UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2016 Speech at Launch of the Chakrabarti Report

    jeremycorbyn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, at the launch of the Chakrabarti Report in London on 30 June 2016.

    The Labour Party is built on the values of solidarity, social justice, equality, internationalism and human rights. That is why I have devoted my life to it, and why nine months ago, I was honoured to be elected leader by over a quarter of a million people. That is, by the way, substantially more than the entire electorate that will have the right to pick the Conservative Prime Minister this Autumn.

    After the tumultuous events of the past week in Britain, including the vote in last week’s referendum to leave the European Union, the need for us to unite around these values, to practice what we preach, and be judged by the highest of standards, is perhaps as great as it has ever been.

    So although I asked Shami Chakrabarti to carry out her inquiry after some disturbing and damaging incidents earlier this year, I believe that its findings and recommendations are of even more importance for our party, country and wider world today.

    Whatever your views on the outcome of the referendum campaign – and two thirds of Labour supporters voted Remain – we need to reflect for a few moments on some of the hateful language used by some of the most prominent participants in it.

    Boris Johnson, current favourite to lead the Tory party, compared Hitler’s murderous tyranny with the European project created from its ashes and questioned Barack Obama’s motives because of his “part-Kenyan heritage”.

    That was no dog whistle. That was a fog horn – a classic racist trope – casting doubt on someone’s motivation because of their race.

    The Justice Secretary Michael Gove compared pro-Remain economists to Nazi collaborators, a startling example of the way in which the Nazi regime and the Holocaust can be minimized, trivialized or even forgotten by ill-judged comparisons.

    And Nigel Farage warned of mass sex attacks should the Remain Campaign win, calling it the “nuclear bomb” of the Brexit campaign. Is it only me who just doesn’t find him funny any more?

    These are hateful comments – no question. They are unworthy of  the millions who voted to Leave, not out of xenophobia or racism, but often as a desperate response – yes to austerity, but also to years of being ignored and left behind by the Westminster elite.

    The people of Britain – and especially the young – need a strong, united, principled and kind Labour Party more than ever. They didn’t crash the banks, heat up the planet or start the wars of the past decade or so. But the risk is that they will have to work harder for longer, quite possibly for less pay, because of what the powerful have done in their name.

    Divide and rule is the oldest trick in the book – whether used by imperial powers abroad or hate-mongers at home. Turn people against each other. Use race or religion or anything else you can find and hope they will be too distracted or consumed to take on the great inequalities of wealth and power in the world.

    For over a hundred years, the Labour Party of Keir Hardie, Ellen Wilkinson and Manny Shinwell has existed to offer working people another way: solidarity instead of division, equality instead of injustice, inclusion instead of isolation, internationalism instead of narrow nationalism, and human rights for all.

    But we cannot do our duty, if we do not look at ourselves as well. Say what you like about me, but I’m no hypocrite. When I look in the mirror, it is less for sartorial elegance than to examine what’s in my own eye before pointing out the specks in others. I urge others in politics to do the same.

    This is why I asked Shami Chakrabarti and her colleagues to take on the vital work of looking into our own Party before we criticise others. That is what she and her team have done. And I’m here today to launch and recommend their work to our Party and to put my weight behind its immediate implementation.

    Under my leadership, the Labour Party will not allow hateful language or debate, in person, online or anywhere else. We will aim to set the gold standard, not just for anti-racism, but for a genuinely welcoming environment for all communities and for the right to disagreement as well.

    Racism is racism is racism. There is no hierarchy – no acceptable form of it. I have always fought it in all its forms and I always will. But while we respond to hate with universal principles we must also remember people’s particular experience, if we are too ensure that not one person feels vulnerable or excluded from their natural political home.

    The Jewish community has made an enormous contribution to our Party and our country – Jewish people have been at the heart of progressive and radical politics in Britain, as elsewhere, for well over a century.

    But they are also a minority amongst minorities and have had good cause to feel vulnerable and even threatened throughout history. This should never happen by accident or design in our Labour Party. Modern antisemitism may not always be about overt violence and persecution, though there is too much of that even to this day. We must also be vigilant against subtler and invidious manifestations of this nasty ancient hatred and avoid slipping into its traps by accident or intent.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe in name calling and I never have. “Zio” is a vile epithet that follows in a long line of earlier such terms that have no place in our Party. Nor should anyone indulge in the kind of stereotyping that can cause such hurt and harm.

    To assume that a Jewish friend or fellow member is wealthy, part of some kind of financial or media conspiracy, or takes a particular position on politics in general, or on Israel and Palestine in particular, is just wrong.

    Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu Government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations. Nor should Muslims be regarded as sexist, antisemitic or otherwise suspect, as has become an ugly Islamophobic norm. We judge people on their individual values and actions, not en masse.

    No one should be expected either to condemn or defend the actions of foreign powers on account of their faith or race. At the same time, we should have the sensitivity to understand how upset many Labour party members and supporters are likely to feel about various human rights abuses around the world.

    Human rights language is so much more accurate and persuasive than the kind of language that was often resorted to in the Brexit debate. That is no doubt acceptable in other places and other parties, but it shouldn’t be here, on my watch, or in our name.

    I will continue – as Labour Leader – to pursue the causes of peace and justice in Israel-Palestine, the wider Middle East and all over the world. But those who claim to do so with hateful or inflammatory language do no service to anyone, especially dispossessed and oppressed people in need of better advocacy.

    Of course we as Labour Party members must all be free to criticise and oppose injustice and abuse wherever we find it. But as today’s Report recommends, can we please leave Hitler and Nazi metaphors alone (especially in the context of Israel). Why? Because the Shoah is still in people’s family experience. If every human rights atrocity is described as a Holocaust, Hitler’s attempted obliteration of the Jewish people is diminished or de-recognised in our history. Other human rights atrocities from African slavery to the killing fields of Cambodia, the Armenian and Rwandan Genocides are all of course to be remembered, but diluting their particularity or comparing degrees of evil does no good.

    Pursuing a more civil discourse does not in any way mean stifling free speech. I for one, will continue to meet, discuss and debate with all-comers in the cause of peace, progress, justice and human rights around the world. Though I acknowledge the need for the Party’s Leader to spread his or her time around a greater range of issues, I do not believe that anyone should be judged for the platforms they share or the human rights causes they take up, as long as they fight hate with every breath.

    And to those who have been afraid of so-called “witch-hunts” by the press in recent months, those who perhaps worry that debate and speech around difficult and important issues risks being shut down in our Party: I commend and endorse the Report’s recommendations about improving natural justice, transparency, consistency and accountability in the conduct of Party discipline.

    But not being racist and not being hateful is not enough for our Party to be the inclusive and vibrant political movement that Britain so sorely needs. If we are to unite and lead our country we must be the most welcoming and empowering place in which our diverse communities can prosper.

    I am very concerned about the Report’s findings on how too many black and minority ethnic members of our party have felt for too long. We must act against long term “special measures” placing local parties under limited democracy. I will also take action with colleagues to seek to improve the representation of black and minority people at every level of staffing and leadership within the Labour Party.

    We will work with our Trade Union affiliates and others to achieve the best programme of activist and leadership education possible. We will talk, read, learn and organise together. We will learn from each other’s personal experiences but also share each other’s considerable campaigning and political skills.

    The last year – with all of its highs and lows – has left me with every confidence that Labour is has the potential to be a powerful and transformatory movement, capable of winning the next General Election (whenever it comes), and many more elections after that.

    But my confidence and optimism are not naive. We all know that despite the overwhelming mandate I was given by Labour party members and supporters last year – we’ve all had a torrid few days.

    Whatever now takes place in our party, politics should be conducted in a decent manner. When I stood for the leadership last summer I called for a kinder, gentler politics, that’s still work in progress.

    Some people may equate “leadership” with nastiness. I disagree. Decency is no disqualification for leadership – in fact it should be a pre-requisite.

    Those loyal to my leadership, and to Labour’s core values, want to pursue the new politics with decency and civility, and see strength and not weakness in living those values.

    I ask Labour people to do as I do. To be kind and respectful to each other and our neighbours, and to be as courteous as we are courageous with our opponents.

    I believe that approach to be closer to the values of the British people than so much of what they have witnessed on the political stage over many recent years.

    I want to express huge thanks to Shami Chakrabarti, David Feldman and Jan Royall, as well as to Deok Joo Rhee and Godric Jolliffe – and all who submitted their views and took part in this comprehensive exercise.

    Britain deserves better – so let’s offer it. Come together as a party and then unite and lead our country through these incredibly challenging times.

  • Michael Gove – 2008 Speech on Libel Laws

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Conservative MP for Surrey Heath, in Westminster Hall on 17 December 2008.

    I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing the debate and the hon. Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on their speeches, both of which contained much good sense.

    I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Interests. As a journalist, I write for The Times and have been an executive of that newspaper as news editor. I am committed to the principle of free expression and the freedom of the press. That is not only a consequence of my professional career and vocation, but because I believe that it is only through an effective free press that the exercise and abuse of power can be monitored effectively.

