UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Amber Rudd – 2016 Speech on the Referendum Result

    amberrudd

    Below is the text of the speech made by Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, in London on 29 June 2016.

    The decision to leave the EU is of historic significance.

    To be clear, Britain will leave the EU.

    The decision of the British people was clear.

    The key challenge now, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have stressed, is to work towards a settlement that is in the best interests of Britain.

    As a Government, we are fully committed to delivering the best outcome for the British people – and that includes delivering the secure, affordable, clean energy our families and business need.

    That commitment has not changed.

    Because while the decision to leave the EU is undoubtedly significant, the challenges we face as a country remain the same.

    How do we protect the strong economy that we have built over the past 6 years?

    How do we ensure we build the infrastructure we need to underpin our strong economy?

    How do we ensure people have good jobs that pay them well?

    The challenges to our environment remain the same.

    How do we make sure people can have respite from the daily grind in safe, clean green spaces near their home?

    How do we ensure we protect our most precious species?

    How do we ensure our green and pleasant land is protected both to respect the efforts of generations past and as a responsibility to generations to come?

    In particular, I want to underline our commitment to the issue over which I have primary responsibility; climate change.

    Climate change has not been downgraded as a threat. It remains one of the most serious long-term risks to our economic and national security.

    I was lucky enough to lead the world-class team of British diplomats at last year’s Paris climate talks. Our efforts were central to delivering that historic deal.

    And the UK will not step back from that international leadership. We must not turn our back on Europe or the world.

    Our relationships with the United States, China, India, Japan and other European countries will stand us in strong stead as we deliver on the promises made in Paris. At the heart of that commitment is the Climate Change Act.

    Its success has inspired countries across the world, and its structure of 5-yearly cycles inspired a core part of the Paris deal.

    I know many of you are keenly awaiting the outcome of our deliberation on the 5th Carbon Budget. You can expect the Government’s decision tomorrow.

    It is an important building block of our economy’s future and you would expect us to take our time to ensure we got the decision right.

    And however we choose to leave the EU, let me be clear: we remain committed to dealing with climate change.

    The Act was not imposed on us by the EU.

    The Climate Change Act in 2008 underpins the remarkable investment we have seen in the low carbon economy since 2010.

    Investment in renewables has increased by 42% since 2010.

    In 2014, 30% of all of Europe’s renewable energy investment took place in the UK.

    Annual support for renewables is expected to double during this Parliament to more than £10 billion.

    Last year I set out a clear vision for the future of our energy system.

    We said that security of supply would be our first priority. Since then we have consulted on changes to the capacity market which has further secured our position.

    We are likely to see significant investment following the auction later this year.

    Beyond that, we will continue to invest in clean energy.

    We have agreed to support up to 4GW of offshore wind and other technologies for deployment in the 2020s – providing the costs come down.

    At the same time we made tough decisions on support for renewable energy, reflecting our core belief that technologies should be able to stand on their own two feet.

    We remain committed to new nuclear power in the UK – to provide clean, secure energy.

    Government has prepared the ground for a fleet of new nuclear stations. Three consortia have proposals to develop 18GW of new power stations at six new sites across the UK.

    These will support more than 30,000 jobs across the nuclear supply chain over the coming years.

    We have announced record investment in new heat networks, to enable new and innovative ways of heating our homes and businesses.

    And we made a commitment to closing unabated coal-fired power stations – a commitment that was praised by leaders across the world.

    All these commitments remain in place. They will help us rebuild our energy infrastructure.

    And I am certain that future investment in this sector will continue to flow to Britain’s strong economy.

    As the Chancellor made clear earlier this week, thanks to the reforms of this Government, the United Kingdom approaches the challenges of leaving the EU from a position of strength.

    Growth has been robust.

    The employment rate is at a record high.

    And the budget deficit has been brought down from 11% of national income, and was forecast to be below 3% this year.

    Britain remains one of the best places in the world to live and do business: the rule of law; low taxes; a talented, creative, determined workforce; a strong finance sector.

    We have to build on the strengths of our economy, not turn away from them. We have to enhance our scientific leadership including our co-operation with other countries.

    These factors – a clear energy policy framework and a strong, investment-friendly economy – combine to make the UK an ideal place to attract energy investment.

    Whatever settlement we decide on in the comings months, these fundamentals will remain.

    At the heart of the approach I set out last autumn is our commitment to innovation in energy – and I am delighted this topic is top of your agenda today.

    We do not yet have all the answers to addressing climate change.

    We must nurture new technologies and industries that will make our future energy system both cheap and clean.

    In energy, we are leading the way.

    Last autumn as part of the Paris talks, Britain committed to Mission Innovation – a global partnership to encourage greater support for innovation. It was complemented by the Breakthrough Energy Coalition: 29 wealthy investors pledging to invest in energy research and development.

    I met Bill Gates earlier this year to discuss this and we agreed the need for a transformation of our energy system.

    We also agreed that the transformation would only happen if we could find technologies which are reliable, clean and cheap.

    We are doing our part. That is why, as a Government, we have committed more than £500 million over this Spending Review to supporting new energy technologies.

    This means supporting entrepreneurs as they look to develop the innovations of the future – in storage, in energy efficiency, in renewables.

    As part of that programme, we will build on the UK’s expertise in nuclear innovation. At least half of our innovation spending will go towards nuclear research and development. This will support our centres of excellence in Cumbria, Manchester, Sheffield and Preston.

    Our nuclear programme will include a competition to develop a small modular nuclear reactor – potentially one of the most exciting innovations in the energy sector.

    Let’s be honest, as the Chancellor said we now face a period of uncertainty. The decision on Thursday raises a host of questions for the energy sector, of course it does.

    There have been significant advantages to us trading energy both within Europe and being an entry point into Europe from the rest of the world. Europe has led the world on acting to address climate change.

    The economic imperative that drove those relationships has not changed, an openness to trade remains central to who we are as a country.

    As the Prime Minister said, we will work towards the best deal possible for Britain.

    Securing our energy supply, keeping bills low and building a low carbon energy infrastructure: the challenges remain the same.

    Our commitment also remains the same.

    As investors and businesses, you can be confident we remain committed to building a secure, affordable low carbon infrastructure fit for the 21st Century.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2016 Speech on the Somme Centenary

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in Belfast on 29 June 2016.

    I am very grateful to you for coming here this morning and for providing me with an opportunity to reflect on events of 100 years ago.

    Before I do that, however, I thought it right to address the situation following the EU referendum.

    The people of the United Kingdom gave their verdict last Thursday and voted to leave the European Union.

    But I fully appreciate the need to bridge the divisions which emerged during the referendum in recognition of the many millions who voted remain, including a majority here in Northern Ireland.

    So I want to give these re-assurances.

    First, there will be a careful and detailed negotiation to determine how we implement the decision taken last Thursday.

    I and the whole government are determined to get the best deal for all parts of our United Kingdom.

    And I will do everything possible to ensure that Northern Ireland’s interests are protected.

    In the negotiations to come, the Prime Minister has promised that we will involve the Northern Ireland Executive as well as the other devolved administrations.

    We will also be engaging with the business and farming community in Northern Ireland on this important task on which we are embarking.

    And we are already working with the Irish Government. We both want to keep the open border for people and business.

    The UK has always been an open and outward looking country, a great global trading nation. And that is what we intend to remain.

    So we are committed to securing a long-term economic relationship with the rest of Europe that provides for the best possible terms of trade in goods and services.

    And we will look to put in place the strongest possible economic links with friends like the United States, and the Commonwealth, and other important partners like China.

    Opening up important new potential opportunities for Northern Ireland.

    There will inevitably be some adjustments and the Government is ready to take any appropriate action needed to deal with those.

    But as the Chancellor made clear in his statement on Monday, thanks to the difficult decisions we have made, the UK economy is fundamentally strong.

    We have robust growth, our deficit is down and employment is at record levels.

    So we should take confidence from the fact that the UK is ready to deal with whatever the future holds from a position of strength.

    Finally I would like to say this.

    This Government remains fully committed to the Belfast Agreement and its successors and to the institutions they establish.

    The Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council will all continue to reflect the unique political relationships throughout these islands.

    In fact as a result of the result last week, more decisions than ever before that affect Northern Ireland will be taken in Northern Ireland with your devolved institutions one of the main recipients of the powers to be brought back from Brussels.

    Following the result last week some have called for a border poll.

    The Belfast Agreement is very clear on this.

    I am obliged to call such a poll if at any point I believe there is a majority here for a united Ireland.

    I do not believe that to be the case.

    All tests of opinion point to continuing strong support for the current political settlement, including Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.

    So this Government will continue to provide stability and govern in the interests of the whole community.

    We remain determined to do the best for Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.

    Although the referendum has dominated the news headlines since Thursday, this should not mean we overlook the importance of the centenary which takes place on Friday 1st July.

    On that day I will have the privilege of joining the Prime Minister, members of the Royal family, political colleagues and thousands of members of the public at services in France to mark the 100th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme.

