provided by Electoral Service Teams to disabled people at elections.

    In partnership with the members of the Cabinet Office Accessibility Working Group which includes Mencap, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Electoral Commission the Government will review the evidence we receive and produce a report of key findings and recommendations.

    I would warmly welcome responses from all here today to this Call to Evidence – which is available in alternative formats including Easy Read – as part of the process to help ensure that every disabled person is able to have that equal chance, that equal right, to participate in our democracy, and to have their say.

  • Andrew Jones – 2017 Speech at Offshore Europe Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Exchequer Secretary, to the Offshore Europe Conference in Aberdeen on 5 September 2017.

    It’s great to join you all in the Granite city for my first Offshore Europe conference – and many thanks to SPE for inviting me along here today.

    Our thoughts are inevitably with the people of Houston, Aberdeen’s sister city at this time.

    The links between the two cities and their people have been forged through this industry.

    So I know I speak for everyone here in wishing them strength in the days and weeks ahead.

    For now, let’s return to the focus of this conference, which is to look to the future of this industry.

    And what I want to do is contribute to those discussions and shed some light on the government’s perspective on an industry of such importance to the UK’s economy.

    Challenges

    Our starting point, then, is one of real optimism.

    Undoubtedly, this has been a challenging time for the industry – we all recognise that.

    And that’s not just been our experience here in the UK – though we of course have our own challenges with such a mature basin.

    But these have been challenging times the world over for the oil and gas industry, its workers and their families.

    Here in the UK though, we’ve responded strongly.

    The government has taken unprecedented measures to back the UK’s industry – with over £2 billion of support in the last couple of years – boosted further by an already competitive tax and business environment.

    We’ve also been pleased to see the industry itself responding so effectively to difficult conditions.

    The progress you’ve achieved in terms of improving efficiency and competitiveness has been impressive as we’ve seen operating costs come tumbling down in this time.

    Over the last couple of years, the average cost for a barrel has almost halved – from around $30 to $15.

    Those are productivity gains I’d like to see all our industries making in Britain!

    Confidence

    What we’ve seen more recently, therefore, has been encouraging signs of growing confidence.

    We started the year with asset and corporate deals worth almost $4 billion.

    And high profile deals investing in the UK Continental Shelf have continued to be announced since then.

    But as confidence returns, there is still no room for complacency – in industry, or indeed in government.

    Commitment

    That’s why I’ve come here today to confirm – once again – our commitment to this sector.

    The principles we set out for the UK’s oil and gas fiscal regime – in our paper Driving Investment – they are principles that remain firmly in place.

    Because we fully understand the importance of certainty and predictability in the taxes you pay. You can expect a competitive and stable environment in which to plan your investments.

    And, as we promised in the Spring Budget, we are investigating whether we can make our tax system better to encourage investment in our older oil and gas assets. I am talking about transferable tax history here.

    We will be reporting back in a few months’ time at the Autumn Budget.

    But it is worth pausing on the age of our basin in the UK, because that clearly brings challenges, as well as opportunities.

    There is, of course, still a lot of life left in the UK Continental Shelf.

    With up to 20 billion barrels still to be recovered, we still need to get new investment coming in.

    Decommissioning

    But we must also recognise that the UK is a mature basin, and decommissioning will feature much more heavily in its future.

    We’ve already seen around 10% of North Sea facilities decommissioned.

    Over the next decade we’re set to see another 100 offshore platforms fully or partially removed, and 1,800 wells plugged.

    And such a clean up mission will come at some cost.

    Earlier this year, the Oil and Gas Authority produced a new estimate of how much it might be in total – around £60 billion between now and the 2050s.

    Bringing the Costs Down

    That amount won’t all need to be found by the industry – we estimate about £24 billion will be met by the Exchequer through ‘decommissioning tax relief’.

    So we have a shared goal in making sure those costs fall further!

    The Oil and Gas Authority has set an ambitious target to bring the total cost down to less than £39 billion.

    That will call for big changes to the way we do things – with better skills and more innovation and technological advances.

    But we’ve already seen what the industry can do in making big efficiency gains.

    And we’re also seeing our top academic and training centres rallying to meet this challenge.

    Over the last half a century, they’ve been instrumental in training generation after generation of skilled experts for the industry, and working hand in hand with the sector to research tomorrow’s technologies.

    Now we’re seeing them lead the way in decommissioning – with Aberdeen’s new Oil and Gas Technology Centre teaming up with Aberdeen University and Robert Gordon University to set up a dedicated Decommissioning Solution Centre.

    This multi-million pound venture will bring together academic researchers with industry and business experts to build new expertise, research new technologies and support a world-class supply chain that can help meet the global demand for decommissioning.

    Window of opportunity

    This joint effort between industry and academia is so important.

    Right now we have a huge window of opportunity to become pioneers in decommissioning.

    We were the first to try new technologies and methods to overcome the inhospitable waters of the North Sea, so many decades ago.

    Now, as the North Sea becomes the first major production basin in the world to reach maturity and start large scale decommissioning, we have the chance to once again make ourselves the go-to global experts.

    That means thousands of highly-skilled job opportunities, it means export opportunities, and it means British businesses taking their place in a worldwide, world-class supply chain.

    The North Sea decommissioning industry is already worth £2 billion a year – I hope we’ll start to see that grow rapidly and I know that ideas about how we do that and make our mark on the global stage will be a big part of this conference.

    Conclusion

    So thank you all for listening – and if there are two things I hope you take away from what I’ve said today, it’s first that the government remains fully committed in its support of the UK’s oil and gas industry.

    But second, that we’re excited about the opportunities for its future.

    I wish you all a good conference.

  • Jo Johnson – 2017 Speech on Higher Education

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jo Johnson, the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, at the UUK annual conference on 7 September 2017.

    Thank you for inviting me to join you again at the Universities UK (UUK) annual conference – I am particularly glad to have a chance to visit Brunel University, here in my brother’s wonderful Uxbridge constituency.

    Much has happened in the world of UK Higher Education since I spoke at last year’s conference.

    A General Election, of course, and I note that Uxbridge, like some other university seats, now has a rather smaller Conservative majority.

    Sorry about that.

    But happier milestones too, in the higher education reforms that we launched following the election before last, in 2015:

    The Higher Education and Research Bill completed its journey through Parliament, passing into law on the last day before Parliament dissolved.
    We published the first Teaching Excellence Framework, highlighting the quality of teaching and graduate outcomes throughout the system.
    We announced in the Autumn Statement an additional £4.7bn funding for science, the biggest increase in public R&D funding since 1979
    We charged the Migration Advisory Committee with the task of undertaking a very welcome review of the economic impact of international students
    And we have great leadership in place for the two bodies that will drive our reforms, the Office for Students (OfS) and UK Research and Innovation, in Sir Michael Barber; Nicola Dandridge; Sir John Kingman; Sir Mark Walport
    In all of these undertakings, I am profoundly grateful for the support, advice and cooperation I have received from UUK and its members.