    While this country has the police, the courts and a system designed to track down and punish those who do wrong, the press has historically played an invaluable role in bringing such people to the attention of the courts and the police. Sometimes the press is needed to draw our attention to the failure of the authorities in the pursuit of wrongdoing, extremism or other activities that threaten the public interest. Only this week, The Times pointed out that someone who has connections to Islamist extremism that might concern us all has been employed as an adviser to the Metropolitan police’s Muslim contact unit.

    Not just newspapers, but other institutions that exercise a journalistic or quasi-journalistic function have exposed extremism in public life. Think-tanks such as Policy Exchange, which I used to chair, and the Centre for Social Cohesion have pointed out the extent of extremist influence—particularly but not exclusively Islamist extremist influence—in British public life. Because of the international nature of the extremist threat, there are examples of the press being more effective than states or international institutions in exposing such dangers. An example is the work of Claudia Rosett at The Wall Street Journal in exposing the failure of the UN effectively to police sanctions against Saddam Hussein. In all those areas, free expression and a free press have been vital in exposing abuses.

    The right hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out that it is of particular concern to all of us who are attached to the freedom of the press that individuals who have been alleged to have links to extremism have used British courts to close down the investigation or publication of allegations that are in the public interest. He mentioned the examples of Khalid bin Mahfouz and Mohammed Sawalha, a British resident who tries to close down legitimate investigation into extremism on the internet.

    As the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Norfolk pointed out, there is in effect a public interest defence in law for the sort of investigative journalism that I am sure we would all applaud. The Reynolds defence offers journalists and newspapers a form of qualified privilege. That is qualitatively different from the sort of privilege enjoyed in courts and by Members of Parliament because it allows newspapers the comfort that it is legitimate for them to publish allegations provided that the process followed demonstrates that the journalism they are engaged in is of high seriousness, that appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that the allegations are in the public interest and that they are being properly investigated. They do not subsequently have to prove justification to the same threshold required in other cases.

    A problem with the Reynolds defence is that instead of being an aid to free expression, according to some it has become an obstacle to free expression. The guidance that the courts originally gave newspapers to help them publish material in the public interest has become another set of hurdles that they have to clear. The hon. Member for North Norfolk pointed out that Jameel and others v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl made it perfectly clear that the Reynolds defence should help, not hinder, free expression.

    There has been only sporadic implementation of that defence and a misunderstanding of it in many courts. That is why at the very least it is worth exploring whether we can enshrine the principles of the Reynolds defence in statute. That would send a clear signal from Parliament to the courts that the Reynolds defence is in effect as a public interest defence that allows the publication of material that should be part of public debate, particularly when serious issues such as extremism and terrorism need to be investigated.

    Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): The hon. Gentleman has set out some components of the Reynolds defence. I believe that part of that approach of responsible journalism is to report the denial of the allegations by the accused. That is not a requirement, but I am interested to hear his view on the matter.

    Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is right that broadly 10 principles are outlined in the Reynolds defence, one of which is the strong suggestion that an effort should be made to secure the response of the individual against whom allegations are made. It is a basic principle of good journalism that the other person’s case should be heard.

    I would not wish to erect those 10 principles into 10 absolute hurdles. Discretion should be exercised in the courts and any change to the law should acknowledge that. The important points are whether the material that is published is in the public interest, whether the case is urgent and important enough to justify publication and whether overall the journalists, the newspaper or the blog can demonstrate that they have done everything in their power to ascertain the truth and importance of the allegations that are published.

    On costs, the point has been made that conditional fee agreements can raise profound questions of a chilling effect on publication. Indeed, Lord Hoffman has pointed out that freedom of expression may be seriously inhibited by conditional fee agreements. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central has pointed out that they can be helpful to individuals without resources who have been defamed. I do not wish to see the end of them, but it is important that an effort is made not to perpetuate the chilling effect on publication in the ongoing review into the costs of civil judgment. In particular, small and independent newspapers, think-tanks, research groups and other organisations that are vital components of a free and rigorous culture of debate and accountability must be protected in any structure that we create.

    Finally, it has been pointed out that internet publication can lead to links being created to articles that were published and brought into the public domain four or five years previously because they remain on an internet archive. That may be done to substantiate a point that is being made afresh. An individual who creates such a link to material that is already in the public domain can be sued. At the very least, it is questionable whether we should allow the courts to pursue an individual who in all innocence creates a link to an article that has not been the subject of a defamation action. That individual may be sued because of the desire of another to pick off a weak link who he considers to be rich pickings and a suitably unprotected victim. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the court to ask, “Why did you not go for the big boys first?”

  • Michael Gove – 2007 Speech on Integration and Cohesion

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Conservative MP for Surrey Heath, in Westminster Hall on 17 April 2007.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Olner.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on securing the debate. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) pointed out, my hon. Friend made a brilliant speech in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, in which he outlined the scale of the challenge that our society faces. That challenge is not one of religious separatism, but one of ideological division, and here I must take issue with what the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said in his fascinating, wide-ranging, but in some respects misconceived remarks. He was right to stress the importance of community initiatives. He was, as ever, right to stress the importance of pluralism and to recognise that one size does not fit all when we are dealing with the various problems that we have all had an opportunity to analyse in the debate. However, he was wrong to suggest that the problem is an explicitly religious one, and to draw the historical comparisons that he did.

    I should point out that, when the hon. Gentleman said that we no longer believed in one version of British history that saw us moving towards a golden future, he was disavowing a grand Liberal tradition. That version of history, which saw us moving towards a more liberal future, which used to be known as Whig history, and was the product of Macaulay and Trevelyan, used to be the guiding light of his party. It is a pity that it is no longer. One of the insights of Macaulay, Trevelyan and other Whig historians is that what has made Britain great is not just our respect for pluralism and tolerance, but a belief in liberty, rooted in our historic institutions. Those institutions are challenged by the specific ideology outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe.

    Islamism is distinct from Islam. Islam is a great faith that has nourished millions for hundreds of years. To this day it contributes intellectually and spiritually across the globe to enriching the lives of a great many people. No one on the Conservative Benches would want to criticise Islam as a faith. Indeed, it has enriched this country. Islamic scholars and tens of thousands of British Muslim citizens make Britain a better and more tolerant place today, but the best of those—in fact, the majority of them—also recognise that those who call themselves, sometimes, Islamists or jihadists, or who use another name, such as Salafists, and who follow the specific Islamist ideology are following a 20th-century totalitarian aberration that is intended to undermine the very tolerance that makes Britain both a safe and a warm house not just for its Muslim citizens but for all citizens. If we are to ensure that toleration will survive in this country, and protect pluralism and liberty, we need to be aware of the precise nature of the threat. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe deserves praise for drawing attention to that challenge in this House and elsewhere.

    Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to address his remarks to me, and of course I acknowledge the points that he was making about the hon. Member for Wycombe, who has rightly set out his stall on the matter. I hope that I conveyed the point that I wanted to make, which is that confronting the extremists is not the major job that we have. We must address the society.

    Michael Gove: Both go hand in hand, and we cannot effectively champion the interests of moderate Muslims and of our pluralist, tolerant and liberal society, unless we show a determination to tackle extremism. It is the extremists who, in the past, have crowded out from the debate the moderate voices in the Muslim world. I am thinking particularly of the voices of female British Muslim citizens, which have been stilled and silenced as a result of extremists operating not just in mosques but more broadly in our society.

    I want to say a word of appreciation about my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and congratulate him on his speech. He brings huge expertise and great integrity to the debate. In his professional career before he joined us in this House he spent many distinguished years serving this country and defending its interests. While he has been in the House he has proved himself a dedicated public servant, and whenever he speaks on such issues it behoves all of us to pay close attention to the expertise and integrity that he brings to bear on them, as he did so effectively today.

    I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on his speech. Rather than inhabiting a constitutional Never Land, all that he did was stick up for those Enlightenment values that are the best protection for all minorities. In that respect I am delighted that his comments found a ready answering call in all my hon. Friends’ speeches.

    When we are talking about integration and cohesion it is important for all of us to choose our words carefully and to tread with care. With your permission, Mr. Olner, I want to make a brief apology to the House. On a previous occasion, in December 2005, I had an opportunity to question the Home Secretary about his strategy for preventing extremism. I believe that several individuals whom the Government had asked to work with them on preventing extremism were themselves linked to extremist groups. I took the opportunity to raise in the House the names of some of those individuals. One of them, a gentleman called Ahmad Thomson, is a Muslim convert who was involved in holocaust denial, and I believe that it was right to draw attention to his involvement and that of several others whose enlistment by the Government in their fight against extremism seemed to be mistaken.

    However, even as I was pointing out that the Government had made a mistake, I myself made a mistake. One of the individuals to whom I drew attention was Mr. Khurshid Ahmed. I remind the House that the gentleman to whom I drew attention has exactly the same name as another Khurshid Ahmed who is indeed linked with extremist activity, and who operates primarily in Pakistani politics but also has a link with institutions in this country. The Khurshid Ahmed who served on the preventing extremism together group is an admirable individual. I have now had the opportunity of meeting and working with him on several occasions.