    First of all, we will gather at Thiepval at the site of Lutyens’ magnificent Memorial to the Missing which bears the names of over 72,000 British and South African soldiers killed at the Somme but who have no marked grave.

    Then along with many of Northern Ireland’s elected leaders I will go on to the Ulster Tower, near to the site of the Schwaben Redoubt which was the object of the Ulster Division’s assault on that fateful July morning one hundred years ago.

    As many of you will know, the Ulster Tower is modelled on Helen’s Tower at Clandeboye where so many members of the 36th Ulster Division drilled before they set off for France.

    This will be my third visit to the Somme as Secretary of State and these annual ceremonies are without doubt one of the most poignant and moving events that I attend as part of my official duties.

    The Battle of the Somme began at 7.30am, on a sunny morning and was to last for 141 days.

    It has left an indelible mark on our nation’s history.

    It is deeply ingrained in the national consciousness of the whole United Kingdom, with barely a community, village, town or city untouched by the sheer horror what happened there.

    In total the British Army sustained some 57,000 casualties on the first day.

    Almost half the 120,000 men in the 143 battalions who went over the top were cut down by a lethal blizzard of machine gun, rifle and artillery.

    It is widely viewed as the darkest day in British military history.

    By the time the Battle ended on 18 November casualties had risen to 419,655 men.

    And the furthest the British and French forces advanced during those four months was 8 miles along a 20 mile front.

    No doubt the debate will continue to rage about the tactics that involved slaughter on an industrial scale, though as one distinguished historian put it recently:

    “If there was a way of fighting the First World War that did not involve trying to smash frontally through formidable enemy defences, neither side discovered it”.

    This centenary gives us a chance to reflect once again on whether anything was achieved. Though it can be argued that by relieving Verdun, the battle saved France from collapse, substantially weakened the German army, and prepared the way for the victory which occurred two years later.

    But what is not in doubt is the shattering scale of the sacrifice that took place to achieve this, with so many first-hand accounts recounting the pain, the suffering and the horror.

    So it is only right that this week we come together as a nation to remember those who fell.

    And of course the centenary has particular resonance for many in Northern Ireland because the deeds of the 36th Ulster Division on the first day of the Somme have passed into legend.

    After going over the top, the Ulster Division was one of the few that actually succeeded in meeting its objectives that day.

    By a combination of astute tactics and speed, not matched on other parts of the battlefield, they had entered the Schwaben Reboubt by 8am and taken over 400 German prisoners.

    But the inability of other Divisions to make similar advances left them cut off from reinforcements and massively exposed to a ferocious German counter-attack.

    The more the Ulstermen advanced, the more cut off they became, until eventually they were forced to retreat and abandon their gains.

    And their initial success came at a huge price, with the Division sustaining over 5,500 casualties.

    The heroism they displayed was remarkable.

    One war correspondent described their initial attack as:

    “one of the finest displays of human courage in the world”.

    While Captain Wilfred Spender of the Ulster Division’s HQ Staff famously said:

    “I am not an Ulsterman but yesterday, the 1st. July, as I followed their amazing attack, I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world.

    My pen cannot describe adequately the hundreds of heroic acts that I witnessed”.

    Of the nine Victoria Crosses awarded on the first day of the Somme, four went to Ulstermen.

    Theirs were stories of truly astounding levels of courage.

    And I was privileged to be present at Bushmills with Her Majesty the Queen yesterday when she unveiled a statue of one of them, Robert Quigg.

    Yet the history of Ireland and the Great War is not just about the 36th Division.

    We must also remember the incredible heroism of the 16th Irish Division.

    Mainly nationalists drawn from the pre-war Irish Volunteers, they sustained an agonising 4,300 casualties in successfully capturing Guillemont and Ginchy in September 1916.

    Just as in Great Britain, so across the island of Ireland there was virtually no corner left unaffected by the Battle of the Somme.

    In total it is estimated that well over 200,000 men from across the island served in the British Army during the course of the war.

    And it is worth remembering that nearly three quarters of them were volunteers, with conscription never extending to Ireland.

    Around 35,000 Irishmen, Protestants and Catholics, unionists and nationalists were killed in World War One.

    Their contribution and their sacrifice was immense and we should never forget it.

    Yet in the decades following partition, the Irish contribution to the Somme and to the First World War more generally often seemed largely hidden.

    And I believe that part of the reason for that lies in the consequences of another seminal event in Irish history that took place a matter of months before the Somme and which has also been extensively commemorated this year.

    I refer of course to the Easter Rising that began at the GPO in Dublin on 24 April 1916 and which by the time the surrender occurred five days later had resulted in nearly 500 deaths and 2,600 injured.

    While the Rising did not achieve its immediate objectives it is entirely understandable why so many see it today as leading directly to the birth of the Irish Free State and ultimately to the foundation of the Republic of Ireland.

    In the post-independence era, two conflicting narratives of the year 1916 began to take shape.

    For many unionists, the rising was an illegitimate insurrection by a small number of unrepresentative rebels, at a time when the war on the western front was going particularly badly.

    This was in stark contrast to the supreme sacrifice that Ulstermen made at the Somme fighting for King and country.

    In nationalist eyes the men and women of Easter 1916 gained a revered status, bordering on the mythological.

    A citizens’ army fighting for Irish freedom against the might of the greatest Empire the world had ever seen.

    And over time, those Irishmen who heeded the call by nationalist leader, John Redmond, to enlist in the British Army and who fought on the western front tended to be disregarded and overlooked.

    If anything, in the period after the Second World War and during the long years of the Troubles, these attitudes hardened.

    It is one of many examples of the power history has to sustain long held divisions and antagonisms on this island.

    In recent years, however, against a backdrop of the significant political progress here in Northern Ireland and the greatly strengthened relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland a number of pre-conceptions and stereotypes have begun to break down.

    There is now a much greater focus on the complexities of Irish history during the turbulent decade from 1912 to 1922.

    So, for example, we learn of what motivated men like Emmet Dalton.

    He was an Irish Volunteer who joined the British Army in 1915, fought with distinction with the 16th Irish at Ginchy during the Somme, reached the rank of Major, and was awarded the Military Cross.   On demobilisation in 1919, he joined the IRA and became one of Michael Collins’ closest associates.

    Or there is Martin Doyle, of the Royal Munster Fusiliers.

    He was awarded the Victoria Cross in September 1918, joined the IRA in 1920, and later served with the pro-Treaty forces during the civil war.

    The role of women has been more clearly acknowledged, not just those who took part in and supported the Easter Rising, but also the 234,046 women who signed the Declaration supporting the 1912 Ulster Covenant opposing Irish Home Rule.

    And while it is the radicals who campaigned for votes for women who tend to be remembered today when we consider that decade of suffragette agitation. Perhaps those really responsible for the expansion of the franchise were the millions of women who took on roles and responsibilities on the home front in factories and farms and offices which had previously been the exclusive preserve of men.

    Ireland’s role in the Great War has been rediscovered and at long last it has been fully recognised.

    The changing view of our history was illustrated by a series of historic events in recent years.

    These include the unveiling of the island of Ireland Peace Tower at Messines by Her Majesty the Queen and the then President of Ireland, Mary McAleese on 11 November 1998.

    The visit of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to the Menin Gate and the Peace Park at Messines in 2013.

    And the resumption of the laying of a wreath by the Irish Ambassador, Dan Mulhall, at the cenotaph in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday.

    In March 2014 along with Jimmy Deenihan, who was culture minister at the time, I helped lay the foundation stone for the Cross of Sacrifice at Glasnevin Cemetery in Dublin. And I was honoured to be present when this monument was later dedicated to the thousands of Irishmen who gave their lives in the two world wars.

    And in August 2014, the Irish President and Taoiseach and his ministers were right at the heart of commemorations to mark the outbreak of war.

    I strongly welcome the fact that the Irish Government has organised its own programme of commemoration of the Battle of the Somme, including an event at the Irish National War Memorial at Islandbridge next month.

    All of this is in tune with the approach with which the Irish Government marked the centenary of the Easter Rising earlier this year.

    It is widely accepted that tensions around the 50th anniversary in 1966 raised tensions within Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and probably contributed to the outbreak of the Troubles shortly afterwards.

    By contrast the Irish Government’s commemorations on Easter Sunday showed it is possible to mark events which are still sensitive and contested a hundred years after they took place in ways which are both dignified and inclusive.

    I applaud them for that, and for events such as the service to remember those members of the British military who lost their lives during the rising.

    The same inclusive approach was demonstrated at the Rising to Reconciliation event I attended in Dublin’s Abbey Theatre in April thanks to the kind invitation of Minister Charlie Flanagan and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

    And at the Imagining Ireland concert at London’s Royal Festival Hall later the same month hosted by the Irish Embassy.

    Much of the credit for this changed tone is, of course, down to professional historians, uncovering new facts and providing fresh interpretations of past events.

    I’ve also been very impressed by the Creative Centenaries # Making History 1916 exhibition at the Ulster Museum and the Reflections on 1916 exhibition at Belfast City Hall.

