Tag: Speeches

  • Michael Howard – 1996 Statement on London Policing

    michaelhoward2

    Below is the text of the statement made by Michael Howard, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 5 February 1996.

    When we last debated the policing of London, I placed before the House my vision of what the Metropolitan police can deliver and are delivering for our capital city. My vision was of even more reductions in crime; an even safer city where safer streets improve the quality of life in the capital; and a city where there is a flourishing and active partnership between the police and the public, where individual members of London’s public know that they can make a real difference by volunteering to support their local police in whatever way best suits their local needs.

    I said that I wanted that to be delivered by a police service that is visible, approachable and predominantly unarmed, and which provides a reassuring presence right across London. I outlined my plans and those of the Commissioner for bringing that about, and the Government’s commitment to providing the necessary resources.

    Today, just over 13 months later, I want to return to my vision and the success that we are having in making it a reality. I want to take stock of the objectives and achievements of the Metropolitan police in the light of that vision, and I want to explain how they fit into the Government’s general strategies for law and order.

    I make no apology for beginning with the Met’s crime figures. When–as is the case today–the police make major advances, we should celebrate those achievements and ensure that the public know about them. The Government have never accepted, and will never accept, the depressing view that we are powerless in the face of increasing crime, and neither has the Commissioner.

    Let us make no mistake: there has been a major breakthrough in stemming what many had predicted was an inexorable growth in reported crime in the capital. The significant falls are precisely where we most wanted them–in the two volume crimes that make up nearly half the crime in London: breaking into our homes and stealing our cars.

    Let us look at the figures for the past two years in the Met, to June 1995. Overall, we see the biggest drop in the number of crimes–118,300–since records began. In the second year alone, there were 60,000 fewer recorded crimes in the Metropolitan police district than in the previous 12 months. That is excellent news.

    Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): The Secretary of State referred to the figures for recorded crime. Does he agree that a sizeable proportion of the people of London fail to report crimes, because they know that their local police force is overstretched and undermanned, and even if it responds there is very little possibility of a clear-up for that crime?

    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady should know that one of the offences that has fallen sharply in recent years is that of theft of cars. Indeed, if she had listened to what I said, she would have heard me draw particular attention to that a moment ago. Is she suggesting that people do not report the fact that their car has been stolen?

    Ms Jackson: Yes.

    Mr. Howard: I think that she is in a fantasy land if that is what she thinks, because she knows perfectly well that to make an insurance claim for theft of one’s car, one has to report it to the police. If the hon. Lady thinks that people are not reporting the theft of their cars, I suggest that nothing that she says deserves to be taken seriously. I certainly do not propose to take seriously what she says after that intervention.

    The even better news, of course, is that crime is coming down across the country. Whether measured by police recorded figures or the British crime survey, the overall position in the Met is better than outside London. For example, vehicle crime fell by 33 per cent. in the two years to June 1995. That is a drop of 79,200 offences. Theft of vehicles in London has dropped by 39 per cent. in the period from June 1979 to June 1995.

    Look at burglary. The Met attacked it vigorously just as we asked it to. The Commissioner’s anti-burglary initiative, Operation Bumblebee, used, for the first time, techniques such as intelligence gathering, surveillance and targeting of suspects, which previously had been used only for the most serious crime. The fact is that there have been 8 per cent. fewer burglaries in the Metropolitan district in the two years following the start of Londonwide Operation Bumblebee in June 1993, and a 30 per cent. leap in the number of crimes being solved.

    Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): I regularly attend neighbourhood watch meetings in my constituency, which falls within the Ealing and Southall police areas, and I know that the fall in the number of burglaries has given tremendous heart to local people. The police tell me that they have been able to pinpoint and target particular culprits and have them dealt with them, and that partly accounts for their great success. Does that mean that my right hon. and learned Friend’s concern for dealing with those people, should they continue in their ways when they are released back into society, is a matter of concern for everyone?

    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, is right to cite the targeting of persistent offenders as one of the reasons for the Met’s success. Of course, if those offenders are not dealt with properly by the courts, much of the good that the police do will be undone. As my hon. Friend will know, that consideration prompted one of the proposals that I announced in Blackpool last October, which was intended to ensure that persistent burglars were properly dealt with.

    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): In 1994,959 burglars were cautioned by the Metropolitan police, and were not prosecuted. I accept that, in the case of domestic family incidents, the police may have had some discretion, but some of those who were cautioned were not prosecuted because the Crown Prosecution Service did not think it worth while. The Home Secretary must tell us whether those people are included in the clear-up rates, and what is the disparity between the use of cautions for burglars by the Metropolitan police and their use by other forces in England and Wales.

    Mr. Howard: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened. He made a series of allegations which were reported in the Evening Standard last week, and which disclosed depths of ignorance previously unplumbed even by him.

    If the hon. Gentleman had made the slightest attempt to check his facts, he would have discovered, first, that, contrary to what he said, the guidance that I have given is designed not to increase but to decrease the number of cautions given by the police, and that it has had a considerable effect.

    Secondly, he would have discovered that the number of cautions given has no effect on the crime figures, because a crime is recorded as a crime, whether a caution, a prosecution or a conviction follows. Thirdly, he would have discovered that whether a caution is given makes no difference to the clear-up figures. Each of the three components of the hon. Gentleman’s allegation was completely incorrect.

    Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): Will the Home Secretary give way?

    Mr. Howard: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must then continue my speech.

    Mr. Hughes: In his capacity as police authority, will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to the success of the Metropolitan police in combating crime in London? Wearing his other hat, will he confirm that that success has been achieved despite the fact that, according to his published figures, the grant to the Met fell this year and is projected to fall again next year? The standard spending assessment has also fallen, as has the capital addition. The Met’s resources are now lower than they have been at any time in the last five years.

    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, as I shall shortly demonstrate, when I deal with resources.I thank him for his tribute to the Metropolitan police, however.

    The latest published figures for burglary were affected by a change in the recording criteria, and appear to show a 6 per cent. increase, but the Commissioner has told me that the more recent figures for the last quarter of 1995, compared with those for the last quarter of 1994–again, comparing like with like–show a fall of 15 per cent. in the number of burglaries of people’s homes. That amounts to some 5,000 fewer offences. It seems that Bumblebee is working.

    Seven major Londonwide operations to date–two involving massive joint operations with other forces–have made a significant impact. Under Bumblebee, nearly 4,500 premises have been searched and more than 3,000 people arrested. Property recovered has included firearms, high-performance cars, knives, axes, mobile telephones, forged passports, stolen licences and MOT certificates, computer equipment, jewellery, drugs, cash and electrical goods.

    Operation Christmas Cracker–the nationwide Bumblebee on 5 December–was mounted by 12,000 officers from 40 forces across the country. It resulted in nearly 3,500 arrests, and the recovery of property worth around £1.8 million. In the Metropolitan police district alone, 744 properties were searched, 560 arrests made, and £119,000-worth of property recovered. The Met has made a real impact on crime levels, and it is putting fear where it should be: with the burglar, not the innocent householder.

    Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green): Operation Bumblebee has undoubtedly been a tremendous success, and great credit is due to the Metropolitan police. Does the Home Secretary agree that much of the credit for the operation goes to the successful initiative that was piloted in my north London constituency, where Bumblebee started? What was important about the initiative, however, was that it relied on a partnership approach with local authorities, my own included. That is what made it a tremendous success.

    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising Operation Bumblebee’s success. As she will know, I have always laid great emphasis on the importance of partnership between the police and the public, and that includes partnership between the police and local authorities. Of course local authorities have a part to play in these matters.

    Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham): I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the Metropolitan police on the reduced crime figures, which are welcome, but will he accept that, as a whole, crime has risen in the past 30 years? Has the problem perhaps been that some of his predecessors, of both parties, have listened far too much to the half-baked left-wing ideas that still appear to be held by Opposition Members, by people in the criminal justice establishment, and even by some judges?

    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am far more interested in what is happening now, and in what we want to happen in the next few years, than in what happened in the past.

    Bumblebee techniques are now being applied, through Operation Eagle Eye, to mugging–the crime that Londoners fear most after burglary. The Commissioner tells me that the Met’s street crime clear-up rate has accelerated past the 15 per cent. target that I agreed with him. He tells me that, before Operation Eagle Eye, at one stage street robberies in London were running at around 850 a week. The increase has now been capped. The figure has already dropped to 500, and the Commissioner tells me that it is still dropping. Over the same period, arrests for street robbery have almost doubled.

    It is all the more remarkable that all that has been achieved when the demands on the Met are greater than ever. The population of the Metropolitan police district has risen from 7,260,000 in 1990 to 7,455,000 in 1994. As the Select Committee on Public Accounts heard last November, every year, more than 1.5 million 999 calls are coming in from the public. The Metropolitan police answered 86 per cent. of them within 15 seconds over the past 12 months, and 90 per cent. of them within that time in the past four months.

    That is well over 10 per cent. better than the Metropolitan police charter target that I agreed with the Commissioner for the force’s policing plan. It would be hard to find a better emergency response service in any other capital city in the world.

    Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington): On my right hon. and learned Friend’s points about street robbery and the success that the Met is beginning to have, courtesy of Operation Eagle Eye and such initiatives, will he say a word or two about anything that might be learned of a constructive nature from policing experience in the New York police department? I understand that some interesting experiments have been pursued there, and that a team from the Met is shortly to go there to review the position for itself. Will he say a bit more about that?

    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right, and I am about to make an observation about New York. Some techniques there are worth examining, and, just a few months ago, I considered them with Commissioner Bratton. But we are too grudging about celebrating success in our own country. Compared with other major cities here and capitals abroad, London is a safe city. Other world capitals have much higher rates.

    Commissioner Bratton has made great progress in New York, but, for all the most serious offences, the crime rate there is far higher than in London. For robbery it is three times as high, and for rape it is twice as high. The homicide rate there is 210 per million–10 times the London rate–and most European capitals have homicide rates much higher than that in London. Amsterdam has 84 per million; Stockholm has 54 per million; and Berlin has 39 per million. The rate in London is 21 per million.

    Of course there are problems of violent crime in London, as in all capital cities, but the Met is making good progress here, too. In the 12 months to June 1995, recorded violent crime in the Met area fell to 75,300 offences. Compared with the previous 12 months, that represents a decrease of 1,260 offences. That is probably the biggest ever annual fall, and certainly the biggest since the war. The Met figure for the 12 months to November 1995 shows that the rate of decrease is now 3 per cent.

    Of course, there is still far too much crime. Every crime is one too many, and we all want to see even more arrests and more detections. But the Commissioner can be justly proud of the spectacular results that he and his officers have achieved. The success of the police in getting crime down deserves our full support.

    The police welcome our comprehensive strategy to turn the tables on the criminal. As the Commissioner told the Home Affairs Select Committee last month:

    “The pendulum has swung back towards protecting society. The climate within the criminal justice system is more supportive of law and order.”

    Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking): If the record on detection and the prevention of crime is so great in the capital, will the Home Secretary explain why 90 per cent. of Londoners are so concerned about crime in the capital, and why two out of three Londoners believe that crime has got worse over the past few years?

    Mr. Howard: It is largely because of the misinformation that is peddled by the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends. They bear a heavy responsibility for the fact that the people of London do not yet understand how much the Metropolitan police are achieving. I hope that the hon. Lady will see the error of her ways, will help us to pay tribute to the Met for its achievements, and will help to reassure Londoners about the extent to which the capital city is becoming a safer place in which to live.

    Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend intends to cover the issue that I am about to raise, but in case he does not, could he tell the House what the Metropolitan police are doing to combat the crime that worries every capital city in the world–that of drug trafficking, which crime touches the lives of us all?

    Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment or two, I shall certainly deal with that later.

    A key part of our strategy is investing in technology. As the Commissioner says, technology has been responsible for many of his current successes. Good and innovative policing cannot be separated from good and innovative technology.

    The national DNA database went live in April 1995. The database is revolutionary. It is the first of its kind in the world, and relies on leading edge technology and the most up-to-date DNA techniques. More than 30,000 profiles have been entered on the database already, and more than 300 matches–matching DNA profiles from individuals to profiles from traces left at scenes of crime, and profiles from traces left at one scene with another–have been made in these early months of operation.

    The number of samples being sent in by the police, and the already high number of profile matches, speak well for the continued success of the database. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory has now formally been granted authorisation to contribute DNA profiles directly to the database.

    Much of the good and exciting new technology will be on display at the second annual Met technology fair that will take place from 12 to 14 March at the conference centre at 1 George street. I urge all hon. and righthon. Members to call in and see the technology behind Operation Eagle Eye, the new body armour, DNA, livescan fingerprints and the new imaging, mapping, and tracking systems of the police. Also on view will be the much-needed new personal radios that I have approved for the Met, which are already installed in the central area and delivering a much higher standard of officer safety.

    Visitors will also be able to see CRIS, the Met’s new computerised crime report information system, which starred in a recent episode of “The Bill”. CRIS is already working in two areas of the Met, and will be implemented right across the rest of the Metropolitan police district before the end of the year. The Commissioner tells me that CRIS is already showing that it can make a contribution to the upward trend in detections and the downward trend in crime. We all want that downward trend in crime to continue. It requires the on-going commitment to resourcing the police that the Government have always demonstrated.

    For the next financial year, like this year, we have agreed that the Met should have a special grant in addition to the money from the new national funding formula.

    We are giving it £130 million in that way in recognition of its unique national and capital city functions. The Met has unique needs, and we are meeting them. Spending on policing in the Metropolitan police district is well above the national average, and so is the number of officers per 1,000 population.

    In total, we are making available £1.65 billion to the Metropolitan police in 1996-97–£20.5 million more than last year and an increase of 86.8 per cent. in real terms since 1979. In addition, we have removed altogether the 2 per cent. ceiling on the amount that the Metropolitan police can carry forward from one year to the next. Due to reductions in its rates contributions, that new flexibility is likely to be worth an extra £25 million to the Met on top of the existing maximum of £34 million that can be carried forward. That gives the Commissioner very substantial extra spending power–worth up to3.6 per cent. of this year’s budget–if he needs it.

    Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn): For the year 1994-95, which is the subject of the debate, will the Secretary of State explain why Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary reported that the strength of the police in the Metropolitan police area fell by 131 officers during that year?

    Mr. Howard: I am coming to police numbers in a moment. The hon. Gentleman will know full well that we made substantial extra resources available to the Metropolitan police for 1994-95. As he also knows, the way in which those resources are spent is a matter for the Commissioner. He has the responsibility and discretion to spend that money as he sees fit. We made money available to enable all the needs of the Metropolitan police to be met, including extra officers. It is for the Commissioner to decide on his priorities within that budget.

    Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the Home Secretary’s point about the additional allowance for the Met because of its additional duties. Will he confirm the real-terms increase for normal operational duties–not additional capital duties, for which there is a separate grant–year on year? My understanding is that the real-terms increase this year is less than the rate of inflation.

    Mr. Howard: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to what I said, he would have appreciated that that is completely wrong. What I said–what the truth is–was that, as a result of the various changes, the Commissioner has extra spending power worth up to 3.6 per cent. of this year’s budget if he needs it. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that is in excess of the rate of inflation. That is therefore a significant increase in the budget. The hon. Gentleman’s question is based on an inaccurate understanding of the facts.