    When I discovered my mistake, I immediately wrote to Mr. Ahmed and to the Home Secretary to apologise and to put the record straight, but I have received representations from Mr. Ahmed’s Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin), who asked me to use any opportunity to place on the record in Hansard an acknowledgment of my mistake and to underline what I said in my letter, which was that Mr. Ahmed has done considerable work to further integration and cohesion in our society, and that he deserves nothing but the highest praise for his many years in public life. I am happy to use this opportunity to state on the record, for the benefit of Hansard and those outside, my appreciation of Mr. Ahmed’s work and of the calm, diligent way in which the mistake was brought to my attention by the hon. Member for Dudley, North, whose own contribution to fighting extremism in his area of the west midlands also deserves to be noted with credit by the House. I placed copies of the letters that I wrote in December 2005 to the Home Secretary and to Mr. Khurshid Ahmed in the Library earlier today.

    I mentioned that it is important to acknowledge our mistakes, and I believe that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in her conduct since taking on responsibility for integration and cohesion matters, has acknowledged that the Government made errors in the past. She did that not in a breast-beating way, but in an appropriately respectful fashion. Before sitting down and allowing the Minister to reply to the many questions that have been put by my hon. Friends,

    I would like to acknowledge that the Government have moved but also to indicate that there is still some way to go.

    I believe that the Government have accepted that, before the fateful events of 7 July 2005, they had fallen down on the job when it came to questions of integration and cohesion, and of extremism, specifically within the Muslim community. They have acknowledged that the principle of the covenant of security—that unless someone is actively engaged in violence against the state, their activities would be tolerated, no matter how extreme their preaching—was a mistake. More than that, I believe that the Government have acknowledged that some of their chosen partners in the Muslim community and elsewhere were not as well chosen as they might have been.

    The Secretary of State was absolutely right to point out recently that Muslim organisations that boycott holocaust memorial day should no longer receive public money. I also note with approval that recently she has been showing a willingness to work with the Sufi Muslim Council, the British Muslim Forum and especially the Fatima Women’s Network, all of which are more moderate Muslim organisations.

    The Government’s greater openness to working with moderate, mainstream organisations is to be welcomed, but it provokes a couple of questions. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe pointed out, the Government still seem to be taking a disjointed and far from synoptic approach. I mention one area that he did not, which comes under the rubric of the Department for Education and Skills. Why is it that the Government’s adviser on the teaching of Islam in higher and further education, Dr. Ataullah Siddiqui, is linked with the Islamic Foundation and the Markfield Institute of Higher Education, both of which are institutions that were set up by the Jamaat-e-Islami party, an explicitly Islamist organisation, and its supporters? In other words, why is the man who is charged with checking extremism on Britain’s campuses in fact linked with a body that was set up by a separatist Islamist organisation?

    Secondly and more broadly, I welcome again what the Secretary of State said about seeking to encourage mosques to register with the Charity Commission and, as a result, receive not only help with fundraising, but a higher level of oversight and help with governance. What, however, do we do with mosques that explicitly reject that kind offer because they wish to carry on with extremist preaching and teaching? How do we ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, that the flood of extremist Wahabi literature and, indeed, Saudi money into certain mosques is effectively checked so that the process of indoctrination in an extremist ideology is scrutinised and we deal effectively with teaching that might encourage a new generation of people who believe in separatism and division?

    In that regard, I am very interested in my hon. Friend’s question about the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board. Why is the Muslim Association of Britain—the UK branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organisation—on an equal footing with the British Muslim Forum and the Muslim Council of Britain? Why is Finsbury Park mosque, which used to be the haunt of Abu Hamza, now run by the Muslim Association of Britain’s Dr. Azzam Tamimi? Why, having got rid of one extremist, do we have another version of extremism in control?

    I have a final request for the Minister. I appreciate that time is pressing and that she has a limited amount of time in which to answer all our questions, but can she prevail on the Secretary of State and the Cabinet to ensure that we have a full-day debate on this issue in Government time? Given the setting-up of the commission, the Secretary of State’s announcements and, crucially, the prospect of significant changes in the Government machinery for dealing with this most sensitive of issues, as well as the Government’s fitful record of implementation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark referred, we need the Government to give a clear statement in their own time on precisely what the new strategy is. That will give those Opposition Members who wish to see them and our multi-ethnic society succeed an opportunity to make an effective contribution to this ongoing process.

  • Michael Gove – 2007 Speech on Home Information Packs

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Conservative MP for Surrey Heath, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2007.

    thank the Secretary of State for her grace and courage in coming to the House to make the statement today. It cannot have been easy announcing a retreat on a policy that she had no part in implementing originally. It is big of her to take the flak.

    I also thank the Secretary of State for allowing me sight of her announcement, which I received just 25 minutes ago—clearly this is a day for doing everything at the last minute.

    May I ask why, after being warned more than a year ago that they were comprehensively mishandling this issue, Ministers have seen fit to retreat only now with eight days to go before home information packs were due to be implemented? Why did Ministers not take the opportunity that we offered last week to think again? Was it stubborn vanity or sheer incompetence? The Secretary of State may argue that this humiliating climbdown was precipitated by the judgment issued in the High Court today, but that prompts the question that goes to the heart of the matter: why did Ministers find themselves in court in the first place? Why did they press ahead with a scheme that everyone who knows anything about the housing market told them was flawed at the heart?

    Those warnings, unlike this climbdown, did not come at the eleventh hour. In this House at this Dispatch Box a year ago, we told the Government that their scheme was flawed. The Government told us that we were scaremongering, but 11 months ago they were compelled to execute the first in a truly embarrassing series of U-turns by dropping the mandatory home condition report, which was the keystone of the original home information pack, just hours after the Minister for Housing and Planning had defended it in this House. However, they were still determined to press ahead after that U-turn. Why did they not take the opportunity to work with us and others to put the stability of the housing market first? Why did Ministers decide to ignore the growing chorus of concern, shut out expert advice and carry on regardless?

    On 21 February, all the key stakeholders who were originally invited to help the Government set up the scheme issued a warning letter to the Minister for Housing and Planning asking for an emergency meeting to address fundamental concerns with the scheme. They were not granted the meeting for which they asked: why? In desperation, the same group wrote to the Secretary of State on 2 March asking for a collective emergency meeting. Again, they were snubbed and no collective meeting was granted: why? What explains that refusal to listen to the experts, who were once charged with setting up the policy and whose involvement would be key to implementing it? Was it because this Government could not bear to be told that they were in the wrong, or did they not realise what a mess they were presiding over? Was it deadly arrogance or fatal ignorance? After today’s announcement, we know that this lady is for turning.

    There are still many unanswered questions. The Government were warned that there were not enough qualified, accredited and certificated home inspectors in place. Over a year ago, I warned that getting those people in place was crucial. Only last week, the Minister for Housing and Planning told us that we had enough people to ensure the smooth operation of the scheme—she told us that everything would be all right on the night. Why did she offer that cavalier assurance, when the Secretary of State has told us that there will not be enough people in place after all? We know that relations between these Ministers are bad, but did the Secretary of State find out only in the past few days how few qualified people are in place? When did she know the real numbers? And why was not the House informed about the truth last week?

    How can Ministers ever again ask to be taken seriously on the environment, when they have comprehensively mismanaged a measure that they argued throughout was vital to fighting climate change? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that today’s judgment in the High Court underlines what we have argued all along and what best practice in the European Union shows—you do not need home information packs for energy performance certificates? Will she agree to meet me, my colleagues, the Liberal Democrats and everyone with an interest in getting the housing market right to ensure that there is at last some expertise in this process?

    Is this not a desperate, last-minute retreat designed to ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning is airlifted out of this Department by her friends in the Treasury in a future reshuffle, so she does not have to cope with the chaos that she has created? And is it not truly tragic that confidence in the industry, the stability of the housing market and the battle against climate change have all been damaged by this Government’s arrogance and incompetence?

  • Michael Gove – 2005 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Michael Gove in the House of Commons on 7 June 2005.

    Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye and giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in the House of Commons. Whatever any of us may have done before coming to this House, speaking in the Chamber for the first time is a nerve-racking moment, and I am therefore grateful for the courtesies that the House extends to new Members during their maiden speech.

    I feel a particular sense of nervousness coming after the hon. Members for Bristol, East (Ms McCarthy), for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), and my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who all gave accomplished speeches.

    The hon. Member for Newport, East spoke with great charm about her constituency and with great force about her passion for social justice. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran follows in the distinguished footsteps of Brian Wilson and a hero of mine, Sir Fitzroy Maclean. She is a worthy follower in that tradition. She spoke without notes but with great fluency and conviction. The hon. Member for Bristol, East also follows in distinguished footsteps, and she lived up to that in a speech of great wit and authority.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree spoke with great force and persuasiveness. He gave a maiden speech in the best traditions of the House and I congratulate him. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a witty and forthright speech which I greatly admired, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough gave a personally powerful and principled speech on which I congratulate him. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness also spoke without notes but with tremendous aplomb and authority. I wish them all well in their careers in the House.

    This Bill is of particular concern to my constituency of Surrey Heath, which is an economically vibrant home to both multinational companies and a wealth of small and medium-sized enterprises. There have been a number of distinguished contributions to this debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), as befits a former Foreign Officer Minister, ranged far and wide in his remarks. Other Members, such as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), were rather more tightly focused. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to be a little less than tightly focused and to use this opportunity to look at the broader themes underlying the Finance Bill.