    The election may now be two months ago, but Higher Education remains in the political spotlight.

    As Alistair Jarvis recently observed in his first speech as your new chief executive, UK universities are under intense scrutiny.

    Student finance, of course, played a prominent role in the General Election campaign.

    Since then, the question of whether universities are providing students with a fair deal has become ever more pressing. We all see it in the media; I hear it from constituents and parliamentary colleagues, and you I am sure hear it from your students.

    Today, I would like to examine these criticisms and ideas, and discuss with you what you as sector leaders need to do to ensure it sustains public support.

    Two critiques of Higher Education

    Recent criticisms of higher education in the UK fall into two distinct camps: we might call them the Statists and the Pessimists.

    The Statists direct their criticism at student finance. They argue that the most important thing we can do is to abolish tuition fees.   As I said in my recent speech to Reform in July, this belief is not just wrong; it is 180 degrees out. By sharing the costs of HE between students and taxpayers and consequently putting ourselves in a position in which we could remove student number controls, we have in fact started to transform access.

    There is more to do to bridge a still yawning participation gap and we always keep the system under review to ensure it remains fair and effective, but young people from the most disadvantaged areas were 43 per cent more likely to go to university in 2016 than they were in 2009 and 52 per cent more likely to attend highly selective universities.

    Make no mistake: if fees were abolished, we would soon see the reintroduction of student number controls. And the return of rationing demand for ‘free’ higher education would see the poorest and most disadvantaged would miss out.

    Life chances would be irreparably damaged, social mobility thrown into reverse.

    We’ve also seen before what full public funding means for our universities when they have to compete against other public spending priorities in annual budgeting rounds: dramatic fall in per student funding of the kind we saw in the UK in the decades before fees – when per-student resource fell by over 40 per cent.

    This would lead to the humbling of currently world-class institutions, and widespread closures of departments and even whole universities.

    And we’ve seen what this means for taxpayers, including those who have not had the chance to go to university, who have to pay in full for the cost of degrees that will increase the income of what, under a reimposed student numbers cap, will be an increasingly privileged cohort of students.

    That is the Statist proposition – bad for social mobility, bad for university funding, bad for taxpayers.

    The second group of critics, the Pessimists, have an altogether bleaker view of Higher Education.

    They argue that university is inappropriate for many students, that student numbers should be significantly reduced and that students should pursue other types of post-18 education.

    The pessimists’ desire to improve alternatives to university is laudable: indeed, it is a core goal of this government’s education policy.

    That’s why we have instituted the Apprenticeship Levy, which will raise £2.8 billion to fund 3 million apprentices over a five year period

    And it is why we are pushing ahead with an ambitious post-16 Skills Plan that will bring in the new T-level qualifications.

    Post-18 education is not a zero-sum game, where to improve further education we must restrict and ration higher education to a privileged few; the Government’s aim is that both must be excellent, and that students should have reliable information to allow them to make the choice that is right for them.

    But the Pessimists’ broader charge against Higher Education is weak.

    The pursuit of knowledge is the hallmark of a civilized society and for many people a sufficient end for the higher education system in and of itself.

    That said, we must accept that the transition from an elite to a mass system of higher education brings with it an expectation of a strong economic return too.

    We must be vigilant for signs of diminishing returns from the expansion of the sector.

    This government has no target for the proportion of young people it wants to see entering higher education – rather it wants the size of the sector determined by the needs of learners and the demands of employers for graduates with the skills acquired through higher education.

    Indeed, as we invest in and improve other forms of post-18 education and training, we may well see that the percentage of 18 year olds choosing to go to university falls. This outcome should not in itself trouble us.

    But it is true that we are today approaching the 50 per cent proportion of 18-30 year olds targeted by Labour 15 years ago and it is a good moment to pause to assess the evidence.

    Overall, it is clear that the contribution higher education makes to individual lives and society today remains formidable and far-reaching and that limiting access to these benefits to a narrow elite would deprive thousands of young people routes into fulfilling careers.

    Graduates on average have better paid jobs. They are more likely to be a source of innovation and growth. And they have both greater promotion prospects and a lower risk of unemployment.

    The benefits to the individual of university study go beyond the financial. Graduates also enjoy better health, longer life expectancy, and higher levels of civic participation.

    Some pessimists argue that the benefits graduates receive from higher education are being eroded as the sector has expanded. We monitor this exceptionally carefully.

    In fact, even as the sector has grown and more young people have entered higher education, the direct wage benefits have endured. Graduates on average still enjoy a large wage premium, worth some £170,000 additional earnings over a lifetime for a man, and £250,000 for a woman.

    Other pessimists accept the evidence that graduates enjoy higher average wages, but argue that these benefits have little to do with what students learn at university.

    A university degree, they claim, acts as an expensive badge to show employers which young people are most likely to succeed, rather than providing training that improves graduates’ ability to do their jobs. (In the language of economists, they argue that the value of a university degree consists mainly of signalling.) The implication is that society as a whole would be just as productive with much less higher education and could spend money better elsewhere.

    A range of evidence suggests the pessimists are wrong, and that economies with more university graduates enjoy higher rates of economic growth overall.

    A recent LSE study examining 15,000 universities across 78 countries found that doubling the number of universities per capita increased GDP by over 4 per cent, with a significant part of the effect coming from the benefits of having more educated graduates in the workforce.

    A study from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research showed that 20 per cent of UK economic growth over a two-decade period came from graduate skills accumulation, and that a 1 per cent increase in the share of the workforce with a degree raises long-run productivity growth by between 0.2 per cent and 0.5 per cent.

    These productivity uplifts are a sign that university degrees provide a real economic benefit, not just a prestigious credential.

    A third argument I hear from pessimists is that because our productivity as a country has stagnated even as numbers in higher education have increased, higher education cannot be economically useful; this is not infrequently cited as a knockout argument to justify the reimposition of student number controls.

    The logical flaw in this argument is I hope clear: it ignores the myriad factors impacting national productivity and fails to make any assessment of how we would perform as an economy with fewer graduates.

    If we took this argument seriously, we would cease investing in roads, rail and any form of infrastructure, or indeed in any other bit of our education system, on the grounds there has been no uplift in our productivity coinciding with it.

    A patently absurd proposition.

    The idea that higher education provides real and significant benefits is consistent with what we hear from employers across the country: that the economy of the future will continue to require graduates, and lots of them.

