UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Boris Johnson – 2017 Statement on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Campaign Against Daesh

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2017.

    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will make a statement updating the House on the campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria.

    But I should like to begin by informing the House that I called the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr Zarif, this morning to discuss the case of Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I expressed my anxiety about her suffering and the ordeal of her family and I repeated my hope for a swift solution.

    I also voiced my concern at the suggestion emanating from one branch of the Iranian judiciary that my remarks to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee last week had some bearing on Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case.

    The UK government has no doubt that she was on holiday in Iran when she was arrested last year – and that was the sole purpose of her visit.

    My point was that I disagreed with the Iranian view that training journalists was a crime, not that I wanted to lend any credence to Iranian allegations that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been engaged in such activity. I accept that my remarks could have been clearer in that respect and I’m glad to provide this clarification.

    I’m sure the House will join me in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of Mr Ratcliffe on behalf of his wife and we will not relent in our efforts to help all our consular cases in Iran.

    Mr Zarif told me that any recent developments in the case had no link to my testimony last week and he would continue to seek a solution on humanitarian grounds. I will visit Iran in the coming weeks where I will discuss all our consular cases.

    I turn now to the campaign against Daesh.

    In the summer of 2014, Daesh swept down the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, occupying thousands of square miles of Iraqi territory, pillaging cities, massacring and enslaving minorities, and seeking to impose by pitiless violence a demented vision of an Islamist utopia.

    Daesh had gathered strength in eastern Syria, using the opportunity created by that country’s civil war to seize oilfields and carve out a base from which to launch their assault on Iraq. Today, I can tell the House that Daesh have been rolled back on every battlefront.

    Thanks to the courage and resolve of Iraq’s Security Forces, our partners in Syria, and the steadfast action of the 73 members of the Global Coalition, including this country,

    Daesh have lost 90% of the territory they once held in Iraq and Syria – including Raqqa, their erstwhile capital – and 6 million people have been freed from their rule.

    When my Rt Hon Friend the former Defence Secretary last updated the House in July, the biggest city in northern Iraq, Mosul, had just been liberated.

    Since then, Iraqi forces have broken Daesh’s grip on the towns of Tal Afar and Hawija and cleared the terrorists from all but a relatively small area near the Syrian border, demonstrating how the false and failed ‘caliphate’ is crumbling before our eyes.

    The House will join me in paying tribute to the men and women of the British armed forces, who have been vital to every step of the advance.

    Over 600 British soldiers are in Iraq where they have helped to train 50,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces and the RAF has delivered 1,352 air strikes against Daesh in Iraq and 263 in Syria – more than any other air force apart from the United States. I turn now to Syria where, on 20 October, the Global Coalition confirmed the fall of Raqqa after 3 years of brutal occupation.

    The struggle was long and hard; I acknowledge the price that has been paid by the Coalition’s partner forces on the ground and, most especially, by the civilian population of Raqqa. Throughout the military operation, the Department for International Development has been working with partners in Raqqa Province to supply food, water, health care and shelter wherever possible.

    On 22 October, my Rt Hon Friend the International Development Secretary announced another £10 million of UK aid, in order to clear the landmines sown by Daesh, restock hospitals and mobile surgical units with essential medicines, and provide clean water for 15,000 people.

    The permanent defeat of Daesh in Syria – by which I mean removing the conditions that allowed them to seize large areas in the first place – will require a political settlement and that must include a transition away from the Asad regime that did so much to create the conditions for the rise of Daesh.

    How such a settlement is reached is, of course, a matter for Syrians themselves and we will continue to support the work of the United Nations Special Envoy, Staffan de Mistura, and the Geneva process.

    I am encouraged by how America and Russia have stayed in close contact over the future of Syria and we must continue to emphasise to the Kremlin that instead of blindly supporting a murderous regime – even after UN investigators have found its forces guilty of using sarin nerve gas, most recently at Khan Shaykoun in April – Russia should join the international community and support a negotiated settlement in Syria under the auspices of the UN.

    Turning to Iraq, more than 2 million people have returned to their homes in areas liberated from Daesh, including 265,000 who have gone back to Mosul. Britain is providing over £200 million of practical life-saving assistance for Iraqi civilians.

    We are helping to clear the explosives that were laid by Daesh, restore water supplies that the terrorists sabotaged, and give clean water to 200,000 people and health care to 115,000.

    Now that Daesh is close to defeat in Iraq, the country’s leaders must resolve the political tensions that – in part – paved the way for its advance in 2014.

    The Kurdistan Region held a unilateral referendum on independence on 25 September, a decision we did not support. Since then, Masoud Barzani has stepped down as President of the Kurdistan Regional Government and Iraqi forces have reasserted federal control over disputed territory, including the city of Kirkuk.

    We are working alongside our allies to reduce tensions in northern Iraq; rather than reopen old conflicts, the priority must be to restore the stability, prosperity and national unity that is the right of every Iraqi.

    A general election will take place in Iraq next May, creating an opportunity for parties to set out their respective visions of a country that overcomes sectarianism and serves every citizen, including Kurds.

    But national reconciliation will require justice, and justice demands that Daesh are held accountable for their atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere. That is why I acted over a year ago – in concert with the Government of Iraq – to launch the global campaign to bring Daesh to justice.

    In September, the Security Council unanimously adopted UN Resolution 2379, a British-drafted text – co-sponsored by 46 countries – that will establish a UN investigation to help gather and preserve the evidence of Daesh crimes in Iraq.

    Every square mile of territory that Daesh have lost is 1 square mile less for them to exploit and tax and plunder, and the impending destruction of the so-called ‘caliphate’ will reduce their ability to fund terrorism abroad and attract new recruits.

    Yet Daesh will still try to inspire attacks by spreading their hateful ideology in cyberspace even after they have lost every inch of their physical domain.

    That’s why Britain leads the Global Coalition’s efforts to counter Daesh propaganda, through a Communications Cell based here in London, and Daesh’s total propaganda output has fallen by half since 2015.

    But social media companies can and must do more, particularly to speed up the detection and removal of dangerous material and prevent it from being uploaded in the first place, hence my Rt Hon Friend the Prime Minister co-hosted an event at the UN General Assembly in September on how to stop terrorists from using the internet.

    The government has always made clear that any British nationals who join Daesh have chosen to make themselves legitimate targets for the Coalition. We expect that most foreign fighters will die in the terrorist domain they opted to serve but some may surrender or try to come home, including to the UK.

    As the government has previously said, anyone who returns to this country after taking part in the conflict in Syria or Iraq must expect to be investigated for reasons of national security. While foreign fighters face the consequences of their actions, the valour and sacrifice of the armed forces of many nations – including our own – has prevented a terrorist entity from taking root in the heart of the Middle East.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2017 Speech on the UK Youth Parliament

    Andrea Leadsom

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrea Leadsom, the Leader of the House of Commons, on 10 November 2017.

    Good morning everyone.

    I’m not sure about you, Mr Speaker, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen these benches looking quite so energetic as they do this morning!

    I’m delighted to open this year’s Youth Parliament – a fantastic opportunity for all of you, and I’m sure you will do your regions proud today.

    I would like to start by asking, who here has been told ‘young people don’t really understand politics’, or ‘you’re too young to be interested in politics’?

    Too often, young people are made to feel patronised, or worse still, excluded from politics.

    The Youth Parliament is one of the small ways we can demonstrate that the voices of young people belong in politics, and they belong in this Parliament.

    Mr Speaker has, over the years, been a great advocate for young people, and I feel just as passionately about removing barriers to politics.

    I was delighted that as Leader of the House, the motion on the order paper, which allows the Youth Parliament to sit, went down in my name, and commanded cross-party support.

    It’s that cross-party consensus that, in my role as Leader, I work hard to foster wherever possible.

    As Parliament’s representative in Government, it’s my job to communicate the goings-on of the chamber to the Prime Minister and her cabinet.

    That includes the various requests made or concerns raised by my opposite number and Shadow Leaders – and I’m pleased to say the cut and thrust of the debating chamber does not always reflect the very collegiate working relationship between many of us across parties.

    The second part of my role, representing government in Parliament, is focused on getting legislation through this House. In this session there is a big focus on our Brexit bills, but of course we are also working hard to get our domestic legislation through the House, too.

    My ambition for this Parliament, as Leader of the House, is to prove this is a ‘listening government’.

    I am determined to deliver on the will of the British people, in last year’s referendum, but I recognise that the best way to achieve that is by listening to the views of both parliamentarians and the public.

    The process of legislation for Brexit can be a positive one, that proves we are capable of working together and putting the country above all else.

    In many ways we could learn more from the Youth Parliament, than they can from us.

    Your green benches are more diverse than ours, with a better gender balance, and representatives from a wider range of ethnic and religious backgrounds.

    And we can learn so much from the priorities you have identified for today’s debate. They are not only issues that impact young people, but across society:

    – improving our transport systems
    – work experience hubs – a great idea, which I’m looking forward to hearing more about
    – continually striving to improve LGBT+ rights

    So, I really hope you get a lot out of today – I know we will.

    I’m looking forward to reading Hansard, and hearing your views on these important subjects.

    And finally, I hope you’ll carry on proving that young people aren’t just interested in politics, they are very much a part of politics.

  • Chloe Smith – 2017 Speech in Newry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chloe Smith, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People’s ‘Our Brexit Too’ event in Newry on 10 November 2017.

    Thank you very much for inviting me to attend this excellent event today.

    You’ve made it clear to me that there are worries about Brexit, about what it will mean for your families and for your future, and I want you to just take a moment to hear a different perspective.

    I want to tell you about the opportunity of Brexit, about what it can mean for the economy, for jobs, for your university experience and for your future as the next leaders and involved citizens of Northern Ireland.

    Before turning to the subject of Brexit I want to provide a short update on the politics because as those attending will be all too aware it is essential that we see the return of an NI Executive as soon as possible to allow Northern Ireland’s issues to be fully represented at all levels in the negotiation process.

