UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • John Whittingdale – 2015 Statement on Sepp Blatter and FIFA

    johnwhittingdale

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Whittingdale, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the House of Commons on 1 June 2015.

    Last Friday, FIFA’s members had the opportunity to embrace the overwhelming call for change that is coming from football fans around the world. They failed to do so. FIFA’s support for its discredited president was incredibly disappointing, but it will not have surprised the footballing public who have become increasingly cynical as the allegations of misconduct and malfeasance have piled up. FIFA needs to change—and to change now. I can assure the House that the Government will do all in their power to help bring change about.

    I have just spoken to Football Association chairman, Greg Dyke, and assured him that we stand behind the English FA’s efforts to end the culture of kickbacks and corruption that risk ruining international football for a generation. I agreed with him that no options should be ruled out at this stage.

    Let me also reiterate the Government’s support for the action of the American and Swiss authorities. Earlier today, I spoke with the Attorney General. We agreed that the British authorities will offer full co-operation with American and Swiss investigators, and that if any evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the UK emerges, we will fully the support the Serious Fraud Office in pursuing those involved.

    FIFA’s voting system is designed to support the incumbent, and it returned a predictable result, but there is no doubt that what remained of Sepp Blatter’s credibility has been utterly destroyed. The mere fact that more than 70 national associations felt able to back a rival candidate shows that momentum against him is building. We must now increase that pressure still further. It is up to everyone who cares about football to use whatever influence they have to make this possible.

    I am sure that fans the world over will be increasingly vocal in their condemnation of the Blatter regime, and FIFA’s sponsors need to think long and hard about whether they want to be associated with such a discredited and disgraced organisation. For the good of the game, we must work together to bring about change. For the good of the game, it is time for Sepp Blatter to go.

  • Patrick McLoughlin – 2013 Speech on Local Enterprise Partnerships

    Patrick McLoughlin
    Patrick McLoughlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 18 April 2013.

    Thank-you. It’s a pleasure to be here today.

    As you probably know, I’ve been in politics quite a while.

    In fact I’ve been Transport Minister twice with a gap of 20 years in between.

    And in that time I’ve heard a lot of ministers speak eloquently about how things are best done locally – while doing the precise opposite.

    For decades, they’ve been preaching devolution, while planning and orchestrating it from their Whitehall offices.

    And it hasn’t worked.

    So I understand why you might be a bit suspicious whenever there’s a new outbreak of that enduring “ism” – localism.

    But today I want to talk about why something big is changing in how we run our country.

    And I want to talk about the role that transport can play in that.

    First of all, today’s conference is proof in itself that we are serious about change.

    We’re here because you represent a new force in government: local partnerships bringing business and government together to change the way we think about localism.

    Not the theoretical, unworkable localism of the past, but localism that is practical and deliverable, that responds to local conditions, and local communities, and that balances growth across the UK – not just in the south east.

    Local decision making is particularly important in transport.

    Because the transport issues that most concern people are local in nature.

    Congestion. Road safety. Bus and train services. Issues that are not just understood better by local people and businesses, but that are best solved by them too.

    That’s why the DfT has been at the front of the queue to involve and empower local enterprise partnerships (LEPs).

    I’ll be honest.

    Many in government had doubts.

    Could local partnerships succeed where others have failed in the past?

    Well you are already proving that you can.

    You’ve been helping us make the case for HS2, a scheme that has the potential to change the economic geography of the UK.

    This year you start making the decisions on where funding for local major transport schemes should be targeted from 2015.

    This is a fundamental part of our commitment to devolve responsibility for transport, and streamline government.

    Because LEPs are in the best position to target investment more effectively, and get the best value for money.

    Under the last government, local major schemes were managed through the regional funding allocation, which meant central government remained the ultimate decision maker.

    It was a top-down system with a thin veneer of localism.

    But with the new structure, we will be genuinely shifting power away from Whitehall into the hands of local transport bodies, accountable at the local level, and responsive to local economic conditions.

    You’ve also played an important role in the delivery of our £170 million Local Pinch Point Fund, which the Chancellor announced in last year’s autumn statement.

    And I’d like to thank you for your help so far.

    It’s a new way of prioritising schemes.

    And it’s already making a real difference.

    Because tackling road bottlenecks is one of the most effective ways we can remove obstacles to economic growth.

    In March I made £25 million available to get cracking with the first 10 schemes.

    The first – a £6.8 million project to increase capacity on Northampton’s ring road, and improve access to the Northampton waterside enterprise zone R1; has already begun construction.

    Work on others is starting this spring.

    They include an upgrade to the notorious A40 and A4010 Chapel Lane junction in Buckinghamshire, and improvements to the Clock Tower junction in Harlow, Essex.

    Four of the 10 schemes will boost transport links around enterprise zones – reflecting our commitment to support local economies.