    The steady rise in the level of formal qualifications held by those in employment does not simply reflect qualification inflation caused by large increases in the supply of graduates, as Pessimists maintain.

    It is happening as a result of more fundamental changes in the occupational structure of the UK as a knowledge economy. Some 1.8 million new jobs will be created between 2014 and 2024, and 70% of them will be in the occupations most likely to employ graduates

    What is more, international comparisons confirm we are on the right track.

    Only 42 per cent of young people in the UK are expected to graduate from university in their lifetime, according to the OECD, which is lower than the average of 45 per cent, and significantly lower than Japan at 58 per cent, the US at 53 per cent and New Zealand at 58 per cent.

    The idea that cutting numbers of people with higher levels of education is the route to a more competitive economy simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

    A Realist take on HE: accountability & value for money

    But if we take one thing away from the critics of the sector, it should be that now is no time for complacency. For the avoidance of any doubt, I am staunchly and unswervingly on your side.

    But it’s my duty to tell you that legitimacy is at risk of draining away from a university system that may be excellent for a clear majority but nonetheless delivers poor or questionable outcomes for a significant minority.

    I am deeply concerned that for a second year, the Higher Education Policy Institute Student Survey has shown more students in England (37 per cent) believing they have received poor value than good value (32 per cent).

    This risk to the sector from poor value for money was disguised when fees were absorbed in general taxation but is now a clear danger at a time when each and every student and graduate is aware of the cost of fees and of repaying loans.

    Universities must be honest with themselves about what they are offering and more willing to make the reforms necessary for its future success.

    We must address the weaknesses wherever they are in the system. Dame Minouche Shafik, the new Director of the LSE, was right when she observed that “too many of the messages coming out of universities sound self-serving.”

    This means taking urgent steps to ensure that a higher proportion of students feel their time and money was well invested.

    If universities offer patchy teaching that does not seem to justify students’ fees or degrees courses that end up with significant numbers of graduates in non-graduate jobs, those critics who mistakenly call for big reductions in student numbers will feel the wind in their sails.

    To rise to this challenge, universities must embrace accountability to their students and to the taxpayer, and show that they are providing excellent value for money.

    Our HE reforms hold unis to account for outcomes & value for money
    Holding universities to account for performance and value for money has been the key objective of the HE reforms we set out in the 2016 White Paper and enacted in this year’s Higher Education & Research Act – and it continues to guide our work as we launch the Office for Students and consult on the new regulatory framework.

    I note that the recent report from UK 2020 that raised concerns about the university system was positive about HERA, but worried that its reforms would be watered down as they were implemented.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to assure the authors – and the HE sector, and most importantly students – that no watering down will take place. An Order has been laid in Parliament bringing the OfS into existence three months ahead of schedule.

    We will shortly be consulting on the new regulatory framework that will enable us to implement the Higher Education and Research Act in full.

    With this in mind, I would like to discuss five particular measures we must take to make sure we are delivering all we can for students and for taxpayers.

    The next phase of the TEF

    The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is an increasingly essential means of holding universities to account for the teaching and outcomes they deliver for students. That is why it is so central to our reforms.

    The TEF is already transforming learning and teaching across the HE sector, with, for example, Imperial’s vice-provost for education describing it as a ‘godsend’ for teaching in our system.

    I’m pleased UUK’s comprehensive survey of providers found that:

    73% believe that TEF will raise the profile of teaching and learning in universities.

    81% have undertaken additional investment in teaching, with almost half saying the TEF had influenced their decision to do so.

    And there is general confidence that the overall process was fair.

    I would like again to place on record my thanks to TEF Panel Chair, Chris Husbands, all the HEFCE staff involved, all the assessors and especially the student representatives, whose valuable role on TEF panels will continue.

    Today, we are publishing a policy paper setting out the principal changes we are making as a result of the lessons learned exercise. We will be publishing the full document, alongside the updated TEF Specification, later this month.

    We are making no changes to the overall approach, but we will be making a small number of refinements to ensure that excellence is fully recognised for all types of provider and student. These include:

    Firstly, halving the weighting of the NSS metrics. The NSS remains an extremely valuable source of information, but the new weighting will give it a more proportionate place in the assessment.

    Secondly, adapting the assessment procedure for providers with large numbers of part-time students so that we recognize excellent in part-time provision appropriately.

    And thirdly, although benchmarking will remain at the heart of TEF assessment, we will be explicitly indicating where providers have very high or very low absolute values, and allowing this to inform initial hypotheses where there are no flags.

    We are also introducing a number of important new supplementary metrics.

    These include:

    A new measure designed to tackle grade inflation.

    A new measure designed to take account of student labour market outcomes based on the powerful LEO datasets.

    Alongside this, as I announced in July, we will be moving ahead with the subject pilots, including the piloting of a new metric on weighted contact hours. As I’ve said before, the purpose of these pilots is not to test whether to proceed to subject assessment, but to determine how best to do so.

    Together, these changes demonstrate that we are willing to listen to suggestions from the sector about genuine improvements, but at the same time we will not step back from robustly holding universities to account for the outcomes they deliver.

    Grade Inflation

    I mentioned that a new supplementary metric of the TEF would relate to grade inflation. I would like to focus on this important problem.

    A degree is one of the most important investments most graduates will make in their lifetimes.

    They rightly want hard work at university to be recognised and for their degree to be a currency that carries prestige and holds its value. At the same time, businesses need a degree classification system that will help them identify the best applicants for their firms.

    There has been a significant increase in the proportion of people receiving firsts and 2:1 degrees over the past five years that cannot be explained by rising levels of attainment.

    Grade inflation is tearing through English Higher Education.

    On the face of it, the facts are shocking.

    On average across the sector, there has been a threefold increase in the percentage of firsts since the mid-1990s.

    In the last five years alone, HESA figures show the proportion of students who gained a first class degree has increased by over 40 per cent, with almost a quarter of students now securing the top grade, up from 17 per cent in 2011/12.

    With a huge and fast-expanding 2.1 class, almost three-quarter of students now secure a first or upper second, compared to 66 per cent in 2011/12 and fewer than half in the mid-1990s.

    This is a general phenomenon, but some institutions are seeing a more rapid degree inflation than others.

    Over the summer, we read reports that several institutions had seen the proportion of their students securing top honours more than double between 2010/11 and 2015/16.

    Meanwhile, five institutions have seen the proportion of top honours rise by at least 20 percentage points over the last five years, while 40 have seen at least a 10-point hike. Just seven institutions have lowered the proportion of firsts.

    The Higher Education Academy has found that nearly half of institutions had changed their degree algorithms to “ensure that their students were not disadvantaged compared to those in other institutions”.

    I made similar observations over two years ago, in my first speech to UUK, and I am disappointed that the sector seems to have made so little progress in tackling this urgent and continuing problem.