    Despite intensive efforts it has not yet been possible for the parties to reach agreement and as a result the Secretary of State has not been able to bring forward legislation to enable an Executive to form. Crucially, a budget for the current financial year has yet to be set. The consequence of this is that the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Civil Service have assessed that Northern Ireland will begin to run out of resources soon.

    The Government therefore intends for a Budget Bill to be introduced into Parliament on Monday in order to protect the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland.

    The UK Government’s strong preference would be for a restored Executive here in Northern Ireland to take forward its own Budget. So this step is one that the UK Government is taking with the utmost reluctance.

    The UK Government’s priority will continue to be the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will continue to work with political parties to encourage them towards an agreement to form an Executive.

    The issue you have spent the day analysing – the decision by the people of the UK to leave the European Union – presents a range of challenges and opportunities.

    I want to stress that in discussions about the future of the relationship between Northern Ireland and Ireland, we have agreed that the Belfast Agreement should be protected in full. That means that if the people here want Northern Ireland want to remain within the United Kingdom, that will continue to be the case.

    The money in your and your family’s pocket will be at the heart of our discussions on Brexit. We are leaving the EU but that does not mean we are turning our backs on our friends and partners in Europe.

    What is also clear is that we are committed to securing a deal with the EU that works for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. That was clear from the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence recently, and we have made our intentions clear specifically about what we Northern Ireland to the EU in a paper we gave them over the summer.

    At the moment, you can travel from the UK to Ireland without a visa and without a passport. For many decades we’ve had a system called the Common Travel Area. We want this to continue after Brexit, and the EU agrees with us on this.

    We want to uphold the Belfast Agreement in all its parts; avoiding what some people call a ‘hard border’ when goods cross from one country to another. We want to work north-south with Ireland and we want Ireland to work with the UK east-west too. It’s a great relationship at the moment and we want that to continue.

    We have also made excellent progress discussing the citizenship and identity rights provided for in the Belfast Agreement and scoping the North-South cooperation that currently takes place under the Agreement.

    We want there to be free movement of goods, and we want to ensure local businesses that your families may work in here in Newry and across Northern Ireland can continue to trade freely across the border.

    The Government also recognises investors, businesses and citizens in the UK, Ireland, the rest of the EU, and beyond, need to be able to plan ahead. What would be most helpful to people and businesses on both sides, is for us to agree detailed arrangements for what’s called an implementation period, so that people can get used to the changes and things only change once.

    The Prime Minister said in Florence, and again recently in Parliament in Westminster that we want this period of implementation to give businesses and people certainty and time to prepare for the change; and a guarantee that this implementation period will only be for a certain time – two years.

    No-one pretends that leaving the EU is easy, it is not. It will require a period of adjustment for both the UK and the EU, for our businesses and our citizens.

    But the Government respects what people across the UK told them in the referendum on 23rd June last year. We will leave the political institutions of the European Union on 29 March 2019.

    This momentous decision presents challenges, as you will all have seen from the media reports and briefings around issues like citizens’ rights, financial obligations and the land border here in Ireland. But it presents the UK, including Northern Ireland, with opportunities too.

    We have always been an open trading nation, forging alliances across the globe to trade with other people. Since we joined the then-EEC in 1973, we have been part of the trade agreements negotiated on our behalf by the Commission.

    While these have benefited the UK and the EU, they have not always been in the best interests of each and every nation to which they apply. Some will gain more and some will lose more – that is the nature of world trade.

    Leaving the EU provides the UK, for the first time in a generation, the freedom to negotiate trade deals across the globe with any nation we wish to do so.

    Soon, the UK will decide what it is prepared to do to secure the deals it wants.

    There are those who say the UK will lose the benefits it currently has, through the trade deals it is part of now, through the EU. But this overlooks the fact that the UK will have freedom to negotiate new terms with these nations which could be better than the ones we have at the moment within the EU.

    Trade and immigration are two issues that are often seen to go hand in hand. The UK has benefited from immigration, bringing new cultures, skills and ideas to the UK economy. You only need to see here in Newry, which has a high level of immigration, the benefits this has brought to this area.

    We will continue to welcome people to the UK. We need skilled migrants to work across our industries to ensure we have the right people in the right jobs to provide maximum benefit to our economy.

    This is what EU exit allows us to do. To have our own immigration policy. One tailored to the different needs of the economy. One that is flexible and can react when we need more people, and equally when we need fewer.

    Our trading relationship with the EU is also of crucial importance. We have said that we want to see an excellent free trade agreement with the EU. We believe the EU wants the same thing.

    I’m an MP, and along with 649 others I have a vote on laws, one of which at the moment in front of us is called the EU Withdrawal Bill. When that law goes through it means we will have the same rules and regulations governing all of our trade now. Some EU laws will become UK laws.

    This means that both our country and our neighbouring countries will be in the same regulatory position when we leave the EU, providing both the UK and the EU with an excellent opportunity to forge a great trading agreement.

    Put simply, we buy more stuff from the EU than they do from us. So it’s within the EU’s interests to have a great agreement with us that doesn’t punish the UK.

    Obviously, the border down the road from here in Newry is the only actual land border the UK has with an EU country, in this case Ireland.

    This does present some challenges, but there’s also an opportunity, in that Northern Ireland can act as a bridge between the UK and the EU.

    I was about your age when the Belfast Agreement was signed in Belfast between the UK Government and the Irish Government. So much has been done politically, in the economy and in relationships between people of all ages in the past 20 years. We don’t want to lose any of that progress.

    Northern Ireland’s position will mean a slightly different set of rules will apply, to ensure the open border continues as it does now. Is anyone’s dad or mum a farmer? You will know that animal health is really important, and it’s important standards are kept right across the UK and Ireland to make sure our food is safe and our farms are safe. We’re working to make that happen.

    So it’s clear we need specific solutions to the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and Ireland and that is what we are working towards every day.

    I’m really encouraged by what I’ve heard today. It’s clear everyone here really cares about Northern Ireland, about the EU and about the future. It’s clear many of you wouldn’t have voted for Brexit, but what I want to assure you is that there are hundreds of people in the UK government working really hard every day to make sure we get the best possible Brexit, so when we leave, when you’re a bit older and when you hopefully go to university or into training or a job you will know we have done our very best for you, for your families, and for everyone in this country.

    And maybe one day someone in this room will be giving a speech like this. Maybe you’ll be reflecting on Brexit and what it has meant for Northern Ireland and Ireland. I want to assure you that you will have positive things to say, that there are opportunities ahead and if we all work together, we will make a success of Brexit.

  • Sajid Javid – 2017 Statement on Dorset and Suffolk Local Government

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2017.

    I should like to make a statement on local government improvement.

    Local government in Dorset

    I am announcing today that, having carefully considered all the material and representations I have received, I am “minded to” implement the locally led proposal for improving local government in Dorset. This was submitted to me in February 2017. In the Dorset area, there are currently two small unitary councils—created in the 1990s—of Bournemouth and of Poole. They are surrounded by a two-tier structure of Dorset County Council and the district councils of Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland.

    I am satisfied on the basis of the information currently available to me that this proposal if implemented is likely to improve local government across the area, establishing two new councils with a credible geography, and which would command local support. The existing nine councils will be replaced by a single council for the areas of Bournemouth, Poole, and that part of the county of Dorset currently comprising the borough of Christchurch, and by a single council for the remainder of the current county area.

    I understand that all the councils in the area are already working together in joint implementation committees. However, further steps are needed to secure local consent, and I hope this announcement will facilitate the necessary discussions to conclude this.

    Before I take my final decision, there is now a period until 8 January 2018 during which those interested may make further representations to me, including that if the proposal is implemented it is with suggested modifications. It is also open to any council in the area to come forward with an alternative proposal. The final decision would also be subject to parliamentary approval.

    Once I have made my final decision on the Dorset proposal, I will also decide whether to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, Dorset councils’ ​proposal for a combined authority to facilitate collaboration on certain matters between whatever councils are to be in place in Dorset.

    Local government in Suffolk

    I am also announcing today that having carefully considered all the material and representations I have received, I am “minded to” implement the locally led proposal I received from Suffolk Coastal and Waveney district councils in February 2017 to merge their two respective councils to become a single, new district council.

    I have reached this decision on the basis that I consider:

    the proposal is likely to improve local government in the area (by improving service delivery, giving greater value for money, yielding cost savings, providing stronger strategic and local leadership, and/or delivering more sustainable structures);

    the proposal commands local support, in particular that the merger is proposed by all councils which are to be merged and there is evidence of a good deal of local support; and

    the proposed merged area is a credible geography, consisting of two or more existing local government areas that are adjacent, and which, if established, would not pose an obstacle to locally led proposals for authorities to combine to serve their communities better and would facilitate joint working between local authorities.

    I intend to assess any further locally led merger proposals that I receive against these criteria.

    Before I take my final decision on this proposed merger there is now a period until 8 January 2018 during which those interested may make further representations to me, including that if the proposal is implemented it is with suggested modifications. The final decision would also be subject to parliamentary approval.

  • David Davis – 2017 Statement on Publication of EU Impact Assessments

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Davis to the House of Commons on 7 November 2017.

    Following the Opposition day debate motion on 1 November, the Government are making arrangements to respond to the motion which called on the Government to provide the Committee on Exiting the European Union with “impact assessments arising from” the sectoral analysis it has conducted with regards to the list of 58 sectors referred to in the answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239.

    As the Government have already made clear, it is not the case that 58 sectoral impact assessments exist. During the Opposition day debate the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State told the House:

    “there has been some misunderstanding about what this sectoral analysis actually is. It is not a series of 58 impact assessments.” —[Official Report,1 November 2017; Vol.630, c. 887.]

    I made the same point during my appearance before the House of Lords EU Committee on 31 October and to the House at DEXEU oral questions on 2 November.

    The sectoral analysis is a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum. It examines the nature of activity in the sectors, how trade is conducted with the EU currently in these sectors and, in many cases, considers the alternatives following the UK’s exit from the EU as well as considering existing precedents. The analysis ranges from the very high level overarching analysis to sometimes much more granular level analysis of certain product lines in specific sectors. The analysis in this area is constantly evolving and being updated based on our regular discussions with industry and our negotiations with the EU. It is not, nor has it ever been, a series of discrete impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of Brexit on these sectors.