    As the son of a small business man who ran a flourishing fish merchants in Aberdeen, at a time when that city’s fishing industry was in ruder health than today, I know personally how regulation and legislation conceived from the best of motives can stifle enterprise and limit opportunity.

    Any opportunities that I have in life I owe to my parents and to the sacrifices that they made. They adopted me when I was just four months old, and I was fortunate therefore to be raised in a secure and loving home. That has left me with a profound sense of the importance of helping families to withstand all the pressures placed on them by modern life, and I hope in my time in this House to do what I can to improve the lives of children born to disadvantage and to support all parents in the difficult but immensely rewarding task of raising families.

    Before turning to the legislation that is before us, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor as MP for Surrey Heath, Nick Hawkins. Nick served for 13 years in this House, first as Member for Blackpool, South and latterly as MP for Surrey Heath. During his time here, Nick set an example as a diligent and caring constituency MP, as well as a robust and principled scrutineer of legislation. During my time as a parliamentary candidate and in my brief weeks as an MP, I have met many constituents for whom Nick was an indefatigable champion; he set a standard that it would be difficult to match. I also know, not least from his many friends still in this House, how valuable Nick’s sharp legal brain was in the scrutiny of legislation. Nick’s belief in defending the principles of our common law and standing up for the liberty of the individual do him great credit, and I wish him well in the legal career to which he has now returned.

    Following in Nick’s footsteps is a challenge, but it is made far easier by the charm and friendliness of the people of Surrey Heath. It is both an honour and a pleasure to represent the most attractive and vibrant constituency in the county judged by “Country Life” to be England’s most beautiful. I know that there may be some dissent among my hon. Friends, but as a flinty Scot, and someone who therefore judges English beauty with an unclouded eye, I can only say that I concur with the judgment of “Country Life”. Surrey is indeed God’s own county; it combines the best of England’s civic traditions with large areas of still unspoilt rural charm.

    Camberley is the largest town in my constituency. I am sure that memories of it will be dear to those hon. and gallant Members who passed through the Royal Military academy or the Staff college, both of which lie in its precincts. Camberley’s particular charms are not, however, known only to those who pass through the RMA’s gates. Thanks to John Betjeman’s most famous poem, “A Subaltern’s Love Song”, the romance of Camberley is well known:

    “nine-o’clock Camberley, heavy with bells,

    And mushroomy, pine-woody, evergreen smells”

    is how he immortalised that beautiful town. While the scent of Camberley is now tinged with the odour of fumes from the M3, which cuts a swathe through my constituency, there is a still a pine-woody and evergreen quality to the town that is very pleasing to this Scottish exile.

    John Betjeman is not the only great writer to have drawn inspiration from the air of Surrey Heath. John Gay’s “The Beggar’s Opera” draws on the history of Bagshot heath in my constituency as a haunt of highwaymen and cutpurses. “The Beggar’s Opera” is a satire in which comparisons are drawn between the highwaymen of 18th-century Surrey and the politicians of 18th-century England; both, John Gay suggests, were charming rogues who made it their business to deprive honest citizens of hard-earned money, only to squander the plunder on their own vanities. I will leave it to other Members to decide what relevance, if any, John Gay’s insights have to discussion of this Finance Bill.

    One area where I believe that public investment continues to be more necessary than ever is in our security, and I want to touch briefly on that matter. The contribution of the military to the life of my constituency has been, and continues to be, immensely valuable. As well as the Royal Military academy, Surrey Heath also benefits from our association with the military in many other ways. Our excellent local hospital, Frimley Park, works closely with the Royal Army Medical Corps to provide a matchless service for the whole community. We also house the headquarters of the Royal Army Logistics Corps, and it was on the heathland of the Chobham ridges that the world-famous Chobham armour was developed, which has helped to give our armed forces the protection that they need on the field of battle.

    I hope that during my time in this House I can play a small part in giving our forces the support that they richly deserve. Britain’s contribution to extending the cause of liberty has been distinguished, and it is a source of pride to me. In a proper spirit of bipartisanship, I pay tribute to this Government for their role in defending the cause of freedom in Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Iraq. I hope that it will not be considered wrong of me, however, to pledge that I shall use my position here to ensure that in future those who risk their lives on our behalf are given all the support—political, moral and financial—that they need.

    The tradition of public service that the military exemplifies is richly alive in many other ways in my constituency. We have some of the best state schools in the country, a superb hospital in Frimley Park, as I said, and thriving voluntary organisations as well as active parish councils that serve our more rural communities such as Chobham, West End, Bisley, Bagshot and Windlesham. But the quality of life that the people of Surrey Heath enjoy and have done so much themselves to maintain is, I fear, threatened by insensitive overdevelopment. Plans to build tens of thousands of new homes in our area, imposed by an unelected and unwanted regional authority, combined with planning guidance that demands an increase in housing density, is wholly detrimental to the character of our communities and risks placing great strain on already overstretched public services.

    I firmly believe that all parties in this House in the past 25 years have ensured that power has become too centralised. Decisions are now taken at too distant and remote a level. Intimate questions of planning should be decided by the local people most affected. Planning decisions affect the social capital that individuals and communities have built up over generations. That is why planning law must be seen to be fair, responsive and sensitive. In Surrey Heath, like many other rural areas, we have suffered as a consequence of a small minority—I must stress, a very small minority—of Travellers, who have defied the planning rules by setting up unauthorised encampments on greenfield sites. I hope, while in this House, to be able to change the law in such a way as to ensure the fair application of planning rules. I appreciate the contribution that Britain’s travelling community has made to our national life over many generations, but equality before the law is the best guarantee of civilised treatment for all.

    As I said, one of the many attractive features of Surrey Heath is its economic vibrancy. We are lucky to have in the constituency a wealth of local entrepreneurs, including Bob Potter OBE, whose Lakeside hotel in Frimley Green is globally renowned as the home of the world darts championship, thus demonstrating that one does not have to risk going on to Ministry of Defence property in Surrey Heath to see targets being hit with rare skill.

    We are also fortunate in employment terms in the opportunities offered to us by multinational companies that serve my constituency, such as Eli Lilly, BAE, Novartis and S. C. Johnson. All those companies are excellent corporate citizens playing a valued part in the life of the community as well as generating jobs, wealth and taxes for the Exchequer. It is with their contribution in mind that I want to say a few words about the precise measures in the Bill.

    I recognise the need for legislation to reform the tax system and to limit tax avoidance, and there are many provisions in the Bill that may take us in the right direction, but I am concerned that in their zeal to regulate the Government may risk damaging Britain’s competitive position. Retrospective and arbitrary changes to the tax code do not contribute to the atmosphere of stability and certainty that encourages investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out, chapter 4 and clause 39 give cause for concern, as they seem to create the power for arbitrary and retrospective application of the Revenue’s powers. I find that a worrying element of the Bill.

    Historians of this House will know that our finest hour came in the 17th century, when we in Parliament insisted on limiting the arbitrary powers of the Executive to impose taxation. In that battle between king and Parliament, I have no hesitation in saying that Parliament was on the right side. I know that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr. Brown) sometimes revels in his reputation as a roundhead; it is a great pity that in this legislation he should be so cavalier with the tax code.

    To my mind, the best way of preventing tax avoidance—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—is through tax simplification. At a time when economies in eastern Europe are making themselves more attractive to international investment by radically simplifying their tax codes, we should not go down the road of further complicating our own tax system.

    I believe that my constituency has equipped itself well for the challenges of the 21st century by staying true to eternal British virtues—keeping what is cherishable and distinctive, celebrating excellence, having a pride in tradition, but always looking outwards. I hope that we can adopt a similar approach as a nation. Our economic strength has been built on sound traditions and an awareness of the importance of low and simple taxation, light and flexible regulation and wise and prudent investment. When we stray from those traditions, we undermine our future prosperity.

    I want to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in calling me, and in particular, I want to thank very much the people of Surrey Heath for giving me the opportunity to serve them in this Chamber.

  • Alex Chalk – 2016 Speech on Homicide Law Reform

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alex Chalk, the Conservative MP for Cheltenham, in Westminster Hall on 30 June 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the matter of reforming the law on homicide.

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, on this auspicious day. I wish to make crystal clear that the debate is about the law of homicide, not fratricide.

    Putting that to one side, the real point is that the law of homicide is a mess. That was put more elegantly by the Law Commission in its 2006 report “Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide”, in which it said that the law of homicide is

    “a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations.”

    In essence, the problem is that the law lacks a rational or defensible structure. It does not chime with common sense—and in this area of the law perhaps above all others, it should.

    As long ago as 1874, a Select Committee stated:

    “If there is any case in which the law should speak plainly, without sophism or evasion, it is where life is at stake; and it is on this very occasion that the law is most evasive and most sophistical.”

    That remains the case more than 100 years later, and that will not do. In the words of the Law Commission, the time has come to

    “promote certainty…in a way that non-lawyers can understand and accept.”

    But the problem is far more serious than mere opaqueness. The problem is that the law of homicide creates injustice—injustice to defendants and injustice to society—and that is something that we in this House must always stand ready to confront and resolve.

    What is the solution? It is very simple: to split the current offence of murder into two categories, one of first degree murder and another of second degree murder. Manslaughter should remain as before, albeit more tightly circumscribed.