    I understand that the incentives on individual providers to award more 2:1s and firsts are strong. That the proportion of ‘good degrees’ counts towards performance in league tables is a good example.

    And I am aware that many employers use the 2:1/2:2 border as a cut-off, which also significantly increases the pressure on providers to minimise the numbers of 2:2s and below that they award.   The OfS will work with the sector to deliver a solution.

    Unchecked, grade inflation will undermine the reputation of the entire UK HE sector, creating a dangerous impression of slipping standards, undermining the efforts of those who work hard for their qualifications and poorly serving the needs of employers.

    Grade inflation can fuel disengagement on both sides – if students know that 80-90 per cent will get a 2:1 or first from a high-reputation provider, there is less incentive to work hard – and less incentive by the provider to focus on teaching.

    The challenge then is clear: we need to stop grade inflation.

    I promised in July 2015 that the TEF would evolve to include incentives for the sector to tackle degree inflation and ensure that hard-won qualifications hold their value. And this is what will now happen.

    As a first step, the forthcoming Regulatory Framework consultation will propose that the OfS will analyse and routinely publish annual data on the number of degrees awarded at different classifications – at the sector and provider level, and the changes that occur over time – and the OfS will challenge providers to explain data that suggests that students’ degree classifications are being inflated.

    This approach will, as I have said, be replicated in the Teaching Excellence Framework, which will include a new grade inflation metric that will recognize providers who are genuinely tackling grade inflation, and hold to account those who are not.

    The TEF will therefore provide a counterweight to traditional ranking systems, some of which inadvertently encourage grade inflation by giving universities credit simply for the number of high-class degrees they award.

    But it cannot fall to the OfS to solve the issue of grade inflation on its own – the sector itself has a clear responsibility to take ownership of this issue, and for driving forward developments to ensure that the interests of their students are, and remain, well protected.

    At the very heart of this issue is a lack of sector-recognised minimum standards for all classifications of degrees. Although I have been clear that it is not for the OfS to attempt to develop new minimum standards for all classifications of degrees, I am equally clear that the sector itself has a responsibility to grip this issue.

    So I am today calling on you to take swift action to define and agree sector recognised standards for all classifications of degrees – my challenge to the sector is to start that work now, and to reach sector wide agreement over the next 12 months.

    Student Contracts

    I have long believed that students deserve clear and accurate information about their course – including methods of assessment, expected workload, and contact hours – and information about how their fees will be spent.

    We believe that universities can – and should – do more to make themselves accountable to students through the systematic use of the kind of student contracts already used in various forms by a number of institutions.

    Guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority already sets out what information universities should provide in order to comply with consumer law. But it is only patchily observed across the system.

    I want the OfS to play a central role in pressing institutions to comply with consumer law consistently across the sector. The aim is to embed in the system student contracts that are clear, quantifiable and fair.

    We will therefore consult on making it a condition of joining the register of higher education providers that institutions clearly set out in this way how they will provide their courses so that there is full compliance with consumer law.

    Accelerated Degrees

    Providing excellent value for money also involves offering the right mode of study for every student.

    Accelerated courses are a means of giving students the opportunity to study for a qualification over a shorter period of time by increasing the intensity of study. They compress equivalent content into at least one year less than a standard degree course, but lead to the same or equivalent higher education qualification.

    Evidence suggests that accelerated degrees particularly appeal to those students who have not been attracted by the prospect of three years of higher education. They include mature students – for example, those wanting to re-train – and those simply keen for a more rapid route into the workplace.

    Responses to our 2016 call for evidence on accelerated degree courses indicated high interest from HE providers: 73 per cent reported seeing a demand for such degrees from students or employers.

    But only a small handful of providers currently offer accelerated degrees, across a too narrow range of subjects. This must change – and we will help the sector to deliver a wider range of high quality two-year degree programmes.

    Providers responding to our call for evidence indicated current in-year tuition fee caps are a significant barrier to growth, as those wishing to offer accelerated courses can only charge two ‘standard’ years of fees for three years’ worth of tuition.

    The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 includes powers to set the annual tuition fee cap – for accelerated courses only – at a higher level than their standard equivalent. This should incentivise more providers to offer accelerated courses, increasing choice for students.

    Our intention is that the overall cost to students of accelerated courses will still be less than an equivalent standard course. Students on accelerated courses will incur living costs for fewer years, and HEI providers will charge the same or less in tuition fees.

    I will shortly be launching a consultation on the best way to set and implement the new fee cap. We hope these changes will encourage many universities to launch high quality accelerated degree programmes, leading in turn to greater choice for students and better value.

    VC Pay

    Value for money is not just a function of the quality of education offered; it also requires universities to be good stewards of their resources.

    No one in the room will be unaware of the prominence of the recent public debate over levels of vice-chancellor pay.

    It is of course true that many of our universities are large and complex organisations, requiring highly skilled individuals to run them effectively. Some will be competing for managerial talent in a global market.

    But it is important to remember that universities are generally still charities with a not for profit public service mission and that, when it comes to VC remuneration, finding the right benchmarks is essential.

    I have heard in recent days one prominent VC noting she was paid less than footballers or bankers. If university managers want those kinds of wages, they are simply in the wrong business.

    It’s not obvious that the remuneration of chief executives in the private sector is a useful guide either. This is not just because corporate governance arrangements have conspicuously failed to deliver proportionality in pay in the private sector but because the risk profiles are so different.

    While universities do operate in a competitive market, they are unlike most businesses in their dependence on Government for funding.

    No FTSE-350 business enjoys the certainty that the higher education system benefits from in knowing that it has an uncapped flow of new customers coming to it each and every year, bearing £9,000 vouchers from the Government.

    So that’s why, although universities rightly enjoy autonomy, Government has a legitimate interest in questions around institutional efficiency, both in our role as stewards of the higher education system and as its most significant single funder.

    I do not want to read about VC pay in the newspapers any more than you do.

    These headlines raise fears that students’ fees are not being used efficiently and that governance processes, including but not limited to remuneration committees, are not working effectively.

    This is why I have repeatedly urged the sector, through guidance to the regulator, to show restraint in levels of senior pay.

    We need demonstrable action now to protect value for money for students and taxpayers in the future, to ensure that vice chancellor pay levels are fair and justified, and that governance arrangements around remuneration are up to date.

    To this end, I am asking the Office for Students (OfS) to:

    Introduce a new ongoing condition of registration requiring the governing bodies of [Approved and Approved (fee cap)] providers to publish the number of staff paid more than £100,000 per year and to provide a clear justification of the salaries of those paid more than £150,000 per annum.

    Use its powers, which include monetary penalties, to take action if providers fail to meet these requirements.