    Given the above, it will take the Department, working with other Departments, time to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative for the Committee. The Government are committed to providing the information to the Committee as soon as is possible. I have made plain to the House authorities that we currently expect this to be no more than three weeks.

    As Ministers made clear during the Opposition day debate on this motion, there are a number of reasons why the Government believe that it would not be in the public interest for elements of the analysis, at least, to be released into the public domain.​

    The House of Commons has itself recognised that while Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, the Government also have an obligation to consider where it would not be in the public interest for material to be published.

    Furthermore, it is important to recognise in some cases there may be confidential or commercially sensitive information in this analysis, and that in many cases this analysis has been developed to underpin advice to Ministers of the negotiation options in various scenarios. It is well understood—as was the case under successive administrations—that such advice to Ministers must remain private.

    I have written to the Chair of the Committee on Exiting the European Union to set out the Government’s position as outlined above. I will also be meeting the Chair to discuss these issues further on 13 November.

  • Robert Goodwill – 2017 Speech at Nursery World Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Goodwill, the Minister of State for Children and Families, at the Nursery World Summit on 8 November 2017.

    I’d like to thank Liz Roberts for the invitation to speak to you all here today. Conferences like this are incredibly important, because they bring together a community of experts – all of whom are committed to making a difference to early years education, childcare and social mobility.

    That’s why I want to use this opportunity today to speak to you about this Conservative Government’s vision for the early years, and what it means for the quality and outcomes for all children. Equally important, I want to thank the sector for all that you’ve done so far.

    We all know that the first five years of a child’s life are critically important. They’re the foundation years that shape a child’s development, determine their readiness to learn at school, and they have an indelible influence on a child’s future.

    Evidence shows that high-quality early years provision has a positive and lasting effect on children’s outcomes, future learning and life chances – regardless of the economic circumstances of their parents. Speech and language gaps appear by the age of two and early difficulties with language can affect pupils’ performance throughout primary school.

    This Government is determined to close this gap, improve social mobility and extend opportunity for all. We also want to ensure that the cost of childcare is not a barrier to parents working, through our introduction of 30 hours free childcare for working parents. That’s why we will spend a record £6bn per year on childcare support by 2019/20 – more than ever before.

    Furthermore, evidence shows that a high quality workforce has a major impact on children’s outcomes. We recognise that a well-qualified workforce with the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience is crucial to deliver high quality early education and childcare.

    Indeed, we’ve already taken steps towards improving outcomes, and making childcare accessible and affordable to families across the country. I want to take a little time to talk about some of the things that we’ve achieved together.

    We want every child to reach their full potential, and early language and literacy skills, as well as a child’s wider development, are critical to this. Good attainment in the early years puts children in the best position to start school.

    Already, the latest results from the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile assessment tell us that children’s development is improving. The number of children achieving a good level of development continues to increase year on year – 71 per cent in 2017, up from 69 per cent in 2016; and from 52 per cent in 2013, when we introduced the revised Profile.

    Thanks to phonics reforms, this year, over 154,000 more pupils are on track to be fluent readers than in 2012.

    These improvements are a reflection of the hard work of early years and childcare providers. Now, 93 per cent of all providers – not just those delivering the free entitlements – are rated Good or Outstanding – the highest proportion ever. I am sure you’ll all agree with me that these are fantastic achievements.

    However, not all children start on an even playing field. We’re committed to improving quality and outcomes for all children – regardless of background.

    That’s why, over the course of 5 years, we’ll be spending over £2.5bn on the 15 hours free childcare entitlement for disadvantaged 2 year olds, and investing in the early years pupil premium, worth £300 per year per eligible child, to support better outcomes for disadvantaged 3 and 4 year-olds.

    I’m proud of what we’ve achieved so far, but I know there’s more to do. This Government will continue to focus relentlessly on raising standards and supporting the critical work of teachers and early years providers across the country to ensure that the gap continues to close –as quickly as possible.

    Turning specifically to the subject of accessible and affordable childcare: for those families who want to go back to work or increase their hours, but the cost of childcare just doesn’t make it viable, we’ve delivered on our promise to double the amount of free childcare for working parents of three and four year olds.

    Some parents still spend over a third of their take-home pay on childcare. I recently met a father in Wolverhampton who works as a science technician in a school. He told me his wife was able to work part time and go back to study at university as a result of 30 hours, and that he could not overemphasise how much it was helping them financially and personally.

    30 hours is empowering low-income families. A lone parent earning around £6,500 a year can qualify, giving these families a real helping hand. And of course, low-income families on Universal Credit can receive up to 85 per cent of childcare costs covered, and Tax-Free Childcare is worth up to £2,000 per child per year and up to £4,000 for disabled children.

    The personal testimonies of how 30 hours has been a force for good in families’ lives are backed up by the evaluation of the 30 hours pilot areas, and showed that 78 per cent of parents reported greater flexibility in their working life as a result of 30 hours; whilst nearly a quarter of mothers and one in 10 fathers reported they had been able to increase their working hours.

    As a key part of delivering 30 hours we want to make sure that children with special educational needs and disabilities are able to get the best from it, and our evaluation of early delivery showed that local areas which put support in place were able to successfully deliver 30 hours places for children with SEND.

    We’ve put in place measures to support local areas – for example, our new Disability Access Fund, worth £615 per year per eligible child, and a requirement that local authorities establish a special educational needs Inclusion Fund.

    There’s no doubt that delivering 30 hours, coupled with the implementation of funding reforms this year, has been both ambitious and – I know – challenging. I want to put on record my thanks to the sector who’ve stepped up to the plate, and worked constructively with their local authorities and our delivery partner Childcare Works to help deliver this lifeline for working families.

    Moving on from 30 hours, I want to talk about what we’re doing to strengthen our workforce. It is crucial that employers are at the centre of the process for designing and delivering apprenticeships, training and qualifications. That’s why I’m very grateful to those of you who are working with the department, for example, to develop criteria for more robust level 2 and SEND qualifications for early years practitioners. We’ll be consulting on the level 2 criteria shortly.

    I’m pleased to say that the level 3 apprenticeship standard, designed to support the effective development of early years staff, is nearing completion. It is also fantastic news that a task and finish group of early years stakeholders is about to begin to consider gender diversity in the sector in more depth. We believe a diverse early years workforce, which better reflects wider society, will help to enhance children’s experiences, and I look forward to discussing this with the panel.

    More generally, I want to thank all employers, training providers and sector organisations who are working together – and with us – to further develop this fantastic workforce.

    Looking ahead, there are some important steps that we now want to take, working with you.

    Research shows that five-year-old children who struggle with language are six times less likely to reach the expected standard in English at age eleven than children who have had good language skills at five, and ten times less likely to achieve the expected level in maths. These are astonishing findings. At the Conservative Party Conference in September, we announced new actions to close the word gap further.

    We will provide more funding to help schools strengthen the development of language and literacy in the early years, with a particular focus on reception. As a part of this, we’ll establish a £12m network of English Hubs in the Northern Powerhouse to spread effective teaching practice, with a core focus on early language and literacy as their first priority. We have also opened up the £140m Strategic School Improvement Fund to bids focused on evidence-based ways to improve literacy, language and numeracy during the critical Reception year.

    As you know, parents have a vital role to play in their child’s development. Evidence again suggests that aside from maternal education, the home learning environment is the single biggest influence on a child’s vocabulary at age three. That is why we will use £5 million to trial evidence-based home learning environment support programmes in the North of England, focusing on early language and literacy.

    We firmly believe that these new actions are decisive steps towards equipping children to reach their potential.

    On 14 September, the Department for Education published the Government’s response to the public consultation on primary assessment in England.

    The consultation asked how we could make the Early Learning Goals better as a measure of child development and school readiness. It showed that we need to improve the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile, for example by revising the Early Learning Goals to make them clearer and more closely aligned with teaching in Key Stage 1.

    Thank you to those of you responded to our consultation. Our response as a whole confirms our intention to establish a settled, trusted primary assessment system for the long term.

    We’ll be working closely with schools and early years experts as we implement changes to the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile.

    This will take time – to ensure that we get it right – and we expect any changes to be rolled out nationally in the 2020 to 2021 academic year.

    The Government response also set out plans for a new baseline to be developed as a statutory assessment, ready for introduction in reception by autumn 2020. The prime focus of the assessment will be on skills which can be reliably assessed and which correlate with attainment in English and mathematics at the end of Key Stage 2, and we’ll continue to discuss the detail of the assessment with a wide range of stakeholders as we develop the assessment.

    Finally, I’d like to mention maintained nursery schools. They support some of the most disadvantaged children as well as often providing system leadership – leading on sharing of expertise and developing quality. That’s why, soon after I took on this role, I visited the exemplary Alice Model Nursery School in Tower Hamlets and saw the fantastic work that they’re doing, offering high quality early years education and care.

    We’re committed to supporting maintained nursery schools, and have provided local authorities with supplementary funding of around £60 million a year to enable them to maintain their current levels of funding until 2019-20.

    This will give them stability while we work closely with the sector and others, including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Nursery Schools and Nursery Classes, to develop our plans for the long term. I’m determined to address our shared interests and find the best way forward for maintained nursery schools.

    To conclude, I am very clear that the early years is a critical time that influences outcomes for both children and their families. We have achieved a huge amount, but there is still a lot more to do, particularly to close that attainment gap. And we can’t do it without you – without the expertise and experience assembled in this room and in nurseries, childminders’ homes, schools, local authorities and parents throughout the country.

    I want to thank you for your help in delivering the changes we have made in recent years, and for your support for the changes to come. Together we can continue to improve the early years system to make sure that every child improves their life chances and has real opportunities to realise their potential. Thank you very much indeed.

  • Sir John Major – 2017 Speech on the Responsibilities of Democracy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major in Westminster Abbey on 6 November 2017.