    Ms Hodge: Will the Home Secretary give way?

    Mr. Howard: No, I have given way to the hon. Lady once.

    We should not overlook, either, the Commissioner’s substantial efficiency savings, which have been achieved by reducing management overheads through restructuring the force and by civilianisation. Since 1993–this is one of the reasons why the number of officers has gone down, to return to the question put by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), whose attention has strayed elsewhere–the number of officers on the Association of Chief Police Officers grade in the Met has fallen from52 to 35, and the number of chief inspectors and superintendents from 840 to 594. That is a total reduction of almost 30 per cent. In addition, about 1,000 posts have been civilianised over the same period. What all that means is more officers out on patrol. That is a key part of my vision for the Met–high public visibility of the police.

    As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s pledge to provide funding for 5,000 extra police officers is worth an additional £180 million during the next three years, and £20 million in the first year. The Metropolitan police’s share of that is £3.4 million. That would have enabled the Commissioner to recruit 149 extra officers. In fact, I understand that he proposes to recruit 180 more officers, and that they will all be out on duty by the middle of this year.

    Contrary to some media reports, there is no problem about recruitment. I understand that the Commissioner’s latest recruitment round was so successful that the force had to wind down the campaign early, and that the applicants are of high quality.

    The Met has also made real progress in attracting more recruits from the ethnic minorities. Nearly 9 per cent. of recruits to the regular constabulary are now from an ethnic background, and the figure for the special constabulary is up to around the 15 per cent. mark, precisely mirroring the ethnic composition of London as a whole.

    Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): We all appreciate the fact that ethnic minority recruitment is improving, but does the Home Secretary acknowledge that there is still a major problem with retention in the Met? Unfortunately, many of the ethnic minority police who are recruited do not remain in the force, so there is still a problem there.

    Mr. Howard: I would not for a moment suggest that all is perfect, or that there is no room for improvement–of course there is. The recruitment figures I just gave, however, provide grounds for encouragement, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): That is an important point, and the House will be encouraged by the information that my right hon. and learned Friend has given. Does he agree that it is important that the colour of someone’s skin should be as important as the colour of their eyes or their hair, and that it should be no more likely a predictor of whether or not they join the police service or become the subject of police attention?

    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree and reinforce everything that my hon. Friend said.

    So far as the up-to-date position on establishment is concerned, at the end of January this year there were 27,719 officers in the Metropolitan police–around 5,000 more than there were in 1979, and a 22 per cent. increase in police strength–and 16,928 civilian staff, which is over 2,600 more than in 1979. At the end of last December, there were 18,769 uniformed constables, which is almost 600 above the establishment figure. The Met has more police constables than ever before.

    Strength has been brought up close to establishment levels. There were 552 vacancies in the Met last month–one tenth of the vacancies in 1979. It is even more encouraging to see that the number of constables increased during that period from 16,500 to 20,833. The proportion of officers allocated to street duty has increased from 26 per cent. in 1984, when such records began, to 35 per cent. in 1995. There are more resources than ever before, and better use is being made of them.

    But another and much more precious category of resources is needed for policing. I refer to the personal resources of courage and dedication needed by every police officer, and his or her family, who places the duty to uphold law and order above personal safety.

    During the year–for the third time since I became Home Secretary–I had the sad duty of attending the funeral of an officer who paid the ultimate sacrifice that policing can ask from those resources. That officer was PC Phillip Walters, who died tragically last April ina shooting attack, following a call to a disturbance ata private residence in Ilford. More than 3,000 other Met officers suffered criminal violence in the past year. Every one of those attacks disgusts me.

    The bald statistics hide a catalogue of valour and personal sacrifice. Let me give an example–one that is not for the squeamish. PC Barry Cawsey, a 28-year-old rugby player serving at Forest Gate, gave evidence–on crutches–last month of how he was treated by two so-called joyriders whom he tried to stop getting away. PC Cawsey was not well placed to make his arrest, but he did his best to get into the vehicle and not be shaken off. “I can’t get rid of him,” said one of the thugs.”He’s holding on too tight”. The fleeing joyriders then manoeuvred the vehicle at top speed and crushedPC Cawsey against parked cars. This young officer saw his flesh tear right down both legs and his muscles pulped. Such sacrifices are made by the Metropolitan police on our behalf day in, day out. We should always be deeply grateful for the work done by Met officers.

    Ms Tessa Jowell (Dulwich): Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to PC George Hammond, who died recently? PC Hammond was seriously injured11 years ago in circumstances similar to those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has described. Despite his incapacity–the officer suffered from kidney failure and other injuries arising directly from the attack–he fought for the retention of the kidney unit at Dulwich hospital. After his retirement from the police,PC Hammond continued to show the spirit that he had shown in devoting himself so selflessly and courageously to serving the residents of Dulwich.

    Mr. Howard: I am very glad to join the hon. Lady in that tribute. That was a particularly sad case, and she is right to raise it.

    Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): Some 2,500 police officers were stabbed by knives or other sharpened implements in the past year alone. Does my right hon. and learned Friend therefore accept that my private Member’s Bill, the Offensive Weapons Bill, will go some way to deterring such appalling knife crimes?

    Mr. Howard: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who knows that the Government fully support her Bill.

    Attacks on the police such as those we have mentioned demonstrate the need for the best available protection.My policy is clear and simple. Anything that helps to protect police officers and others who face violence on behalf of the rest of us–including changes to the law on offensive weapons, such as those proposed by myhon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)–must be looked at seriously.

    The Commissioner takes the safety of the public and of his officers equally seriously. By the end of next month, all operational officers in the Met will have been trained in the use of the new long batons and the new handcuffs. They will have seen a video, been given a personal handbook and attended specialised training sessions. Once each officer has successfully completed the force tests, he will have issued to him a protective vest to a standard at least as high as anywhere in the world.

    In last year’s debate, I reported to the House my decision to approve replacements for the traditional wooden police truncheon. As a result, the Met is making good defensive use of the long straight acrylic baton and–for plain-clothes officers–an expanding baton. The Commissioner tells me that there has been a decrease in assaults on his officers since the new batons were introduced, and that is welcome news.

    I have also explained the measures that the Commissioner was taking, with my full support, to increase his armed response units and to allow certain officers better access to firearms. Again, the Commissioner informs me that this policy has helped him to reduce armed robberies on business premises, and the use of firearms by criminals. Those measures represented, first, an essential improvement in routine self-defence, and, secondly, a balanced response to the firearms threat in London. In my judgment, they have helped to ensure that we can continue to maintain a predominantly unarmed police force on the streets of the capital.

    There remains a gap between the use of a truncheon and the lethal use of a firearm by a specialist team. We need a safe means by which an officer can incapacitate a violent criminal short of hand-to-hand combat. That is why I supported the chief police officers’ decision to trial CS sprays, which can be directed at a violent assailant and put him or her out of action. The Metropolitan police is one of the forces piloting the use of sprays. The trials will begin in March, and will last for six months. They will be properly evaluated, and I await the results with interest.

    I said earlier that a major part of my vision for the capital, as for the whole of England and Wales, is a flourishing and active partnership between the police and the public. Partnership is not a pie-in-the-sky slogan. It is a central and completely practical part of the Government’s approach to tackling crime. It means people–ordinary members of the public and local businesses–volunteering to support their local police in whatever way best suits their local needs; and especially, it is about local solutions to local problems.

    The new Metropolitan police committee, which I put in place last April to advise me as police authority, has also been busy forming links with the various local voluntary bodies. Sir John Quinton and his committee are all volunteers themselves. They give me good advice, and are well placed to promote partnerships and pursue my approach with the Met.

    The best of all possible ways in which the individual member of the public can help his local police is by signing up as a special constable. One of the objectives that I set with the Commissioner in this year’s policing plan, following consultation with Sir John Quinton, was a stretching recruitment target of 650 new special constables–384 more than the previous year. The Commissioner and his colleagues have, I know, worked very hard to meet this target, including a local recruitment drive, advertising, improvements in handling applications and a push for specials right across the force. The latest figures show that he has recruited well over 400 so far, and is, I understand, well on the way to hitting the target.

    I shall soon be discussing next year’s target for specials with the Commissioner. We recently announced a new fund, started with £4 million of Government grant in 1995-96, to help all police forces to expand their recruitment of specials, and to improve their training and recruitment processes. I understand that the Metropolitan police has made a bid for support from the fund.

    I am delighted that local businesses and organisations are also recognising the value of the special constabulary. They have done so not only by encouraging their staff to volunteer but also by practical support. For example, Wandsworth special constables have been provided with a car sponsored by a local firm, TFL Motor Group, and Harrods is providing a car for special constables in central London.

    In Lambeth, some £5,000 has been given by Brixton Challenge to help boost recruitment following the public disorder there. A cable network company in east London is running an advertising campaign for specials at no cost. Other local campaigns for specials have also, the Commissioner tells me, been helped by reduced advertising rates generously offered by local companies.

    Such co-operation and support in London is by no means confined to specials. A whole new crop of partnership strategies is springing up throughout the Met as local organisations gear up to improve life for their neighbourhoods. The kind of partnership that I want between the Met and the public continues to grow in all areas. There are now over 12,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, and 201 business watch and 51 school watch schemes. The Crimestoppers initiative led directly to266 arrests last year.

    Some of Britain’s biggest companies are joining forces in business-led coalitions against crime. Household names like Marks and Spencer, Barclays bank, Dixons, Coca Cola, the BBC, EMI, Polygram, the Novotel hotel chain and drinks companies Seagrams and United Distillers have pledged to underwrite new initiatives that aim to make our streets safer.

    Partners Against Crime in Hammersmith and Fulham was launched with grants and donations of £140,000. First results of the united front will be seen in two operations to target street crime in North End road in Fulham and around Shepherds Bush Green. Security staff from one of the companies will be involved in the second scheme to monitor closed circuit television cameras in Hammersmith town centre.

    Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith): I am grateful for that comment, because one of the things that had so far being missing from the Home Secretary’s speech was greater emphasis on crime prevention. The burglary rate in White City, which is in my area, dropped by 66 per cent. in two years–thanks to no Government funding but to money from the BBC, which was used in conjunction with the police and the local authority. We also got it down in two high-rise blocks in Shepherds Bush, despite getting only a small amount of Government money, using a concierge system, which the Government then refused to extend to the rest of the estate.

    Mr. Howard: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman thinks the BBC gets its money. The truth is that there is scope for local initiatives and partnerships of that kind. Not all successes in the fight against crime are assisted by Government money–although it is clear that Opposition Members have yet to learn that lesson. Partners Against Crime is also planning training programmes that are aimed at directing persistent offenders away from crime.

    The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea also has a partnership board, and it has just received £1.6 million in funding from the single regeneration budget. Some of the money has already been earmarked for a closed circuit television system in Earl’s Court. There is also a safer cities project in the borough, setting up domestic violence units and dealing with drug-related issues on the Worlds End estate. A CCTV system is again planned, this time for the north of the borough.

    Wandsworth has the highest number of neighbourhood watch schemes in London, and their work in partnership with the police is rightly imitated all over the capital. The junior citizen scheme–like the one in Westminster, which was visited recently by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State–aims to teach our children the difference between good and bad citizenship. Wandsworth has a neighbourhood special constable scheme, with recruitment part funded by the council. The number of specials on Wandsworth division has increased by50 per cent. to 33.

    Later this month, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State hopes to meet Mr. David Streven, a member of Wandsworth council staff, who is about to go out on the beat as the first neighbourhood special constable in London. The borough is also funding the introduction of CCTV in two shopping areas.

    Mrs. Roche: I am delighted that Westminster is following the excellent example of my borough of Haringey in introducing a junior citizen scheme. Does the Home Secretary agree that London fared very badly from the introduction of CCTV? According to an analysis that I conducted by means of responses to parliamentary questions, it is most worrying that the lion’s share of the money went to the constituencies of Conservative Members of Parliament. Can the Home Secretary assure us that London will not be discriminated against in the latest challenge? Will he also consider very seriously the excellent bid by my area, particularly Wood Green high road?

    Mr. Howard: I do not accept for one moment that London was treated unfairly in the recent competition.It may have escaped the hon. Lady’s notice–I know that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends spend much time in a fantasy world–that Conservative Members of Parliament represent more London constituencies than do Opposition Members. I am very confident that that state of affairs will continue after the next general election.

    The use of closed circuit television cameras to detect and prevent crime is also spreading in close co-operation with local authorities and businesses. CCTV is a common theme in many of those initiatives, and it is one of the 1990s’ big success stories in the fight against crime. Our investment in CCTV has increased from nothing two years ago, to £5 million last year and £15 million in the coming year.

    Some £317,400 was allocated to schemes in the Metropolitan police force last year. Among the more well known are Newham, Wandsworth, Sutton, Enfield, Mitchum, Woolwich and the extensive City of London surveillance system. Our grants are expected to lever in another £667,300 from sponsorship, making a total of nearly £1 million to be spent in the capital under that initiative alone. That is on top of the sum that has already been invested in closed circuit television in Hammersmith and Wandsworth under safer cities schemes, which was also funded by my Department.

    Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that investment in CCTV. Is he aware that crime in Sutton has decreased by 15 per cent. as a result of his support for the installation of CCTV cameras?

    Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. That result is reproduced in many other parts of the capital.

    The Metropolitan police are doing their part. They are included in all seven city challenge programmes running in London, and are an active partner in all eight of London’s safer cities teams. They are represented on all 25 of London’s drug action teams.

    Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton): I welcome the Government’s action in installing CCTV in order to increase public safety. Will the Home Secretary take on board the recent incident that occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow(Mr. Gerrard)? In that case, there was an awful murder in a tower block which had cameras installed at the entrance, but they were so old that they were unable to identify the murderer. Does the Home Secretary accept that, if cameras are to be installed, there is a case for monitoring and updating them regularly, to ensure that they remain in good working order?

    Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, and I take very seriously the point he makes. That is why we have issued guidance about how to make the most of closed circuit television, how to ensure that the reproduction quality is as high as possible, and how to gain maximum benefit from the expenditure to which the Government are making such a significant contribution.

    Again this year we have seen tragic deaths arising from the pernicious activities of drug dealers. I have made it a national key objective for all police forces to take action against drugs. In London, I approved the Commissioner’s priority to improve performance against drug-related crime. Each of the Metropolitan police’s five areas now has a dedicated unit to help divisions target street-level drug dealing. They work closely with their colleagues in the south east regional crime squad, many of whom are seconded Metropolitan police officers, to hit at the source of the problems: the dealers and the importers.

    Meanwhile, the Metropolitan police force continues to run successful partnership programmes against drug abusers where there are particular local problems. Operation Welwyn, in the King’s Cross area, has set the standard for high profile enforcement activity. Since 1992, Operation Welwyn has led to the conviction of more than 300 drug dealers, trafficking in crack, cocaine and heroin, leading to prison sentences of more than 450 years.

    Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): Will the Secretary of State do as the Commissioner does and pay tribute to both the Camden and Islington councils and the local community groups who have made such a big contribution to the success of Operation Welwyn, which was initiated by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)?

    Mr. Howard: I am happy to pay tribute to everyone who has played a part in Operation Welwyn. It is very important that all concerned play their role, and I accept that the hon. Gentleman certainly played his part in that initiative.