    Issue new guidance to help Higher Education providers meet these requirements.

    Compile and publish data on the levels of HE senior staff remuneration beyond what is required under the registration condition, with a particular focus on protected characteristics such as gender and ethnicity

    Use its power to investigate further the governance of an institution through assessments of management effectiveness, economy and efficiency where there are substantiated concerns.

    I am also today calling on the sector to work through the Committee of University Chairs to develop and introduce their own Remuneration Code.

    This should encourage greater independence of remuneration committees, the publication of the pay ratio of top to median staff pay, and explanations of top pay increases that are greater than increases in average pay.

    In addition to this new Remuneration Code, leadership and restraint is key to public confidence. I am delighted to see that an example has been set in this respect by the OfS itself.

    Without any suggestion on my part, and setting an example for the sector, the new Chief Executive of the OfS, Nicola Dandridge, and Chair, Sir Michael Barber, have chosen voluntarily to cut their own annual salary by 18 and 10 per cent, respectively, which equates to a combined reduction of more than £40,000.

    This kind of leadership will be crucial to the credibility of the HE sector, and to our shared commitment to accountability and value for money.

    Conclusion

    To conclude, the university sector is under considerable public scrutiny.

    Some critics focus on student finance, calling for the abolition of fees and a return to 100 per cent state funding; a route that no matter how well intentioned would, by bring about the reintroduction of number controls, be a huge backward step for access, to say nothing of its vast cost to the taxpayer and corrosive effect on the sustainability of university finances.

    Others call explicitly for severe restrictions on student numbers, in the pessimistic belief that higher education provides little benefit for many students.

    We can with confidence rebut these arguments, pointing to the significant benefits that graduates receive from their education, benefits which are not just financial but social and intellectual, and which accrue not just to students themselves but to the economy as a whole.

    But even while we reject the arguments of the statists and the pessimists, we should welcome the scrutiny and embrace accountability.

    This scrutiny is not going to go away.

    The Higher Education and Research Act sets an entirely new regulatory framework for the HE sector, and marks the start of a new era.

    We have the opportunity to build on the achievements of the last 25 years and create a high-quality, diverse, innovative, inclusive and sustainably funded HE system for the next generation.

    It will be a system that embraces accountability and can confidently stand up to the most acute scrutiny. It could be the envy of the world.

    It is vital that we address the concerns I have raised if we are to grasp that prize, so essential for the future of Britain.

  • Boris Johnson – 2017 Speech on Hurricane Irma

    Below is the text of the article written by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, in the Sunday Mail on 10 September 2017. It was re-issued by the Government as a news release on the same day.

    On a screen in the Foreign Office Crisis Centre, Hurricanes Irma and Jose are being tracked across the Caribbean – mile by devastating mile.

    Britain would help any human being caught up in these forces of nature. But we have a special responsibility today because Hurricane Irma inflicted its most powerful blows upon British Overseas Territories, inhabited by 75,000 British citizens.

    First was Anguilla, where Irma knocked out the power and cast the island into darkness, then came the British Virgin Islands – which have borne the brunt of the storm – followed by the Turks and Caicos.

    I watched the 2 hurricanes swirl across the screen in the Crisis Centre where dedicated staff from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development have been working around the clock since Wednesday.

    They’ve been dispatching emergency supplies, mobilising ships and planes and trying to second guess nature by anticipating exactly what help would be needed, where and when.

    Their task is complicated by the fact that they are dealing with not 1 storm but 2. Following closely behind Irma is Hurricane Jose – the first time that 2 category 4 or above hurricanes have struck in such quick succession since records began in 1851. To all intents and purposes, this is an unprecedented situation.

    The Crisis Centre got through to Tim Foy, the Governor of Anguilla, who briefed me in calm and measured tones. The power station on his island had survived, he said, but 70 or 80% of the transmission poles had been toppled, depriving everyone of electricity.

    I thought of the 15,000 Brits living in darkness on Anguilla, with destroyed homes and schools all around them, having endured one hurricane and now in the path of another.

    But the Governor was full of praise for the immediate help provided by the men and women on RFA Mounts Bay. The government dispatched this 16,000-ton naval supply ship to the Caribbean in July in preparation for the hurricane season. She carries her own floating dock, a Wildcat helicopter and a special disaster relief team.

    And the Governor described how these skilled personnel had managed to restore power at Anguilla’s hospital, rebuild the emergency operations centre and – perhaps most valuable of all – clear the runway and make the island’s airport serviceable.

    RFA Mounts Bay has now been repositioned to do everything possible to help the British Virgin Islands. But we must be humble in the face of the power of nature. Whatever relief we are able to provide will not be enough for many who have lost so much – and their ordeal is not over.

    A crisis like this brings out the best in Britain’s public servants. We can all take pride in people like Tim Foy and the other Governors of the stricken islands, the staff of the Foreign Office Crisis Centre, and the crew of RFA Mounts Bay. All are striving tirelessly to help those in need.

    And so they must because the people of Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands and the Turks and Caicos are British. Our obligation to them does not depend on the happenstance of geography: we will help just as surely as if the hurricane had struck Inverness or Dover or St Ives.

    It is precisely because of this overriding sense of obligation that the government has ordered the flagship of the Royal Navy, HMS Ocean, to head the Caribbean. Our biggest warship in service – carrying eight helicopters including 2 giant Chinooks – has left its NATO tasking in the Mediterranean and begun steaming westwards with all dispatch. HMS Ocean will cross the Atlantic and reach the Caribbean in about 10 days.

    There is, of course, a desperate need for aid in the meantime. On Friday a giant C-17 transport aircraft from the RAF took off for the Caribbean, laden with enough emergency shelters for almost 1,000 people. In total, almost 20 tonnes of aid has already been sent by air, including rations, water purification kits and emergency lighting.

    Expertise matters just as much as materiel, so 250 Royal Marines have been deployed in the region, including military engineers and medics.

    They will reinforce the 40 personnel of the humanitarian and disaster relief team on board RFA Mounts Bay, whose excellent work has made such a difference in Anguilla.

    In a situation where roads are blocked and communications disrupted, helicopters are essential assets. So a second C-17 left the UK on Friday carrying 2 Puma transport helicopters. They will join the Wildcat already deployed by RFA Mounts Bay.

    We can be reassured that a great deal of aid has either arrived or is en route. But heartbreaking damage has been inflicted and no-one should assume that everything will go smoothly in the crucial days that lie ahead.

    We are working alongside our friends, including France and the Netherlands, whose Caribbean territories have also suffered terribly, and the United States.

    And the government has promised to match what I know will be the generous donations of the British public pound for pound.