    As a boy, in the 1950s, encouraged by close friends, I cut my teeth as a public speaker on a soapbox – across the river in Brixton Market.

    In those early days none of my friends would have imagined that – one day – my soapbox would be upgraded to a lectern in this beautiful and historic Abbey.

    I doubt that I imparted much wisdom from my Brixton soapbox, but I did learn about people. No-one barracked. No-one told me – as surely they could have done – to go away and come back when I knew something about … well, anything.

    Even in a crowded and busy market, some took time to stop and listen or question. No-one seemed to resent me or my views. No-one was hostile, although many must have disagreed with what I said.

    Today – as politics has become more rancorous – I have often thought back to that time, and wondered how we lost that tolerance of opposing views.

    Certainly, tolerance was missing from the EU Referendum Campaign, when honest and thoughtful political debate was abandoned in favour of exaggeration, half-truths and untruths. No-one seemed ashamed or embarrassed by this.

    Indeed, some revelled in it, which suggests that mendacity is acceptable if it panders to a popular prejudice. Then, it is sanctioned by many who know it to be untrue, and welcomed by others whose prejudices are supported by it. And, if delivered with wit and panache, it may even be believed.

    Some of the media reported what was said – even when they must have known it to be improbable (at best) or untrue (at worst). In this way, the Referendum showcased a deterioration in both the conduct and reporting of our politics.

    There will be those who think that my subject, “the Responsibilities of Democracy” is inappropriate for Westminster Abbey – that it is a secular concern, and that the arts and practice of democratic politics are far removed from the higher concerns of the Church.

    They are wrong – as wrong, or misguided, as those who argue that the Church should stay out of politics: it should not. Both Church and State care for the wellbeing of people, and if one institution is failing them, the other has a duty to say so. Two-way constructive criticism, if conducted civilly, is healthy – and no-one should shrink from it.

    In years gone by, the Church was criticised as “The Tory Party at Prayer”. Today, it is often told it is too Left-wing. I doubt the first was ever true; and the charge of Left-wing bias is trotted out whenever the Church talks about poverty.

    But the Church should talk of poverty. So should we all. Poverty is not the sole preserve of the Left. Conservatives from Wilberforce to David Cameron – who made overseas aid to the very poorest a signature policy – have focused upon poverty.

    On occasions such as this there are two kinds of Lecture. One is uplifting and intellectual. It enlivens the conscience and leaves us pondering the higher purpose of Man.

    My purpose is more prosaic. It is to provoke thought about democracy – both generally and in our own country. Democracy is very precious but – how is it performing in a new world that is changing at bewildering speed? Is it doing its job? Is it at risk? Where is it failing? What is its future?

    In many countries, I see a distaste for politics that runs deep. That is a danger to democracy. So, inevitably, my theme – in part – is a cry for action where there is none; and of warning where there is peril.

    What is democracy? It is surely more than electing a government through a universal franchise. Elections are an expression of democracy, but the ballot box alone is insufficient.

    President Putin wins elections – is Russia a democracy? No – it is not. Is Turkey? Is Egypt? Even on the narrowest and meanest of definitions the answer is – No. Nor are many other countries that hold elections hold elections – sometimes rigged – but, voting apart, have few of the attributes of a genuine democracy.

    My worry is that democracy is in retreat; stifled by its own virtues. Democracy operates on consent. That being so, it is slower to make decisions than autocracy or outright dictatorship. Democracy must cajole. Must persuade. Must seek consensus. Not so autocracy.

    This can make autocracy seem more efficient than democracy, more decisive, more able to deliver its promises, more swift to act in crises. The rise of non-democratic China to economic super-stardom is one of the great stories of history, but there is a price to pay for her success.

    The price is a lack of personal freedom for the masses.

    For now, countless millions of Chinese are grateful for that economic improvement. But human nature suggests that as their individual wellbeing grows, they will demand greater personal liberty. If that happens, autocracy must yield – or repress. This choice lies ahead for many countries.

    At the heart of true democracy is liberty under the law. Democratic government must be freely elected for a fixed period in a universal franchise, untainted by coercion.

    There must be checks and balances to its authority. The rule of law must apply. The judiciary must be independent, and there must be a free media, an independent academia, and a functioning Opposition free to oppose without sanctions. Only then can freedom of speech and action be protected.

    But these attributes are merely the trappings of democracy. Democracy in action is more than satisfying the material demands of the majority, or honouring the promises of an election manifesto.

    Democratic government must govern for the future as well as the present. A Governing Party must govern for political opponents who did not vote for them – and may never do so.

    It must govern for the unborn, and the country they will inherit. For minorities. For the wider international community. And all Governments have a responsibility to themselves for the manner in which they govern.

    One has only to set out these responsibilities to see that no Government, perhaps ever, has met this ideal – Government by men and women, not saints, is an imperfect vehicle for perfection. But that does not mean their imperfections should be ignored or accepted.

    Yet, today, they often are, as a disillusioned, disinterested, preoccupied or – in some cases, a cowed or misled – electorate shrug their shoulders and turn away.

    In such a climate, democracy faces a threat from the rise of nationalism. This is not theoretical: in many countries that is a reality. In others, a clear and present danger.

    *******

    In the democratic West, we have come to believe that our liberal, social and economic model of democracy is unchallengeable. It is not. Last year – as the United Nations has reported – 67 countries suffered a decline in political and civil liberties while only 36 had gains. What has happened there can happen elsewhere.

    Over 20 democracies have collapsed during the last two decades, and there is widespread public dissatisfaction in many others.

    Across Europe, nationalism has gained more than a foothold. It begins with a populism that masquerades as patriotism, but morphs into something far less attractive.

    In many countries, nationalist parties have significant support. They can attract true patriots – but are also a political vehicle for those who flavour that patriotism with xenophobia.

    Nationalism is authoritarian. It turns easily towards autocracy or – at worst – outright dictatorship. Nationalists hide their threat under an exaggerated love of country, an unthinking patriotism: “my country, right or wrong”. Its leaders view other countries – and sometimes other races – as inferior.

    Nationalism is suspicious of foreigners. It accuses immigrants of “stealing jobs” or, in some other way, undermining the indigenous population. This has been so for hundreds of years: it is often wrong, and – let it be said in this House of God – un-Christian.

    There is a great difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism is more than pride in country. A mature patriotism concerns itself with the condition of the People, as well as the prestige of the Country. Such a patriotism worries about deprivation, opportunity and incentive.

    It asks itself: how can we spread our wealth and opportunity more evenly around our country? And it is as concerned with the growth of food banks as it is with a shortage of aircraft carriers.

    I now fear for these broad, socially liberal attitudes.

    The financial crisis – less security, low or no growth, and rising taxes – has created public dissatisfaction with the old, albeit fallible, politics. Anger about its shortcomings replaces cool, dispassionate judgement. Despair gives a credibility to promises of easy solutions when – in truth – there are none.

    Our social and economic liberalism may be fallible but it is not some mish-mash of woolly headed do-gooders. It protects individual liberties and human rights. It promotes market freedoms, ownership of property, and freedom of movement.

    We dare not take these familiar values for granted. We need to celebrate them, protect them and practice them: Politics must not become a playground for demagogues.

    *******

    Capitalism and free trade are the bulwark of democracy. They have lifted millions of the poorest people in the world out of poverty. As trade has grown, wealth has grown, literacy has risen, and fatal diseases have been eradicated.

    But free trade is under attack.

    When growth was buoyant, all was well. But, after the financial crash of 2007/8, many workers see global trade as a threat. So do companies exposed to foreign competition.

    There are problems that must be dealt with. Globalisation has distributed its gains unevenly.

    Individuals have gained wealth that Croesus would have envied.

    Global companies have driven out competitors, and become mega-rich.

    But, to protect itself, capitalism must be ethical. If it is not, then opposition to it will grow. Business must confront malpractice and eliminate it.

    Capitalism must reform itself – or Government must make it do so.

    “Anything Goes” capitalism is not acceptable: it can only damage free trade and open markets, and encourage protectionism, less trade, slower growth and greater poverty. If that happens, everyone loses. But those with least will lose most.

    *******

    Our British democracy is seen as honest, not corrupt; and free, not repressive. Our legal system is widely admired and respected. Our elections are acknowledged as fair, not fixed; and Governments leave and enter Office without violence – and within a few days.

    Our Parliament has been a democratic model. As a nation, we can – and should – be proud of all this, and I am … but …I will come to the “buts” in a moment ….

    First, let me say, I’m not among that minority of Britons who disparage our country and side with our critics. I am, and always will be, proud to be British.

    However, having seen our democracy at work – over many years – from the inside, and for the past sixteen as a reasonably informed outsider, not all is as it could be – or should be. We can do better.

    Our present Parliament faces an extraordinary range of complex problems. Brexit – an historic blunder in my own view, although it is not my theme for this evening – will consume the time of this Parliament, and crowd out domestic issues that are crying out for action.

    It would be better were Parliament free to focus its attention on health, social care, housing, education and transport.

    But until Brexit has been resolved – which may take years – few, if any, of these subjects will get the attention they deserve.

    Nor will constitutional issues over Scotland and Northern Ireland; or the social problems of income disparity and the North/South divide – which surely cannot be permitted to continue as it is. All of these – each vital to the future wellbeing of our country – will be secondary to the fallout from last year’s Referendum.

    Let me now turn to that list of “buts”.

    *******

    To cynics, the words “service” and “duty” are old-fashioned, yet they are virtues that deserve praise, not scorn. Our Public Service embodies them.

    The Civil Service is a fundamental engine of our democracy. It has an historic memory, which protects against the errors of the past. It is politically independent. It brings balance to our system of government. And yet, in the last 20 years, it has been undermined by its own masters.

    When things have gone wrong, a small number of Ministers – against all past practice – have blamed the Civil Service for the failure – and not themselves. Political advisers have undermined civil servants and usurped their role. The Freedom of Information Act has hampered the dispassionate advice offered to Ministers.