    And by the work of the Community Relations Council and Heritage Lottery Fund to develop and embed the set of important principles which underpins all of this work in Northern Ireland.

    Talking to the people behind these initiatives, it is clear that every word has been scrutinised, every picture the subject of negotiation, every display carefully weighed up for accuracy.

    All with a view to ensuring that everyone can feel comfortable visiting the exhibition, whatever their background.

    Creative Centenaries, who I first met in April at the Nerve Centre in Londonderry, have also produced some excellent resources for schools.

    But as well as the historians, I believe the politicians too have played a part in changing the way we look at the events of 100 years ago.

    At the beginning of the so-called ‘decade of centenaries’ in 2012, the UK and Irish Governments both recognised the potential for sensitive events like the Ulster Covenant, the Easter Rising or the Somme to be hijacked by those seeking to use them to re-open old wounds and promote discord and division.

    After all that has been achieved both here in Northern Ireland, and in UK-Irish relations, we therefore determined to work closely together in an effort to prevent this.

    While it is never easy to view history with complete objectivity and impartiality, both administrations have been clear that we seek to put historical accuracy and mutual respect for different perspectives at the heart of our approach.

    To promote education and greater shared understanding without asking everybody to agree or abandon strongly held positions.

    And so far, while acknowledging that even more difficult anniversaries lie ahead, I think we have been successful.

    It is an approach that we will continue to pursue as we look ahead to the centenaries of other seminal events, the ‘coupon’ election of 1918 and its aftermath, and of course the Treaty and partition in 1921 and 22.

    We have seen all too well how history can divide.

    Our ambitious goal throughout this decade is seek to use history to unite.

    To build on the political progress that has been made here.

    To strengthen further the strong bilateral relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and Ireland, a relationship that will endure long beyond the UK’s exit from the EU.

    And to bolster the special ties that exist throughout these islands as we look forward to our next century of co-operation, partnership and friendship.

  • Patrick McLoughlin – 2016 Speech on Infra-Structure

    Patrick McLoughlin
    Patrick McLoughlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, at the ExCel centre in London on 28 June 2016.

    Introduction

    Thank you for having me here today.

    Everyone in this room knows these are unpredictable times.

    So it’s nice to be able to get back to the hard certainties of concrete and steel.

    And it’s encouraging that so many have come here to discuss exactly those things.

    European referendum

    Now, I want to address the events of the last week directly.

    I passionately wanted Britain to remain part of the European Union.

    But the people of the United Kingdom delivered their verdict.

    Now the entire government and I will work to deliver their instruction.

    Yes, we face a period of adjustment; economic, social and political.

    But as we step out into our new place in the world, I sincerely believe we do so from a position of strength.

    We have spent the last 6 years delivering a plan that today means Britain is the strongest major advanced economy in the world.

    Employment is at a record high.

    Growth has been robust.

    And the fundamentals of our economy are strong.

    Many of you in this room have helped make it so.

    Together we’ve got Network Rail’s (NR) orange army improving our railway tracks.

    And we’ve rebuilt those key hubs such as Birmingham New Street and Manchester Victoria, to improve the daily commute.

    Together we’ve delivered dozens of major road improvement projects, to give our roads the capacity to handle future growth.

    And we are working on dozens more.

    Together we’re nearly at the finishing line on Crossrail, which will transform London’s rail network and link our largest airport with our largest financial district.

    So it’s thanks to your efforts that we enjoy some of the best infrastructure of any developed nation.

    It means we have the best possible tools to tackle the challenges ahead.

    And as we face up to the enormity of our task, be reassured.

    Our work is not yet done.

    The business of strengthening Britain’s economy continues.

    HS2 will rebalance our economy and generate colossal benefits for the supply chain.

    As the National Audit Office confirmed today, this project is on track.

    We are making progress on HS3, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, which will transform the north, alongside the £13 billion we are spending improving transport in the area.

    We are transforming northern roads, and electrifying northern railways.

    The first ever Road Investment Strategy will shortly be backed up by a second, delivering the largest spend on our roads for a generation.

    And on the railways, we have the most ambitious rail plan since the Victorian era.

    We are electrifying over 850 miles of railway, and delivering a better service for passengers through a franchising system that is reaching maturity.

    Altogether, transport spending will rise by 50% in this parliament.

    Because those who control the budgets know exactly how vital this programme is.

    And as we address the future and the consequences of our vote to leave the European Union (EU), one thing is certain.

    Investment in the long term infrastructure we need, has become more important, not less.

    Passenger demand is increasing; we are making twice as many journeys as we did in 1970.

    And so is the demand for economic growth.

    Let me give you two examples.

    One from the beginning of the last government, and one that struck me this week.

    In 2010, one of the first decisions that landed on George Osborne’s desk was the recommendation that he cancel Crossrail.

    The argument was clear:

    Our economy is in crisis and Crossrail will cost billions

    Thank goodness the Chancellor saw it differently.

    Yes, we could have used the Crossrail funding to pay down our debt.

    But diverting that investment would only create new problems down the line.

    The economic boost and extra capacity that Crossrail is bringing is badly needed.

    And backing out would’ve shown the short-termism that got us into an economic mess in the first place.

    Now no one’s arguing that we shouldn’t have done it.

    Even the Public Accounts Committee has called it:

    A textbook example of how to get things right

    The case for Crossrail that we came across in 2010 is the same case for new infrastructure now.

    Yesterday we formally opened a new station at Kirkstall Forge in Leeds.

    It’s the second new station we’ve opened in and around Leeds in recent months.

    Kirkstall Forge station cost the government less than £10 million to build.

    But it’s the catalyst for a £400 million investment in the area by the private sector, leading directly to a thousand new homes and a world-class new business park.

    There are countless examples of investment like this across our country.

    And be certain: the investment will continue.

    Yet there are also important questions ahead for the UK, as well as big opportunities.

    Take aviation capacity in the South East.

    We remain committed to expansion.

    And we remain committed to delivering runway capacity on the timetable set out by Sir Howard Davies.

    This remains one of the most important decisions for the government to take.

    All sides will have their views.

    Mine is this: as we make decisions about our future in the coming weeks and months, it is vital that the UK is seen to be open for business and building the infrastructure it needs to compete.

    So yes, there are things we don’t yet know the answer to.

    Things still to work through.

    But the instructions we received from the British people were clear.

    And as we deliver those instructions we proceed with confidence.

    Confidence that our infrastructure is fit for the future.

    That our economy is fundamentally strong.

    And that business and government will pull together to deliver the best for Britain.

    It’s a winning formula.

    And it means that Britain is ready for the challenges of the future.

    Thank you.

  • Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech to Business After EU Referendum Result

    CBI Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, in London on 28 June 2016.

    Good afternoon everyone, and thank you all for coming.

    Following last week’s historic decision by the British people, I’ve just chaired a meeting of the chairs of UK’s largest business organisations, and CEOs and senior representatives from many of our biggest employers.

    My message for them was very clear. Britain is open for business.

    Yes, the financial markets are still reacting to the result.

    But the fundamental facts remain unchanged.

    The UK is still a member of the European Union, and still a member of the single market.

    Employment is still at a record high.

    And this government is still 100% committed to making the UK the best place in Europe to start and grow a business.

    None of this has changed on Friday morning.

    None of this will change overnight.

    This is not the time for hasty decisions that will be regretted later.

    Rather, it is the time for government to work with businesses large and small up and down the country so they don’t just deal with the challenges that the result brings, but are also able to embrace the opportunities that it creates.

    The biggest issue raised was the need to secure continued access to the single market.

    While I’m not in a position to make promises, I assured everyone that my number one priority will be just that in the negotiations to come.

    I also set out the wide-ranging, globe-spanning process of engagement that has been underway at my department since the result became known.

    I’ve personally been in regular contact with many CEOs and business leaders, a process that will continue in the days and weeks that lie ahead.

    Trade Minister Lord Price is in contact with many of Britain’s biggest inward investors.

    Over the next few months he will be visiting key overseas markets including China, Hong Kong and Brazil and reminding firms there that the UK is still very much open for business, just as before.

    My department already has a single, named contact minister for more than 80 of Britain’s top inward investors and exporters.

    I’m ensuring that they will make contact with all of their companies over the next few weeks.

    Similarly, the Prime Minister’s business ambassadors and trade envoys, drawn from across the business world and political spectrum, are out there representing the UK in the key markets and sectors around the world.

    UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) our international trade promotion body, has a presence in more than 100 markets around the world.

    I’ve instructed all the heads of UKTI to engage with the key investors locally to reassure them that the UK remains open for business and an attractive inward investment destination.

    Between now and the end of the year I will be leading a series of trade missions in order to communicate that message myself.

    Our unrivalled network of ambassadors and high commissioners have been reaching out to their local governments.

    In the past 48 hours we’ve heard senior politicians in Australia and South Korea calling for immediate talks on trade deals with the UK.