    What, as a matter of law, is murder? It is committed when someone unlawfully kills another person with an intention to kill that person or to do them serious harm. That second element is really important. It means that someone who reasonably believed that no one would be killed by their conduct is placed in the same offence category as the contract or serial killer. That, in a nutshell, is the problem.

    Let me give an example. Imagine a retired colonel living in my constituency of Cheltenham. He is aged 65, has lived an utterly unblemished life and served his country with great distinction, and is known for his charitable work. He is upstanding in every way. He lives with his wife, who has Parkinson’s disease and for whom he is the sole carer. A neighbour moves in next door who has a string of convictions for antisocial behaviour. Every night, he holds noisy parties that go on into the small hours. Endless polite requests from the colonel are ignored. Endless local authority noise abatement notices are ignored. So, after the umpteenth such party, with his and his wife’s already poor health suffering, the colonel goes round at 3 o’clock in the morning to remonstrate with his neighbour. He takes with him—this is important—a cricket bat in case there is a violent confrontation. The neighbour, who is very drunk, becomes abusive and the colonel, overcome with anger and frustration and at the end of his tether, says, “Right, that’s it. Let’s see how you party when your big toe is broken,” and strikes the neighbour’s foot with the cricket bat. The neighbour falls back, hits his head on a crate of beer standing in the hallway and is knocked unconscious. The colonel immediately calls 999 and tries to resuscitate him, the police and ambulance arrive and the colonel tells them exactly what happened, but the neighbour is rushed to the local hospital, diagnosed with a bleed on the brain and dies.

    The post-mortem report reveals that the deceased’s toe was broken. When interviewed, the distraught colonel admits that he lost his temper. What happens in this case? The only charge that the law allows for is murder. That means that the only sentence that the judge can impose, despite the colonel pleading guilty at the first opportunity, is life imprisonment, because he intended to do grievous bodily harm by breaking the toe. It is because he took a weapon to the scene—the cricket bat—that the starting point for the minimum term that he must serve is 25 years imprisonment, and because the offence is murder, he must serve every last day of that term. In effect, the colonel goes to prison for the rest of his life—25 years. He has a mandatory life sentence.

    That is unjust. Although it is clear that a person who kills in such circumstances should be guilty of a serious homicide offence, it is equally clear that because he did not intend to kill, the offence should not be in the top tier or highest category. The current law does not chime with common sense. Academic research into public opinion tells us that, but frankly, we do not need academic research; we need simply to consult our common sense. The particularly daft thing—I hope that that is parliamentary language—is that when Parliament passed the Homicide Act 1957, it never intended a killing to amount to murder, which at that time was a capital offence, unless the defendant realised that his or her conduct may cause death. The law of murder was widened because of an unexpected judicial development immediately following the enactment of the 1957 legislation—the case of Vickers, which is about interpretation of the expression “malice aforethought”. In my view, that colonel should be guilty of second degree murder.

    The injustice is further underscored when we add the potential for what are known as secondary parties or accessories to be convicted of a murder. Imagine that before the colonel had set off, his frail wife had told him where the cricket bat was stored and in frustration said to him, “Now, go and use it. Teach him a lesson.” She, too, could find herself facing the punishment and disgrace of a murder conviction and the same 25-year minimum term. She should of course be guilty of an offence, but again, she should be guilty of second degree murder, with the judge having the discretion not to impose a mandatory life sentence.

    This issue is particularly topical because the Supreme Court has looked at the case of Jogee and more tightly circumscribing accessory liability—the so-called prosecutor’s friend—but still we are left with a situation in which the unsatisfactory law of homicide leads to manifest injustice.

    John Howell (Henley) (Con)

    I wonder whether my hon. Friend has in his mind what the range of sentences should be for second degree murder.

    Alex Chalk

    Certainly, on any view, life imprisonment must remain the maximum sentence—that is the maximum in the United States for federal offences where second degree murder is charged—but the key point is that the judge should have discretion. The Sentencing Council has done a terrific job of laying down guidelines—not tramlines—and the courts have shown themselves to be well able to dispense justice.

    The case for reform becomes even clearer when we consider manslaughter, another homicide offence. Whereas, as I have indicated, the law of murder creates injustice for defendants, the law of manslaughter creates injustice for society. What is manslaughter? It can be committed in one of four ways, but just two of those are relevant for these purposes: unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. The latter largely speaks for itself for these purposes, but let me explain what happens when a killing is the result of a defendant’s unlawful act—that is, one that all reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm, albeit not serious harm.

    Take this example. The defendant barges into a nightclub queue in Cheltenham. He has a string of criminal convictions for assault and criminal damage. In the queue, he is being drunk and obnoxious. He is insulting women for what they are wearing and telling them to get out of his way. The victim is the mother of two children. She works at nearby GCHQ and she is on a hen do. She politely asks the defendant to move to the back of the queue. His response is to say, “You silly cow; you need a slap.” He then strikes her repeatedly and hard to the side of the face with his open hand. She falls back, hits her head on the kerb and is knocked unconscious. The defendant runs off. The victim later dies, and the post-mortem shows that she suffered bruising—albeit no fracture—to her cheekbone and the fatal injury was caused by the impact on the kerb. The police arrest the defendant, who denies everything, but CCTV proves his guilt.

    Under the law at present, that defendant can be charged only with unlawful act manslaughter, because the harm that he caused falls short of grievous bodily harm. The net effect is that he will be convicted of an offence that carries a far lesser stigma than murder and for which there is no mandatory requirement for a life sentence, and if he gets a determinate sentence, he will serve only half of it. Is that thug, I ask rhetorically, less culpable than the retired colonel or his wife? The only distinction is that the colonel intended to break a toe and the thug intended to commit a marginally less serious assault. In my view, that is a distinction without a difference—it is a distinction that is completely lost on the general public and, frankly, on me.

    So, what needs to happen? This is not some academic exercise. Those two examples are not entirely artificial and they expose fundamental injustices. The first, as I have indicated, is to the victim, in the case of the colonel, and the second is to society in the case of the pub queue thug. The solution is clear: we need an offence of first degree murder that would encompass intentional killing only. I recognise the Law Commission, in 2006, wanted to add

    “killing through an intention to do serious injury with an awareness of a serious risk of causing death.”

    That is fine, and I understand it, but in my view it is a complexity that unnecessarily detracts from the simplicity of the proposal I put before the House.

    An offence of first degree murder would simply and coherently communicate to the public the particularly heinous nature of the crime of taking life and would attract the special condemnation and opprobrium that that deserves. To paraphrase Colonel Tim Collins’ famous eve-of-battle speech in 2003, anyone convicted of such an offence would truly live with the mark of Cain upon them. That offence should also, as at present, attract a mandatory life sentence.

    Under my proposal, second degree murder would encompass killing through an intention to do injury that is more than merely transient or trifling. In plain English: it would encompass killing through unacceptable violence and thuggery. That would include the colonel and the pub queue thug—people who committed a significant assault on others but who did not intend to kill. That category of offence would not require a mandatory life sentence. Instead, judges would be free to do justice, weighing in the balance all of the aggravating and mitigating factors. For clarity, that would not include the case of the most minor assault. Think of someone creeping up behind a person, playing a trick on them and flicking their ear as a piece of horseplay. That is technically an assault, of course, but is obviously very minor. If that person fell over and died that should remain as manslaughter.

    So, where does that leave manslaughter? Manslaughter would remain predominantly focused on cases of gross negligence. That is, offences in which there has been no unlawful assault or intention to kill, but in which the negligence has been so dreadful as to become criminal. The advantage of that is that people get it; people would understand that—it chimes with common sense.

    Those are not outlandish suggestions. Other jurisdictions—most obviously the United States—have two categories of murder. For murders in the US over which the federal Government have jurisdiction, life imprisonment is only mandatory for first degree murder. For second degree murder the mandatory sentence is described as

    “a term of years to life.”

    So why now? Because it is long overdue. The current distinction between murder and manslaughter is almost certainly more than 500 years old. No further general category of homicide has been developed in the intervening period, despite the fact that society, values and knowledge have changed out of all recognition.

    The need for modernisation was obvious to our Victorian forebears. In this place, William Gladstone himself indicated his willingness to rationalise the law but nothing came of it—it keeps getting put off. That approach led one cynical criminal lawyer to remark at the beginning of the 20th century that the hope of a criminal code being enacted by Parliament that would address the problems of the law on homicide was as remote as

    “expecting to find milk in a male tiger”.

    We cannot keep putting this off. Modernising this key area of law is, to borrow the words of the Law Commission

    “an essential task for criminal law reform.”

    It is time for this generation to take up the challenge and to create a law that is truly fit for the modern age.

  • Jo Johnson – 2016 Speech on Global Science

    jojohnson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jo Johnson, the Minister of State for Universities and Science, at the Wellcome Trust in London on 30 June 2016.

    It is a pleasure to be here at the Wellcome Trust. This living monument to medical research sits at the heart of one of the world’s greatest knowledge quarters.

    It is a cluster that includes University College and its associated hospitals, the University of the Arts, the British Library, the Francis Crick and the Alan Turing Institutes and companies including Google and Facebook.