    Ministers may decide policy, but the Civil Service must deliver it. To do so, it trawls for ideas; delves deep into potential pitfalls; advises; cautions; and prepares legislation.

    It is in our national interest that public service should remain a career that attracts some of the very best brains in our country. We should value it, not disparage it.

    I hope Government will rethink recent practice on special advisers.

    Ministers have a right to non-Civil Service advice. But, as advisers are paid from the public purse, they should be men and women of experience and ability. Many are – but not all. Their role needs redefining. Good special advisers, with expertise and political nous, can make for better government and better liaison with the civil service.

    But, over the years, a handful of advisers have acquired unjustified power that has been misused. At times they have driven wedges between Ministers and their civil servants. Some have been used as attack dogs – on both their political opponents and their colleagues. The culprits were often protected by their Ministers, when they should have been dismissed without ceremony.

    Some advisers – with intellect but little judgement – are easy prey for the media. They are flattered, wined and dined; and the naïve among them talk unguardedly, whilst the more unscrupulous leak stories that create feuds between senior Ministers, and complicate policy.

    Any special advisers that behave in this fashion should go: a “one leak and you’re out” policy would be a worthwhile discipline for the Prime Minister to institute across all Government departments.

    *******

    It is a strength of our democracy that debate on policy is fierce. That is as it should be: policy affects people’s lives. Passions can rise – and sometimes it is right for them to do so.

    But policy disagreement is not only across the floor of Parliament. Too often, members of the same Party are seen as opponents: not “one of us”, to echo an unfortunate phrase from the 1980s, and this leads to rival camps being formed.

    These factions – opposing wings of the same Party – fight one another more vigorously than they do their opponents. This is potentially destructive to the Party system, which is the main operating structure of our democracy. The old political adage: “My opponents are opposite – my enemies are behind”, is currently apt for both our main Parties.

    There is a reason for this. The anti-European Right wish to control the Conservative Party: the neo-Marxist Left wish to dominate Labour. Both are making headway in a battle for the soul of their respective Parties.

    These ideological battles have dangers for our democracy. The rebellious radicals of Right and Left argue for partisan policies that appeal to the extremes of their Party base. As they do so, political divisions widen, consensus shrinks, and a minority of the Party begins to manipulate the majority.

    This is dangerous territory. The malcontents should remember that, without some give-or-take, without some effort at consensus, our tolerant Party system can become ungovernable. In politics, as in life, consensus is wise, not weak; and tolerance is a virtue, not a failing.

    If fringes begin to dominate a political Party, the middle ground of their support will turn away in disgust, as the shrillest voices and the most extreme views begin to dominate debate.

    Where that risk arises, democrats should worry. Indeed, they should do more than worry: they should fight back.

    *******

    Politics has always been a tough trade. It arouses strong feelings, and plain speaking which – sometimes – can turn into abuse. The hard-boiled professional would say: “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

    Well, maybe …. but the language and tone of politics matters. It can enthuse or repel. Excite or deflate. Uplift or cast down. Clarify or confuse. Examine the truth … or ignore it.

    In the 1930s, Oswald Mosley used his oratory to stir up violence. During World War II, Churchill – in Ed Murrow’s memorable phrase – “mobilised the English language and sent it to war”.

    In the 1960s, the Conservative Enoch Powell inflamed opinion on immigration – and the Dockers marched in his support.

    Oratory can change public opinion – for good or ill.

    Today, we need it to explain complex policy in a way that is easily understood.

    It is decades since the popular press fully reported speeches in Parliament. The speeches may have been dry, often dull; but, perhaps by osmosis, policy was understood.

    Today’s media world is more complex. The written press can’t be a public service. It is losing readership and fighting for its very existence. In its struggle for survival, it favours sensation – because that’s what sells newspapers. This entertains – but may not inform.

    Many political stories are spiced up by “informed sources”. This is often self-interested malicious comment, and should be read with many a pinch of salt on the side. It may excite and intrigue, but leaves no-one any wiser.

    Television news is more informative, but not always so. Often, interviews are brief and confrontational, and focussed on securing a headline for the next news bulletin.

    Political news programmes have longer interviews and can be a better source of information but they, too, often slip into confrontation.

    In each of the above charades, the electorate is left confused and uninformed.

    We cannot only blame the media. “Spin” and “soundbite” replaced informed argument with meaningless phrases: Labour’s “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”; and the Conservatives’ “Take Back Control” serve as memorable examples of pitch-perfect absurdity.

    They convey nothing. They explain nothing. And they are worth nothing.

    And they can mislead. I once used the phrase “back to basics” and it was taken up to pervert a thoroughly worthwhile social policy.

    A low point was reached when politicians were offered a daily “form of words” to be trotted out in every interview. This is not only undignified, it is self-defeating. As voters hear our elected representatives uttering puerile slogans instead of explaining policy, it is no wonder if respect for them melts away.

    Slogans and soundbites are a deceit. Electors deserve the truth in plain English, not in fairy tales. When trust in our elected representatives falls, democracy fails.

    There are rare occasions when public interest demands “an economy of the truth”; but, in the main, clarity – and honesty – really is the best policy.

    And by honesty, I mean more than simply straight-talking. I mean honesty in facing up to challenges; honesty in acknowledging fears or dangers; honesty in action; and honesty in admitting the limitations of Government. Honesty can be politically inconvenient, but less so than concealing the truth.

    Honesty commands respect. Slogans do not. Soundbites do not. Spin does not. Honesty is essential in a functioning democracy. It is infuriating to listen to interviews where every question is side-stepped, or answered with obfuscation. Such conduct treats the electorate with contempt – and no-one should be surprised if they return the compliment.

    I don’t wish to be prissy about this by suggesting that there was some past, mythical age in which everything was perfect. There certainly wasn’t. I wasn’t. But politicians can do better to serve the electorate – and they must do so.

    *******

    The essence of our democracy is “One Man, One Vote”. But, except in the ballot box, no democracy offers equal influence to every citizen.

    Anthony Trollope, honoured here in Poets’ Corner, wrote in his biography of Cicero:

    “The power of voting was common to all citizens: but the power of influencing the electors had passed into the hands of the rich.”.

    That was, of course, two millennia ago in Ancient Rome, but the same “power of influencing” lingers on in modern democracies. The very rich, if they assert themselves, may be able to influence government.

    In America, big money perverts the system. The sheer cost of their elections – with most of it spent on advertisements attacking their opponents – is enormous.

    A Member of Congress seeking election every two years is perpetually fundraising. Even if donors ask nothing in return for their generosity, it is likely to be in the mind of the politician as he or she considers policy – and it ought not to be.

    In the UK, money is far less damaging to the system, but still manifests itself through Party funding.

    Party funding is an acute dilemma. All political parties must raise money to campaign, to run their organisations, to pay their staff – and none can hope to fund all this through membership subscriptions alone.

    There are only two ways to fund the balance, and neither is attractive.

    At present, the bulk of funding is by wealthy individuals, business, and the Trades Unions. This is bound to give rise to obligations – whether sought or not by the donor – and is intrinsically unhealthy.

    In my experience, many donors are altruistic and give money simply to support their Party; but others may seek to exact a price. Whether that price is a policy promise; an appointment; or an honour – it is undesirable.

    An alternative is more funding through the public purse. This would be deeply unpopular and I share the general distaste for it. Nonetheless, it may be the least bad option.

    A compromise might be more State funding than at present but, in return, a legal limit to donations from individuals or business or Trades Unions. This should be set at a level where no-one could reasonably argue that it influences policy.

    Such a scheme is not perfect. But, on balance, it would be beneficial for our democracy.

    Here tonight, in this magnificent and hallowed place, we are surrounded by the spirits of many historical figures who were elected to represent us.

    Over many centuries. Many generations. Through times of strife and turmoil. Of uncertainty and change. Through times of national crises. Times of celebration. They are commemorated here, for the service they gave to our nation.

    Whatever their political beliefs – they were all elected by the people to serve the people – and it was the people who had the power to dismiss them.

    As a boy, I read what Edmund Burke said:

    “To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider.

    But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience, these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.”

    I agree with that implicitly.

    As that young boy across the river, I would never have believed that the weight of that responsibility would ever fall upon my own shoulders. It was a privilege, but a burden too – as it is for all those who bear it.

    All must ask themselves:

    – Did I do what I believed to be right?

    – Did I speak up – and not be afraid to speak the truth?

    We are blessed to live in this land. But each and every one of us has a responsibility to keep democracy alive and kicking and never stifle free speech or freedom of action if it is within the law.

    Earlier, I spoke of my soapbox in Brixton, and the tolerance that was shown to me in the salad days of my political life – by many who would have quite reasonably taken an opposite view.

    “I do not like what you say” said Voltaire, “but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

    Indeed so. That is the responsibility of democracy.

  • Anne Milton – 2017 Speech on Careers Advice

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anne Milton, the Skills Minister, at the Careers Education and Guidance Summit in London on 7 November 2017.

    I am delighted to be here today.

    It is an opportunity for us to reflect upon the importance of people getting information, advice and guidance that helps them make decisions about their future learning, jobs and training and the role it plays in helping people of all ages to fulfil their potential.

    Everyone in this room is committed to supporting young people and adults across the country to make the most of their talents and pursue a rewarding career. A talk from an inspiring employer that sparks new ideas, a work placement that opens new doors, personal guidance to explore options and develop a career plan. The work that you do is so important in helping people to succeed.

    The importance of careers advice

    Careers advice is the foundation upon which some of our biggest reforms will be built. New T levels will be a gold standard for technical and professional excellence. They are an amazing opportunity for young people to gain the knowledge, skills and behaviours they need to enter skilled employment in a particular occupational area.

    Our apprenticeship reforms are putting employers in control and enabling them to develop their workforces now and for the future. There have been 1.1 million apprenticeship starts since May 2015 and we aim to reach 3 million by 2020.

    This skills revolution is dependent upon people having the best possible advice about the career path they should take. One that makes the most of their talents.