    Of course, the impact of last week’s vote will not just be felt among exporters and foreign investors.

    Across the country there are millions of businesses, large and small, that are not directly trading into EU, but who also have questions.

    In the weeks to come my ministerial team and I will be visiting businesses right across the country.

    This is not just about big business and not just about London.

    And I’m delighted that at today’s meeting the heads of the largest business organisations – the CBI, IoD, FSB, BCC and EEF – they all agreed to work together with the government to provide consistent support and advice for their members.

    As I’ve said before, we have to collaborate to ensure the best outcomes.

    Unions also have an important role to play.

    And I will be speaking to the TUC’s Frances O’Grady this afternoon to discuss the best way to engage and work with them.

    Over the past few days the main aim has been to reassure business.

    But we’ve also received plenty of reassurance from business.

    Investors have reaffirmed their commitment to the UK.

    For example, Huawei has today confirmed to government that its planned £1.3 billion investment in the UK will go ahead.

    The referendum will make no difference to that commitment.

    Numerous other companies have offered us staff to help with negotiations.

    We’ve had offers of support with surveys and intelligence gathering.

    Again and again we have heard business leaders mirroring the government’s position – that they are determined to make this work.

    Although many were shocked by the result, they are all doing what British businesses have always done.

    They are adapting, they are innovating, they are rising to the challenge.

    Finally, let me remind all of Britain’s businesses that, even in the face of market volatility, our economy remains fundamentally strong.

    The deficit is down, employment is up, Britain is home to more private businesses than at any point in its history.

    There will be challenging times ahead, of course, but we are more than well-placed to get through them.

    There is much more to be done in the weeks and months that lie ahead.

    And I look forward to working with businesses of all sizes.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2016 Statement on No Confidence Vote

    jeremycorbyn

    Below is the text of the statement issued by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, on the no confidence vote being held on his leadership on 28 June 2016.

    In the aftermath of last week’s referendum, our country faces major challenges. Risks to the economy and living standards are growing. The public is divided.

    The Government is in disarray. Ministers have made it clear they have no exit plan, but are determined to make working people pay with a new round of cuts and tax rises.

    Labour has the responsibility to give a lead where the Government will not. We need to bring people together, hold the Government to account, oppose austerity and set out a path to exit that will protect jobs and incomes.

    To do that we need to stand together. Since I was elected leader of our party nine months ago, we have repeatedly defeated the Government over its attacks on living standards.

    Last month, Labour become the largest party in the local elections. In Thursday’s referendum, a narrow majority voted to leave, but two thirds of Labour supporters backed our call for a remain vote.

    I was democratically elected leader of our party for a new kind of politics by 60% of Labour members and supporters, and I will not betray them by resigning. Today’s vote by MPs has no constitutional legitimacy.

    We are a democratic party, with a clear constitution. Our people need Labour party members, trade unionists and MPs to unite behind my leadership at a critical time for our country.

  • Martin Schulz – 2016 Speech in European Parliament

    martinshulz

    Below is the text of the speech made by Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, in the Parliament on 28 June 2016.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    The UK referendum is now behind us. The people have spoken.

    They were given a once in a lifetime choice and have now made that choice.

    Personally, and I know most of my colleagues share this view, I very much regret this choice.

    At this difficult time, I would like to honour on behalf of the European Parliament all those British women and men, great Europeans known and unknown who over the last four decades invested their strength and expertise to shape decisively the European Union we have today.

    They understood what Edward Heath pointed out in 1973: that the world is shrinking fast and forming new configurations. That “no island is [really] an island” anymore.

    And I also pay tribute to the many strands of British society which decided to make the case for remaining in the EU – from civil society, to teachers, to the police, from churches to sports people, to nurses to artists and to business leaders. They often faced relentless and vitriolic opposition – and I am incredibly saddened to say, in the case of MP Jo Cox, to whom the European Parliament paid tribute last week, despicable murder.

    What struck me particularly in the result are the clear-cut voting divides – both geographical, regional and generational.

    These divides must be taken very seriously, and when the UK negotiates its new relationship with the EU, the voice of those who chose to remain, those who saw their future, their jobs and their families at the heart of Europe, should not be disregarded.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    That being said, the European Parliament takes note of the democratic will of the majority of citizens of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and points out that this will needs to be fully respected and implemented as soon as possible.

    A spell of prolonged uncertainty would be in no-one’s interest and would threaten the Union’s integrity.

    To put it quite bluntly, the instruction given to the UK government through the referendum is now to negotiate withdrawal from the EU.

    The EU is a voluntary community. No one is forced to be a part of it. But when one member decides to leave, then leave that member must.

    Out means out.

    The people’s will must be respected and the European Parliament is sure that the British Government will do so.

    Waiting for several months, as has been announced by you, Prime Minister Cameron, and taking the destiny of our entire continent hostage purely for internal party political reasons would be totally unacceptable.

    That would not mean stability – on the contrary it would mean prolonged uncertainty.

    At its extraordinary session this morning, the view expressed by the European Parliament was clear: we expect the UK Prime Minister to notify the outcome of the referendum to this meeting of the European Council. And this notification will launch the withdrawal procedure.

    The European Parliament invites the Council to appoint the Commission as negotiator on Article 50.

    Any new relationship between the UK and the EU can only be agreed after the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement.

    The European Parliament has a right of consent in both cases – for the withdrawal and for the future relationship – and must therefore be fully involved at all stages.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Three urgent organisational measures are also necessary in the eyes of the European Parliament, and I want to outline them to you now.

    Firstly, we will enact changes to our internal parliamentary organisation to reflect the will of the UK citizens to leave the Union.

    Secondly, we take note of the resignation of the UK Commissioner and the relocation of his portfolio.

    And lastly we call on the Council to change the order of its rotating Presidencies to prevent the process of withdrawal from jeopardizing the management of day-to-day business of the Union next year.

    As for the Settlement agreed by you all last February, it was only ever meant to enter into force in case of a vote to remain.

    A self-destruct button had been included in its design, and the British citizens pressed that button.

    It goes without saying therefore that the Settlement is now null and void.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    And then what?

    Is this all that the European Union can aspire to in the 21st century? To merely achieve, in the best of cases, amicable divorces? Is this the only legacy we want for our children?

    The European Parliament is convinced that things cannot go on as they have in recent years.

    If the Union is to remain a force that matters in the world, if it is to give centre stage to the expectations of our 443 million citizens from the remaining 27 Member States, then it must be given the means to achieve this.

    We need to relaunch the European idea, to show a capacity for self-criticism, an awareness of where we should reform the EU to deliver more effectively and make it closer to citizens.

    Some Member States may want to integrate less or more slowly, which is fine. But let’s avoid yet another à la carte menu of opt-ins and opt-outs and devise a clear framework for this.

    Conversely, we should reinforce the core of the EU to allow for closer integration to address current challenges. We must develop and democratise the Economic and Monetary Union to provide sustainable growth and jobs and to overcome persistent economic and social uncertainty.

    We must develop and democratise the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and our Common Foreign and Security Policy to promote our common values, to protect our citizens, and to address the challenge of migration.

    To achieve such an ambitious and yet coherent reinvigoration, the European Parliament calls for a roadmap for a better Union based on exploiting the Lisbon Treaty, to be completed by a revision of the Treaties.

    Jobs, growth and investment

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Dealing efficiently and swiftly with the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union will allow us to put an end to this period of uncertainty.

    It will also allow the Union to concentrate on the different priorities where citizens expect concrete results to be delivered.

    Although the economic environment has shown signs of improvement, the EU must do better.

    We should be ambitious and aim at strong growth and full employment.

    We owe this to our citizens, and in particular to the younger generation.

    The European Parliament once again calls on all Member States to fully implement the Country-specific Recommendations.

    The track-record in this regard remains poor. If we want to boost growth but also maintain trust within and between Member States, we all have to deliver on what we agreed to do.

    The necessary policy mix should include not only reforms and fiscal soundness but also closing the investment gap.

    One year after I signed into law, together with the Latvian Council Presidency, the European Fund for Strategic Investments, we see the first results.

    Practically all Member States are now implementing projects under the Fund.

    The European Parliament welcomes this encouraging start and calls on all parties to continue promoting the Fund throughout the Union.

    I would like to remind you that we conceived the Fund to support projects with a high potential but which struggle to achieve financing from other sources because of the high risk involved. Let’s try to use it more in that way.

    It’s also time to start thinking about extending the Fund beyond the agreed three years, and making the necessary improvements to it. Indeed, what are three years in the life cycle of an investment project? Parliament therefore awaits the Commission’s proposal on this, planned for the autumn.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    What will really ensure the success of the Investment Fund is further private investment – encouraged by a deepened Single Market and a more business-friendly environment.

    Let me tell you what would be irresponsible: having the biggest single market in the world and failing to unleash its true potential!

    President Juncker, you pointed out last year that the Digital Single Market can generate €250 billion in additional growth and hundreds of thousands of new, skilled jobs by 2020.