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): The Home Secretary has paid tribute to all those who have played their part, and he has outlined a whole range of useful initiatives and issues that require co-operation and consultation in London. Does he agree that the work of the Metropolitan police advisory committee might be enhanced if, in addition to his appointees, some members were appointed from police community consultative committees and other associated groups throughout London? Many of the issues we have mentioned could then be pursued in greater detail to everyone’s benefit as they occur. Would that not be an improvement on the London scene?

    Mr. Howard: I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman holds that view, and I understand the force behind his question. The committee has made contact with such groups and it is working very closely with them. I think that that is a particularly effective way of ensuring that I receive the best possible advice.

    Finally, I shall refer to the Metropolitan police force’s public order duties during the past year. One of the core functions of any police force is the maintenance of the Queen’s peace. That is especially true of the Metropolitan police force, as the policing of major events and demonstrations in the capital has always placed great demands on it.

    Some will remember 1995 as the year when serious public disorder broke out again in Brixton. However, they are taking completely out of perspective an isolated local incident that was contained effectively by the local police.

    I visited Brixton immediately following the disturbances, and it seemed to me that, in many ways, the event revealed the underlying strength of the relationships built up by the police and responsible local people since 1981.

    Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I thank the Home Secretary for his remarks. Does he agree that Lambeth has moved forward enormously in terms of the relationship between the local authority and the local police? There is a joint logo for Lambeth council and the Metropolitan police in areas of partnership–which would have been unheard of only a few years ago. Will he pay tribute again to the work that has been done, particularly by the new chief executive, Heather Rabbatts?

    Mr. Howard: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to all concerned, and to the extent to which things have improved in Lambeth. I am sure that she agrees–indeed, it was implicit in her question–that there was an awfully long way to go from the events and circumstances of a few years ago, but, yes, progress has been made, and I am happy to pay tribute to all concerned.

    I especially deplore the attack that was made during the course of the disturbance in Brixton on PC Tisshaw, whom I visited in St. Thomas’s hospital the day after he was hurt. His injuries might have been much worse, however, if a section of the crowd had not held off his attackers and made a way through for his colleagues to help him. Those members of the public deserve our acknowledgment and thanks.

    The community in Brixton returned to normality remarkably quickly after the disturbance. That was partly due to the excellent relationship built up over the years between the local police and local residents in consultative groups. They spoke to one another and continue to do so, and that two-way communication promotes understanding and makes the job of the police much easier.

    What is worth remembering, and is too readily forgotten or not fully reported, is the immense amount of work done behind the scenes by the police to ensure that many public order problems are solved peacefully–another successful and peaceful Notting Hill carnival, another round of new year celebrations in Trafalgar square without serious incident, and the immensely painstaking and successful policing of the VE day andVJ day commemorations. The Commissioner tells me that, thanks to better stewarding and planning, there is much less risk of major disorder at football matches than, sadly, was recently the case.

    The year 1995 was an excellent one for the Metropolitan police. The people of London can justly be proud of the policing service they receive, and of their and the police’s successes against crime. The Commissioner and I, and the Metropolitan police committee, are committed to improving that service, and to providing even better value for money.

    The Government will continue to listen to the people at the sharp end of the fight against crime, and to respond to what they say. We shall continue to ensure that the police and the courts have the powers that they need, we shall continue to invest in cutting crime, and we shall continue to ensure that London and the rest of the country have the best police service that it is possible to provide.

  • Andrea Leadsom – 2016 Speech at Women in Nuclear UK Conference

    Andrea Leadsom
    Andrea Leadsom

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrea Leadsom, the Minister of State at Department of Energy and Climate Change, on 2 February 2016.

    Introduction

    I am very pleased to be here today supporting Women in Nuclear UK’s mission to address the gender imbalance in the nuclear sector and delighted to speak to you as part of the only all women Commons Ministerial team!

    I have worked in a number of male dominated sectors so, for me, this issue has a deep, personal resonance.

    We can send people to the moon. We can explore the vast depths of our oceans. We can build great cities and towering structures. We can even talk to our computers. We have achieved greatness in many areas. But on the issue of gender imbalance, while there has been progress in the UK and around the world, far more needs to be done.

    It is imperative that we empower women now and for the future. A great number of British women have inspired us throughout history, succeeding against all the odds, to blaze a trail for future generations to follow.

    Down through the centuries, British women have made their mark; in areas such as politics, literature, medicine, and social reform.

    Jane Austen the great novelist, Dorothy Hodgkin won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1964, and Helen Sharman was the first British woman in space.

    We look to them, and many others, with pride and revel in their legacy that changed our society forever.

    These women serve as a reminder as to what can be achieved when women are given the opportunity to reach their full potential.

    I want the nuclear industry to be a launch pad for the next generation of world changing women pioneers, I want the nuclear industry to provide strong female role models, strong female leaders and a strong female presence in the sector’s workforce.

    Today I want to set out why it is imperative that we address the gender imbalance, what initiatives are in place within the nuclear industry and what more can be done.

    Gender balance globally and the UK

    The World Economic Forum’s 2015 Global Gender Gap Report ranks 145 economies according to how well they leverage their female talent pool. The UK is in 18th place, up from 26th place in 2014. Iceland holds the top spot, 5 years in a row, with three Nordic countries following close behind.

    What is the reason behind these countries’ success? Among other equitable policies, it is the combination of high female labour force participation, salary gaps between men and women being among the lowest in the world and abundant opportunities for women to rise to positions of leadership. We must learn from these countries leading in the area of gender balance.

    However, according to PwC, more than two thirds of the UK’s biggest 100 energy companies fail to count a single woman on their boards. In the nuclear industry, only 8 women hold board positions out of the 100 positions available. Additionally, the NIA reports that of its members’ – 64,000 employees – only 17% are female. In engineering, IT and technical sectors, women earn on average £10K less than their male colleagues.

    The nuclear industry can and must do much better than this.

    Benefits of gender equality in the nuclear sector

    So, why should the industry concern itself with gender imbalance? The simple answer is that a nuclear industry which is equally appealing to both women and men will provide nuclear sector companies with access to the entire pool of talent the UK has to offer.

    Conversely, an industry that is not attractive to women risks losing the best talent to competitors.

    The fact remains that companies with a gender balance perform better because diversity brings together varied perspectives. Simply put, the nuclear sector cannot reach its full potential without maximising all available talents.

    The skills gap challenge

    So, as we deliver the UK’s nuclear programme over the decades to come, it is imperative that we address the skills gap. In 2015 the total demand for skilled nuclear workers was approximately 77,000 Full Time Equivalents. This number is expected to rise as both the civil and defence nuclear new build programmes gather pace. Demand is forecast to peak in 2021 at over 111,000.

    The nuclear industry thrives on innovation in areas such as decommissioning and small modular reactors. A diverse workforce is therefore far more likely to support innovation.

    And the fact remains, we are going to need a more skilled workforce across the civil and defence nuclear sectors. By not attracting women to the sector, we will be, by default, recruiting from a much smaller pool than we need to. So it therefore makes absolute sense to attract more women to these sectors.

    Current initiatives

    We are making progress.

    The new MentorSet scheme, co-ordinated by the Women’s Engineering Society, will help women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths by providing independent mentors who understand the challenges faced in the engineering and allied sectors.

    The Department for Energy and Climate Change is already a member and I encourage you all to join as well. By participating in the MentorSet scheme you will be demonstrating a clear commitment to your female employees and to the Women’s Engineering Society’s vision of a better and more diverse world.

    Additionally, Women in Nuclear launched an Industry Charter that lays out 10 points which business leaders signing up to must address. 30 companies have already signed up to the Industry Charter.

    In 2014, EDF Energy more than doubled the female proportion of its new intake of graduate engineers to 32% within a year. At EDF, women now account for 20% of the company’s apprentices, up from 6% and I was delighted to meet some of those apprentices on my recent visit to EDF’s Cannington Court at the end of last year.

    Also, the Nuclear Industry Association’s “Regeneration” campaign seeks to engage young people on issues relating to energy and provides information about jobs and skills available to them in the industry. This initiative encourages young people, especially girls to continue to study STEM subjects.

    Encouraging women to pursue STEM subjects

    These subjects are of course crucial. But in the UK, only 1 woman to every 7 men works in science, technology, engineering and maths. We need to get more girls interested and excited about STEM subjects.

    The nuclear industry has some great STEM initiatives. WiN UK have done a terrific job in getting the message to young girls that they can have a successful career by pursuing these subjects. In 2015, WiN UK spoke to over 1,000 students about the fulfilling careers the nuclear sector has to offer.

    Also, EDF’s “Pretty Curious” campaign is helping to change perceptions of STEM by sparking the imagination of young girls and inspiring them to continue to pursue science-based subjects at school and in their careers.

    There are already success stories. Amy, without wanting to copy the leader of the opposition too much, I just wanted to mention, is 21 and an electrical maintenance technician at Hinkley Point B. Bethany who is a 23 year old reactor chemistry engineer at Heysham 2 Nuclear Power Station. Also, on a visit to Sellafield, I met Dorothy, who has a key role leading innovative Sellafield decommissioning.

    There could be countless more women just like Amy, Bethany and Dorothy, but we need to create the right environment, provide the right tools and not expect girls to fit into the existing framework for achieving success.

    Prominent women in nuclear and the need for more women in senior positions

    In more senior, leadership roles we have Dame Sue Ion, Chair of the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board and an expert advisor on the nuclear power industry.

    Ann McCall is the waste management director at RWM and Kinna Kintrea, the assurance director at the NDA has a long history of working in manufacturing and male dominated environments.

    And of course, my congratulations go to Miranda Kirschel, the chair of Women in Nuclear UK, who was just recently awarded an MBE for services to promote equal opportunities in the nuclear industry.

    I am also delighted that the Office for Nuclear Regulation has hired its first female Chief Executive. I know you heard from Adriènne Kelbie earlier today and I’m sure she will do a fantastic job.

    It is through these high profile appointments that we really will start to effect change. We need to see more women in positions of leadership, and the only way to achieve this is for leaders in the nuclear industry, whether they be male or female, to enable and champion this change. Change must come not only from the top, but at the grassroots level as well. I want women in senior and high profile positions to be the norm, not the exception.

    All these women demonstrate it is possible to be successful in what are currently male dominated sectors. I worked in the banking and finance industry for 25 years, then went into politics and now I am a Government Minister – all typically male dominated arenas. I know from my own experience that Women can succeed in these areas given the right opportunities.

    What more can be done

    But more needs to be done. The Industry Charter, that I mentioned earlier, is a great way to get you, the business leaders in the nuclear sector to take a look at your own organisations and your recruitment practices. I urge you to review the targets you have set for your organisations on the recruitment of women and set new, more ambitious goals.

    Also, we must continue to break the perception that STEM subjects are just for boys and encourage more girls to take up these subjects.

    We need businesses to step up their game. We need to see more females in adverts that send a clear message that women are not only welcome but will be given the same opportunities as men. And we need to hear from more female scientists about the work they do. We need to roll out a different set of role models so that girls and women know that science and the nuclear sector are areas which they can work in, successfully and equally.

    Conclusion

    The transition towards a low carbon economy through our commitment to building a new generation of nuclear power plants represents a fresh opportunity for the nuclear industry to embrace gender equality. We have an opportunity to be a world class leader in narrowing the gender imbalance. How we address this issue may well set a precedent for other industries and countries.

    It is imperative that companies in the nuclear sector take individual ownership of tackling the issue of gender imbalance, and place diversity firmly at the heart of their recruitment, retention and progression.

    We want a sector that welcomes women and one that provides the same opportunities as to their male counterparts. Let us chart a new and better path for the women of this country.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech at ASCL Conference

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, in Birmingham on 5 March 2016.

    Thank you, Allan [Foulds, President of ASCL], for that kind introduction.

    It’s fantastic to see so many of you here, and particularly to see those familiar faces from all the schools I’ve had the pleasure of visiting over the past 18 months.

    Please do keep the invitations coming, because I can say, hand on heart, that the very best part of my job is when I’m able to leave Westminster and Whitehall, to see beyond the headlines, the statistics and the speeches, and to witness first-hand the fantastic work that you’re doing to change young lives in schools right across the country.

    It truly is a privilege.

    That leads me on to the first thing I want to say to you today, to acknowledge something which isn’t said enough, perhaps because it doesn’t make for good copy for journalists, or it doesn’t have the same appeal as eye-catching initiatives for politicians.

    And that is this: the vast majority, more than 8 in 10 schools in this country, do a good or outstanding job; the vast majority of school leaders are tireless and passionate advocates for the young people they serve; and the vast majority of teachers are engaging and inspiring their pupils to achieve their all.

    You don’t have to take my word for it, the figures speak for themselves. More children are joining secondary school with a better grasp of the 3Rs; there are record numbers of ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ schools; and fewer pupils are leaving school and ending up NEET.

    These improvements are being driven from the ground – by confident, innovative leaders like you, who’ve embraced autonomy to achieve truly remarkable progress.

    The truth is, and I know it might not always feel like this, we are in a golden age of education in this country.

    Expectations are higher, standards have improved, and outcomes are better than at any time in our country’s history.

    That is worth remembering, particularly as we engage in the debate on how to drive our education system forward further still, because we start from a very good base.

    At the same time, all of us here recognise that in a globalised world, where the young people you teach are going to have to compete for jobs not just with young people from the same town, county or country, but with their peers from across the globe, we cannot afford to let our education system stand still. We can always do more and achieve better.

    Educational excellence

    Inevitably, my focus, and that of my department and Ofsted, must be on that minority of schools where the quality of education isn’t yet good enough.

    After all, even if a single school isn’t performing as well as it could be, then hundreds of children aren’t getting the education they deserve and the chance to reach their full potential.

    Children get just one shot at their education and we owe it to them to give them the best one.

    It is, as I have said many times before, a matter of basic social justice – our duty and our obligation to the next generation.

    As the Prime Minister has made clear, this is a one nation government – focused on unlocking real social justice and improving the life chances of those who so often have been left behind.

    Education is at the heart of that agenda.

    So yes, we need to do a better job; and by we I mean all of us – politicians, leaders and even the media – of recognising all that is excellent and inspiring about our schools today.

    But we also need to be unapologetic about tackling failure where it occurs and be ready to give those schools who are struggling a helping hand.

    In November in a speech to Policy Exchange, I made clear that my goal over the course of this Parliament is to spread educational excellence everywhere.

    I don’t need to tell you that too many of those struggling schools are concentrated in certain parts of the country – many in our coastal towns and rural areas.

    Simply hoping for improvement isn’t enough, because these areas are not only underperforming, but they also lack the capacity and support that they need to improve.

    Quite simply that means that just by virtue of being born in one part of the country, a child is destined to receive a worse start in life.

    Delivering educational excellence everywhere means ending the scandalous demography of destiny which has no place in 21st century Britain.

    It means providing the means by which the innovation that has transformed educational outcomes in cities like London can spread across the country.

    It means a zero tolerance approach to underachievement, no excuses for failure and bringing a culture of aspiration back to all our towns and communities.

    Leaders at the heart of the system

    And the only people who can make that vision a reality are you.

    Sure enough, politicians can make things easier or harder for you to succeed: we can make sure that you have the resources you need and that the accountability system we design leads to the right incentives.