    Careers guidance is central to social mobility. It is about making sure that people from communities in every part of the land can develop the knowledge and confidence they need to progress. And have a clear plan to help them get there.

    Careers Strategy

    I am tremendously grateful for the work that you do. That is why I want to give you a first insight into the Careers Strategy which we will be publishing shortly. I know many of you in this room have been waiting a long time for the Careers Strategy.

    It will be an important document that will set out what Government will do to ensure that everybody has access to the right advice, at the right time. A clear and accessible document, setting out the part we will all play in achieving this vision.

    I am going to talk to you today about the four themes that will shape our Careers Strategy and continue to guide our approach as government works closely with schools, colleges, employers and other organisations to transform the life chances of people across the country.

    Gatsby and Careers Leaders

    First, we need a high-quality careers programme in every school and college. There are some examples of excellent and inspiring provision, but we know that many schools and colleges require more support.

    The Gatsby Charitable Foundation’s excellent report, Good Career Guidance was the result of an 18-month study looking at best practice in the UK and abroad.

    It has resulted in eight Gatsby Benchmarks that define excellence. The benchmarks have had a really positive impact, as many of you have no doubt seen for yourselves.

    Gatsby has been funding a pilot in the North East with 13 school and 3 colleges to look at the impact of putting the benchmarks into practice.

    At the start of the pilot, no school or college fully achieved more than three of the benchmarks and half did not achieve any. Now, two years on, 88% of schools and colleges are achieving 6 to 8 of the benchmarks and three schools are achieving all eight. That is a great success story.

    That is hundreds more young people benefitting from world class careers support to help them achieve their potential. I want many more people to benefit in this way. That is why the Gatsby Benchmarks will be the bedrock of our Careers Strategy. Setting the standard for every school and college to work towards and support announced through the Strategy will be geared towards helping every school and college to achieve the benchmarks.

    To make the Gatsby benchmarks happen in all schools and colleges will require effective leadership. A number of organisations have been looking at models of career leadership. Teach First’s recent report provides an excellent analysis of the skills and attributes required for the role and the steps they suggest we take to embed Careers Leaders in schools and colleges. I have been considering these recommendations carefully for our Careers Strategy

    Encounters with providers and employers

    Second, employers are an integral part of our approach. As Britain prepares to leave the European Union it is crucial to meet the skills needs of our economy, to provide opportunities for people to learn about different jobs and careers and to develop the skills and behaviours needed to thrive in the workplace.

    The Careers & Enterprise Company has made outstanding progress. There are now over 2000 Enterprise Advisers working with over half of the schools and colleges in England providing support to develop a careers programme. They use their networks to help pupils get more experiences of the world of work and provide insight into the key skills needed by local businesses.

    The Careers & Enterprise Company has already invested £1million in the first 6 Opportunity Areas and we will be allocating a further £1million to support the second wave of Opportunity Areas. The investment will deliver activities such as career learning, enterprise activities or careers talks. Every secondary school and college in an Opportunity Area will have an Enterprise Adviser and every student aged 11-18 in these areas will have access to at least four inspiring encounters with the world of work. This will focus support in areas of the country where social mobility is lowest.

    Tailored advice, to meet individual needs

    Third, we want to make sure everyone can benefit from tailored support. Personal guidance from a qualified adviser can have a real impact. I know that the careers profession has experienced many shocks in recent years and that organisations such as Careers England and the Career Development Institute are working tirelessly to raise the profile and status of the profession.

    I very much welcome the CDI’s register which we want schools, colleges and others to use to find a professional who can guide their pupils and students. The National Careers Service is also doing great work to help adults. Last year, more than 50% of adults seen by the National Careers Service moved onto an accredited training course or into employment.

    We have already extended the National Careers Service contracts until September 2018 so this good work can continue. Last week, we announced a new Flexible Learning Fund to support projects that deliver learning in a way that is flexible and easy to access, especially for adults who are in work, or returning to work, and have low or intermediate level skills.

    Data

    Fourth, we want to make the most of the rich sources of information about jobs and careers that exist. We know that there is a vast array of information and data available which has extraordinary potential to help people make informed decisions on the education, training and employment options available to them.

    Yet it is also true that these information sources can be difficult to navigate and those who could most benefit from them are sometimes unable to.

    More people now use data about the destinations of students when considering their options for jobs and training. The government already publishes this data on students’ destinations, but we recognise that more needs to be done to make the data easier to interpret.

    If we are to harness the potential of this data in a way that supports social mobility we need to ensure that everyone is able access and understand this information, including those who are not digitally confident.

    These four priorities will form the bedrock of the Careers Strategy. I know you are eagerly anticipating it being published soon and I am absolutely committed to getting this right because it is so important for the future success of this country.

    Thank you.

  • Amanda Spielman – 2017 Speech at Nursery World Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of OFSTED, on 8 November 2017.

    Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me here to speak you today.

    It’s great to be part of such a rich programme of speakers and discussions. You certainly pack a lot into a day. Apprenticeships, Brexit, workforce strategies – all before lunch – that’s some work ethic.

    When I took on the role of Chief Inspector, I was clear that every part of our work was of equal importance. I made a commitment to myself, and others, that I would engage with every aspect of our broad remit.

    In particular, I wanted to get a better understanding of the issues affecting early years. After all, you are responsible for the crucial first stage of a child’s development. I am grateful, therefore, to the nurseries that welcomed me as a visitor during my early months in post and the time the leaders in your field took in getting me up to speed.

    So thank you to all of you, particularly members of our National Consultative Forum, for your efforts in educating me. And of course a tribute to Ofsted’s own Gill Jones, our early years supremo, and her team who have helped me immeasurably.

    One of the clearest messages I took away from those early discussions was the importance of the honest dialogue, from both sides, that exists between Ofsted and the sector. Through the work of our consultative forum, grassroots initiatives like the ‘Ofsted Big Conversation’ and the myriad of events like these, it is clearly ‘good to talk’. I know that countless issues have been raised and resolved as a result of these efforts, from concerns about complaint-driven inspections to consistency of inspections. Long may the dialogue continue.

    And in that spirit of openness, I wanted to share with you a bit of my story and what brought me to the post of Chief Inspector. My early career was spent in business and finance, but after 15 years, and having children, I realised that education was my real passion. So I took the plunge and did a Masters in comparative education, and a year or two later got involved in the Ark academy chain, just as it was starting out. A chain, incidentally, that built in primary education from the very beginning.

    The work at Ark was very much focused on turning around tough schools. It was about making sure that children who had been getting a raw deal started to receive a proper education. The education they deserved. The experience of Ark’s primary schools demonstrated first-hand how a solid early education sets young people up for life.

    After Ark, I spent five years at Ofqual, steeped in the reform of assessment and qualifications. And then at the start of this year, I joined Ofsted as Chief Inspector.

    And it has been an incredibly rewarding year so far.

    Ofsted turned 25 this autumn. And although the educational, political and economic landscape is now very different, our mission to raise standards in education and care remains unchanged. Because, despite momentous social and cultural shifts, our work to improve children’s lives is as important today as it was quarter of a century ago.

    As you would expect, much has changed in Ofsted since 1992. Today, we are more focused on what works and far more engaged with all of the sectors we inspect.

    As part of our continuing evolution, at the end of September we published our new corporate strategy, which will guide every area of our work, including early years, until 2022.

    The strategy centres on one fundamental principle: that Ofsted will be ‘a force for improvement through intelligent, responsible and focused inspection and regulation’.

    Being intelligent: that means that our work will be evidence-led, and our judgements will be valid and reliable.

    Being responsible: that means our findings will be clear and accessible, and we will be fair in our expectations of others.

    And being focused: that means our time and resources will be targeted, as far as possible, where they can lead directly to improvement.

    And just like you, we will always put children first.

    I appreciate that talk of ‘corporate strategies’ and ‘fundamental principles’ might seem a bit removed from your daily concerns. You may well ask: ‘all very nice but what does it mean for me and my nursery business?’

    Perhaps I can unpick it a bit for you by relating it to the work we are doing specifically in your area.

    Intelligent

    So starting with intelligent.

    For inspection to be intelligent, it must be led by a professional, highly skilled and well-trained workforce. With our early years inspectors back in house, we are in a better position to ensure the quality of training and support given to our teams. As these teams move into our established regional structures, I am confident that we will see further benefits through the sharing of insight and intelligence with colleagues from schools and social care.

    We will also be using inspection evidence to offer perspective and insight to those we inspect. That doesn’t mean ‘how to’ manuals, but it does mean making the most of our bird’s eye view of the totality of children’s experience in education to help lead improvements right from early years to college. We will publish more research on what we learn about what works so that we can help others to improve.

    Responsible

    Then being responsible. I am, of course, intensely aware of the impact of Ofsted judgments. We must use our power responsibly. In your industry, perhaps more than any other area, a poor judgement can have significant financial consequences. There can be big impacts on funding and the ability to even continue in business.

    Now, as you would expect, I will reiterate that first and foremost our concerns are for the education and welfare of children. We will always report honestly on provision that is not good enough. But our responsibility to you is to make sure that our expectations of you are clear. That they are not constantly changing. And that you have fair recourse when you believe something has gone wrong during an inspection.

    That’s why we recently expanded our successful myth-busting campaign into the early years sector. And why we will carry on being open about any future changes we plan to make to inspection. It is also why I have committed to there being no major changes to the common inspection framework until 2019, so that you can have certainty about what is coming and when. When I say ‘major’, I don’t mean to sound weasely, but simply need to acknowledge that sometimes changes are needed to make sure things are clear or because of new legislation.

    Our duty to act responsibly also lies behind a major revamp of our online registration and payment systems. I know that our current systems aren’t good enough. I appreciate that time and effort of your staff spent on working through these clunky and sometimes impenetrable systems is time away from children. That simply isn’t good enough. That’s why we are investing in a major overhaul.

    The project is only part way through, but I am confident that when complete, your experience will be transformed.

    It is only by learning what you need that we can design a service that is right for you. So we are testing and refining the service as we go, with input from the sector at each stage, to make sure that working with Ofsted and completing tasks online is simpler, clearer and faster.