    Despite this enormous potential, Member State legislation on regulating the internet and the sharing economy continues to be fragmented.

    Coming from a border region myself, I simply don’t understand why it’s so much more expensive, for example, to send a small package from Aachen just across the border to Maastricht than it is to send it six hundred and fifty kilometres on to Munich. This is economic and ecological nonsense and contradicts the principles of the Single Market.

    The European Parliament is a strong supporter of the Single Market, of removing barriers between Member States and facilitating market access for European businesses, in particular SMEs and start-ups.

    And to help these SMEs access funding, and to complement the role of banks by promoting the growth of innovative financing models such as crowd-funding and peer-to-peer lending, we need a fully-fledged Capital Markets Union.

    Last but not least, we must deepen the Economic and Monetary Union, for which the Five Presidents drew up a roadmap last summer. We all know that this roadmap is divided into several stages – but this should not prevent work from starting in parallel on all stages, including the swift implementation of Stage Two “Completing the EMU Architecture”.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    On the Banking Union, we have already come a long way by setting up a Single Supervisory Mechanism and a Single Resolution Mechanism.

    Let’s not stop now – so close to our common goal. The current situation on the financial markets shows the need for a strong and stable Eurozone.

    We promised our citizens a system that resists future crises, that protects depositors and taxpayers alike, that severs the link between banks and sovereigns. Let’s now deliver on these promises.

    Some Member States want to focus on reducing risk, which is understandable, but this must go in parallel with work on sharing risk.

    The same goes for the introduction of a proper backstop for the Single Resolution Fund. Member States committed to such a backstop. It is now time to finish the job and ensure the soundness of our banking and financial system.

    A central aspect of our strategy not only for growth, but also to rebuild trust in the EU, is the fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and money laundering. Our Single Market cannot function properly if Member States are competing against each other in a race to the bottom, or if SMEs end up paying higher tax rates than multinationals.

    Every year, Member States lose between €100 and 240 billion in taxes because of aggressive corporate “tax planning”. Fighting for a fairer taxation system is not only a way to significantly increase public revenue, it is also a matter of social justice.

    This month, the European Parliament adopted the mandate of an inquiry committee to follow up the Panama Papers scandal. Next week, we will vote on the report of our special committee on tax rulings.

    In parallel, work must continue on legislative files, and I name only two important cases.

    Firstly, on the Directive against tax avoidance, the European Parliament has highlighted once again that taxes must be paid where profits are made..

    Secondly, increasing transparency is decisive. Public country-by-country reporting, a common European blacklist of tax havens, and revised rules to fight money laundering are all things which the European Parliament has been pushing for years and which should be put in place quickly.

    The European Parliament has been very active in delivering constructive proposals, but unanimity in this area means that the buck stops with the Member States. And for the moment your actions have not kept up with your promises nor with citizens’ expectations.

    III. Agriculture

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Agriculture is part of our common European heritage, it has an environmental and a social function, and we should rightly be proud of it and fight for it where necessary.

    But we are facing a persisting crisis in the agricultural sector. Our milk farmers, in particular, are struggling to survive.

    The European Parliament is following the situation very carefully and counts on the Commission and Member States to implement fully the measures as agreed in September 2015 and March 2016.

    It is unacceptable that the financial support of 500m € agreed in 2015 did not fully reach the farmers yet.

    We expect the Commission, depending on the situation on the ground, to come with further proposals still this month if necessary. A truly European solution should also be completed with a strong framework for fighting unfair trading practices in the food supply chain.

    Migration

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Migration is a global challenge for which there is a global responsibility. We need a global partnership to manage it properly. The European Union and its Member States, like every other country, region and international organisation in the world, must play their part.

    It’s clear that many of our citizens are losing trust that their elected governments are able to manage the crisis. This feeling of powerlessness breeds fear, and fear leads them to the doorstep of the populists. We must break this cycle.

    We will break it by demonstrating that the Union and its Member States are able not only to make sensible proposals on border management, migration, asylum and security, but also to deliver them.

    We will break it by distinguishing ever more clearly between asylum and economic migration.

    We will break it by returning those who have no right to stay. When third countries refuse to cooperate on returns, we should be clear that this has consequences in other fields of cooperation. It also means clear rules for refugees who don’t respect the duties or geographical limitations attached to their status.

    To manage migration fairly and in solidarity, the European Parliament considers a double focus is necessary:

    Firstly, doing our homework inside the Union. This means unifying further the EU’s asylum system, legal migration possibilities, and integrating the management of the external borders.

    The agreement reached only last week on the European Border and Coastguard is welcome and I would like to pay tribute to the intensive work of the negotiators. It’s high time for all Member States to be ready for implementation, and by this I mean preparing the necessary equipment and nominating the 1500 border and coastguards of the rapid reaction pool.

    Secondly, the Union must focus on its external policy, recognising that the trail of hopelessness that leads people to our shores often starts many thousands of kilometres away, and therefore engaging more effectively with third countries of origin and transit.

    Any fresh thinking, any approach oriented to results which brings together all the different actors and tools we have, is worthy of serious consideration.

    The EU’s cooperation with Turkey on migration has demonstrated that it is not impossible in the Aegean Sea to break the business model of the smugglers and traffickers, and with it reduce drastically the loss of life at sea.

    It has demonstrated that it is possible to start replacing irregular travel with legal routes with the necessary security checks.

    That it is possible to support refugees in countries of transit, although disbursements should be increased ten-fold to reach €1bn by the end of this summer.

    The European Parliament calls on all actors concerned to step up their political commitment to making this partnership with Turkey work on the ground and on the islands, in full respect of European and international law.

    We stand ready to start consideration of the proposal on visa liberalisation as soon as we receive from the Commission the necessary signal that Turkey has fulfilled all remaining benchmarks, as was agreed here on 18 March.

    Now the Commission, building on the very useful ideas put on the table by Prime Minister Renzi, proposes a mix of positive and negative incentives to reward those third countries willing to cooperate effectively with us, and to ensure that there are consequences for those who do not.

    No one is trying to impose a one-size-fits-all approach. On the contrary, agreements must suit each country’s specific circumstances. A quick look at the diversity of the seven countries proposed as priority countries – Jordan, Lebanon, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Mali and Ethiopia – confirms this.

    Let me insist however on behalf of the European Parliament that these agreements certainly cannot be limited to solving security concerns or they are doomed to fail.

    They must be real partnerships – also economic, social and cultural ones.

    The eight billion euro over five years which Vice-President Timmermans mentioned in our hemicycle earlier this month are of course significant and require proper democratic scrutiny, whatever the name of the instrument used.

    The European Parliament welcomes giving a greater role to private investors and improving opportunities in countries of origin so people are not compelled to leave. The European Investment Bank’s initiative for the Southern Neighbourhood and the Western Balkans is therefore worthy of support. And so is the agreement reached two weeks ago to exclude conflict minerals from the European market to break the link between minerals extraction, trade and the financing of armed conflicts. We also look forward to the future External Investment Plan aiming to replicate the European success of EFSI outside our borders. With levels of growth our countries could only envy, Africa is certainly fertile ground for such projects.

    We must be honest – the development of the African continent is both a matter of solidarity and in the EU’s own interest. Africa is our unavoidable and essential partner.

    That’s why the European Parliament welcomes the increase of the EU’s contribution to the Africa Trust Fund by €500 million and urges the Member States to match this contribution.

    The promises made in Valetta should not be forgotten.

    External relations

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    The High Representative will present to you a new Global Strategy, as was requested a year ago.

    At that time, in June 2015, I spoke about how the world around us had become more complex and conflict-ridden. It has become even truer today.

    The EU must safeguard the security of its citizens and of its territory by reinforcing a global system based on democracy, good governance, the rule of law and human rights.

    And by achieving coherence between development aid, migration management and military operations.

    The European Parliament expects the Global Strategy to be revised every five years, when the new Parliament and the new Commission are constituted. We also expect all EU actions to be subject to democratic oversight, for instance through annual implementation reports.

    On 8 and 9 July, NATO will hold its summit in Warsaw. The location of the summit reminds us that we still have security challenges and an ongoing conflict on the Eastern borders of the EU, in Ukraine.

    Our sanctions send a signal to Russia that it should respect the rules of the international community, and NATO’s military presence can reassure our Eastern Member States about their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    The EU has to take its share of responsibility for its own collective security and territorial defence.

    This does not mean, however, falling back into a kind of East-West thinking reminiscent of the Cold War.

    The effective coordination of EU and NATO, bringing together their strengths and expertise for concrete and well-defined objectives should be key to Europe’s security.

    EU and NATO working side-by-side against pirates off the Somali coast, or against traffickers and smugglers and saving lives in the Aegean Sea.

    The European Parliament is convinced that this is how to achieve a successful European security policy.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, and I conclude here,

    This is a historical moment in our common project and your responsibility to take decisive action is all the more pressing.