    But ultimately there is no substitute for good leadership.

    That’s why, as a government, we are such firm believers in a school-led system, with great leaders in the driving seat.

    Why do we want all schools to become academies? Because we believe that the people best placed to lead schools are you – the heads.

    Why do we believe in multi-academy trusts (MATs)? Because we want the best leaders to extend their reach to as many schools as possible.

    Why have we stripped back the national curriculum? Because you know – better than we ever could – how best to inspire and engage your students.

    All of our reforms are about bringing power, responsibility and accountability together in your hands, where it belongs.

    Let’s dispense with this notion once and for all that somehow local authority control of schools led to democratic accountability.

    Let me honestly ask you: how many local elections in your patch have been fought over the quality of education?

    I don’t ever remember being on a doorstep and being quizzed on what my local authority was doing on local schools.

    But that doesn’t and shouldn’t mean that the school-led system is about the government leaving schools to fend for themselves.

    A school-led system does not mean creating a Wild West where schools compete in a survival of the fittest – far from it.

    Instead, a genuine school-led system means the government getting out of the way and focusing on providing the scaffolding that helps those good schools to turn around weaker ones.

    It means the government not meddling in schools or micromanaging the process but supporting improvement through schemes like the National Teaching Service, helping to build sponsor capacity and discharging our duty to hold schools to account on behalf of parents.

    Having read the blueprint numerous times, I know we share a vision that is broadly aligned, where government provides a helping hand, but where improvement and innovation are driven from the sector itself.

    Of course, devolving power from politicians to school leaders inevitably means more demands on leaders. If we’re to have a truly self-improving school system, then that means leadership itself must adapt and improve as well.

    Already we see models of leadership adapting and evolving to meet the challenge of running a school-led system, ranging from the potential offered by MATs for young teachers to quickly accelerate to leadership positions, right through to the opportunities to become a CEO of a large MAT responsible for 30 to 40 schools.

    And I’m genuinely excited by the potential offered by the work you, NAHT and the National Governors’ Association are doing on the Foundation for Leadership, which in time will see ever more leadership development driven directly by those who know what it takes to make a great leader.

    For my part, I want to do all I can to remove the barriers to your success.

    The heads I met before this speech talked to me about our accountability system. I want to be clear – I never want our inspection system to be a barrier to talented leaders taking on and supporting new schools. And I want to reiterate that just like every other commitment in our manifesto, when we said we will reduce the burdens of inspection, we meant it.

    But there are other challenges as well, and I want to focus on just a couple.

    Teacher recruitment

    The first, it won’t surprise you to hear, is teacher recruitment.

    We know that recruitment is a challenge.

    We hear your concerns, and we know that while headline data shows a sustained low national vacancy rate, the reality on the ground for many heads is that they are struggling to attract the brightest and the best.

    Let me level with you. We have a growing economy and leading employers intending to recruit 7.5% more graduates than last year from a smaller overall graduate pool, so even with all other things being equal, we would face a challenge.

    So we are doing all we can to drive recruitment and improve retention. And we’re getting more returners coming back into the profession.

    Tomorrow I’ll be talking more about measures we’re taking to support part-time teachers and particularly women, so that our schools don’t lose out on their talent.

    And later this spring, 3 workload review groups will be reporting to me on how to tackle the issues which have seen some great teachers leave the profession.

    But I need your help to tackle this challenge.

    By all means, lobby me about what more the government can do to improve recruitment and retention.

    But let’s not inadvertently create a vicious cycle where talk of a crisis actively puts people off entering the profession. Let’s focus on communicating to the outside world what a great profession teaching is, how rewarding it can be, and what good teachers have the power to do.

    Funding

    I know that for some of you, funding is also a challenge, and here again I want to be as frank as I can. Compared to the rest of the public sector, the schools budget secured a relatively generous funding settlement. There simply isn’t, in a time of austerity, a magic money tree from which government can find more.

    But I know there are pressures and it is indisputable that we are expecting you to do more with the budgets you have.

    Those pressures make the introduction of a national fair funding formula even more urgent, and we remain committed to beginning the transition from next year – because it must be right that the same pupil, with the same characteristics attracts the same amount of funding.

    We also want to help schools to reduce unnecessary costs. I know many of you have already used our school efficiency metric, and in the coming months we’ll be doing much more to help schools get the best value for money from their budgets. And there are many more areas I could discuss. I’m sure you’ll challenge me on some of them during the Q and A.

    The prize

    The long and short of it is this: achieving what we all want to see – a world class education system – won’t be easy. Striving for excellence means stretching ourselves.

    For me, this is why I came into politics. Nothing makes me angrier than the thought of potential lost through lack of a decent education, which is why I want to play my part in building a system that delivers true excellence for all.

    I know from speaking to you, that for many of you, your motivations for being teachers are very similar. We are all here because we want the same thing: to offer the best education we possibly can – one which values each and every teacher and extends opportunity to each and every child.

    Your generation of school leaders has already achieved so much, and as I said before, this is very much a golden age for education standards in this country.

    I can’t pretend your jobs will ever be easy and you know that, but my commitment is to ensure that government supports you as much as we can but doesn’t get in the way – so you can set about improving our school system further.

    I’d urge you to seize that opportunity. Don’t be afraid to be bold, don’t wait for permission, and don’t be held back by fear of inspection.

    Because every time you are able to open a young mind to a new concept, every time you succeed in teaching them something new, you are helping to build a piece of their future.

    If we are able to make a reality of the school-led system, then the prize will be great.

    We’ll be able to build something that no country has yet achieved: a truly fair and meritocratic society, where life chances are determined by talent and effort, not the circumstances of birth – an end to demography as destiny.

    Thank you for everything you do.

  • Michael Wilshaw – 2016 Speech to ASCL Conference

    michaelwilshaw

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Wilshaw, the Chief Inspector of OFSTED, in Birmingham on 4 March 2016.

    Thank you for that introduction, Stephen, and thanks for inviting me to speak at your annual conference once again.

    Can I first of all apologise for pulling out of last year’s conference at short notice. But I’m afraid an emergency heart operation got in the way. Nevertheless, all these things have an upside because it reassured the doubters that I really do have a heart. Indeed, I have a very big heart for our education service and particularly for the great work that you do as headteachers. That’s not just an idle platitude at the start of a speech, but a deeply felt belief in the power of headship to change young people’s lives for the better. Standards have improved in our country over the last 20 years principally because of you.

    A tough job made tougher

    Yours is a tough job. But there is no better one. And the best heads, despite the difficulties and the anxieties, know this to be true. In my view, every head has to be Janus-like. What I mean by this is that part of you is always looking one way – at what’s happening in the classroom and in the corridors to ensure that young people are being taught well. But another part of you is always worrying about the 2 looming vacancies in the maths department and the possibility of losing the best head of science you’ve ever had to the school down the road whose budget allows a higher salary to be paid.

    This constant head-turning always gave me a painful crick in the neck, but at the moment you probably need a double dose of Ralgex applied liberally when resignation deadlines come round.

    Recruitment is a burning issue and all of us, including the Department for Education, have got to face it head on and develop strategies not only to solve the present problems but also to ensure that we don’t face these staffing issues again and again and again.

    I feel passionately about this because for a dozen or so years as a head I was compelled to travel to Galway, Cork and Dublin to attract Ireland’s finest to teach in east London and if that didn’t work, raid the school budget to fly to New Zealand or Australia. But I suspect budgets now won’t allow that extravagance.

    The problems around recruitment, as I said to the select committee earlier this week, are threatening to undermine the progress that all of us have made. But it will also make it harder to meet the challenges of more demanding assessment, higher floor targets and a changing curriculum. I know you will meet these challenges in the same way that previous generations of headteachers have met earlier challenges. But you need help. The reasons for the teacher shortages are already well documented so I don’t need to dwell on them too much today, other than to say that the exponential growth in international schools abroad, many of which are sponsored by our top public schools, is pouring petrol onto the fire.

    As I pointed out last week, there are now an estimated 8,000 international schools, many of them employing our teachers. And that figure is forecast to nearly double over the next few years. What joy! How wonderful for the independent sector, how miserable for the rest of us.

    I have to confess that as a head, it was always my ambition to make my school so good that parents would rather opt for a free state education than an independent one. Therefore it’s good to see that the Good Schools Guide is recognising that our schools are getting so much better. Our job must be to convince parents, particularly those of more able children, that state secondary schools can deliver the very best education and help youngsters achieve their full potential.

    It is precisely for this reason that I have asked HMI to focus on the progress of the most able pupils more than ever before during school inspections. They will be particularly tough on schools where children are coming into Year 7, having done well at primary but then tread water rather than swim upstream.

    I want to see, and you want to see, more youngsters from the state system going to the top universities year on year. I particularly want to see poor youngsters getting to the Russell Group in greater numbers than they are doing at the moment. If that is to happen, then the gap in progress and attainment at secondary level between free school meal children and their peers has got to start closing. It really is an indictment of our secondary system that this 28 percentage point gap has not closed in nearly 10 years. This really can’t go on. It is morally indefensible and a waste of so much pupil premium money.

    However, let’s be clear, these recruitment problems are not just being fuelled by a rapacious independent sector and an improving economy, but also by public perceptions of our profession.

    One way you can certainly help is by refusing any request for your school to feature on a ‘fly on the wall’ television show. The problem with these programmes is that they provide great TV but little reality. They inevitably focus on the sensational, at the cost of presenting a balanced picture of what goes on in our schools. The spotlight always falls on the ‘lippy’ kid and the NQT in trouble and gives a distorted view of our state system. All they do is reinforce the caricatures of comprehensive schools promoted by those who don’t understand them, would like to get rid of them and return to selection.

    However, no matter how much effort we put into raising the status of the profession, I fear we will never properly get on top of the teacher supply issue unless, and until, the National College for Teaching and Leadership starts to get ahead of the curve. Put bluntly, the National College of Leadership has to show leadership. It has to say more about leadership. And it certainly has to deliver more teachers to your front door. At the moment, it is letting down our system, our schools and our children, particularly in the poorest areas.

    As I argued in my Annual Report, shortages are being exacerbated because the current teacher-training regime is too disorganised, too unevenly distributed and too driven by market forces. The freedom that good and outstanding schools now have to take more control of teacher training – while a positive development – risks further widening the inequalities in our system because there are few strategies in place to prevent this happening.

    You will know that I have previously voiced concern about an emerging two-tier education system. More and more, we see the best schools in the most popular areas snapping up the best teachers while underperforming schools in poorer or more isolated areas are facing an increasingly desperate struggle to find good candidates. They are trapped in a vicious cycle – unable to recruit because they are struggling, but unable to improve because they cannot recruit.

    Headship remains a great job

    Having said all this, you know and I know that most headteachers will do their very best to cope with these problems.

    And let’s not forget, the opportunities and rewards out there for the problem-solving, creative and ambitious head are greater now than ever before. Secondary headship is well remunerated and executive headship even more so. And rightly so. It’s one of the most important jobs in any community and vital to our country.

    Today’s good and ambitious head can not only shape the lives of young people but also shape our national system through system leadership.

    The good and ambitious head can now find themselves running a multi-academy trust or becoming a Regional Schools Commissioner or, my goodness, even ending up as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector.

    The critical importance of headship is a theme I have returned to time and again during my time at the Ofsted helm. Our inspection evidence consistently shows that having the right calibre of leader in charge is key to a school’s success.

    Leadership succession

    That is why perhaps the single most important duty of any headteacher is to plan effectively for their own succession. In a much more autonomous system, with so much depending on appointing people who know how to use their freedoms, it is vital that we do more to nurture leadership.

    I have long worried that bringing through the next generation of leaders has not been given the priority that it deserves. The same attention that has been given to structural reform in the last few years now needs to be given to ensuring that our country not only has enough high-quality teachers but enough great leaders, particularly in those regions that are languishing in mediocrity.

    It is for this reason that I commissioned HMI to carry out some fieldwork to gain a better understanding of the systems in place across the country to identify and prepare the next generation of great secondary headteachers. The findings will inform my next monthly commentary. It should have some important things to say.

    Weaknesses remain in secondary sector

    As a nation, we need to be assured that there are enough great leaders to sustain high standards and to tackle the deep problems that have still to be overcome in our state school system.

    For make no mistake, while the system has got better, improvement is only partial.

    Inspection evidence over the last academic year demonstrates that England’s primary schools continue to forge ahead. However, as you well know, secondary school performance remains a problem in large swathes of our country.

    As a result, there should be some anxiety that when the next PISA tables are published later this year, our rankings won’t show much improvement.

    Those who read my last Annual Report or my recent IPPR speech on the northern powerhouse and the low outcomes for pupils in Manchester and Liverpool, will know how concerned I am that educational success isn’t spread evenly across the country. What improvement we have seen in secondary schools has been disproportionately driven by schools in some parts of England, particularly London, and not others.

    There is an 11 percentage point gap between the proportion of secondary schools that are good or better in the South and East and in the North and Midlands. This is something we cannot ignore, especially as primary schools are doing just as well in these regions as they are in the South.

    Local politicians in underperforming parts of the country must be as determined to drive their schools to do better, irrespective of their status, as they are to lobby for fast trains or new motorways. Children in their regions deserve as good an education as children in the South. Without a decent education, many will remain trapped in a cycle of deprivation that no amount of extra roads and railways will ever help them to escape.

    Children in Salford, Knowsley and Bradford need to have the same opportunities as those in London, Oxfordshire and Surrey.

    However, it remains the case that some of the weaknesses in secondary schools I have highlighted over the past 12 months are more generic and need attention right across the country.

    As I’ve already implied with my earlier comments about independent schools, we still have far too many secondaries not building on progress made at primary school, especially when it comes to meeting the needs of the most able.

    The survey that Ofsted brought out last autumn, entitled The wasted years?, found that in too many secondary schools, Key Stage 3 is not given the priority it deserves. Its status as the poor relation to other key stages is exemplified in the way many schools monitor and assess pupils’ progress and in the way they allocate resources and timetable teachers. Too often, inspectors found that the best and most experienced teachers were heavily weighted towards Key Stages 4 and 5.

    The quality of teaching and the rate of pupils’ progress in Years 7 to 9 are too often failing to prepare youngsters for the next stage of their education. Modern foreign languages, history and geography, in particular, are being taught in a way that is failing to engage or enthuse pupils in many of our schools at this key stage.

    This is a serious concern given the government’s clear ambition for the great majority of pupils who started secondary school last September to enter the EBacc subjects in 5 years’ time.

    You will also know that I have real concerns about the overall quality of provision for the many children who do not succeed at 16 or who would prefer an alternative to university. Our system is adept at guiding students into higher education. But it still struggles, despite the recent focus on apprenticeships, to inform them about alternative career pathways available to them.

    Preparation for employment remains poor and careers guidance in both schools and colleges is uniformly weak. We simply have to improve the quality of our technical and vocational provision and present it as a valid educational route if we are to equip youngsters with the skills they need and that employers want.

    So my major question to you today is the one I have posed in the past and will continue to ask in my remaining few months in this job.

    If some schools can get these things right, then why can’t more do so?

    The task of any secondary headteacher and any leader of a federation or multi-academy trust must be to properly address these systemic weaknesses in their institution or their constituent schools.

    So that when an inspector walks in and rattles off the important questions:

    What are you doing to strengthen the Key Stage 3 curriculum?