    Focused

    And thirdly, being focused. Like all public sector organisations, Ofsted faces the challenge of doing more with less.

    This challenge can be met, in part, through greater efficiency but we also have to be honest and realistic about the choices we face about how we target inspection. We have to ask ourselves how finite resources can be put to best use.

    This isn’t just about deciding which nurseries and childminders we prioritise for inspection. It means working out how our models should evolve to match the changes taking place in the sector. As with the growth of multi-academy trusts in the school space, with the trend towards chain operators of nurseries I want to be sure that inspection properly reflects how things work. That it allows us to get the best assurance about young people’s education and well-being, at minimum burden to providers.

    So, over the next year we will be developing our conversation with you about how we can improve our regulation and inspection. And we will use your knowledge and insight to focus our inspections where they will have the most impact. Indeed, that conversation has already started.

    Making sure our work is focused is not just about who we inspect and when. It also means thinking about what we look at during inspection and where the role of an inspector has the biggest impact. We need to ask: what are the elements of provision that are genuinely best explored through inspection?

    As we work towards a new inspection framework for 2019, there are a number of areas that we are reflecting on.

    Risk

    One of these is risk. Earlier this year, I wrote about the importance of achieving the right balance when it comes to keeping children safe. That we must be careful not to deprive children of fulfilling educational experiences for fear of ‘what if’.

    For those of you who saw the piece in the news, I had more feedback, and it’s been positive feedback, about this than anything else I’ve said or written before or since. It is clearly a debate that generates significant interest and passion. I believe it is debate that is just as relevant to the early years as any other part of the education world.

    The welfare and safety of children, of course, are at the very core of all early years provision. For parents, handing over their precious child into the care of strangers is a hugely emotional act. We should never underestimate the level of trust those parents are placing in childcare providers. First and foremost, parents want to be sure that you can keep their child safe from harm.

    And of course you must be able to assure them of that. But my concern is that in doing so, and through the best of intentions, we are creating overly risk-free environments. Young children do need to have the opportunity to explore the world around them, to develop their physical skills or even sometimes just to run around until they are exhausted.

    I am acutely aware that Ofsted hasn’t haven’t always got this right in the past. I want to be sure that our inspections and our inspectors aren’t driving any of the risk-averse behaviour.

    So please understand that of course we expect you to take risk seriously and supervise young children properly. But we don’t expect you to take away the climbing frame in case someone falls or avoid journeys to the park for fear of crossing the road. It goes without saying that children need physical exercise to develop their muscular strength and dexterity but it is also important that their natural instincts to discover and explore aren’t stifled. This is, after all, one of the ways they learn.

    Many of you are already striving to get this balance right. Happily, from what I observe, trends in the sector are also in the right direction. Indeed, I see one of your workshops this afternoon features forest nurseries. I know at least one of my children would have loved to spend their early childhood at one of those!

    In the next few weeks, our inspectors will be doing some refresher training on how we look at safeguarding. And I do expect future inspection frameworks to be more explicit about the balance between risk and safety, always keeping in mind the requirements of the EYFS [Early Years Foundation Stage]. In the short term, we will be continuing our myth-busting campaign to make clear what we look at during an inspection and how we reach our judgements.

    Speaking of myths, there is one that may be helpful for me to debunk right here, also in the spirit of being clear about what inspection does and does not focus on.

    On my travels, I have had a lot of discussions about snack time and what Ofsted expects to see. I believe there are such things as ‘rolling snacks’, ‘self-serve snacks’, ‘free-flow snacks’, ‘continuous snacks’, ‘communal snacks’ – I could go on.

    At first, I was perplexed. Why should the way a nursery organises its snack time be so important to Ofsted? Then I discovered that advice from various sources recommends the sort of snack that Ofsted prefers. That might have been born of a well-intended comment from one inspector to a single setting at some point, but it seems to have escalated into an enormous and pervasive myth.

    So I will say here, inspectors do not expect to see any particular way of organising snacks. Communal snacks may be a useful way to introduce children to good table manners and help them to learn courtesy words, such as please and thank you.

    But it is really a decision for you as providers to make. If children have other opportunities to pour water in play time, then self-service pouring is less important, and vice-versa. Ofsted is more interested in why you choose activities and the effect that they have on children’s development.

    Something else that I’d like to be clear on are my comments to the Education Select Committee last week. As you may be aware, I gave the view to the committee that the quality of care in early years was very good but that of education not quite as good. I certainly was not intending to trash an entire sector, which might be the impression left from some of the follow-up coverage. I also made the point that, in my view, the problem lies, in part, with the EYFS. In the next few weeks, we will be publishing research on this issue which I hope you will find of interest.

    Language development/the vital role of nurseries

    This brings me to the final point I would like to raise today. There is a very important discussion to be had about the role of nurseries and childminders in preparing children for school.

    The curriculum (or, to use EYFS terminology, the programme) that children experience in their early years is vital in this task. We know that young children are especially receptive between birth and age 5, when their brains develop at the fastest speed and they learn more rapidly than at any other age.

    This means that the choices we make for very young children about the play things we provide, the games we play, the words we use, the stories we read and the songs we sing are all hugely important. I know that many of you here will have given the curriculum and the way you provide it much thought and I encourage you to do so.

    I imagine most of you in the room today could stand with me now to recite ‘Sing a song of sixpence’ or ‘The grand old Duke of York’. But I don’t know that we can say that is still the case for children in lots of nurseries today.

    That is a shame, because of the other great joy of nursery rhymes. They are a unifier. Providing a collective memory and experience for young children across the country. And often teaching a little bit of social history to boot. Which is why I would hope that every nursery and childminder would find the time for a nursery rhyme.

    Nursery rhymes also help with vocabulary and we all know the huge value in helping young children develop their language skills. Put simply, the more words a child has heard by the time they start school the better. You have such an important job here, particularly to fill the gaps for those children who might not be exposed to the same range of vocabulary at home.

    Children need to hear new language all the time. It might be taking the opportunity with a child looking at a pretty flower to talk to them about all the different parts of the plant. Or being more basic, talking to them while washing their hands, making suds from the soap, turning on the tap, running the water, oh dear too fast, too slow… I could go on because everything we do with children is an opportunity to introduce them to more words. Children are so open to absorbing new language. I remember when my younger daughter was 4, she had an Australian Reception teacher. I would often hear his voice in what she said – I must confess I wasn’t always thrilled about it!

    So please don’t be afraid to teach them things. And before I get shouted down by the ‘save our childhood’ brigade, of course I don’t mean long lists on blackboards in formal lessons. I mean passing on new words, ideas and skills. Encouraging curiosity and rewarding inquisitiveness. Everything that helps a young child develop and be ready for school.

    Conclusion

    I know every one of you in this room shares the same ambitions that we all have at Ofsted. We all want the very best for young children across the country.

    At Ofsted, we want to give you the space to do the right things. And we certainly don’t want to waste our time and yours inspecting the wrong things. We are on a journey of change, much as you are as you adapt to the new 30-hours programme. There will always be room for all of us to improve, Ofsted included. I hope we can be on that improvement journey together.

  • David Lidington – 2017 Speech on Parole Board 50th Anniversary

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, on 6 November 2017.

    I think that the Butler Trust has marshalled a star-studded turnout. It’s right that after 50 years we should show our appreciation of the Board’s important work and its strong and inspiring leadership. I want to congratulate both Nick Hardwick and Martin Jones for getting this vital body into good shape as it enters its sixth decade. I think that the Board today is energetic, it’s faster-moving, it’s toned and conditioned. If you like, it’s following the regime that a doctor would wish every fifty year old would undertake.

    Now before I go any further, I know you heard this morning from Mark Johnson about his experience of prisons and probation. And I wanted to start by sharing with you the thoughts of a ‘lifer’ who was talking about the impact on him of a Parole Board oral hearing.

    He said this, he said: ‘I think it’s important that every lifer be given the opportunity to speak to the people that make decisions on their life… A bit of paper is flat and emotionless and expressionless. It’s open to interpretation and anyone can read what’s said, but when I’m here and I’m talking and I’m responding to what you’re saying and if you have any doubt you can question me on that doubt – that is the benefit. ‘

    It also…made me feel a lot better about me, that at least I’ve gone in there and I’ve put my point of view across…And these people now have something more to contend with than a dead bit of paper…it was satisfying in that respect.’

    Now, as is the case with all ‘lifers’, this man had no chance of being freed until the Parole Board had assessed the risk that he posed to the public. The Board’s work is pivotal to the future of offenders and to the wider criminal justice system. It supports the government’s priorities to protect the public and prevent there being more victims, while supporting prison reform by encouraging offenders to turn over a new leaf in the hope of a move to open conditions or release.

    And the Board has made great strides of late, listing more cases each month and bringing down the backlog faster than predicted. I also welcome in particular the additional focus on IPP prisoners, five hundred and seventy-six of whom were released last year – that’s the highest annual figure since IPP sentences were introduced in 2005. HMPPS has been working closely with the Parole Board to help speed up progress, and it’s encouraging to see that release rate at 46 per cent, up from 28 per cent just five years ago.

    Measured, meticulous, public-spirited

    I suppose that if you wanted to characterise the work of the Parole Board it’s a reverse detective investigation, raking through evidence for clues to whether a crime will be committed in the future. And it’s little wonder the Board’s decisions come under public scrutiny. There is a tension inherent in every decision: balancing the need to be cautious with the need to be fair; protecting society while honouring the competing rights of offenders. Those rights are enshrined in the word ‘parole’, which of course comes from the French ‘parol’, or ‘word of honour’. In the 19th century it referred to a prisoner of war’s pledge not to take up arms again in the same conflict, once released. These days the Board has more to go on than just a prisoner’s statement that he will be good to his word.