    This ‘knowledge quarter’, like many others around the country, embodies so much that is special about the UK as a research and innovation powerhouse as we face new challenges and ever stronger global competition.

    As the Prime Minister set out last Friday, the government will continue to take forward the important legislation that we set before Parliament in the Queen’s Speech.

    So my focus today, as we look ahead to the passage of the Higher Education and Research Bill, is to reflect on what underpins our strengths as a knowledge economy – and the steps we are now taking, and must take, to preserve them into the future.

    But first, a reflection on what the referendum result means for research and innovation in the UK.

    I am only too aware of the many questions that will be in your minds following the vote last Thursday. The academic and business communities were strong voices for Remain during the referendum campaign – and I want to thank you all for the role that you played.

    While it was not the outcome for which I and many of you campaigned, I accept this momentous decision by the British people and am committed to making it work.

    Now is the time to focus on the future, and with an optimistic mindset. We must look for the positives, while we deal with the challenges.

    Today is first an opportunity to remind ourselves that our economy is fundamentally strong and that UK research and innovation are world leading. And for me to give you my commitment to continue working with you to make the strongest possible case for higher education, research and innovation in the coming negotiation.

    In legal terms, nothing changed overnight last Thursday. We remain an EU member during the 2-year renegotiation period, with all the rights and obligations that derive from this. EU students studying here, or looking to start in the autumn, remain eligible for student finance for the full duration of their courses. We remain fully open to scientists and researchers from across the EU. We hugely value the contribution of EU and international staff. And there are no immediate changes to their rights to live and work in the UK.

    It is business as usual for Horizon 2020. I would be concerned about any discrimination against UK participants and am in close touch with Commissioner Moedas on these issues.

    The UK also continues to lead in major non-EU research collaborations – from CERN in Switzerland to the European Space Agency. Just this month we confirmed the UK’s application to become a full member of a major new particle accelerator, the European Spallation Source in Sweden.

    But the prospect of Brexit inevitably poses new challenges, at a time when research itself is becoming more collaborative, and more global.

    Our task now is to chart a course that protects the UK’s status as a full-spectrum scientific power.

    We have fundamental strengths on which we must now build.

    First and foremost we have a long established system that supports, and therefore attracts, the brightest minds, at all stages of their careers. We fund excellent science wherever it is found, and ensure there is the freedom to tackle important scientific questions.

    We recognise the talent pipeline is critical. So we are doing all we can to develop the next generation of researchers. This week we opened applications to our new Master’s loan. We are also developing for the first time a new Doctoral loan to complement existing Research Council funding. In this Parliament we will have utterly transformed the funding landscape for post-graduate study.

    As a government we recognise the contribution that our world-class research base makes to our economy and wellbeing, which is why at the Spending Review we committed to protect the science budget in real terms, and protect the funding that flows through Innovate UK in cash terms. These commitments remain.

    Second, we have excellent scientific infrastructure here in the UK – in universities, in existing research institutes, such as the MRC Laboratory for Molecular Biology and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, and in new institutes like ‘The Crick’ and ‘Royce’. This is backed by a manifesto commitment of £6.9 billion capital funding up to 2021 – that’s record levels of investment in new equipment, new laboratories and new research institutes.

    Third, we have access to major research infrastructures across the world, such as the Large Hadron Collider, in which the UK plays a leading role. We are a major partner in building new infrastructure such as the Square Kilometre Array whose global headquarters will be based at Jodrell Bank; and in the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, which made the dramatic gravitational waves discovery. It was UK researchers, working with their counterparts, who made this discovery possible.

    And we are hugely successful at innovation – second in the latest Global Innovation Index and one of the most attractive countries in the OECD for international business R&D investment. Only last week the prestigious MacRobert Award of the Royal Academy of Engineering was awarded to Blatchford, a global leader in the development of prosthetic limbs. They have integrated robotics into a prosthetic limb for above-knee amputations – it’s a masterpiece of engineering that combines advanced materials with cutting edge deployment of ICT. Advances such as this are now being celebrated in the first ever UK Robotics Week.

    But, while we can be confident that our fundamentals are strong, we need to evaluate the consequences to UK science and innovation of leaving the EU. And ask why, following the decision to leave, it is even more necessary for us to implement the proposals in the White Paper and Bill, and deliver on our manifesto commitment to implement the Nurse review.

    So let me deal with each of these in turn.

    Europe and the world

    There is no doubt that UK researchers and businesses do extremely well in EU research funding programmes. And we helped to shape the European Research Council in our own image, with its emphasis on peer review and funding excellence.

    It is too early to say what a new settlement will look like and exactly what our relationship to successor framework programmes will be – but I am confident that we can continue to thrive.

    The UK has been a centre of scholarship for more than eight centuries. Our universities were knowledge hubs long before the EU ever came into existence. We are already extremely connected with the rest of the world – in 2012 nearly half of articles by UK researchers were co-authored by at least one non-UK researcher, second only to France amongst other leading research nations. These connections will continue. Our position as a science superpower, held since the dawn of the Enlightenment, can be maintained.

    But this will require a concerted effort from government, the research community and, importantly, from the new leadership of UK Research and Innovation, under John Kingman.

    The role of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)

    I have no doubt that the formation of UKRI will provide indispensable support to our research and innovation leadership during this period of change in our relationship with the European Union. Now, more than ever, as these communities face new challenges, we need a strong and unified voice to represent your interests across government, across Europe and around the world.

    We are outstanding at discovery science – and are getting much better at turning those discoveries into economic benefit – but we must do even better.

    The government is already taking steps to strengthen the research and innovation landscape. We will shortly publish a new national innovation plan. We have already protected research funding. We have maintained innovation funding through Innovate UK, and the R&D Tax Credit is benefitting record numbers of businesses. We are also continuing to grow our Catapult network, where the very best of the UK’s businesses, scientists, clinicians and engineers work side-by-side. We are now developing a wider range of financial instruments to support innovative firms and better target public support.

    But for every one of our successes, there are examples where UK scientific discovery has been developed off-shore, lost to a competitor, exploited elsewhere. We know the stories – from the early days of computing to pioneering imaging techniques such as medical ultrasound and CT scanning.

    That’s why we need UKRI to strengthen our ability to spot technology trends and develop a much more strategic approach to research investment.

    Increasingly, innovation is occurring at the intersection between scientific disciplines and technologies – such as between biology, materials and computer sciences in the development of medical prosthetics. This means that many of the major problems that we face require inter- and multi- disciplinary solutions. We see this in the impact case studies collected for the REF, the Research Excellence Framework. And we know that many of the world’s emerging scientific powers are not just growing their scientific capabilities, but they are increasingly investing in collaborative research that crosses traditional discipline boundaries and national borders.

    Which brings us to the reasons that the government asked Sir Paul Nurse to conduct his review of the Research Councils. The Nurse Review powerfully made the case that while we are excellent at science, the collective research endeavour could be so much greater than the sum of its parts. It spelled out the gaps we need to fill:

    – a lack of strategic join-up between the disciplines and between the research base and policy-makers;

    – a fragmented approach to investment, that lacks the capability to address multi- and inter-disciplinary research as effectively as we might; and

    – historic weakness at commercialisation, with a need for a smoother pathway for innovation.

    We have also listened carefully to the NAO report which saw the need for a more joined-up and strategic approach to our science capital investments. We are investing in our research infrastructure on a record scale, but the NAO said that we should develop a more strategic process for identifying priorities and proposing projects, potentially through the integrated organisation recommended by Sir Paul Nurse.

    That is why we are legislating to establish UKRI, which will include the Research Councils, Innovate UK and a new Council – Research England.

    So what will UKRI accomplish?

    First and foremost, it will serve as a single, overarching and protective funding body that operates at arm’s length from government and provides a strong voice for the research and innovation community. Now, more than ever, as these communities face a unique set of global challenges, we need a powerful voice to represent UK research and innovation on the world stage and ensure we maximise opportunities from all our global research collaborations.

    Through UKRI, we have the promise of the best of both worlds – combining what works so well now, while ensuring we meet the challenges ahead.

    But as well as a strong, strategic voice in UKRI, the Higher Education and Research Bill clearly sets out how Council leaders will retain their autonomy to fund the very best research and innovation activity, employ the best staff, and serve their individual discipline communities. They will continue to manage their specialist centres and institutes, as the Research Councils do now.

    Whilst all staff will be employees of UKRI, recruitment and terms and conditions of staff in Councils and any associated institutes will be set by the Councils, in line with any flexibility granted by the government. And each UKRI Council will in the future enjoy greater freedom to develop their own delivery plans, working with their peers on the UKRI Board, at arm’s length from officials and at a further remove from ministers in Whitehall. This means a net gain in academic autonomy.

    Second, UKRI will ensure we have more consistent mechanisms to shape a national research and innovation strategy, with members of the research and innovation community in the driving seat. In the last Parliament, we made an important move in this direction – with David Willett’s ‘Eight Great Technologies’ and the further development of cross-Research Council programmes. But the arrangements so far have been ad hoc and reliant on top down ministerial intervention, rather than bottom-up and organic direction-setting by the science community itself. We could clone David, so all future science ministers can be as wise and far-sighted as him. Or we could develop a capability – within UKRI – for the systematic development of the kind of research and innovation strategy that will help us to compete in the world for decades to come.