    What are you doing to make sure your most able pupils are being stretched?

    What steps are you taking to improve outcomes for your youngsters on free school meals?

    How do you ensure that your Year 11 students fully understand the range of career and study options available to them?

    You should be able to answer by demonstrating progress in each of these areas.

    Challenging the system to do better

    Since being appointed Chief Inspector, you know that I have had to sometimes deliver difficult messages.

    I am very well aware that I have often been challenging and outspoken on a number of issues. And I know I have been particularly tough on secondary schools in the last couple of years. But I hope you understand my reasons for being so.

    I am desperate to see standards rising in all our schools and for every child to have the chance of a decent education that will set them up for life in an increasingly uncertain and competitive world.

    I know my decision to scrap the satisfactory grade and replace it with requires improvement, for instance, caused a fair degree of ferment at the time. But you know as well as I do that we couldn’t carry on with a situation where 2 million children were being consigned to a mediocre education year after year, inspection after inspection.

    The fact that we now have nearly 1.4 million more children in good or outstanding schools than in 2010 convinces me that it was the right thing to do and should give us all cause for optimism.

    And despite all the challenges and the problems that I’ve alluded to, I do remain an optimist. One of the undoubted upsides of this job is being able to tour the country, taking in places like Stoke-on-Trent where I was last week, and seeing dedicated and talented leaders producing results in the most difficult circumstances. It reinforces my sense of optimism and my belief in the power of headship in particular.

    As I have remarked before, one the most gratifying things I do is to write to those headteachers who are leading schools that require improvement but where inspectors have judged that the leadership is tackling the weaknesses and turning things around. That is such an exciting experience for all involved, including inspectors.

    I am also committed to recognising the achievements of those people who are showing true system leadership. I recently took pleasure in writing letters to the first of the heads nominated by HMI as ‘exceptional leaders’. Heads who have turned their ambitions for success into reality. Heads who have managed to raise standards for children not only in their own schools, but at other schools nearby. I look forward to writing many more such letters in the months ahead.

    Formally recognising exceptional leadership is just a small demonstration of my determination to support good and ambitious headteachers. Indeed, Ofsted will always support those who are doing their best, particularly in challenging circumstances. Those who attack the inspectorate, as they have done regularly over the last 20-odd years, should recognise that. They should also remember how dismal things were before greater accountability was introduced in the early 1990s.

    Ofsted remains an important and influential lever for improving standards.

    Inspection, however, will never be an exact science – and nor, in my view, should it be. Our judgements are always going to be a balance between historical data, observation on the day, and our professional assessment of the leadership being exercised at every level.

    It would be foolish to argue that any system based partly on human subjectivity is infallible. However, in the last few years we have done more than at any previous time to eradicate inconsistencies and make inspections as robust as possible. Ofsted occasionally gets it wrong but when we do, we intervene much more quickly and take steps to put it right.

    However, I appreciate we need to do even more to instil even greater confidence in the reliability and consistency of inspection.

    That is why I have introduced more independent scrutiny of our complaint investigation arrangements to ensure that they are seen as transparent, fair and objective. Since September, we have had external representatives sitting alongside Senior HMI on our new complaints-scrutiny panels. To date, these panels have considered more than 20 such cases and the feedback has been positive.

    Quality assurance is central to our work and we will continue to modify and refine our QA systems as we move forward.

    Promised reforms have been delivered

    When I addressed this conference 2 years ago, I promised that Ofsted would move towards a more proportionate and risk-based inspection regime, alleviating the pressure and burden on the majority of schools that were now good.

    I made a commitment to bring inspection in-house as soon as our outsourced contracts reached their expiry date. I also made a commitment that our inspection teams in future would not only include many more serving heads from good and outstanding schools but would also be led by Her Majesty’s Inspectors.

    I am pleased to be here in front of you today knowing that I have honoured each of these pledges.

    As you know, since September, Ofsted has been inspecting schools judged good at their last inspection in a radically different way. Our new model of HMI-led short inspections starts from the premise that the school remains good. The focus of inspection is very much on whether the culture of the school is supporting good teaching and learning and whether the leadership has a real handle on the strengths and weaknesses of the school. And, most importantly, that the leadership has a clear plan to put things right.

    Inspectors take a pragmatic view of any isolated pockets of weakness as long as the school is heading in the right direction and leaders have identified what needs to be done.

    This is designed to encourage honest dialogue between the HMI and senior leaders. We want you to be equally open about what is working well and about what needs to improve. In other words, don’t obfuscate or try to cover up weaknesses that will almost inevitably become apparent during the course of the inspection.

    So far this academic year, nearly 7 out of 10 good schools we have re-inspected have either stayed good or improved to outstanding. In the schools that remained good, HMI encountered a positive culture where pupils were keen to learn. The leadership of teaching, learning and assessment was secure across the school. Governors had a sound grasp of both the school’s strengths and the areas needing improvement. They did not stray into operational matters.

    Inspectors were satisfied that the weaknesses identified by leaders and corroborated by inspection evidence were not having a detrimental impact on overall standards. These schools, to all intents and purposes, remained good schools.

    In the minority of schools that went down a grade or more, inspectors, by contrast, often found an overly generous self-assessment of the school by governors and senior leaders that was not supported by evidence. Leaders were slow to take action to address weaknesses and there was too much variation in the quality of middle leadership. In these schools, the messages of the head and senior leaders were not getting through to middle leaders and frontline teachers. As a result, disconnection led to variability across the schools in terms of teaching and behaviour.

    It is still early days, but the feedback we have had so far on these new, more flexible arrangements has been encouraging. I would be really interested in hearing the views of anyone here who has had first-hand experience of a short inspection.

    Meanwhile, my colleague Sean Harford and others have been working hard to dispel many of the common staffroom myths that build up over time about what Ofsted requires when it comes to things like lesson-planning, observation and marking.

    The message is taking time to get through, especially to classroom teachers. So I will make it plain once again: Ofsted wants schools to simply focus on doing the basic things well and acting in the interests of their pupils and their parents.

    We do not have a prescriptive idea of what the teaching should look like, how books should be marked, feedback provided or progress assessed. We are only interested in whether it works.

    As I have already outlined, we have taken some important steps to reduce the unnecessary pressure and burden of inspection.

    You must do so as well by not using Ofsted as a management tool to do what should be done as a matter of routine. A good head should always say to staff, “I want you to do this for the benefit of the children, not for the benefit of Ofsted.” A weak head uses the fear of Ofsted as an unnecessary crutch to compensate for poor leadership.

    So please don’t spend an inordinate amount of time preparing for inspection, which for most schools will now only come around every 3 years and will last for just a day. Please don’t expend precious time and resources on game-playing and ‘Mocksteds’. And please try to refrain from providing a living to those consultancy charlatans still claiming to know what Ofsted is looking for.

    Conclusion

    I would like to end my speech as I began it – by acknowledging the real challenges you are facing as school leaders. I know that Ofsted will never be popular but I do hope you can see why we have been so vital to the education system in this country and why our children have benefited from greater accountability.

    In a few months’ time I will be handing over the reins to my successor. From whichever side of the Atlantic they may hail, I’m sure you will make them feel as welcome as you have always made me feel.

    In ASCL conferences to come, I hope very much the next Chief Inspector will be able to congratulate you for delivering sustained improvement in secondary school standards, for bridging the regional divide and for sending many more children from the comprehensive system to our top universities.

    My abiding belief in the power of great leadership means I am confident that all this can be achieved. I wish you every success.

    Thank you for listening.

  • Chuka Umunna – 2016 Speech on Gangs and Serious Youth Violence

    By Chuka_at_Lambeth_College.JPG: CommonsHelper2 Botderivative work: Off2riorob (talk) - Chuka_at_Lambeth_College.JPG, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16891849
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16891849

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chuka Umunna in the House of Commons on 3 March 2016.

    Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): I beg to move,

    That this House calls on the Government to establish an independent, all-party commission, involving a wide-ranging consultation, to identify the root causes, effect of, and solutions to, serious youth violence, including knife crime, its links to gang culture and the sale of illegal drugs.

    At the outset, I wish to say how grateful I am to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate, and I am also grateful to the 19 other Members of the House who supported this application. In particular, I have worked with my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and for Westminster North (Ms Buck), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), among others, for several years on these issues.

    The issues that we are discussing today are difficult. There is no single cause for the violence that we have seen, nor one single solution. What we are seeing on the streets of our country is leading to a senseless loss of lives. That perhaps explains why the digital debate organised on Twitter ahead of this debate by the House of Commons digital team was the House of Commons most successful such debate in terms of the number of Twitter accounts reached—more than 8 million. The hashtag for today’s debate is #stopyouthviolence. I recommend that anyone watching this debate uses it.

    At the outset, it is important to acknowledge that our young people are among the very best in the world. Their creativity knows no bounds; their energy is infectious; and they put the great in Great Britain. They give us confidence that our future will be even better than our glorious past.

    It is also important to note that the violence that we are talking about is committed by a minority—a significant minority—of young people. We should not draw the conclusion that all of Britain’s youth are engaged in serious youth violence. I say that because, too often, the youth of our country are demonised. They are demonised in our national media, and I do not want us to add to that today. It is important in this debate to recognise how wonderful our young people are and to celebrate them. It is because we care so much for them and because we do not want to see their talent and their futures wasted that we are holding this debate today.

    In 2007, the violence in different communities—in urban city centres in particular—across our country was put into sharp relief by the shooting, in broad daylight, of a young man, Andre Smartt-Ford, at Streatham ice rink in my constituency. To this day, no one has been charged with Andre’s murder, but his mother continues to fight for justice and is now working through the JAGS Foundation to prevent other families from going through the same thing. Tracey Ford has voiced her strong support for this debate today. She is joined by many other parents, such as Richard Taylor, who also lost his young son, Damilola Taylor, to this violence. He set up the Damilola Taylor Trust, which established the Spirit of London Awards to celebrate our young people.

    Representatives from SOLA are here today. We pay tribute to all those parents and to those who are working to better the lives of our young people.

    What followed from Andre’s death in 2007 was a catalogue of tragedy, with 29 teenagers losing their lives in London alone in 2008. The number of fatalities has abated since that time, but, let us face it, the problem has never gone away. Following falls between 2009 and 2012, we have seen the number of serious youth violence offences in London increase by 13.4% and the number of offences the Metropolitan police tags with its gang violence indicator measure increasing by more than 25% since 2012. Much of this goes unreported. Members can go to any A&E in the kind of communities that I am talking about, and they will hear about all sorts of things that are not reported and that do not feature in the figures.

    According to Citizens Report, which is a not-for-profit organisation that collects local data on this issue, 17 teenagers lost their lives to this violence last year, which is up from 11 in 2014. Just two weeks ago, I was notified by police of gunshots being fired on a Friday in a location in the north of my constituency. On the Saturday after, there was a multiple stabbing of a young man in the south of my constituency, and then on the Sunday, just outside my constituency, there was a drive-by shooting. On Monday this week at 5.30 in the afternoon, a teenager was stabbed in the north of my borough, in Oval, after a fight at a chicken shop, and so it goes on.

    Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I am so pleased we have been granted three hours to debate a crucial issue not just for young Londoners, but for all communities. Does he agree that there are far too many firearms in circulation in London, and that previously, where a fist or, dare I say it, a knife might have been used, now a very large gun and increasingly sophisticated firearms are being used in these terrible crimes, and that makes the situation even more difficult to manage?

    Mr Umunna: I entirely agree. When I was a trustee of a youth charity in Brixton called the 409 Project, I wrote an article in 2007 about the availability of guns and knives, and I did a kind of focus group with some of the young people in our area. What shocked me was the level of detail that some of our young people in Lambeth were able to give me about a gun—they could tell me how many bullets a MAC-10 could spray in a second or in a minute. My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, and she is right to say that this is not just a London problem. The situation is serious and it is getting worse. It is not confined to London. Last Sunday a teenager was stabbed in Bristol. We hear of this happening all over the UK.

    Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con): In my constituency I have recently seen the impact of large-city drug crime moving into the regional towns, and I am very concerned to make sure that Avon and Somerset police devote enough resources away from the big cities such as Bristol to be able to combat that. I do not want see that deteriorate into violent crime which, thankfully, we have not yet seen, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the increase in London and Bristol is a worry.

    Mr Umunna: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights the suite of issues, including the drug trade, which hang heavy over this debate and will come through as our dialogue progresses.

    I want to say something about the title of this debate. I put in for it using the word “gang” deliberately, because we need to talk about the use of this term. We often refer to youth violence and gang or gang-related violence, but it is pertinent for us to question whether we should use the word “gang” at all, in spite of the title of the debate.

    Ian Joseph of Middlesex University, who is watching this debate from the Strangers Gallery, has done some very interesting work in this area. He argues that the official definition of a gang distorts the focus of interventions and promotes an understanding of everyday behaviour that does little to permanently avert young people from the real causes of violence. He argues that to be effective, interventions must give greater account of how cultural norms and social processes impact on young people’s friendships and the local neighbourhood-based relationships that they have.

    This is backed up by others. The Centre for Criminal Justice Studies has also questioned whether we should be using that term. I wonder whether, by using the term and labelling young people as gang members, we reinforce the notion that they are gangsters. What is a gangster? I wonder how helpful it is for us to use the term. Let us face the fact that using the term enables officialdom to put all these young people in a bracket—“Oh, they’re part of a gang. If they lose their lives, oh well, that doesn’t matter. They’re part of a gang.” I am not sure we should allow this to carry on.

    Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): I regret interrupting the fine speech that is being made. Is my hon. Friend familiar with the work of Harriet Sergeant, a rare journalist who has gone to great trouble to engage with members of this underclass? Perhaps “gang” is the wrong word. From reading her books and articles on the matter, one comes away with a profound feeling of regret at the gulf of misunderstanding between official bodies and those who are part of that underclass, and great sympathy for the problems involved and the depth of suffering of those gangs who, in my view and her view, have been badly neglected.

    Mr Umunna: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to Harriet Sergeant’s work. Hopefully, those using the hashtag for this debate can post a link on Twitter so that those watching can read more of her work.

    Part of the reason why I am not sure how helpful it is to use the word “gang” any more is that things have changed a lot just in the borough I represent in London. Around the time I was first elected, in 2010, we had mass groups of young people who had labels for their groupings. Now the situation is more parochial: things are often confined more to a particular estate, and we have much smaller groups of young people. The situation is also far more fluid.

    Whitney Iles, the chief executive officer of Project 507 —she, too, is watching the debate in the House—works to prevent young people from engaging in this kind of violence. She put things really well when she told me that we give young people this gang label, but we never give them a way to get rid of it. So let us consign it to the bin, and let us not refer to it again in the House after this debate, if we can possibly avoid doing so.

    The reasons for serious youth violence are not new, and we know what so many of them are. Yes, some violence is carried out by young people from dysfunctional, often chaotic families with a history of, say, domestic violence in the background. However, very often, a lot of young people who get wrapped up in these things come from quite stable families. Sometimes there is an issue because two parents are struggling to make ends meet and holding down two jobs to pay the bills. There is a link there because, as I heard from some young people this morning, someone will often have a desire to help provide for their family—for their mum—and they get wrapped up in these activities as a way of making money to help mum pay the bills.