    We must now look ahead to where Irma will strike next. On Sunday the hurricane is expected to make landfall in Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Britons either live or go on holiday. Our Consul General in Miami is making every preparation.

    In the coming days, our fellow Britons will be caught in the pathway of these forces of nature. We will not relent in our efforts to give them every possible help.

  • David Davis – 2017 Statement on Brexit Negotiations

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Davis, the Secretary of State for Departing the European Union, in the House of Commons on 5 September 2017.

    Mr Speaker, I will now update the House on the two rounds of negotiations with the EU which took place in July and August.

    While at times these negotiations have been tough, it is clear that we have made concrete progress on many important issues.

    I would like thank all our officials who have been working hard both at home, as well as out in Brussels, to make this happen.

    Colleagues will have received my letter following the July negotiating round dated 9 August. I set out the dynamics of that round in some detail.

    These rounds were not at this stage about establishing jointly agreed legal text. They were about reaching a detailed understanding of each other’s position, understanding where there might be room for compromise and beginning to drill down into technical detail on a number of issues.

    During both rounds discussions took place on all four areas including the specific issues relating to the rights of citizens on both sides, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the question of a financial settlement and a number of technical separation issues.

    I will speak briefly about each in turn.

    Citizens’ rights

    Making progress on citizens’ rights has been an area of focus for both negotiation rounds and we took significant steps forward in both July and August.

    We have published a joint technical paper which sets out our respective positions in more detail, updated following the August round. This underlines both the significant alignment between our positions and also provides clarity on areas where we have not as yet reached agreement.

    In July we achieved a high degree of convergence on:

    • The scope of our proposals on residence and social security;
    • The eligibility criteria for those who will benefit from residence rights under the scope of the withdrawal agreement;
    • A shared commitment to make the citizens’ rights application process as efficient and streamlined as possible.

    In August we agreed:

    • To protect the rights of frontier workers;
    • To cover future social security contributions for those citizens covered by the Withdrawal Agreement;
    • To maintain the right of British citizens in the EU27 to set up and manage a business within their Member State of residence, and visa versa; and
    • That we should at least protect existing healthcare rights and arrangements for EU27 citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU. These are the European Health Insurance or ‘EHIC’ arrangements.

    These areas of agreement are good news. They may sound technical but they matter enormously to individuals.

    The agreement on health care rights, for example, will mean that British pensioners living in the EU will continue to have their health care arrangements protected, both where they live and when they travel to another Member State, where they will still be able to use an EHIC card.

    On mutual recognition of qualifications, we have made progress in protecting the recognition of qualifications for British citizens resident in the EU27 and EU27 citizens resident in the UK. In fact, each one of these areas of agreement is reciprocal, they will work for Brits in the EU and the EU27 in the UK.

    These areas of agreement help provide certainty and clarity for EU27 citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU27. They will make a tangible difference to these people’s lives. I hope everyone recognises the importance of that.

    The outcomes of these discussions demonstrate that we have delivered on our commitment to put citizens first and to give them as much certainty as early as possible in this process.

    Of course, there remain areas of difference which we continue to work on.

    For example, we will need to have further discussions on the specified cut-off date, future family reunion and the broader issue of compliance on enforcement. Progress on these areas will require flexibility and pragmatism from both sides.

    During the Summer negotiating rounds a number of issues emerged in the EU offer that will need further consideration.

    For example, the EU does not plan to maintain the existing voting rights for UK nationals living in the EU. We have made it clear that we will protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK to stand and vote in municipal elections.

    Similarly, the EU proposals would not allow UK citizens currently resident in the EU to retain their rights if they move within the EU.

    Even in areas where there has been progress, more is needed. While the EU has agreed to recognise the qualifications of UK citizens resident in the EU, and vice versa, we believe this should go much further.

    This recognition must extend to students who are currently studying for a qualification, it must apply to onward movement by UK citizens in the EU and it should extend more broadly to protect the livelihoods of thousands of people which depend on qualifications which will be gained before we exit the EU.

    In these areas the EU’s proposals fall short of ensuring UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK can continue to live their lives broadly as they do now.

    Separation issues

    On separation issues, a very technical area, we have established a number of sub-groups. They made progress in a number of specific areas, and drew on papers the UK published ahead of both rounds.

    I am pleased to say that we are close to agreement on our approach to post-exit privileges and immunities – on which we have published a position paper – which will benefit both the UK and EU to maintain after we leave.

    We have agreed on our mutual approach to confidentiality requirements on shared information post-exit.

    With respect to nuclear materials and safeguards, we held discussions on the need to resolve issues around the ownership of special fissile material and the responsibility for radioactive waste and spent fuel held both here and there.

    We reiterated a strong mutual interest in ensuring that the UK and Euratom Community continue to work closely together in the future as part of comprehensive new partnership.

    With respect to legal cases pending before the Court of Justice, the ECJ, the parties discussed and made progress on the cut-off points for cases being defined as ‘pending’. There was also progress in discussions concerning the UK’s role before the Court whilst these pending cases are being heard.

    With respect to judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, and ongoing judicial cooperation in criminal matters, we made good progress on the principles of approach and the joint aim of providing legal certainty and avoiding unnecessary disruption to courts, businesses and families.

    With respect to goods on the market, both parties reiterated the importance of providing legal certainty to businesses and consumers across the EU and UK at the point of departure.

    In this area, in particular, we emphasised that the broader principles outlined in the UK’s position paper seek to minimise the type of uncertainty and disruption for business which we are all working to avoid.

    We remain committed to making as much progress as possible on those issues which are solely related to our withdrawal, but our discussions this week have exposed yet again that the UK’s approach is substantially more flexible and pragmatic than that of the EU as it avoids unnecessary disruption for British business and consumers.

    I have urged the EU to be more imaginative and flexible in their approach to withdrawal on this point.

    Ireland/Northern Ireland

    On Northern Ireland and Ireland, I’m pleased to report there has been significant, concrete progress in this vital area. The negotiation Coordinators explored a number of issues, including both the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement and the Common Travel Area. In August, the group also had detailed discussions on the basis of the UK position paper.

    As both Michel Barnier and I said at last week’s press conference, there is a high degree of convergence on those key issues, and we agreed to work up shared principles on the Common Travel Area.

    We also agreed to carry out further technical work on cross-border co-operation under the Belfast Agreement.

    Of course, as I have said all along, the key issues in relation to cross-border economic co-operation and energy will need to form an integral part of discussions on the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

    Financial settlement

    Finally on the financial settlement.

    We have been clear that the UK and the EU will have financial obligations to each other that will survive our exit from the EU.

    In July the Commission set out the European Union position. We have a duty to our taxpayers to interrogate that position rigorously. That is what we did, line by line.