    Through UKRI, we will have a national research and innovation strategy developed organically by the research and innovation community itself, helping to guide more than £6 billion in annual government investment and delivering greater coordination across the delivery plans of each of UKRI’s 9 autonomous Councils.

    Each part of UKRI will be able to work seamlessly with the others, supported by strong central infrastructure and analytical capability.

    The ability to work swiftly and strategically across disciplines will be critical to the new Global Challenges Research Fund. At present, it is not within the legal remit of any of the Research Councils to hold, manage or distribute the necessary multi- and inter-disciplinary grants from the Fund. Moving forward, we will be able to fund challenges directly through ‘common research funds’ in addition to government allocating budgets across different disciplines.

    Our reforms will ensure that the £1.5 billion Global Challenges Research Fund delivers the biggest bang for buck – strengthening the global impact of UK research.

    Now, more than ever, it is time to show that Britain is outward-looking and engaged with these global challenges. And that’s why I am pleased today to be able to make a further announcement about how we are investing to support this work. We are creating a new £1 million Newton Prize, starting next year. This will not be just a one off, but an annual prize – awarded for the best science or innovation projects that promote the economic development and social welfare of Newton partner countries or address the problems of poor people around the world. It will be awarded by an independent Newton Prize Committee. And I am very pleased to announce that Sir Venki Ramakrishnan, President of the Royal Society, has agreed to chair the Newton Prize Committee. Sir Venki brings a wealth of scientific and international experience and I am immensely grateful that he has agreed to do this.

    Third, UKRI will have a remit that spans discovery through to commercialisation. Innovate UK will continue to focus on business-led innovation. It will continue to have a separate budget and serve the business community. But it will also have a clearer remit to help drive innovation from within the research base, aligning its innovation strategy with the Research Councils.

    All of this will be underpinned by continued support for a sustainable, world class Higher Education sector. Research England will retain HEFCE’s research and knowledge exchange functions, including Higher Education Innovation Funding.

    HEIF is an essential mechanism to support universities in effectively contributing to UK growth. Research England and the new Office for Students will act together to deliver HEIF, as an example of the joint working between the two bodies and their shared remit to support business-university collaboration.

    And as I set out in a speech earlier this month, we are taking other steps to bring teaching and research closer together. Our proposals include provisions for joint working, cooperation and information sharing between the OfS and UKRI. An emphasis on working together will run through the leadership and management of both bodies, supported by a legal framework that will be sufficiently flexible to deal effectively with areas of shared interest.

    I also want the REF and the TEF to be mutually reinforcing. We will ask institutions to consider how they promote research-led teaching in their TEF submissions; and I have asked Lord Stern, as part of his review of the REF, to consider the impact of excellent research on teaching. We look forward to hearing the results of his review shortly.

    It will continue to be a matter for each of the devolved administrations to consider how to turn REF results into ‘dual support’ funding. We are working with them, and I was in Scotland earlier this week, to discuss the steps we can take to ensure UKRI works to fund excellent science across the UK, just as Research Councils do now. UKRI is just that: an integrated organisation with a remit to think and act strategically across the whole of the country.

    The balance of funding between the Councils will ultimately be decided by ministers, as it always has been. But, with the formation of UKRI, we will have a new mechanism for the whole research and innovation community to determine its own priorities, and to advise ministers as to their view on the optimal budget allocations.

    Conclusion: 5 tests

    By preserving the strengths of our research base, and building capability for the future, we have a real opportunity to ensure we are truly leading the world in this new era of global science and innovation.

    And with both the funding and the strategy in place, we have every reason to be optimistic.

    But we in government will need to continue to work closely with the research and innovation communities as we adjust to the realities of a new relationship with the rest of Europe.

    The country that inspired the steam engine, the double helix and the World Wide Web has no guaranteed pass to the scientific premier league in the next century, nor can protected funding alone guarantee success.

    The nature of the next scientific breakthroughs is changing, and we must adapt with it.

    Now, more than ever, and as the Parliamentary process moves forward in the months ahead, we must galvanise our national research and innovation effort, and make sure it is fit for the future.

    I have 5 tests for the success of these reforms:

    Are we training and attracting world-class scientists and engineers, who are in turn able to help shape a more cohesive national research and innovation strategy?

    Do we have a strong national champion for research and innovation, able to make a case in government, with the public and around the world in support of UK science and in pursuit of international collaboration?

    Are we fully exploiting economic opportunities from our research base, especially in new and emerging technologies, maintaining our reputation as a global innovation leader?

    Are we effectively targeting our efforts at society’s biggest challenges, with the ability to support more multi- and inter-disciplinary research, and success at winning global recognition for UK-led breakthroughs?

    And have we preserved for future generations the vital components of academic autonomy, made possible through the Haldane Principle and Dual Support, that underpin so much of what is great about UK academia?

    We can pass these tests, and seize the opportunity – not just to preserve what already works well, but also to turn the challenges we now face to our advantage.

    We must now work together to get this right. We have the chance both to maintain everything that is exceptional about UK research and innovation, and cement our unparalleled leadership in this new age of global science.

  • Lord Freud – 2016 Speech on Reforms to Support Social Sector Tenants

    lordfreud

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Freud, the Minister of State for Welfare Reform, in Manchester on 29 June 2016.

    Introduction

    It is a pleasure to be here in Manchester for the Chartered Institute of Housing’s conference in its centenary year.

    Over the last 100 years, the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) has been at the forefront of campaigning for and creating better homes and better lives for families across the UK.

    Your ambition to improve people’s lives and situations is one that is fundamental to welfare reform.

    When I spoke at your conference 4 years ago, I stressed the importance of the social housing sector to the success of welfare reform, and in particular to support people at the heart of your organisations – tenants.

    The welfare reforms we have delivered have been made with one purpose in mind: to get Britain back to work. We know that work is the best route out of poverty.

    Our reforms have sought to renew incentives to get a job and help people overcome the barriers they face.

    And our reforms are working. Since 2010, there are:

    – 764,000 fewer workless households
    – 36,000 fewer households where no member has ever worked
    – 449,000 fewer children living in workless households

    This is the fruit of our welfare reform: people re-engaging with the labour market and transforming their own and their family’s lives.

    Alongside this ambition, however, we recognise the importance of protecting the most vulnerable in our society.

    We have and are developing provisions to do this fairly in our housing reforms, through the benefit cap and in Universal Credit.

    Today I want to talk to you about these protections. And I also want to talk to you about how much I value the work you have done and that we continue to do together.

    Supported housing

    I have huge admiration for the work that the supported housing sector does. I also recognise the complexity of the sector, and the diversity of the services being delivered.

    I understand the concerns that many of you had following last year’s announcement that the local housing allowance caps would be extended to the social rented sector.

    That is why in March we put in place a one year deferral to the policy for supported housing.

    The supported housing sector is vital to the delivery of so many of the government’s policy objectives – not only in my own area of work and pensions. It plays a crucial role in ensuring:

    – that those with learning difficulties can live as independent a life as possible

    – that vulnerable elderly people have somewhere to grow old safely
    and that care leavers can make the transition to self-reliance

    For hundreds of thousands of people across the country – from those with mental health conditions, to ex-offenders, to those escaping domestic violence – the importance of supported housing cannot be overestimated.

    What is important now is that we make decisions on the future of the sector based on the best available evidence.

    And that we ensure support is focused on the most vulnerable, with appropriate safeguards.

    So that we can get the best provision possible, such as that provided by Riverside, Nacro, Anchor Trust and Richmond Fellowship here in Manchester – which provide support to rough sleepers, people addicted to alcohol, older people and those with mental health problems respectively.

    We recognise that the vast majority of providers deliver a genuine and valuable service, however, on the rare occasions where it does exist, we want to root out sub-standard treatment that does the most vulnerable of people in our society a great disservice.

    The need for long term reform in this sector was well established before the Local Housing Allowance caps announcement.

    The roll out of Universal Credit already meant we needed to think about how funding for supported housing is best delivered in the future.

    That is why my department – jointly with the Department for Communities and Local Government, who you will hear from later today – commissioned a supported housing evidence review, nearly 2 years ago.

    This will tell us much more about the shape, scale and cost of the sector. And it is the first such evidence review in over 20 years.

    The review is now nearing its end and we hope to be able to publish it shortly.

    This is of course an issue that affects many parts of government and our colleagues in the devolved administrations. I am working with a broad range of ministerial colleagues to find the policy solution to this issue.

    An important part of this policy work is talking to you, the sector. You are not just a vital sector but a diverse one.

    That makes it even more essential that we engage extensively with you ahead of bringing forward any proposals. So we fully understand how the system works at present on the ground.

    As part of the evidence and policy reviews, we have spoken with over two hundred stakeholders from all nations of Britain. This includes local authority commissioners, providers of supported housing, charities, sector membership organisations and individuals themselves living in supported housing.

    The insights and expertise that all these groups have brought to both the evidence review and the policy thinking have been immensely valuable. And we are continuing to listen.

    For me, answering the question of long term reform also offers us an opportunity to think about how this crucial sector operates. For example:

    – What can we do to ensure that quality and an outcomes focus are at the heart of what we do?