    Despite the sad and dramatic days we are living in the European Union, I trust that our respective national football teams will demonstrate the best of their ability in the coming days and I take this occasion, President Hollande, to salute on behalf of the European Parliament the considerable organisational efforts deployed by France in hosting the tournament.

    And to condemn in the strongest of terms the shameful violence we have seen inside and outside of the stadiums. This criminal behaviour has no place in sport, and tarnishes the image of our continent.

    Our security forces should instead be able to focus entirely on countering the terrorist threat to our countries, and the barbaric and cowardly attacks that took place in Orlando and Magnanville show that this threat is more than ever present in our midst.

    Thank you for your attention.

  • Nigel Farage – 2016 Speech to European Parliament

    nigelfarage

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage, the Leader of UKIP, to the European Parliament on 28 June 2016.

    Funny, isn’t it? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the EU, you all laughed at me. Well I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you? And the reason you’re so upset, the reason you’re so angry has been perfectly clear form all the angry exchanges this morning – you as a political project are in denial. You’re in denial that your currency is failing, just look at the Mediterranean, as a policy to impose poverty on Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean you’ve done very well and you’re in denial over Mrs Merkel’s call last year for as many people as possible to cross the Mediterranean into the EU has led to massive divisions between countries and within countries.

    But the biggest problem you’ve got and the main reason the UK voted the way that it did is you have, by stealth, by deception, without ever telling the truth to the British or the rest of the people of Europe, you have imposed upon them a political union and when the people in 2005 in the Netherlands and France voted against that political union when they rejected the constitution, you simply ignored them and brought the Lisbon Treaty in through the back door.

    What happened last Thursday was a remarkable result, it was indeed a seismic result, not just for British politics, for European politics but perhaps even for global politics too because what the little people did, what the ordinary people did, what the people who have been oppressed over the last few years and see their living standards go down – they rejected the multinationals, they rejected the merchant banks, they rejected big politics and they said, actually, we want our country back, we want our fishing waters back, we want our borders back, we want to be an independent self-governing, normal nation and that is what we have done and that is what must happen. And in doing so we now offer a beacon of hope to democrats across the rest of the European continent. I’ll make one prediction this morning – the UK will not be the last member state to leave the EU.

    The question is what do we do next – it is up to the British government to invoke Article 50 and I have to say I don’t think we should take too long in doing it. I totally agree, Mr Juncker, that the British people have voted, we need to make sure that it happens.

    But what I would like to see is a grown-up and sensible attitude to how we negotiate a different relationship. I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives or worked in business or worked in trade or, indeed, ever created a job, but listen, just listen.

    You’re quite right Mr Schulz, UKIP used to protest against the establishment and now the establishment protests against UKIP, so something has happened here. Let us listen to some simple, pragmatic economics.

    We between us, between your countries and my country we do an enormous amount of business in goods and services, that trade is mutually beneficial to both of us, that trade matters – if you were to decide to cut off your noses to spite your faces and reject any idea of a sensible trade deal the consequences would be far worse for you than it would be for us. Even no deal is better for the United Kingdom than the current rotten deal we’ve got, but if we were to move to a position where tariffs were reintroduced on products like motor cars then hundreds of thousands of German workers would risk losing their jobs.

    Why don’t we just be pragmatic, sensible, grown-up, realistic and let’s cut between us a sensible, tariff-free deal and thereafter recognise that the UK will be your friend, that we will trade with you, we will co-operate with you, we will be your best friends in the world but do that, do it sensible and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future. Thank you.

  • George Osborne – 2016 Statement on the UK Economy

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 27 June 2016.

    Today I want to reassure the British people, and the global community, that Britain is ready to confront what the future holds for us from a position of strength.

    That is because in the last six years the government and the British people have worked hard to rebuild the British economy.

    We have worked systematically through a plan that today means Britain has the strongest major advanced economy in the world.

    Growth has been robust.

    The employment rate is at a record high.

    The capital requirements for banks are ten times what they were.

    And the budget deficit has been brought down from 11% of national income, and was forecast to be below 3% this year.

    I said we had to fix the roof so that we were prepared for whatever the future held.

    Thank goodness we did.

    As a result, our economy is about as strong as it could be to confront the challenge our country now faces.

    That challenge is clear.

    On Thursday, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union.

    That is not the outcome that I wanted or that I threw everything into campaigning for.

    But Parliament agreed that there are issues of such constitutional significance that they cannot solely be left to politicians, and must be determined by the people in a referendum.

    Now the people have spoken and we, in this democracy, must all accept that result and deliver on their instructions.

    I don’t resile from any of the concerns I expressed during the campaign, but I fully accept the result of the referendum and will do everything I can to make it work for Britain.

    It is inevitable, after Thursday’s vote, that Britain’s economy is going to have to adjust to the new situation we find ourselves in.

    In the analysis that the Treasury and other independent organisations produced, three particular challenges were identified – and I want to say how we meet all three.

    First, there is the volatility we have seen and are likely to continue to see in financial markets.

    Those markets may not have been expecting the referendum result – but the Treasury, the Bank of England, and the Financial Conduct Authority have spent the last few months putting in place robust contingency plans for the immediate financial aftermath in the event of this result.

    We and the PRA have worked systematically with each major financial institution in recent weeks to make sure they were ready to deal with the consequences of a vote to leave.

    Swap lines were arranged in advance so the Bank of England is now able to lend in foreign currency if needed. As part of those plans, the Bank and we agreed that there would be an immediate statement on Friday morning from the Governor, Mark Carney.

    As Mark made clear, the Bank of England stands ready to provide £250 billion of funds, through its normal facilities, to continue to support banks and the smooth functioning of markets.

    And we discussed our co-ordinated response with other major economies in calls on Friday with the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G7.

    The Governor and I have been in regular touch with each other over the weekend – and I can say this this morning: we have further well-thought-through contingency plans if they are needed.

    In the last 72 hours I have been in contact with fellow European finance ministers, central bank governors, the managing director of the IMF, the US Treasury Secretary and the Speaker of Congress, and the CEOs of some of our major financial institutions so that collectively we keep a close eye on developments.

    It will not be plain sailing in the days ahead.

    But let me be clear. You should not underestimate our resolve.

    We were prepared for the unexpected.

    We are equipped for whatever happens.

    And we are determined that unlike eight years ago, Britain’s financial system will help our country deal with any shocks and dampen them – not contribute to those shocks or make them worse.

    The second challenge our analysis identified in advance was the uncertainty that a vote to leave would bring in the coming months and beyond as Britain worked with its European allies to create a new relationship.

    The Prime Minister has given us time as a country to decide what that relationship should be by delaying the decision to trigger the Article 50 procedure until there is a new Prime Minister in place for the autumn.

    Only the UK can trigger Article 50, and in my judgement we should only do that when there is a clear view about what new arrangement we are seeking with our European neighbours.

    In the meantime, and during the negotiations that will follow, there will be no change to people’s rights to travel and work, and to the way our goods and services are traded, or to the way our economy and financial system is regulated.

    However, it is already evident that as a result of Thursday’s decision, some firms are continuing to pause their decisions to invest, or to hire people.

    As I said before the referendum, this will have an impact on the economy and the public finances – and there will need to be action to address that.

    Given the delay in triggering Article 50 and the Prime Minister’s decision to hand over to a successor, it is sensible that decisions on what that action should consist of should wait for the OBR to assess the economy in the autumn, and for the new Prime Minister to be in place.

    But no one should doubt our resolve to maintain the fiscal stability we have delivered for this country. To all companies large and small I would say this: the British economy is fundamentally strong, we are highly competitive and we are open for business.

    The third and final challenge I spoke of was that of ensuring that Britain was able to agree a long-term economic relationship with the rest of Europe that provided for the best possible terms of trade in goods and services.

    Together, my colleagues in the government, the Conservative Party and in Parliament will have to determine what those terms should be – and we’ll have to negotiate with our European friends to agree them.

    I intend to play an active part in that debate – for I want this great trading nation of ours to put in place the strongest possible economic links with our European neighbours, with our close friends in North America and the Commonwealth, and our important partners like China and India.

    I do not want Britain to turn its back on Europe or the rest of the world.

    We must bring unity of spirit and purpose and condemn hatred and division wherever we see it.

    Britain is an open and tolerant country and I will fight with everything I have to keep it so.

    Today I am completely focussed on the task in hand as Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring stability and reassurance.

    In conclusion, the British people have given us their instructions.

    There is much to do to make it work.

    We start from a position of hard-won strength.

    And whatever the undoubted challenges, my colleagues and I are determined to do the best for Britain.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Resignation Speech

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 24 June 2016 following the referendum result to leave the EU.

    The country has just taken part in a giant democratic exercise – perhaps the biggest in our history. Over 33 million people – from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar – have all had their say.

    We should be proud of the fact that in these islands we trust the people with these big decisions.

    We not only have a parliamentary democracy, but on questions about the arrangements for how we are governed, there are times when it is right to ask the people themselves – and that is what we have done.

    The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected.