    We’ve also announced a further 58 pinch point schemes to reduce congestion on Highways Agency roads – again, with your help.

    And we’re delivering a programme of 24 major road schemes – including 4 new ones announced in the autumn statement.

    For example, the £60 million A30 Temple to Higher Carblake scheme in Cornwall will relieve congestion, reduce journey times, and improve links between Cornwall and the rest of the country.

    Another vital project is the A453 dualling between M1 Junction 24 and the A52 Nottingham ring road.

    This is a major stretch of road serving the East Midlands and East Midlands Airport – and the £150 million improvements will not only help address congestion, but also make the route safer.

    Of course devolved transport isn’t just about roads.

    We are also moving ahead with plans for further rail devolution.

    And earlier this year we also launched the competition for local transport authorities to become designated as Better Bus Areas.

    All this means there will be tremendous opportunities for devolved bodies over the next few years.

    Not just in transport, but across government.

    And I’m sure that later today Lord Heseltine will expand on those opportunities in the light of his “no stone unturned” report.

    Government has now accepted the majority of Lord Heseltine’s recommendations.

    This includes the single local growth fund to cover housing, transport and vocational training.

    The clear message from government is that there certainly won’t be any slowing down in the rate of decentralisation.

    On the contrary, we’ll be looking to accelerate.

    So the work to set up local transport bodies (LTBs) – and to prioritise transport schemes by this summer – will go ahead as planned.

    The strategic growth plans which LEPs are currently preparing will be integral to the deal that we negotiate with each local partnership.

    We have set out the criteria we will use in those negotiations.

    But the scale of the resources available will depend on the current spending round.

    So there is an opportunity over the next few weeks for LEP chairs to make clear which spending programmes they think should be included in the Single Local Growth Fund.

    So, to sum up.

    This is a time of great fluidity in government: a time or innovation and new ideas.

    The challenges we face as a country are very different to those we faced a few years ago.

    And we need to translate thoughts and policies into jobs and growth faster than ever before.

    How we do that involves not just central government.

    But everyone here today.

    LEPs are uniquely positioned to help us get devolution right.

    Making the trade offs that will deliver the best value results for your areas.

    Using the knowledge and experience of businesses and local authorities.

    Supporting economic growth from the ground up.

    With your help, we can set local government in Britain on a new course.

    And emerge with a model of localism that will change this country for good.

    Thank you.

  • Edward Timpson – 2013 Speech to NSPCC Conference

    timpson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Timpson, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families, to the NSPCC Conference on 18 April 2013.

    Thanks, Maggie [Atkinson, Children’s Commissioner for England]. I’m very pleased to be here and grateful for the opportunity to contribute to your conference.

    As a champion of children living in fear and challenger to our collective conscience, the NSPCC has been a powerful force for good over the years. Your work to help victims of abuse and neglect through channels like ChildLine – which we’ve been pleased to support – has been especially valuable.

    It’s crucial that we give young people a stronger voice. Which is why, as Maggie has said, straight after this speech, I’ll be returning to Parliament to debate our clauses in committee on strengthening the role of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in our Children and Families Bill.

    But, arguably, the NSPCC’s greatest impact has been through its unflinching mission to make us, as a society, confront what is still so often incredibly hard to face – the desperate plight of our most vulnerable children and the urgent need to do more to protect them. And the report being published today is no exception to this long and proud tradition.

    I’m encouraged by its findings that, in many ways, today’s children are safer, with child homicide and child deaths from assault and suicide down and a decline in some forms of maltreatment and abuse. I’m also encouraged by your acknowledgement that we’re on the right track, with child protection services working harder than ever to reduce harm, and getting smarter about doing so.

    But I agree that there’s much more we need to do – to better understand child abuse and neglect, to intervene earlier and with even greater impact.

    That’s why we’re fundamentally reforming the child protection system to put the needs of children at its heart – so the system fits in the needs of children and not the other way around.

    These reforms and the issues being discussed today could not be more timely. From shocking revelations about child sexual exploitation to alarm about the exposure of children to online pornography, child safety is higher than ever on the public agenda and in the public conscience.

    The never-ending revolution in technology, in particular, is, taking us into uncharted territory, with new opportunities opening up alongside new dangers.

    But while there’s no way we can put the digital genie back in the bottle, we can certainly do more to equip our children to stay safe. And, with toddlers manipulating iPads more confidently than their parents, it’s clear you can’t start too young.

    Which is why, primary school pupils will have the chance to learn about internet safety under our proposed changes to the National Curriculum. They’ll be taught how to communicate securely and responsibly online and how to keep their personal information private – essential skills in the information age.

    But, technology aside, it still very much remains the case that children are, sadly, most likely to come to harm at home and in the hands of someone they know.

    This, as we know, was the terrible fate of Peter Connelly, Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq.