    I really do not care if the usual suspects in the media start saying, “Oh, you’re excusing all this.” We are not providing excuses today, but unless we look at why these things happen, we will not be able to prevent them. I can see the headlines: “MP says children are trying to pay the bills so they go and knife people”. That is not what I am saying; what I am saying is that we must understand the underlying causes if we want to prevent this violence from happening again.

    Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a very good speech. Is not fear the real reason why people join these groups? A young person who lives on an estate in an area where these groups operate and who is not a member of any group will be fearful that a group will set upon them and do them great damage. In my limited understanding of this problem, it seems that fear is the spur for young people joining such groups.

    Mr Umunna: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important intervention. I agree with him: fear is definitely a major factor, and I will come to it shortly. Trauma also plays a role, and I will come to that too.

    There is another common theme, which I have talked about with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. Time and again, at every community meeting on this issue, we hear that there are simply not enough things for our young people to do. I get fed up of hearing that every week and every time we discuss this issue in the House, because nothing ever seems to get done about it. We have to ensure that there are more meaningful things for our young people to do outside school hours, and I am not talking about some windy church hall with a table tennis table. We need decent, proper activities that will expand our young people’s horizons and give them things they will enjoy doing in their local areas. Otherwise, we have the problem of collectives of their peers becoming their surrogate family. That relates to the issue that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) talked about, but I will come on to that in a moment because I want to go through some of the other factors.

    In relation to popular culture, it is too easy to blame rap music or whatever, but it is a society thing. We live in a society that promotes and glamorises violence. It is too easy to say that it is the fault of the creative industries. We increasingly have a society where our young people are encouraged to engage in these kinds of violent activities. This is promoted among us and we have to deal with it.

    We live in a society that not only promotes violence and too often glamorises it, but promotes an ideal whereby our young people define themselves by reference to what they have as opposed to who they are. There is a consumerism element. Helping one’s family to get on is definitely an issue.

    Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that this is about not just young people providing for their family but about their desire to have things, and the role of criminal gangs in offering them a quick buck, so that they are able to earn money to buy things, which because of their low income they are otherwise unable to have?

    Mr Umunna: There are so many big elephants in this room of issues, but one is poverty and deprivation. We cannot ignore the part that that plays. My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. Young people who do not have anything are often robbing from other young people who do not have anything, then there is revenge, and we end up with a cycle of violence. That is definitely part of what we see happening.

    Part of the reason that too many of our young people do not have enough money is the unemployment rates among them. Our education system is producing a whole generation who do not always have the skills that our employers need, particularly the technical and vocational skills. Let us face it, this has happened under Governments of all persuasions. I do not see this as a party political issue; I am not interested in scoring any points. We have to deal with the problems in a skills eco-system that is not giving our young people the skills that they need to offer employers to get a job. Let us not forget that hanging over this is the fact that youth unemployment is double the main rate.

    The things I have spoken about are fairly obvious—the more talked-about factors—but we need to delve far deeper into the causes than we generally have. The hon. Member for Beckenham referred to the belief of many young people that they are safer in a group than they are on their own. As academics have argued, the perceived need for safety and protection tends to validate behaviour and levels of violence in ways that can obscure the boundary between right and wrong. There is also the issue of being bullied and how that interrelates with carrying or using a weapon. We do not like to talk about that, but we should. There is a semi-formal, often unsupervised daily routine outside school, but sometimes inside school too, that can incubate the production of behaviour and values that lead to a life of this kind of violence, and the expected norms of school and wider mainstream society are juxtaposed against that.

    In addition to the fear that the hon. Gentleman talked about, the other big issue is trauma—the sheer trauma that many of our young people experience in their daily lives, which requires much greater consideration than we see reported in our media.

    To return to the work of Whitney Iles, this issue needs to be seen as one not just of violence prevention, but of health, particularly mental health. Our young people are being traumatised by some of their experiences, but they are being given no support to deal with it. Unless we start engaging with them, not only on the obvious level, but at a deeper level, we will not be able to resolve the violence on our streets.

    What should be done? First, the Labour Government introduced Every Child Matters, which had a strategic aim to provide wraparound care for young people from long before they went to school to long after they left. That did bring in teenagers, but I think we need to adopt an “every teenager matters” approach, with much more targeted schemes and versions of the previous initiative, in order to address problems experienced by teenagers. It must be said, however, that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has said, the problems are impacting on younger and younger children, not just teenagers.

    Secondly, we have to elevate the standing of youth work in our country. It is about time that we put it on the same pedestal as teaching. Often, youth workers spend as much time as teachers with our young people, but we do not talk about their profession in the same way. We have to do so and put it on a pedestal; we cannot just look at it as an add-on. Too often, youth work is left to people who have other jobs and who may, through their tenants or residents association, be providing youth work on top of their daily job. It needs proper funding so that people can do youth work full time and so that we regard our youth workers in the same way as we regard our teachers.

    Thirdly, I really do think that the Government have done some good things, and that is why I want them to reverse their decision to disband the very important ending gang violence and exploitation peer review network, which spreads best practice to local authorities and others. It is due to end in April—next month—but I really hope the Government will reverse that decision, because it is a good network and I have heard very good feedback about it from all over the country, including Lambeth. I want it to continue.

    Fourthly, we have to ensure that our young people are properly taught in school about the consequences of what they do, and that they are provided with support to deal with their experiences outside school as well. I want to see more role models who have been members of groups and who have been victims, or even perpetrators, of acts of violence and suffered the consequences. I want more of them to go into schools and tell their story so that future generations do not take the same wrong turn as they did. There is nothing like having somebody who has lived that life telling young people what will happen if they carry on down that avenue. We need to provide much more support to our schools.

    This is controversial, but I do not care and am going to say it anyway: a lot of the young people who get wrapped up in all this ultimately have quite commercial and entrepreneurial instincts. Their energy, however, is simply not channelled in the right way and the result is that they turn to criminality and highly illegitimate, terrible ways of doing things. If many of our young people received enterprise teaching in our schools, and if they were provided with inspiration and more access to opportunities to set up their own business, do their own thing and work for themselves in a way that delivers the goods and some money, perhaps we would be able to stop them taking a wrong turn. I can just see the write-ups saying, “MP says terrible gangsters should start businesses”, but, frankly, I do not care. If they have that kind of instinct, I want to make sure that they do not end up taking a wrong turn and doing illegitimate business, but that they set up a business and become the next Branson. I would like to see many of the kids from the Tulse Hill estate in my constituency going on to be the next Richard Branson.

    Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): My hon. Friend is making a very important point. Does he agree that the Evening Standard should be congratulated on its campaign? He is recommending precisely the sort of work that it has been doing in support of people turning away from gang violence. It is turning young people’s skills and expertise towards business and entrepreneurship, and ensuring that they are able to make something of their lives.

    Mr Umunna: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Evening Standard has done excellent work in its “Frontline London” campaign, which it has plastered on the front page frequently. I would like to see other publications and media outlets following its example.

    None of us is excusing wrongdoing; none of us is excusing the violence that we see; and none of us would argue that for people who commit such offences, there should not be sanctions. Of course there should be sanctions. I suppose the point that everybody will make today is that, if we can prevent people from doing such things in the first place, we will not have to apply those sanctions. Too often, the debate is about clamping down, zero tolerance and banging people up. It is harder to focus on how we prevent them from doing those things in the first place.

    That is, ultimately, why I would like the Government to set up an independent cross-party commission on these issues, involving a wide-ranging consultation that, importantly, includes young people. Too often, we talk about young people but they are not at the table when we do so. I would like the commission to identify the root causes and effects of, and the solutions to, youth violence so that we do not see more death on our streets.

    To wrap up, I think we should be absolutely honest, up-front and frank about the fact that, if we were talking predominantly about middle-class children from comfortable, middle-income families and wealthy neighbourhoods, the issue would be much higher up the national agenda. The murder of young people by other young people who fit that middle-income demographic profile would command many more column inches. It is a disgrace and a damning indictment of our society that, increasingly, it is becoming immune to what is happening on our doorsteps. Our society is ignoring the issue, putting a whole generation of young people into a corner and saying, “That is what happens with those kinds of young people from those kinds of areas.” I want to make it very clear in this debate that the House of Commons recognises that no matter what their background—whether they grow up on an estate or in a comfortable neighbourhood—every single young life matters. We will not stand by while violence and fatalities continue to hit the next generation, because it is our future.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech at UK-France Summit

    davidcameron

    Below is the statement given by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the UK-France Summit held in Amiens, France, on 3 March 2016.

    Thanks Francois. Very good be here today. This Summit has been about how Britain and France stand together to keep our people safe.

    And there is nowhere more fitting for us to meet today than here in Amiens – where a century ago 600,000 British and French soldiers were killed or injured fighting for our freedom.

    Visiting the Pozieres cemetery this morning brought home again the humbling scale of that sacrifice, and that’s why I will be here again in July to honour all those who gave their lives at the Battle of the Somme.

    Throughout the last century Britain and France stood shoulder to shoulder in the defence of our values and our way of life. And we do so again today.

    The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last November were – as I said at the time – an attack on us all.

    And Francois and I have talked today about the measures we must take to defeat this evil. About how we can strengthen our bilateral security relationship. And how we can work together to tackle the migration crisis. And I want to say a word on each.

    Daesh

    First, we need a comprehensive strategy to defeat the threat from Islamist extremism – both at home and abroad.

    Since the attack in Paris, British fighter pilots have joined their French counterparts carrying out military strikes against Daesh in Syria as well as in Iraq.

    Our action is degrading Daesh’s capability, and they are now struggling to hold territory that they once confidently claimed.

    We also need an end to the civil war in Syria and a government in Damascus that can bring peace and stability to that country.

    We welcome the latest truce.

    It could provide an opportunity to make progress at next week’s peace talks. But these will only succeed if there is a change of behaviour by the Syrian regime and by its backers.

    That’s why tomorrow, Francois and I, along with Chancellor Merkel will call President Putin.

    We will underline that Russia needs to end its attacks on Syrian civilians and the moderate opposition. And accept that there has to be a transition away from Assad to a new leader who can reunite Syria and bring peace and stability to that country.

    We have also discussed the importance of tackling the threat of Islamist extremism in Africa, and we have agreed to step up our efforts in Nigeria, and across the Sahel, including training regional forces and supporting the Multi-National Joint Task Force in its fight against Boko Haram.

    We also need to protect ourselves from radicalised extremist Muslims here at home. So we have agreed to strengthen our counter-terrorism co-operation, particularly on information sharing, transport and aviation security.

    Bilateral defence co-operation

    Turning to our bilateral defence co-operation.

    Our ability to detect threats and act on them, including militarily, is vital if we are to defeat the scourge of terrorism.

    We have already seen how we can use unmanned aerial vehicles to protect us from this terrorist threat. And today we have agreed to jointly invest £1.5 billion to develop the next generation of a combat air system.

    This will be the most advanced of its kind in Europe, securing high-end engineering jobs and expertise in both the UK and France.

    Migration

    Finally, we have discussed the migration crisis facing Europe.

    The United Kingdom has not faced anywhere near the scale of migrants coming to Europe as other countries because we are outside Schengen and retain control of our borders.

    And in Calais, we have worked together with the French to strengthen security to deter migrants from trying to enter Britain.

    I want to thank President Hollande for this co-operation and today I can announce that we will invest an additional £17 million in priority security infrastructure in Calais to assist the work of the French police.

    The money will also go towards efforts to move people from the camps in Calais to facilities elsewhere in France, and will fund joint work to return migrants not in need of protection to their home countries.

    The real challenge is in the eastern Mediterranean where we need to break the business model of the criminal smugglers and dissuade people from embarking on a fruitless and perilous journey in search of a new life in Europe.

    That is why the NATO mission is so important and we will meet in Brussels on Monday to discuss what more we can do within the EU to tackle this problem.

    Conclusion

    So this has been an important Summit.

    We stand here today – as leaders of 2 strong nations, who will always stand together in the defence of our values and our liberties.

    That co-operation will continue for years to come, just as it has throughout our history.

    But we should be clear how our partnership within the European Union makes a tangible difference to the scale and breadth of what we can achieve together.

    It was through the European Union that we imposed sanctions against Russia when it illegally invaded Crimea almost 2 years ago.

    It was through the collective economic muscle of the EU that our sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and put a nuclear bomb beyond their reach.

    It is through co-operation and intelligence-sharing with our European partners that we best fight cross-border crime and terrorism, giving us strength in numbers in what is a dangerous world.

    We both firmly believe our membership of the European Union allows us to amplify our strength, projecting great power internationally, increasing the security of our citizens and boosting the competitiveness of our economies. We are both strong proud nations who are clear about our influence in the world and clear that our membership of the European Union enhances that role, rather than detracting from it. We believe we are safer, and better off in a reformed European Union.

    Thank you Francois again for welcoming me here today, for your friendship and continued partnership in ensuring the safety, security and prosperity of all our people.

  • Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech at British Chambers of Commerce

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary State of Business, Skills and Innovation, at the British Chambers of Commerce on 3 March 2016.

    Good morning everyone.

    Let me start by saying it’s a real pleasure to be here.

    Over the past year I’ve spoken at least half a dozen local Chamber of Commerce events, everywhere from Westminster to Birmingham to Durham.

    At this rate I’m not quite going to make it round all 52 chambers before the next election!

    But I know that with a membership of 100,000 companies employing almost 5 million people, there’s no better way to take the pulse of British industry than to talk to the BCC.

    As far as I’m concerned, you really are the voice of business in this country.

    Now the name of this session is ‘New Dawn or Back to the Future’.

    So in that spirit let’s hop into our DeLorean, get up to 88 miles per hour and travel back in time to 1978!

    I’m a 9-year-old schoolboy in Bristol, with a full head of thick, dark hair.

    A short walk from here, in Downing Street, Prime Minister James Callaghan is, just about, clinging on to power.

    One of his administration’s final acts is to throw more than £50 million of taxpayers’ money at the creation of an American carmaker. The DeLorean Motor Company. In return for the government covering half of the company’s start-up costs, DMC bases itself in Northern Ireland.

    But construction of its factory is plagued by delays.

    The cars themselves quickly win a reputation for being poorly made, overpriced and unreliable.

    Fewer than 10,000 are ever built.

    And after just 4 years the company goes bankrupt – taking a thousand jobs and a vast pile of taxpayers’ money with it.

    In the end, DeLorean provided the world with 2 things.

    The basis of Doc and Marty’s fictional time machine.

    And an all-too-real case study of what government involvement in business should not look like.

    You see, nobody knows business like business.

    And politicians who use taxpayers’ money to try and pick winners or take over private companies almost inevitably end up with egg on their face.

    That’s why my approach to industry is very different to many of my predecessors.

    I’m not singling out one industry or sector or company and trying to force it to be a success.

    I’m working to create the conditions in which all businesses can thrive.

    Now before I say more about that, let me address an important issue.

    Because the media silence on this issue has been deafening, but you may have heard there’s a referendum coming up on the European Union!

    Later this year we’re going to have a referendum, and we’ve all had to think hard about the decision we’re going to have to make.

    I, personally, have no time for ever-closer political union.

    But I accept the UK does well from being part of a 500-million strong single market.

    I see the benefits of the many trade agreements that have been negotiated by Brussels in the 4 decades since we joined.