    At the August round we set out our analysis of the EU’s position. We also had in-depth discussions on the European Investment Bank and other off-budget issues.

    It is clear that the two sides have very different legal stances. But as we said in the Article 50 letter, the settlement should be in accordance with law and in the spirit of the UK’s continuing partnership with the EU.

    Michel Barnier and I agreed that we do not anticipate making incremental progress on the final shape of a financial deal in every round.

    Generally we should not underestimate the usefulness of the process so far. But it is also clear that there are still significant differences to be bridged in this sector.

    Governance and dispute resolution

    Initial discussions were also held on governance and dispute resolution.

    These provided an opportunity to build a better, shared understanding of the need for a reliable means of enforcing the Withdrawal Agreement and resolving any disputes that might arise under it.

    The Future Partnership

    Alongside the negotiations, we have also published a number of papers which set out our thinking regarding our future special partnership with the EU.

    These future partnership papers are different from our papers that set out our position for the negotiations under our withdrawal agreement.

    Our future partnership papers are part of a concerted effort to pragmatically drive the progress we all want to see.

    All along, we have argued that talks around our withdrawal cannot be treated in isolation from the future partnership that we want.

    We can only resolve some of these issues with an eye on how the new partnership will work in the future.

    For example, on Northern Ireland it would be helpful to our shared objectives on avoiding a hard border to be able to begin discussions on how future customs arrangements will work.

    Furthermore, if we agree the comprehensive free trade agreement we are seeking as part of our future partnership, solutions in Northern Ireland are of course then easier to deliver.

    A second example is on financial matters.

    As I have said, the days of making vast yearly contributions to the EU budget will end when we leave.

    But there may be programmes that the UK wants to consider participating in as part of the new partnership that we seek.

    Naturally we need to work out which of those we want to pursue. We need to discuss them as part of talks both on our withdrawal from the EU and our future as their long-standing friend and closest neighbour.

    A third example is on wider separation issues.

    While we are happy to negotiate and make progress on the separation issues, it is our long-term aim that ultimately many of these arrangements will not be necessary.

    With the clock ticking Mr Barnier, it would not be in either of our interests to run aspects of the negotiations twice.

    Last week, as we turned our heads to the next round of talks, my message to the Commission was: Let us continue to work together constructively to put people above process.

    To that end my team will publish further papers in the coming weeks – continuing to set out our ambition for these negotiations, and a new deep and special partnership the UK wants to build with the EU.

    Ultimately, businesses and citizens on both sides want us to move swiftly on to discussing the future partnership, and we want that to happen after the European Council in October if possible.

    As colleagues know, at the start of these negotiations, both sides agreed that the aim was to make progress on four key areas: citizens’ rights, the financial settlement, Northern Ireland and Ireland, and broader separation issues.

    We have been doing just that.

    No one has ever pretended this will be simple or easy. I have always said this negotiation will be tough, complex and, at times, confrontational.

    So it has proved.

    But we must not lose sight of our overarching aim — to build a deep and special new partnership with our closest neighbours and allies, whilst also building a truly global Britain that can forge new relationships with the fastest growing economies around the world.

  • Boris Johnson – 2017 Statement on North Korea

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 5 September 2017.

    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I should like to make a statement about the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

    At noon on Sunday, local time, North Korea tested the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated in the history of the regime’s quest for an illegal arsenal.

    The underground explosion in a testing site only 60 miles from the Chinese border triggered an earthquake measuring up to 6.3 on the Richter scale – 10 times more powerful than the tremor created by the last detonation.

    The regime claimed to have exploded a hydrogen bomb capable of being delivered on an intercontinental ballistic missile.

    We should treat that claim with scepticism, but the House must be under no illusion that this latest test marks another perilous advance in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

    In a country blighted by decades of communist economic failure – where, in the 1990s, hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation or were reduced to eating grass and leaves to survive – the regime has squandered its resources on building an illegal armoury of nuclear bombs.

    The House will wish to join me in condemning a nuclear test that poses a grave threat to the security of every country in East Asia and the wider world.

    Earlier today, the North Korean ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office to receive a formal protest. Honourable Members will recall the steady drumbeat of provocative and dangerous actions by Kim Jong-un’s regime.

    Last year North Korea tested two nuclear weapons and launched 24 missiles; so far this year, the regime has fired 18 missiles – including two of intercontinental range; indeed three tests have taken place since the House rose in July, and on Monday last week, a missile flew over Japan, causing sirens to sound on Hokkaido and forcing thousands of people to take cover.

    The regime has threatened to launch more missiles towards the US Pacific territory of Guam, which is home to 180,000 people and two military bases.

    I will commend the dignity and restraint shown by South Korea and Japan, the countries that find themselves in the firing line of Pyongyang’s reckless ambitions.

    North Korea’s brazen defiance has brought universal condemnation.

    When the UN Security Council met in emergency session yesterday, every member – including China and Russia – denounced the latest nuclear test.

    Britain has been at the heart of mobilising world opinion with the aim of achieving a diplomatic solution.

    Last week, I spoke to my Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, and the Japanese foreign minister, Taro Kono.

    A few hours after the nuclear test on Sunday, I spoke to the South Korean foreign minister, Kang Kyung-wha, and I have of course been in regular contact with Secretary Tillerson of the United States.

    During her highly successful visit to Tokyo last week, my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister made clear our solidarity with Japan as it faces this grave threat.

    Just as North Korea has pursued nuclear weapons with single-minded determination, so the international community must show the same resolve in our pursuit of a diplomatic solution.

    And we should not be diverted by arguments that equate the illegal and aggressive actions of Pyongyang with the legitimate and defensive military exercises of South Korea and the United States.

    North Korea has caused this crisis and the onus rests squarely on Kim Jong-un’s regime to obey international law and meet their obligations to disarm.

    All hopes for progress rest on international co-operation – and there are some encouraging signs.

    On 5 August, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2371, including the toughest sanctions ever imposed on North Korea, banning exports of coal, seafood, iron ore and lead.

    If fully enforced, these new measures will cost Pyongyang about $1 billion – one third of the country’s total export earnings – reducing the resources available for nuclear weapons.

    We are now pressing the Security Council to pass a new Resolution as swiftly as possible, imposing further sanctions and showing the unity and determination of the international community.

    China, which accounts for 90% of North Korea’s overseas trade, has a unique ability to influence the regime – and the House can take heart from the fact that Beijing voted in favour of the latest sanctions resolution and condemned Pyongyang’s actions in the most unsparing terms.

    North Korea’s nuclear device was not only tested near China’s border, it was also detonated on the day that President Xi Jinping opened a summit in Xiamen with the leaders of Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa.

    I call on China to use all of its leverage to ensure a peaceful settlement of this grave crisis.