    – How can we ensure that the system allows for and indeed drives innovation to build on what we know already works?

    – We all know these are not simple questions. That is why we are working quickly to understand what the evidence is telling us.

    Building on this review, we will work with you to put in place appropriate protections. So that those who need supported accommodation – often the most vulnerable in our society – have appropriate and sustainable housing.

    Benefit cap

    Now let me turn to the benefit cap. We introduced the benefit cap to incentivise work, and that is exactly what we are seeing.

    Our research has shown that capped households are 41% more likely to enter work than similar uncapped households.

    The benefit cap has been in place for 3 years and of the 73,000 households who have been capped, around 53,000 households are no longer subject to it. Nearly 22,000 of these households have moved into work.

    The benefit cap is helping families to make positive behavioural changes. It is strengthening work incentives in the benefit system, and improving life chances.

    The lower and tiered cap coming in this autumn is a key part of our commitment to reduce long-term welfare dependency.

    My department is already proactively supporting people who will be affected by the new cap.

    We have written to local authorities and to people likely to be affected so that we can advise them of the support available. Support to move into work, as well as budgeting and housing assistance.

    There is a close partnership between jobcentres and local authorities focused on helping those affected by the benefit cap move into employment – and away from benefit dependency.

    This includes conducting home visits for the most vulnerable – in some cases jointly with housing associations.

    This activity will give people time to explore and take up support before the new cap comes in.

    Along with this support, we are continuing to provide funding for Discretionary Housing Payments and have committed to £870 million over this Parliament.

    This is for local authorities to be able to provide additional financial support for those who need it most.

    Along with our desire to support the most vulnerable to move in to employment, we also recognise and value the work that carers and guardians do across the country.

    That is why we have created new exemptions from the benefit cap for households entitled to Carer’s Allowance or Guardian’s Allowance. And these will take effect later this year.

    Universal Credit

    The roll-out of Universal Credit is a good example of government and the housing sector working together effectively.

    We have delivered welfare reform and together we have been able to make a positive difference to people’s lives.

    We have been continuing to improve the Universal Credit service and in particular our relationships with local authorities, landlords and housing representative groups.

    Taking on your feedback, we have developed a number of measures to make Universal Credit better for the sector and better for tenants.

    To name a few:

    – we have enabled social landlords to be notified when their tenants make a claim to Universal Credit, so that they can apply for Alternative Payment Arrangements for tenants in arrears

    – we have implemented an escalation line for landlords to contact the Universal Credit service centre to minimise the risk of evictions
    we have published a landlord support pack on GOV.UK to help landlords prepare their organisation, staff and tenants for Universal Credit

    Our Trusted Partner pilot is a further demonstration of our partnership working. We have worked with social landlords to allow them to identify tenants who would be unlikely to pay their rent when they started receiving Universal Credit. They were able to recommend that these tenants instead had an Alternative Payment Arrangement.

    However, the support did not end with putting in place a different method of payment. These landlords worked with their tenants to provide on-going support, so that in time, their tenants could pay their rent independently.

    Early evidence has shown positive outcomes and we will continue to review this over the coming months.

    Universal Support

    We are not content with stopping here but we are intent on supporting the most vulnerable of claimants.

    Our aim is to support the needs of anyone whose conditions are stopping them from finding and staying in work.

    Our work coaches now have the flexibility to tailor support for individuals in difficult circumstances. For example, they can remove work search requirements from people facing homelessness to allow them to sort out their housing situation.

    We know that for some people, managing their Universal Credit claim online and budgeting their award effectively may be difficult.

    That is why we have developed Universal Support to help people by improving their financial and digital capability. This is done through budgeting support and assistance with digital services, delivered by local partners.

    Universal Support is already transforming the way jobcentres work as part of their local communities. They are now more effective in tackling the barriers that harder to help people face in getting into sustainable employment.

    When I visit jobcentres across the country – from Southampton, to Grantham – what strikes me is the genuine enthusiasm of work coaches.

    Because of Universal Credit, for the first time they feel that the welfare system is coherent. And that they can help people to lead independent, fulfilling lives.

    Universal Support will take this even further, ensuring that we can truly help those who are the hardest to help.

    We are now considering how to expand Universal Support to cover a wide range of complex barriers. These are the barriers that ultimately lead to worklessness and poor life chances – including addiction, problem debt, homelessness, lack of basic skills and a history of offending.

    Expanded Universal Support aims to address these barriers by encouraging a system of joined-up services at a local level.

    For example the Working Well pilot here in Greater Manchester. Local services are working together to address people’s barriers to employment. They are tackling people’s health, housing and debt issues and providing employment and skills support. Because of this joined up approach, over 230 people of the hardest to help have been supported into employment.

    Through such locally designed and integrated services, we can better meet the needs of people with complex and multiple barriers. And help them into sustained employment.

    Housing sector

    What has struck me over the last 6 years, is that despite the scale of our welfare reforms, the housing sector has adapted in the interests of their tenants.

    Many housing providers have looked at their social obligations and have stepped up to support their tenants.

    They have identified the skills that their tenants are missing and developed ways to fill this. Whether that’s through helping tenants with budgeting support or providing employability courses, these initiatives are helping people to lead independent and fulfilling lives.

    I do not underestimate the commitment of you and your staff to achieve this goal. Nor do I underestimate the cultural and organisational change that many of you have invested in.

    I was very impressed by a visit I made to Bromford social housing in the Midlands. Through their “Bromford Deal” tenants make a commitment to invest in their own development in return for being a Bromford tenant.

    Bromford are using their relationship with tenants to get them ready for the world of work and away from benefit dependency.

    And there are many more examples.

    From the YMCA, which awards points towards moving into a self-contained flat for engaging with education, training and employment.

    To St Basils in the West Midlands, which is incentivising training with housing, working in partnership with the local NHS.

    Indeed, according to the National Housing Federation, over a third of housing associations offer employment and skills services – with more planning to do so.

    Conclusion

    Our ambition is to transform people’s lives by giving them the tools, incentives and support they need to get into work and stay in work.

    By doing this we are determined to move our country to a lower welfare society, where those who need support get it. And where we protect the most vulnerable.

    We have worked tirelessly to improve the economy, increase employment opportunities for all and achieve lasting welfare reform.

    Today we can see the results:

    – with the employment rate at a record high

    – with the number workless households in the social sector down from a peak of 49% in 2010, to 39% last year

    – with Universal Credit continuing to pull people out of benefit dependency and out of poverty traps

    We all have our part to play in this. And I am very encouraged by the support and resources that housing associations and other partners here today are providing for tenants.

    From supported housing, to the benefit cap, to Universal Credit, and now to Universal Support – we have shown we can work together to ensure that we protect and support vulnerable people.

    As the CIH celebrates its achievements over the last 100 years – and looks ahead to shaping the future of housing – I look forward to working with you to realise the vision of improving housing and improving people’s lives.

  • Ruth Smeeth – 2016 Statement on Chakrabarti Report

    Below is the text of the statement issued by Ruth Smeeth, the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, on 30 June 2016.

    This morning, at the launch of the Chakrabarti Inquiry into antisemitism, I was verbally attacked by a Momentum activist and Jeremy Corbyn supporter who used traditional antisemitic slurs to attack me for being part of a ‘media conspiracy’. It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report on antisemitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories about Jewish people, which were ironically highlighted as such in Ms Chakrabarti’s report, while the leader of my own party stood by and did absolutely nothing.

    People like this have no place in our party or our movement and must be opposed. Until today I had made no public comment about Jeremy’s ability to lead our party, but the fact that he failed to intervene is final proof for me that he is unfit to lead, and that a Labour Party under his stewardship cannot be a safe space for British Jews. I have written to the General Secretary of the Labour Party and the Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party to formally complain about this morning’s events.

    No-one from the Leader’s office has contacted me since the event, which is itself a catastrophic failure of leadership. I call on Jeremy Corbyn to resign immediately and make way for someone with the backbone to confront racism and antisemitism in our party and in the country.

  • Michael Gove – 2016 Leadership Speech

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove on 30 June 2016.

    The British people voted for change last Thursday. They sent us a clear instruction that they want Britain to leave the European Union and end the supremacy of EU law. They told us to restore democratic control of immigration policy and to spend their money on national priorities such as health, education and science instead of giving it to Brussels. They rejected politics as usual and government as usual. They want and need a new approach to running this country.

    There are huge challenges ahead for this country but also huge opportunities. We can make this country stronger and fairer. We have a unique chance to heal divisions, give everyone a stake in the future and set an example as the most creative, innovative and progressive country in the world.

    If we are to make the most of the opportunities ahead we need a bold break with the past.

    I have repeatedly said that I do not want to be Prime Minister. That has always been my view. But events since last Thursday have weighed heavily with me.

    I respect and admire all the candidates running for the leadership. In particular, I wanted to help build a team behind Boris Johnson so that a politician who argued for leaving the European Union could lead us to a better future.

    But I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that Boris cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead.

    I have, therefore, decided to put my name forward for the leadership. I want there to be an open and positive debate about the path the country will now take. Whatever the verdict of that debate I will respect it. In the next few days I will lay out my plan for the United Kingdom, which I hope can provide unity and change.