    And I recognise that it could take many years to replicate that position following a British withdrawal.

    Since the Single Market was launched it has added more than £200 billion a year to the EU economy in today’s prices.

    However, regardless of whether we vote to stay or go, one thing is clear.

    In 2016 we can’t afford to only trade with the close and the familiar.

    The world is too big, the international marketplace is too diverse to simply stick with our neighbours on the continent or our Anglophone allies in North America.

    But on this incredibly important issue, my mind is made up.

    It’s about head v heart and I thought with my head: for businesses, jobs and growth, remaining in the EU is the best answer.

    Now at the start of this year, John Longworth had a very simple request for government.

    He wanted to see deeds, not words.

    Action, not reviews.

    Decisions, not dithering.

    Well, John, I like to think that’s exactly what we’ve been doing!

    We’ve already delivered the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7, set the investment allowance at its highest ever permanent level, and lifted thousands of people out of employer National Insurance contributions.

    And in the previous Parliament we gained a unique distinction.

    We became the first government in recent history to reduce overall levels of regulation.

    Between 2010 and 2015 we cut £10 billion of red tape.

    The World Economic Forum says the UK has the lowest burden of regulation in the G7.

    And the proportion of businesses saying government regulation is a barrier to success fell from 62 per cent in 2009 to 51 per cent in 2014.

    But that’s still too high.

    So today I can tell you that we’re going to reduce the regulatory burden still further.

    Under the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, all governments are required to publish and report on their performance against a business impact target (BIT).

    That’s the value of deregulation they hope to achieve, and how they plan to measure it.

    This morning, we’re publishing a BIT of £10 billion.

    That’s right – we want to cut the cost of regulation by another £10 billion.

    It’s an ambitious target not just because of its size, but also because of its scope.

    For the first time ever, the BIT doesn’t just cover the impact of legislation.

    It also includes the way statutory regulators enforce existing rules.

    Rather than being allowed to hide behind red tape, they’re going to have to look at the cost to business of the way they work.

    We’re also introducing a new rule for government departments.

    In the last Parliament we introduced a policy called ‘One in, two out’.

    It meant that every time a new regulation that cost money to comply with was introduced, the government had to remove or modify existing rules with double the cost to business.

    For every 1 pound of regulatory burden we created, 2 pounds worth had to be removed.

    Today I can announce that we’re upgrading that to ‘One in, three out.

    If departments want to bring in new regulatory costs for things that weren’t in our manifesto, they will be expected to find savings worth 3 times as much.

    This won’t be easy to achieve.

    But it will certainly focus the minds of policymakers.

    It’s very easy for a Whitehall bureaucrat to come up with an idea that looks great on paper and, with the stroke of a pen, place a huge extra burden on businesses.

    But if that same civil servant has to also find ways to remove 3 times as much red tape, they’ll think twice before putting new regulations in place.

    We’re also bringing departments, regulators and businesses together for a rolling programme of Cutting Red Tape reviews.

    The first 3 of these reviews, covering waste, energy and adult social care, are being published today.

    And you’ll be pleased to hear that they’re not just languishing on the dusty shelves of Whitehall.

    They’re being used to implement real change.

    So John, while we have brought you reviews, we have also brought you action!

    For example, the waste review found that delays and unnecessary burdens associated with the environmental permit system cost legitimate businesses millions of pounds a year.

    By the end of this month, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will publish revised guidance that makes the whole process a lot less burdensome.

    The energy review revealed that existing rules led to some businesses being charged for both generating and storing energy.

    That cost one company alone, for example, £10 million extra a year.

    Following the review, the Department of Energy and Climate Change is now consulting on whether to update the regulations, a move that could benefit consumers, businesses and the environment.

    And the adult social care review found that care homes in England have to deal with inspections by local authorities, clinical commissioning groups, the Care Quality Commission, their local fire service, the Health and Safety Executive, and independent organisations like Healthwatch.

    Over the course of a year that’s 1 inspection every 8 weeks! And they often involve the same people being asked the same questions.

    As a result, the Department for Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government are putting in place a new action plan.

    It will make co-ordination between all those bodies the norm rather than a novelty.

    Finally, I am today launching a root and branch review of the way local authorities regulate businesses.

    For many businesses, especially smaller ones, your local council is the arm of government you have the most contact with. And it can also be the source of a huge amount of troublesome red tape, much of it built up over many years without being properly reviewed and updated.

    The review’s findings will be shared right across government, going to all relevant departments and regulators.

    And its aim is to agree a set of reforms, covering both legislation and enforcement, that will reduce unnecessary costs and burdens on business.

    It all comes down to my fundamental view that government should stand behind business rather than in your way.

    That regulation should provide necessary protection for consumers, for employers, for employees, without making it harder for you to make a living.

    I grew up above the family business. I spent most of my adult life working in business. I know just how hard it is to make a business work.

    And how that task gets infinitely harder when you have to deal with petty, pointless bureaucracy.

    That’s why I’m different to many previous Business Secretaries. Because I trust you to get on with what you do so well. I don’t believe that you need someone from the government peering over your shoulder all the time.

    I know that the vast, vast majority of British businesses are run by responsible, hardworking men and women who know their jobs much better than I do.

    You deserve a regulatory regime that’s fit for business and fit for the future. And with me, that’s exactly what you’re going to get.

    Thank you.

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on Cyber First Programme

    Matt Hancock
    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, at the Institute of Directors in London on 3 March 2016.

    It’s incredibly fitting that we’re meeting today in this wonderful building, with its rich history. Until 1978 this was home to the United Service Club for senior military personnel – who 75 years ago were defending our homes, businesses and way of life against foreign aggressors.

    I’m told Ian Fleming was a regular here while he served, and I can’t help but think of a line from the new cyber-savvy Q in Skyfall:

    I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pyjamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.

    I’m glad to see you all made it out of your pyjamas this morning. But Q had a point. It’s not just soldiers, sailors, airmen, and policemen we need to protect our assets and livelihoods today. Today a line of code can ruin lives just as any bomb or bullet.

    In a digital, interconnected world, we need the involvement of everyone in society to keep that society safe – particularly the leaders of the business world.

    Much of our critical national infrastructure is in your hands, critical infrastructure like our energy and water supplies, our transport system and our phones.

    And it goes beyond that, increasingly to our e-mail and social media correspondence, even our credit card details and online accounts.

    With the advent of smart products and intelligent environments, this smart world already includes my watch, and one day soon perhaps my fridge or my car.

    If the predictions are true and 200 billion smart devices exist in the world in 2020, we are going to rely hugely on the private sector to keep us safe in cyberspace.

    In protecting this infrastructure the interests of government and business align. We are all invested in the success of the digital economy and we all have a shared responsibility to keep it secure.

    It’s the duty of government to keep people safe. We will play our part, but in the war against cybercrime, you’re the Home Guard.

    Recognition

    That job boils down to 3 imperatives: recognition, response, and reward. We need to recognise the scale of the challenge. We need to respond to it. And we need to reap the rewards of the digital revolution.

    We’re moving away from the 20th century all-encompassing state to a smart government you can hold in the palm of your hand.

    We’re uploading the state, and have one of the most digitally advanced governments in the world.

    That enables us to provide targeted and bespoke services driven by real people, not Whitehall diktat. That opportunity can’t be ignored.

    But as we move more services and operations online the range of potential targets increases. Our mission to deliver better services for citizens is entirely dependent on our ability to protect our networks, users and data.

    And so is yours. If people don’t think the information you’re storing online is safe, that’s a business risk. They expect you to get it right.

    Financial loss can be measured and insured against, but the trust your customers and suppliers place in you cannot.

    As one of the most advanced digital economies in the world, with 12.5% of our economy now online, we’re in a unique position to benefit from digital. But that makes us uniquely vulnerable to cyber attack too.

    Ninety percent of large businesses and 74% of SMEs reported a breach in the past year. The average cost for a severe breach is nearly £1.5 million at a minimum for big firms. For SMEs it’s over £300,000.

    Last summer GCHQ responded to twice as many incidents against networks of national significance as in the same period the year before – and the figure is rising rapidly.

    The volume and sophistication of attacks is increasing, as is the range of perpetrators.

    Response

    So let us first recognise the challenge. Next let us co-ordinate our response.

    The report the Institute of Directors is publishing today shows that your members increasingly appreciate the seriousness of the threat, but that too many are under-prepared for dealing with it. That leaves you open to attack.

    This matters to me. So we’re going to invest £1.9 billion over the next 5 years in cyber security.

    We’re going to make the UK one of the safest places to do business online, scaling up disruption activity, making us a tougher, more resilient target and making us better able to protect our interests in cyberspace.

    The report you’re launching today underlines the growing importance of sharing information between government and industry.

    In future that will only become more imperative. That’s why we’re going to establish a new National Cyber Centre – a single point of contact for business, and a unified platform that provides all the support, advice and intelligence industry needs.

    Through it we will bring together responsibilities from across government, build new capabilities and share more information with industry, so we can handle major incidents in real-time, around the clock.

    The National Cyber Centre will cover critical national infrastructure, as well as wider business, and will reach into the world of secret intelligence as part of government.

    But the scale of this challenge is too great to be tackled by any one organisation. It’s a fight we can only win if business, academia, law enforcement and government stand shoulder-to-shoulder, working together both in this country and internationally.

    We must create a world-class cyber security ecosystem where innovation thrives, businesses get the investment they need, and our shared expertise evolves as quickly as the threats we face.

    That’s why we’re setting up a £165 million cyber and defence fund to invest in the next generation of cyber-security companies.

    We’re working with startups through our Early Stage Accelerator programme, and we’re establishing a cyber security innovation centre in Cheltenham.

    We’ve also launched our third annual cyber governance health check, providing companies with confidential tailored reports allowing them to address their weaknesses.

    Fifty-eight percent of FTSE 350 firms now use our ‘10 Steps to Cyber Security’ guidance, and we’ve published tailored guidance and free e-learning for SMEs. I recommend you use it.

    If we’re hard-nosed in recognising the challenge and the opportunity and respond as swiftly as we can, we have a better chance than anyone of surviving and thriving in the new digital world.

    Reward

    So, third, the rewards on offer are extremely valuable. In government it means we can use digital to redesign how the state operates and empower citizens to take control of their services.

    For the private sector too, cyber security offers huge opportunities. The industry was worth £17.6 billion to the UK in 2014, employing 100,000 people – up 40% in a year.

    We’re in the top 5 exporters in the world, with the global export market worth £28 billion and growing by 20% each year.

    All of us – industry, academia and government alike, need to step up to the skills challenge in order to address this growing market.

    That’s why I can announce today that we’re significantly expanding our Cyber First programme.

    Currently, 20 talented undergraduates are sponsored through university and then guaranteed 3 years of public or private sector cyber security work. We’re going to boost this to 1,000 students by the end of 2020.

    I want to do everything we can to make sure the next time this country produces an Alan Turing, an Ada Lovelace or a Tim Berners-Lee, we give them the tools and opportunities they need to change the world, as we’ve done so many times in the past.

    And it’s good business sense for you too to take on more apprentices and to nurture the best talent. It puts you in a position to capitalise on the rewards offered by the cyber industry, and it helps us as a country close the gap between where we are and where we need to be.

    Conclusion

    So let’s work together to recognise the challenges we face, respond energetically to them, and make sure we have the capability to reap the rewards of the cyber revolution.

    The challenges have changed since 1903, when the Institute of Directors was set up. That was the same year as the first transatlantic radio broadcast – a 54-word greeting from President Theodore Roosevelt to King Edward VII that ushered in a new era of global wireless communications.

    But the principles are the same. Members of this organisation have witnessed several technological revolutions and successfully steered this country’s industry through them.

    Today the internet presents the most radical step forward in humanity’s collective capability the world has ever seen.

    It is already a vast opportunity. And so too a new threat. Let us rise to the challenge together and seize the rewards for humanity that this great innovation offers.

  • Andrew Jones – 2016 Speech on Managing Transport

    andrewjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, at the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation conference, on 2 March 2016.

    Opening remarks

    Good afternoon everyone.

    It’s an absolute pleasure to be here.

    To be part of a distinguished speaker line-up.

    And to round off this excellent conference.

    You’ve covered a huge amount of ground in considerable detail today.

    And I think what the discussion has shown is that transport needs to be at the heart of planning.

    So what I’d like to do in this final speech is give you the government perspective.

    And what we’re doing to deliver better transport in an uncertain world.

    An uncertain world

    You know – I’m sure if we polled any generation of adults over the past 50 years, they’d probably say life was becoming less predictable and secure.

    But what about us the 21st century generation?

    Undoubtedly, we have faced some exceptional challenges.

    From the rise of global terrorism to the financial crash of 2008 both of which have changed the way we look at the world.

    Paradoxically, rapidly evolving technologies like smart phones and social media may help us control our own lives.

    But they also have the potential to change society in ways we cannot foresee.

    Even the government of which I am a member was born out of uncertainty.

    Coming to office in 2010, during a period of unprecedented economic upheaval.

    As part of the first Coalition in this country since World War Two.

    Not knowing precisely how the day to day machinery of government would work.

    But despite all these challenges and uncertainties, we are also living through incredibly exciting times.

    What one person may describe as ‘uncertainty’, I would call ‘opportunity’.

    Particularly for those of us working in transport.

    Opportunity to embrace a new age of technological change and innovation.

    Opportunity to make transport a real force for good.

    And opportunity to mould our future.

    Six years of progress

    In fact we were able to achieve a great deal during 5 years of coalition government.

    We turned round our economy.

    And began delivering within our means.

    We also built a consensus for infrastructure investment.

    According to a Treasury report last year, Britain’s future infrastructure programme is now valued at £411 billion.

    By some margin, transport is the biggest part of that programme.

    And it’s in this Parliament when we really get cracking with delivery.

    We recognise that the stop-start funding of the past created uncertainty within the industry.

    So what we’re providing is a sustained pipeline of transport investment that will create jobs, boost productivity, and make the country more economically secure in the future.

    This is one of the things we can control.

    Wholehearted government commitment.

    Predictable and fully committed funding.

    So we’re all better placed to take advantage of the opportunities around us.

    Our ultimate goal a transport network that supports growth and helps reduce carbon emissions, changing the way we work and travel, is not just a priority.

    It’s an essential.

    Today we’re at the start of a construction and modernisation programme which will make Britain one of the leading transport investors in the western world.

    We start building HS2 next year, for example.

    Elsewhere on the railway, there’s Crossrail, Thameslink, Northern Hub, new intercity trains, and a major electrification programme.

    This Parliament, we’ve raised funding for transport by 50%.

    And we’re rolling out a £15 billion roads investment strategy up to 2020 – the biggest spend on roads since the 1970s, with over 100 major schemes around the country.

    We’re already making real progress with that strategy.

    Four major schemes are complete and open to traffic.

    Five more majors are under construction.

    Smart motorways are reducing congestion, and improving journey times by smoothing traffic flow.

    In fact, during this Parliament, Highways England will add over 400 lane miles.

    And the long-term goal is to link existing stretches to create a new smart motorway corridor between Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and London.

    The future today

    But what about future technology change?

    There’s little doubt that we are on the verge of a road transport revolution.

    After 120 years of dominance, there’s an end in sight for the internal combustion engine.