    Its judges, psychiatrists, psychologists, probation officers and independent members deliberate upon offenders’ behaviour, past and present, to look in to the future. They are not doing so as soothsayers peering at the entrails of a chicken, but with measured, meticulous and forensic care – while recognising at the same time that risk assessment can never by its very nature be an exact science … that there cannot be a crystal ball. When new members sign up, as more than one hundred public-spirited people did last year alone, it’s in the knowledge they will be called upon to make complex judgments that few of us are equipped for or would feel able to make. And for all that those Members do, for their humanity and courage, I salute them and thank them.

    Remembering the early days

    There are now around two hundred and seventy Parole Board members. At the beginning, in 1967, there were just seventeen. In those days they almost never saw an actual prisoner. They made paper-based recommendations for the most part. But change was coming. In a way, the Sixties marked the end of a more innocent era: the crimes that we remember from that time were high-profile and notorious. The Great Train Robbery. The ‘Moors Murderers’, the East End gangster twins Ronnie and Reggie Kray. The perpetrators of those crimes spent decades making multiple parole bids. Each was carefully and properly scrutinised.

    To no one’s great surprise, successive applications were turned down.

    Which are the factors likely to sway the Parole Board towards release? Well, they are factors that happen to chime with our reform goals – qualities that contribute to prisons becoming safer and more purposeful; more likely to support rehabilitation and cut reoffending. A co-operative attitude in custody, coupled with a realistic release plan that involves good support – including positive family contact. A willingness to take responsibility for the original crime, to accept the punishment and to move on. The completion of behaviour courses and health treatment, an appetite for the kind of training that leads to qualifications and work. Staying away from drugs, and not committing serious breaches of discipline.

    Looking ahead, I see the Parole Board playing an ever-more important part in prison reform. It can help create capacity in the estate by ensuring that prisoners suitable for release are not marooned behind bars by delayed hearings (and I should say quickly that I’m conscious too that a smooth-running system depends equally on HMPPS playing its part in making sure that the Board has available to it, at the right time, appropriate evidence of an offender’s progress, and I am determined to make sure that we do our bit to enable the board to do its job more effectively and swiftly.

    The Parole Board’s work can reassure offenders that good behaviour will be recognised, incentivising them for their part to embrace learning and training. It can encourage offenders, particularly IPP prisoners, that they can make progress, and not stay in custody for any longer than Parliament or the courts intended. I would add that as we go forward to the next 50 years, I would like to see the Parole Board’s membership more closely reflect today’s society – an argument I use also about the judiciary, which must hold up a mirror to the people who pass through our courts. And I know that both Nick and Martin share my own desire to increase in particular the number of black and other ethnic minority representatives on the Parole Board – that will help to ensure that it draws members from the widest possible pool of talent, and help maintain public confidence in the system.

    The importance of working together

    Now, while always respecting the judicial independence of the Parole Board, I see its relationship with the MOJ as one of close partners. Few would deny that both the prison and parole system face considerable challenges in the year ahead. Prisons absorb some of the most troubled people in society. There is still too much violence and self-harm in our jails. The abuse of new psychoactive substances has made many offenders more aggressive and prone to sudden mood swings. Growing gang violence in cities is spreading to wings and landings as the police and the courts find and sentence to custody those responsible for gang violence. And of course, reoffending remains stubbornly too high.

    I don’t believe – even after just four months doing this job – that there is a single solution, no magic bullet to bring about an answer to those challenge, so that is why we are working on so many fronts. Beyond improving the performance of both prisons and probation services, we are co-operating more effectively with important bodies that have contact with offenders. And contact also with people who we recognise as likely to commit the kind of crime that typically leads to a spell in custody. The hope being, of course, that we can divert them before it’s too late. And to that end, we are collaborating with colleagues from the Departments of Health, and Work and Pensions, with NHS Trusts, employers, training providers and not least the many hundreds of invaluable third sector organisations and charities focused on offender reform.

    And I believe we can do much more through that kind of partnership in the months and years ahead. We need a plan that tackles the problems of reoffending at source, recognising that many social problems, such as addictions, unemployment and homelessness, affect their lives long before offenders are ever sentenced. Let me share with you two other striking statistics: firstly, that less than one per cent of all requirements started under a community or suspended sentence order are Mental Health requirements.

    This is a remarkably low figure and I think it’s important that both those of us charged with responsibilities for the criminal justice system and our colleagues with responsibilities for the NHS services and for mental health provision find ways in which to address this problem. The second statistic concerns reoffending and the salutary effects of drug or alcohol treatment programmes in the community. Recently published statistics show that offenders who undergo that kind of community-based drug and alcohol treatment programme are 33 per cent less likely to commit further crimes. We all need to learn from that experience.

    A partnership for reform

    In making prisons safer and calmer, the MOJ and HMPPS are well on the way to recruiting 2,500 more staff by the end of next year. That’s more than 10 per cent of the total number of prison officers, a significant increase, and they will make a difference. They will help to bring about the safer, calmer conditions in which reform can prosper, with prisoners more likely to be taken from their cells to be taught and trained. At the same time, our new offender management model – with one officer responsible for about six prisoners – takes us in the right direction and we must use every possible means to ensure that prisoners attend workshops and classes.

    I am determined too to make sure that HMPPS gives prompt and public responses to issues identified by prison and probation inspectors so that recognised problems do not fester. I would urge everyone here to look out for our new online portal, the Justice Data Hub, where figures on purposeful activity and how long prisoners are spending in cells will be freely available, establishment by establishment. Making this information public is itself a discipline – it makes us more accountable, our work more transparent, and will, I hope, lead to swifter progress on prison performance.

    The quality of probation services, and the level of confidence in the supervision of community sentences, also feed into effective offender management. There are many probation officers doing an incredibly professional job. At the same time, the inspectorate’s report on through-the-gate services made it clear that these are not performing in the way that we had hoped. We are now looking at probation with an eye to improving performance and maintaining the confidence of courts and the public alike.

    Prison should be a last resort. That, after all, is what the law requires. People should go to prison because their crime is so serious that custody is the only punishment that can satisfy justice, or because they would be a threat to public safety if they were in the community. I want to see the prison population come down. Reducing the numbers in prison depends on many things, and not all of those come under the direct control of the MOJ. Parole Board decisions and the performance of probation; access to release on temporary licence; the availability and quality of community-based courses and health treatment all have a bearing. As, of course, do sentencing policy and practice.

    If you look at the pattern of sentencing, the number of people placed in custody for 12 months or less has not changed significantly over the past decade – which rather weakens the argument we often hear that the high levels of the prison population is solely due to more people being sent to jail instead of being given community sentences. Rather, the surge in numbers stems from people serving four years or more, often for violent and drug-related crime, and also those sent to prison for sexual offences – many brought to book long after the event thanks to victims feeling brave enough to come forward. It is very difficult to argue that individuals who have committed that kind of offence deserve a shorter sentence.

    IPP prisoners make up a relatively small part of the prison population but as everyone here knows, many remain in custody long beyond tariff. My feeling on IPP sentencing is that as a policy it was flawed from the start, and it was used far more frequently than was ever intended by the Government of that time and by Parliament.

    We have a duty now to ensure that parole applicants receive their rightful hearings in a timely fashion, that the Board has the resources to carry out a full and proper evaluation, weighing up all the evidence at its disposal, and that offenders are released if they are judged no longer to be a risk to society. Those facing undue delays feel acutely the loss of hope and a growing frustration, and this leads them to harm themselves or others and for their conduct in custody in general to worsen. With IPP prisoners, as with all offenders, our goal should be to give them every chance of living a positive life after custody, because this contributes to a safer society overall. But it is right that the Parole Board, in judging individual cases, should always give priority to the protection of the public.

    And that means that looking forward, the big challenge, the question we need to ask ourselves, is whether there is a way to carry on cutting the numbers of IPP prisoners in custody once what one might term the ‘easier’ cases have been dealt with and there remains to us a harder core of very challenging, complex and frankly very risky cases of people still inside prisons.

    Conclusion

    I want to finish with a brief history lesson. While we’re here to mark fifty years of the Parole Board, in penal terms parole has been around a lot longer. It dates to the 19th century, an era when governments were edging away from the corporal punishment approach in favour of a more enlightened vision of offender reform. It may be a stretch to take national credit for this, but one notable parole pioneer was Alexander Maconochie, the warden of a remote English penal colony on Norfolk Island, a dot in the South Pacific between Australia and New Zealand.

    Norfolk Island was supposed to hold the ‘worst of the worst’ – convicts who’d been transported to Australia and then exiled even further away for committing yet more crimes. Its regular floggings and hangings were designed to deter convicts left on the mainland from any thoughts of rebellion. But Maconochie had a different vision and set about changing things. He developed a ‘mark’ system that rewarded good conduct, hard work and study by offenders – is this starting to sound familiar? Marks earned them privileges, and eventually their release.

    You know what they all say about breaking the mould – that it’s better to be a fast-follower than a pioneer. Maconochie was fired in 1844. But he’d sown the seeds of change and the ideas with which he had experimented were taken up around the world – not least here, where they remain firmly rooted in our approach to criminal justice.

    Although no human institution or system is perfect, I remain proud of our justice system – it’s always led the way and it is admired worldwide. The principles and values that run through it are a mark of the kind of country we are. And while we rightly give priority to public protection and we are not afraid of facing up to the need for punishment, we also place a great value on rehabilitation. The great majority of offenders, all but a handful, will one day return to the community. And it is in the interests of everybody in our society – not least potential victims of the future – that we use the time that we have offenders in custody and under supervision to minimise the chance that they will commit again and to add to the possibility that they can make that transition successfully into law-abiding life where they are actually contributing something positive to the wider society in which they live.

    And it is thanks to our parole system that many do make that contribution and they are able to do so only when the Board is satisfied that the individual offender in front of that Board will not cause further risk to the public if released. That work, that exercise of sensitive and important judgements, is key to prison reform, key to safer communities and key to ensuring that our justice system will remain both effective and fair. I congratulate all who have served on the Parole Board, on what has been achieved over the first fifty years, and I am very confident that there are more successes and more productive work still to come. I look forward to working closely with Nick and other colleagues in taking that work forward in years to come.