    I want to thank everyone who took part in the campaign on my side of the argument, including all those who put aside party differences to speak in what they believed was the national interest.

    And let me congratulate all those who took part in the leave campaign – for the spirited and passionate case that they made.

    The will of the British people is an instruction that must be delivered. It was not a decision that was taken lightly, not least because so many things were said by so many different organisations about the significance of this decision.

    So there can be no doubt about the result.

    Across the world people have been watching the choice that Britain has made. I would reassure those markets and investors that Britain’s economy is fundamentally strong.

    And I would also reassure Brits living in European countries and European citizens living here that there will be no immediate changes in your circumstances. There will be no initial change in the way our people can travel, in the way our goods can move or the way our services can be sold.

    We must now prepare for a negotiation with the European Union. This will need to involve the full engagement of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments, to ensure that the interests of all parts of our United Kingdom are protected and advanced.

    But above all this will require strong, determined and committed leadership.

    I am very proud and very honoured to have been Prime Minister of this country for six years.

    I believe we have made great steps, with more people in work than ever before in our history; with reforms to welfare and education; increasing people’s life chances; building a bigger and stronger society; keeping our promises to the poorest people in the world, and enabling those who love each other to get married whatever their sexuality.

    But above all restoring Britain’s economic strength, and I am grateful to everyone who has helped to make that happen.

    I have also always believed that we have to confront big decisions – not duck them.

    That’s why we delivered the first Coalition government in seventy years to bring our economy back from the brink. It’s why we delivered a fair, legal and decisive referendum in Scotland. And why I made the pledge to renegotiate Britain’s position in the European Union and hold a referendum on our membership, and have carried those things out.

    I fought this campaign in the only way I know how – which is to say directly and passionately what I think and feel – head, heart and soul.

    I held nothing back.

    I was absolutely clear about my belief that Britain is stronger, safer and better off inside the European Union, and I made clear the referendum was about this and this alone – not the future of any single politician, including myself.

    But the British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path, and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction.

    I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.

    This is not a decision I have taken lightly, but I do believe it is in the national interest to have a period of stability and then the new leadership required.

    There is no need for a precise timetable today, but in my view we should aim to have a new Prime Minister in place by the start of the Conservative Party Conference in October.

    Delivering stability will be important and I will continue in post as Prime Minister with my Cabinet for the next three months. The Cabinet will meet on Monday.

    The Governor of the Bank of England is making a statement about the steps that the Bank and the Treasury are taking to reassure financial markets. We will also continue taking forward the important legislation that we set before Parliament in the Queen’s Speech. And I have spoken to Her Majesty the Queen this morning to advise her of the steps that I am taking.

    A negotiation with the European Union will need to begin under a new Prime Minister, and I think it is right that this new Prime Minister takes the decision about when to trigger article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU.

    I will attend the European Council next week to explain the decision the British people have taken and my own decision.

    The British people have made a choice. That not only needs to be respected – but those on the losing side of the argument, myself included, should help to make it work.

    Britain is a special country.

    We have so many great advantages.

    A parliamentary democracy where we resolve great issues about our future through peaceful debate; a great trading nation, with our science and arts, our engineering and our creativity respected the world over.

    And while we are not perfect, I do believe we can be a model of a multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, where people can come and make a contribution and rise to the very highest that their talent allows.

    Although leaving Europe was not the path I recommended, I am the first to praise our incredible strengths. I have said before that Britain can survive outside the European Union and indeed that we could find a way.

    Now the decision has been made to leave, we need to find the best way, and I will do everything I can to help.

    I love this country – and I feel honoured to have served it.

    And I will do everything I can in future to help this great country succeed.

  • Michael Wilshaw – 2016 Speech to Festival of Education

    fmichaelwilshaw

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Wilshaw at the Festival of Education held at Wellington College in Berkshire on 23 June 2016.

    It is good to speak on this momentous day in British history when the decision to stay or leave the European Union will have a profound effect on the future of our country.

    I do hope though, when the decision is made and the dust settles, people will see that despite the sound and fury, those on both sides of the argument have spoken with passion for what they truly believe.

    In the same way, I hope that when my term of office ends in a few months’ time, people will understand that what I have said and done has been motivated by a passionate desire to improve the lives of children and young people.

    If I have stirred up emotions from time to time and caused offence by speaking bluntly, then I apologise. But I have been a Chief Inspector in a hurry, impatient to bring about improvement through inspection.

    I leave office knowing that, although our inspection frameworks are now tougher and more demanding than 5 years ago, many more children are in good and outstanding schools than ever before. I do hope that this is recognised by those who have, from time to time, questioned my approach and sometimes taken my words completely out of context.

    Our education system is miles better than it was 20 years ago when Ofsted came into being. And each year since, we’ve seen incremental improvement.

    Our primary schools, in particular, are doing well, although there is much to do in many of our secondary schools. So why is our education system still mediocre and not up there with the best in the world?

    Quite simply, it’s because we have largely failed to address the long-tail of underachievement in our country, containing most of our poorest children.

    This one constituency has not felt the benefits of the improvements I have just mentioned. And the irony is not lost on me saying this to you in a school like this – bedecked with privilege, with the opportunities that are often denied to our poorest children.

    The lot of disadvantaged children in primary schools has improved – a bit. But in secondary schools, the attainment gap between children on free school meals (FSM) and their better-off peers has refused to budge in a decade.

    Despite all the good intentions, the fine words and some imaginative initiatives, we are not making a real difference. The needle has barely moved. In 2005, the attainment gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils in secondary schools was 28 percentage points. It is still 28 percentage points now. Our failure to improve significantly the educational chances of the poor disfigures our school system. It scars our other achievements. It stands as a reproach to us all.

    Not long after I started my tenure at Ofsted, we published a report Unseen Children, which looked at the increasing invisibility of underachieving poor pupils as they progressed through our schools, not just in urban areas but also in isolated rural and coastal communities. We wanted to understand why a majority of disadvantaged children consistently underachieved at school.

    As I approach the end of my tenure, I’m returning to that theme.

    I spoke earlier in the year about the widening gap between the performance of schools in the North and those in the South. But as I stand in these glorious grounds, in this beautiful corner of Berkshire, I wonder how many people realise just how badly the poorest pupils have been let down in some of the wealthiest parts of the country?

    The attainment gap between FSM and non-FSM secondary school children in West Berkshire is 31 percentage points. In Kent it’s 34. In Surrey it’s 36. In Buckinghamshire it’s 39. And, in Reading, it’s a whopping 40 percentage points – all far in excess of the national gap of 28. What an appalling injustice. What an inexcusable waste of potential.

    And yet, alarming as these figures are, they do not reveal the full extent of our failure. They hide the continuing underperformance of the white working-class, for instance, or the dashed hopes of too many of the most able disadvantaged children, whose early promise is so often left to wither.

    As a teacher who has spent his professional life working in some of the most deprived areas of the country, I find our failure perplexing and infuriating. I know individual schools across the country have turned things around, particularly in London, and managed to give children who had been written off a good education. So why have we failed at a system level? Why haven’t we made progress? Why do we keep letting down our poorest children in large parts of our country?

    Guilty parties

    To my mind there are 5 culprits. The first are the political ideologues of both Left and Right.

    The poor have been caught in the crossfire between these two for as long as I can recall. Of course, both claim to be acting in the interests of the disadvantaged. Yet neither accepts the damage they invariably inflict.

    The Left’s brand of snake oil was very pervasive in the 70s and 80s. They infiltrated scores of local authorities, peddling their anti-academic nonsense and undermining the authority and respect of school leaders.

    I know I have talked about this before. But the reason I keep returning to the subject is that their irresponsible, ideological agenda ruined the education of hundreds of thousands of our poorest children − children now in middle-age whose literacy levels are worse than their parents’ and grandparents’.

    I have been criticised for saying that school leaders should be battle-axes and bruisers. But in the 70s and 80s, headteachers who wanted to stand against this destructive tide had to be educational warriors. It was only those who were prepared to stand up to the ideological bullies, masquerading as pastoral reformers, who survived that terrible period.

    Many didn’t. I well remember, for example, an experienced and respected headteacher in Newham who was quite simply broken by his experiences of dealing with endless militancy in his school in the mid 1980s, with insults being thrown at him when he refused to allow staff to join the demonstrations during school time to support the miners’ strike. There were many others who experienced similar intimidation.

    The middle classes, of course, could escape to the remaining grammars and independent sector. The poor had no such option. They had to endure the chaos, the indifferent teaching and threadbare curriculum that passed for education in many state schools of the time.

    They and we are still living with the consequences. Those who are fundamentally opposed to the academy programme should remember why it happened in the first place. Academies were a response to the failure of so many local authorities. They let down the very children they were supposedly supporting.

    The market-based laissez-faire approach of the Right can equally damage the chances of the poor. Schools will wither on the vine as they did 20 or 30 years ago if a more liberal and autonomous system is not subject to strong central and local intervention when early decline sets in.

    The market will not stop the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker. Teachers and leaders will always gravitate to the places where it is more attractive, comfortable, more leafy and easier to work.