    Kim Jong-un claims to want security and prosperity for North Korea’s people.

    The only way to achieve this goal would be for North Korea to obey the UN and halt its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes, disarming in a complete and verifiable manner.

    Britain stands alongside our allies in striving to achieve this goal. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Sir Philip Jones – 2017 Speech of Naming of HMS Prince of Wales

    Below is the text of the speech made by Admiral Sir Philip Jones, First Sea Lord on 8 September 2017.

    Your Royal Highnesses, my Lords, ladies and gentlemen, honoured guests, 3 years ago, the naming of HMS Queen Elizabeth was a strategic awakening for the United Kingdom.

    The moment when we proved to the world, and to ourselves, that we still have what it takes to be a great maritime industrial nation.

    Today, we return to Rosyth, to the cradle of modern British sea power, to dedicate HMS Prince of Wales.

    We are honoured by the presence of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall; of course, as we are in Scotland, more appropriately the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay.

    We are also joined by representatives from across government, the armed forces, together with veterans and some of our vital international partners.

    This ceremony, and all that it represents, demonstrates the United Kingdom’s determination to see through our strategic intent and to fulfil the promise of our maritime renaissance.

    For though she is the second of her class, HMS Prince of Wales has a strategic significance all of her own.

    If building one carrier is a statement of national ambition; then building 2 is an unmistakable sign of commitment, to our own defence and that of our allies.

    Atlantic Charter

    Today, HMS Prince of Wales is the newest and most advanced vessel of her kind.

    In the half century of service that lies before her, she will assimilate astonishing developments in technology, from unmanned vehicles on the seas and in the skies, to the all encompassing, all pervading, tide of data that is shaping modern warfare.

    And yet the name Prince of Wales is a historic one. It is emblematic of many centuries of loyal service to crown and country.

    Of the many ships that have borne this princely title, none better demonstrates the importance of our continuing strategic responsibility than the seventh and last.

    In the darkest period of the Second World War, the battleship HMS Prince of Wales was the venue for Winston Churchill’s first meeting with President Roosevelt.

    During a church service off the coast of Newfoundland, the 2 leaders sat beneath her great guns, amid a congregation of sailors and marines from both nations.

    Until that point Britain had stood alone. But on that Sunday morning, onboard that ship, the New World joined the Old in common cause.

    Of all the many legacies borne out of that extraordinary partnership, few have been more significant than the Atlantic Charter.

    It pledged economic and social progress for the benefit of all. At its heart was a commitment to self determination, freedom of the seas and the rule of law in the world.

    This settlement was the inspiration for the United Nations and has been the basis of security and progress in the world since 1945.

    It is a settlement under which our own nation has enjoyed 7 decades of comparative peace and rising prosperity.

    But today the principles upon which it is founded are being tested.

    From the Baltic to the Black Sea, hybrid warfare seeks to undermine democratic governments and sovereign borders.

    In the Mediterranean, a sorry tide of human suffering has exposed once again the inequality borne out of conflict and repression.

    And in the South China Sea, growing regional competition highlights the continuing importance of freedom of navigation to global stability and prosperity.

    The United Kingdom holds positions of international responsibility: other countries look to us for leadership, partnership and example.

    So the biggest test of all comes from within.

    Do we still have the necessary belief to stand by the principles under which we have prospered?

    Are we still prepared to do what it takes to defend them and to lead others in doing the same?

    And, most importantly, are we prepared to match our words with the tools to do the job?

    Modernised Royal Navy

    Today we are gathered in this great dockyard to answer those questions.

    Standing in the shadow of a new Prince of Wales, and in the company of our most important allies, we rededicate ourselves to this historic cause, and to the obligations it brings.

    With 2 Queen Elizabeth class carriers in Royal Navy service, one will be available for operations at all times.

    In the United States, aviators from the Fleet Air Arm are working hand-in-glove with their Royal Air Force counterparts to bring the F35B Joint Strike Fighter into UK service, and the first operational squadron moves to Marham next year.

    This combination of ships and jets will provide our nation with a continuous carrier strike capability, a powerful conventional deterrent in a dangerous and uncertain world.

    Alongside this new undertaking, the Royal Navy will deliver the UK’s nuclear deterrent, as we have done every hour of every day for nearly half a century.

    These 2 strategic responsibilities will sit at the heart of a modernised and emboldened Royal Navy.

    On the River Clyde, steel has been cut for the first city-class frigate, HMS Glasgow. She and her sister ships will carry names from all parts of our United Kingdom, renewing the bond between the nation and its navy.

    Meanwhile, after the long years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Royal Marines have returned to sea, and to the environment in which they have demonstrated such unswerving professionalism and adaptability across 3 and a half centuries.

    And finally, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will continue to be found where they’ve always been in times of peace and war: right by our side.

    But this is not a journey our sailors and marines make by themselves.

    Working with the Army and the Royal Air Force, the UK Carrier Strike Group will project British power and influence at sea, in the air, over the land and in cyberspace.

    And working with our international partners, it represents a new and substantial commitment to NATO and to all the UK’s alliances throughout the world.

    We could not have reached this point without the substantial and ongoing support of the United States Navy, the US Marine Corps and the Marine Nationale, and I pay grateful tribute to them today.

    We will repay the military and political capital they have invested in us by delivering a comprehensive, credible capability that opens the way for closer carrier cooperation between us.

    So the advent of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers truly represents the start of a new era of strategic responsibility for the Royal Navy and the nation.

    Conclusion

    In drawing to a close, I would like to pay tribute to all those who have dedicated their efforts to this great national endeavour.

    In the few short months since she put to sea, HMS Queen Elizabeth has become an icon of British engineering and British innovation, and it was a joyous occasion to welcome her into her home port of Portsmouth just over 3 weeks ago.

    The same will be true for HMS Prince of Wales. Wherever she travels, at home or overseas, she will draw crowds to the water’s edge where they will marvel at your achievement.

    Alone, either one of these vessels would be a formidable expression of military might. But together, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales send a powerful message to friend and foe alike.

    We may live in uncertain times, but the United Kingdom has lost none of its famous resolve. We will protect our interests, we will support our allies, and we will shoulder our responsibilities, wherever in the world they are at stake.

    As I consider all that has been accomplished, and that which is yet to come, I am drawn to the words of the poet Longfellow, sent by Roosevelt to Churchill after their historic meeting onboard the last Prince of Wales 76 years ago, words that find new meaning in the vessel before us, and the responsibilities that await the young men and women who will take her to sea:

    Sail on, O Ship of State!

    Sail on, O Union strong and great!

    Humanity with all its fears,

    With all the hopes of future years,

    Is hanging breathless on thy fate!