    While sales of ultra low emission vehicles are really starting to motor.

    And a huge array of other technologies promise equally profound changes to the way we drive and manage traffic.

    New fuels.

    New ways to fill potholes.

    New ideas to improve road safety.

    In February we announced £20 million to support 8 projects to help vehicles communicate with roadside infrastructure.

    These projects including new ‘talking car technologies’ are the first to be funded from the government’s £100 million Intelligent Mobility Fund.

    The projects range from autonomous shuttles and pods to vehicles carrying visually-impaired passengers using advanced sensors and control systems.

    Trials to test driverless cars on the streets are being carried out in several locations around the country.

    And autonomous vehicles are also being used in Heathrow to move passengers before real world tests start in Greenwich this summer.

    The benefits are clear.

    Easier travel.

    Fewer accidents.

    Lower carbon emissions and pollution.

    And reduced congestion.

    Roads, bridges and tunnels are also starting to join the ‘Internet of Things’.

    Indeed, wireless connection between vehicles and the wider environment is already helping warn drivers about hazards, weather and traffic patterns.

    Strings of sensors monitor traffic by communicating with mobile phones in moving vehicles.

    The information is sent to a traffic control system which automatically adjusts traffic flow.

    One of the most interesting areas of development is cars that talk to each other.

    We already have the technology.

    The systems we use today to bring music and entertainment and GPS information into our vehicles will help us build a smart vehicle network.

    If a car ahead hits congestion, it will immediately alert other cars so they can take another route.

    Or connected systems could reserve you a parking space at your destination as soon as you get into your car.

    No more driving around town centres on a fruitless search.

    Technology will also change local highway maintenance.

    Helping highway authorities reduce costs.

    A simple example is collision sensors which prevent bumps and scrapes while drivers are parking their cars.

    Another is autonomous braking.

    And this year the University of Leeds, working with Leeds City Council, started a project to create self-repairing cities.

    The idea is to use small robots to identify problems with utility pipes, street lights and roads, and fix them with minimal disruption to the public.

    New systems are also being used to monitor the condition of roads and other infrastructure, to improve maintenance and reduce whole life costs.

    Of course we can’t say with certainty today exactly how all these technologies will evolve, and which of these systems will prove the most successful.

    We don’t know precisely how we will navigate the path from fossil fuel-powered cars driven by humans, to low carbon, driverless motoring.

    But we do know we will get there.

    And that there will be many fantastic opportunities for industry along the way.

    Resilience and certainty

    That journey starts right now.

    We are already working closely with Highways England, the Office for Rail and Road, and the new watchdog Transport Focus to define the process for our next Road investment strategy after 2020.

    It won’t just make use of innovative technologies.

    It will also be funded in a new way.

    As the Chancellor announced last year, we are launching a National Roads Fund, using vehicle excise duty to pay for the upkeep of roads.

    Every penny raised through VED will be used to improve the network.

    Delivering the long-term certainty the industry asked for.

    I was pleased that the CIHT and the rest of the industry welcomed the announcement.

    For example, the Civil Engineering Contractors’ Association said it was:

    Extremely good news for our sector, because it goes a long way to ensure a secure future for the maintenance and upgrade of the English strategic roads network.

    Long-term funding reform is key to delivering the infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    We’re working with the industry to support resilience in other ways too.

    Helping achieve 30,000 road and rail apprenticeships.

    Attracting and training thousands of engineers, designers and construction professionals.

    And expanding the supply chain.

    To deliver the roads programme the country so badly needs.

    These are all massive challenges.

    For you and for me.

    But by working in partnership, we can turn uncertainties about the future into certainties.

    Providing long-term, ring-fenced investment.

    Managing a more efficient road network.

    And putting Britain at the forefront of technological innovation.

    The opportunities could not be more exciting.

    So let’s grasp them together.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2016 Speech at British Chambers of Commerce Conference

    jeremycorbyn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, at the British Chambers of Commerce Conference on 3 March 2016.

    Decision Time: New Politics, New Economy, New Britain?

    I’d like to thank John Longworth, your director general, for that introduction, and Dr Adam Marshall, who is chairing the conference.

    It’s an honour to be asked to speak to you especially on the subject of a ‘New Politics, New Economy, New Britain’.

    Because those are almost exactly the three main pillars of the platform I was elected to lead the Labour party on, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

    But those three pillars are the foundations of everything we do.

    The first is about a new kind of politics: that aims to democratise our public life from the ground up, giving people a real say in their communities and workplaces breaking open the closed circle of Westminster and Whitehall.

    The second pillar is for a new economics: one that puts investment, productivity and sustainable growth first, instead of a self-defeating austerity aimed at shrinking the state for an economy fit for the 21st century that works for everyone, where prosperity is shared.

    Our third pillar is about a new relationship with the rest of the world: one based on trade, co-operation, human rights and conflict resolution, where war is a last resort.

    Today I want to set out today how that agenda can work for you and the tens of thousands of businesses you represent across the country.

    To shape that new economy we need to work together. It is only through effective co-operation between government and business, state and markets, public and private, education and enterprise. That we can build an economy for the future that delivers for all.

    It’s that spirit of cooperation that drives the work of local chambers of commerce across the country.

    St Helen’s chamber, for example, helps to train young entrepreneurs, equipping them with skills through the St Helen’s business school, and helping to make sure local business and enterprises have the information and workforce they need to grow and prosper.

    Many accredited chambers of commerce across the UK are working to bridge the gap between work and education.

    And I hope to be visiting more of your local chambers, including in Greater Manchester and the North East, in the months to come.

    Our shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has started to lay out the framework of a new economics.

    As John has said many times, an economy that allows people to flourish and prosper in the 21st century will be a very different kind of economy from that of the 1990s, let alone the economy of the 1940s or 1960s.

    What’s clear is that this government is not creating the economy of the future we need. Six years ago George Osborne said austerity would wipe out the deficit and cut the debt.

    That didn’t happen. Instead, recovery only got going once the chancellor took the brakes off and pumped up housing credit to get through the general election.

    Osborne’s recovery is a house built on sand. But what Labour now stands for is far more than stopping the damage being done by this government.

    We want to see a break with the failed economic orthodoxy that has gripped policy makers for a generation.

    The idea that speculative finance would deliver for all that manufacturing could be run down and our strategic assets sold off that the 1980s catechism of deregulation, privatisation and low taxes on the well-off would produce balanced, high investment and productivity growth has been shown to be for the birds.

    That model of how to run an economy is broken crashed and burned in 2008 and not just in Britain.

    The results have been a lop-sided economy the rapid growth of insecure, low-paid jobs, sluggish private investment declining productivity and stagnating or falling incomes for the majority.

    Labour’s alternative will put investment first. We will only borrow to invest over the business cycle.

    We will put public investment in science, technology and the green industries of the future front and center stage.

    Only by driving up investment will we achieve the higher productivity we need to guarantee rising living standards for all.

    We want to see the reindustrialisation of Britain for the digital age driven by a national investment bank as a motor of economic modernization based on investment in infrastructure, transport, housing and technology. That provides a solid return.

    I want to change the way our party makes policy.

    When politicians and advisers sit round a table and devise policy, they rarely succeed in getting to grips with the real problems our country faces.

    We need to involve more people in decision-making and consult far more widely outside politics.

    I believe it’s essential to listen:

    To the growing army of the self-employed, often struggling to make ends meet, and falling through the cracks in our social security system;

    – to entrepreneurs seeking to innovate and create wealth;

    – to business people shaping a more dynamic, responsive economy.

    Only by engaging can we develop a comprehensive plan to forge a new economy and the kind of Britain we want to see.

    That is why John McDonnell is touring the country with a range of speakers discussing what the economy should look like in 2020, and why he and our shadow business secretary Angela Eagle are drawing on the ideas of advisers such as the Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz to help shape our policies for the future.

    We want to see a genuinely mixed economy of public and social enterprise along with long-term private business commitment that will provide the decent pay, jobs, housing, schools, health and social care of the future.

    An economy based on a new settlement with the corporate sector that, yes, involves both rights and responsibilities.

    Labour will always seek to distribute the rewards of growth more fairly. But, to deliver that growth demands real change in the way the economy is run.

    Change that puts the interests of the public, the workforce and the wider economy ahead of short-term shareholder interest.

    Only an economy that is run for wealth creators – the technicians, entrepreneurs, designers, shopfloor workers, and the self-employed – and puts in them in the driving seat… is going to deliver prosperity for all.

    Wealth creation is a collective process between workers, public investment and services, and creative individuals and businesses.

    It cannot be based on a race to the bottom in pay and job insecurity, or the subsidy of low wages with in-work benefits. That’s why we’re in favour of a real living wage and stronger trade unions.

    That will not only benefit employees, but help prevent good employers being undercut. As the evidence shows, collective bargaining boosts productivity as well as protecting workers.

    George Osborne and Sajid Javid think the solution to the problems businesses and workers face is to cut back government.

    But it wasn’t government that was the problem in 2008, when the banking sector drove the economy to the point of collapse.

    The political consensus at that time was to opt for ‘light touch regulation’ of finance – and sit back and collect the tax revenues.

    But you cannot base a decent social policy on an unsustainable economic policy.

    And we cannot outsource economic policy to the City of London. That has not served our economy well, and it has not served business well.

    The way that banks in Britain have treated small and medium-sized enterprises in particular has been a textbook failure.

    The banking sector has to be reformed. Finance must support the economy and not be an extractive industry that treats consumers, entrepreneurs and businesses as cash cows.

    We need a new ecology of finance. That means encouraging credit unions and small business support.

    We need a national investment bank at the heart of economic policy to target investment on key public and economic priorities, not just for quick returns.

    And we need to reform the major banks so that they serve the wider economy, not just themselves. That includes; using the public stakes in banks such as RBS to drive lending and investment and rebuild supply chains.

    For some politicians, the state is only a burden, to be reduced or removed.

    But we see a crucial role for the strategic state to create the conditions for people and businesses to thrive and deliver prosperity that is stable and shared.

    Look at some of the problems facing Britain today:

    The NHS is in crisis – there are record deficits in NHS trusts, and they come from two key mistakes by government.

    First, there is the legacy of PFI debt – an inefficient way of delivering necessary investment.

    The last Labour government lacked the confidence to make the argument to borrow to invest, and so it did what banks thought they could get away with before the crash, an off-the-books accountancy wheeze.

    In both cases, putting debt off the books did not work it came right back onto the books and helped trigger crisis.

    Secondly, we have not trained enough nurses and doctors – and the problem is becoming more acute.

    It means the NHS is spending £4 billion on agency staff to fill gaps.

    It also means we are reliant on importing nurses and doctors from abroad.

    The Government argues migration must be reduced, but then fails to fund training leaving us reliant on migrant labour to fill skills gaps.

    But the education and skills training gap goes far wider.

    Across the country, this is the one issue local business people most often raise with me.

    Yet this government has cut college funding and slashed the adult education budget.

    On the one hand; there are university graduates unable to find a graduate-level job. While large numbers of unemployed workers are unable to acquire the skills they need to work.

    And on the other; businesses in all regions are struggling to recruit workers with the right skills.

    As the BCC’s own Businesses and Education survey found 88 per cent of businesses think school leavers are unprepared for the workplace.

    That’s why I have been campaigning for lifelong learning; for a national education service to support workers throughout their lives in re-training and re-skilling.

    We will be consulting with the education sector and employers about how we can renew skills throughout our lives.

    And I want you to participate in that process.

    Apprenticeships have a crucial role to play and we must do more invest in vocational education and training.

    But some apprenticeships are clearly too low quality and look rather more like attempts to avoid paying the minimum wage;

    Secondly, the Government’s apprenticeship levy, hasn’t been properly thought through. The policy risks being simply, an additional tax on businesses, so that the Government can meet its arbitrary target.

    Apprenticeships should be about quality training for employees, to acquire the skills they need to help businesses grow and become more productive.

    Then there is the problem of infrastructure. Think about the creaking, underfunded infrastructure our country relies on.

    In a recent survey the CBI found that two-thirds of businesses are concerned about the slow pace of infrastructure delivery.

    The Centre for Economics and Business ranks the UK thirteenth on the value of its infrastructure, behind every other G7 country bar Canada.

    Enterprise and innovation cannot flourish when our roads and railways, ports and airports are lagging behind our competitors.

    But infrastructure means the digital economy as well.

    Our digital and communications market, as Ofcom recognised last week, is simply not working.

    Chile, Estonia and Iceland all have a higher percentage of premises connected to fibre-optic broadband.

    Businesses simply cannot expand, particularly in rural areas, without improvements to our digital economy.

    The evidence is clear that only the public sector and public investment can guarantee the super-fast broadband network in every part of Britain the essential low-cost connections people and businesses need in a 21st century economy.

    As it is, government foot-dragging and ideological dithering is holding digital Britain back.

    Finally, we lag alarmingly behind the rest of Europe on renewable energy.

    The transition to a carbon-free economy is essential because of the climate crisis but it’s also a massive opportunity for investment and growth.

    Yet Britain sits on the sidelines with some of the lowest production and use of renewables in the G7.

    It requires a strategic government to lead.

    If the state retreats and shirks its responsibility to provide the conditions for growth, rebalancing the economy will remain a pipedream.

    The Chancellor has already slashed public investment in infrastructure by over £20bn in real terms since the last year of the Labour government.

    And it is scheduled to fall by nearly £5bn more by 2018-19.

    Borrowing to invest in infrastructure makes economic sense.

    It helps businesses to grow and, as the OECD argues, will pay for itself.

    And as the OECD recommends, Labour will commit to spending at least 3.5 per cent of our GDP in infrastructure investment while the Tories will spend less than half that.

    We should be laying the foundations for a modern economy now.

    That applies not only within states but between states too; climate change, the refugee crisis, raising standards for workers and consumers and dealing with the minority of companies that seek to avoid their taxes

    These are all issues that can only be resolved by working with our partners in Europe, not ditching them.

    This is why we are campaigning to remain in the EU because we believe, like 60 per cent of businesses the BCC surveyed, that the EU is the best framework for trade and cooperation in the 21st century.

    But our failure to invest and our determination to sell off assets have left us with a current account balance that is forecast to be the worst of all the G7 countries this year.

    Britain should not be selling off our nation’s assets to pay our way in the world. You can’t survive for long paying the rent by flogging the furniture.

    Britain needs to be exporting high-tech, innovative products to the world not standing by and watching our exports stagnate or shrink.

    We cannot be satisfied that our growth is currently driven by low-interest rates, record low oil prices, property and debt. Those factors cannot be sustained indefinitely.

    All these economic problems are connected. Lack of access to finance constrains export growth. A failure to invest in our digital economy stifles productivity growth. A dearth of skills holds back innovation.

    In the twenty-first century the role of Government is to understand these connections and make policy to fit.

    You may not like everything we say or do. But when it comes to the big decisions on the economy, infrastructure, skills and investment, we are natural allies. Labour is committed to what is needed for business to expand and succeed.

    We expect business to put more back into the economy but we will do more to give the economy a stronger future.

    And if we’re going to shape a New Britain, it can only be done through cooperation; between public and private, state and market, government and entrepreneurs and workforce and employers.

    It is that spirit and practice of cooperation, which drives the great work of local chambers of commerce throughout Britain.

    Thank you.