    The figures for teacher training speak for themselves. The prosperous South East region has over 458 trainee teachers per 100,000 pupils. Yet the East Midlands manages only 362 per 100,000 pupils. The East of England fares even worse, with only 294 per 100,000. No wonder these last two regions are poorly performing. Schools in these areas find it more difficult to get good staff. Teacher supply follows well-resourced demand, not educational need.

    Hastily rebranded schools in deprived areas soon find that the magic of the market hasn’t eradicated underlying problems. But when they fail, as so many do, it is the system, or reactionary leftists, or those old hippies in Ofsted that are to blame.

    Free marketeers forget, or perhaps they never cared to think, that without the semblance of a strategy, without meaningful accountability, or early intervention, the system risks repeating all the mistakes of the worst local authorities. They forget that it’s easy to destroy a school and so much harder to build one up. And once again, it is the poor who ultimately pay the price.

    Structural vandals

    The second group that has helped hobble the poor are the structural vandals, those who argue that children don’t need structure in school.

    In educational establishment circles it was argued in the 70s and 80s, and still is in some quarters, that structure stifles. It kills childhood creativity; it dictates mindless conformity. This argument rears its head most often today in the endless whines about ‘petty’ uniform rules or the insistent shriek that testing is inhumane. And again, it is the poor who have to bear the consequences.

    Many middle-class children, of course, are less reliant on structure in the school and classroom. They get implicit support and direction at home. But many of our poorest children don’t. A rule-based classroom culture helps compensate for a chaotic home life. Take it away and the poorest children rarely swim; they sink.

    Even when home structures are in place, the poor’s expectations and potential are often constrained by limited cultural horizons. Through no fault of their own, many simply aren’t aware of what is possible. Why should they be? Few of them have had access to the life-enhancing opportunities a good education brings.

    Middle-class children always have a head start. Their cultural hinterland is usually rich. Their parents are usually well educated. They tend to do well in school. And when they don’t, their parents can always hire a tutor.

    To those who bleat about the tyranny of testing, let me say this. Testing isn’t a burden; it’s an opportunity. It allows teachers to know where a child stands and what help they need. It gives the poor a passport to the prospect of a better life.

    Weak heads often complain about testing. But in my experience, a good head never tells colleagues to teach to the test. They insist on good teaching, which invariably leads to good results. The tests take care of themselves.

    We can see what happens to progress when there aren’t any tests. It is one of the reasons why there is such a gap in attainment between key stages 2 and 4. It is the reason why I called for a return to testing at key stage 3, so the poor, in particular, can benefit from formal assessment.

    Take testing and exams away and the poor can’t rely on the cultural capital or family connections that middle-class children possess. The irresponsibility of the anti-testing lobby in this regard is breathtaking. It is the disadvantaged who suffer from their thoughtless crusade.

    A constricting curriculum

    The third culprit is our continuing failure to develop a curriculum pathway for those youngsters who want a strong route into an apprenticeship, especially after the age of 14.

    Let me be clear. You will find no stronger supporter of a core curriculum and strong literacy and numeracy programmes than me. I was insisting on the primacy of subject knowledge and the importance of an academic bedrock when many latter-day evangelists were negotiating their way around a Wagon Wheel.

    Nor have I ever made the mistake of thinking that the poor wouldn’t benefit from access to the canon, to that rich corpus of knowledge that underpins all learning. The poor have as much right to – and capacity to appreciate – the works of Shakespeare and Newton and Austen and Macaulay as their better-off peers.

    This I do not dispute. But what about those youngsters who would benefit from a technical education? What about those employers who, year after year, say that school leavers are not equipped with the technical skills that they are crying out for?

    The figures are shocking. In the UK as a whole, there are now 210,000 vacancies as a consequence of skills shortages across the economy – an increase of 43% from 2013. In key sectors such as manufacturing, construction and utilities, over 30% of vacancies exist because there aren’t enough people with the right skills to fill them.

    I have taught in disadvantaged communities for most of my professional life. And I can tell you that there will always be some children who will respond better to a technical curriculum than others.

    The consequences of an inflexible curriculum are plain to see. We see it in the demotivated youngsters who leave school with few relevant qualifications and an antipathy to learning. We see it in the ranks of the unskilled unemployed. We see it in the hundreds of thousands of skilled vacancies that go unfilled and are eventually filled by those from abroad. We see it in the 40% of youngsters who don’t get 5 good GCSEs.

    Poor teaching

    The fourth reason why the poor continue to languish at the bottom of the educational pile is that they are often lumbered with the worst teaching. Despite excellent initiatives such as Teach First, poor communities are still more likely to have less access to good teaching than better-off ones.

    According to the Social Market Foundation, schools in deprived areas are more likely to have fewer experienced teachers, more likely to have teachers without formal teaching qualifications, more likely to have teachers without degrees in relevant subjects, and more likely to have higher teacher turnover than schools elsewhere.

    Unsurprisingly, these problems have been exacerbated as teacher recruitment becomes more difficult. Last year, Ofsted’s own Annual Report acknowledged that recruitment was toughest for schools in deprived areas.

    A recent snapshot survey my inspectors carried out of secondary schools in Kent and Medway has found that the situation is at least as grave now as it was then.

    The problem in Kent is compounded by selection. As you know, the proportion of FSM eligible children attending selective schools nationally is only 3%, way below the national figure of 15%. Yet many of the good and outstanding schools in Kent are grammars and, according to research from Education Datalab, grammar schools in this area are more likely to attract and retain many of the best teachers.

    As a result, secondary schools in Kent with the most disadvantaged children have more unqualified and less experienced teachers. They are also less likely to be judged good or outstanding for teaching, learning and assessment. Kent is an example of what happens to the poor nationally when market forces predominate.

    As heads of non-selective schools told our inspectors: “The few good teachers that there are around prefer to go to the grammars,” and “We end up having to appoint unqualified or less experienced teachers. This places just more and more demands on experienced staff.” While another said: “There are just no incentives for teachers trained in Kent to stay in Kent and teach in more challenging schools.”

    As I said earlier, the lack of a national, strategic approach to teacher training means that there are challenging areas of the country without ready access to the best newly qualified teachers. Outstanding schools train and retain the best candidates, leaving schools where the need is greatest to scramble for the rest.

    In Kent, as in the rest of the country, challenging schools are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit the best teachers. We can roll out as many new shiny, well-intentioned educational initiatives as we like. But if we don’t have the people to carry them out, the disadvantaged will remain where they are – at the bottom of the heap.

    Poor leadership

    The same thing is true of leadership. The final culprit, the final reason why we continue to let down the poor is our inability to deliver strong leadership to those who need it the most. The poor disproportionately attend schools that are strangers to good leadership. Yet we know that good teaching can only thrive when leadership is strong.

    Why have we not given greater priority to developing good leadership in our country, particularly in the most difficult areas? Why has the National College for Teaching and Leadership fallen on such hard times? Is the Talented Leaders programme enough?

    As things stand, only 6% of schools in the most prosperous areas of England have leadership and management that are judged less than good by Ofsted. In the most deprived areas, almost 4 times as many schools – 23% – suffer the same.

    Unless we resolve to get more of our best leaders into the most challenging schools, the poor will continue to be short changed.

    What is to be done?

    We don’t have to dig too deep to understand why we have failed our poorest children.

    We can see it for ourselves in increasing alienation, the bitter resentment as others arrive to do the jobs the badly educated cannot do. “Blame the parents,” say some; “Blame the immigrants,” say others. Well, we should really blame ourselves, because it doesn’t have to be like this.

    We should start by refusing to patronise the poor. There is nothing wrong in insisting on structure in school. We should be tough on feckless parents who allow their children to break the rules. I appreciate that many of them were let down by the education system. But they need to be reminded – through letters, meetings and sanctions – that the way they bring up their children has profound implications for us all.

    We should have a curriculum that not only has a strong core but is flexible enough to meet the needs of those youngsters who want a technical pathway.

    The government should insist that every major multi-academy trust should have a University Technical College. Every multi-academy trust should be inspected to ensure that the University Technical College does not become a dumping ground for the difficult or disaffected and that it delivers high quality pre-apprenticeship programmes to the age of 19.

    Finally, the government must do more to direct good people into the most challenging areas. There have been some laudable initiatives. But they have been late, small and piecemeal.

    Conclusion

    I came into teaching, above all, to make a difference to the lives of our poorest children. As Chief Inspector, I have attempted to show how the educational underperformance that blights the lives of disadvantaged pupils in reality beggars us all. Of course, the poor suffer the worst consequences. But we are all the poorer for their missed opportunities and wasted potential.

    We know that it does not have to be this way. We know that their life chances would be greatly improved if they had the best teachers, the best leaders and a better curriculum.

    As I begin my last few months as Chief Inspector, it saddens me immeasurably to say frankly that we are still letting down our poorest children and that if things do not change fundamentally, we will continue to do so.

    Thank you.