    In many of these instances – as we’ve also seen with victims of child sexual exploitation – the children’s cries for help went unheeded time and time again. They were met by indifference, disbelief and, in the worst instances, vilification from adults who should have been protecting them.

    And after every such tragic case, we hear the familiar refrain ‘never again’ – until the next time.

    Of course, we all know that we cannot completely eliminate risk. We should always be realistic about that.

    But there will always be a next time until we learn the fundamental lesson that a child’s needs (to be safe, to have their basic needs met, to be heard) must always come first.

    Ahead of the rights of abusive parents who are unable or unwilling to change their ways and ahead of adults wanting to escape criticism or any challenge to assumptions and work practices, however manifestly ineffective or outdated.

    Problems with the child protection system

    This is something that, over the years, many politicians and professionals have pledged to do, but, despite some good work, we know that there’s still far too much variation in child protection around the country.

    There are, of course, some highly effective examples of good practice, such as multi-agency safeguarding hubs, including the one I visited in Nottinghamshire. But, it’s clear that too many local authorities and other agencies are still failing to meet acceptable standards for safeguarding children – to look for and act on signs of abuse, to intervene early enough and remove children decisively in sometimes the most appalling of cases.

    Having lived and worked, for many years, with children damaged by neglect and abuse, I’ve seen, first-hand, what failure to act can mean – both in terms of the huge challenges these incredibly vulnerable children face and what it takes to turn lives around.

    Now, as you may know, I grew up with over 80 foster children and two adopted brothers. Many came from chaotic, troubled backgrounds. Their behaviour was, at times, extremely challenging to say the least. I’ve seen babies addicted to heroin go into spasms. I’ve watched on as an abused and deeply angry little boy shattered every pane of glass in my dad’s prized greenhouse because he didn’t know how else to let his anger out. And I became proficient in most swear words by the age of ten thanks to the foster children who parroted back to me what they had heard at home.

    But, over time, I saw how love, stability and routine helped them settle and thrive. And it became increasingly clear to me that many could have been spared immense suffering and long-term damage if they’d got consistent and reliable help earlier.

    I went on to become a family barrister often representing children in care; an experience that reinforced what I’d seen at home – that timely intervention still wasn’t happening anywhere near enough.

    By the time a case landed on my desk, the damage had, all too often, already been done, and it was a matter of trying to make the best of a bad job. It was apparent that cases were managed, all too often, for the convenience of adults rather than the interests of the child.

    So if we’re to seriously raise our game and do better at keeping children safe, it’s vital that we reverse this wrong-headed emphasis. That we re-focus on the child protection system where it should always be – on the needs of the individual child.

    What the Government is doing

    Our reforms are focused on doing just that.

    We’re implementing recommendations from Professor Eileen Munro’s valuable and widely-welcomed review of child protection; helping us move towards a much more child-centred system in which there’s a greater emphasis on early help, on identifying and tackling neglect and on multi-agency working – where possible, before formal intervention is needed.

    One of Professor Munro’s most important recommendations was the need for guidance on the core legal requirements on all professionals working to keep children safe.

    A clear framework within which professionals could exercise their expertise and judgement. And which spelled out what different agencies could expect from each other.

    Working Together

    We’ve delivered on this in the revised Working Together guidance, that Peter referred to, which has just come into force just this week. And we’re also producing an equivalent young person’s guide for the first time, with the Office of the Children’s Rights Director, to make sure we reach those whose needs are at its very heart.

    Crucially, the guidance emphasises that safeguarding is the responsibility of all professionals who work with children, reinforcing, once again, the importance of multi-agency working.

    As you know, Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards (LSCBs) are absolutely vital to driving this at a local level so that different services; police, health, education, social care, work closely together and properly share information.

    This is happening in a highly effective way in some parts of the country, such as Lancashire’s excellent Engage project – a multi-agency team that has been especially successful in tackling child sexual exploitation, whether that be better prevention techniques, bringing criminals to justice or supporting victims.

    I want us to do more to understand what works and why so we can spread best practice further through the LSCBs.

    Serious Case Reviews

    And when things do go wrong, we need to confront, honestly and openly, the mistakes that were made.

    As your study, last month, into neglect, showed, one of the most critical vehicles for learning lessons – good and bad – are Serious Case Reviews (SCR).

    Yet, until recently, all that was published were bland executive summaries. This certainly suited the adults who had made mistakes. But the price of sparing their blushes was paid by our most vulnerable children who were condemned to suffer from the same failings, over and over again, because we didn’t learn vital lessons.

    That’s why this Government has insisted on SCRs being made public. Some local authorities, such as Leicester, north Somerset and Nottinghamshire, have responded positively to our call for greater transparency and accountability.

    And we can see the benefits of publication beginning to be felt on the ground. In Southend, for example, findings drawn from SCRs triggered targeted, multi-agency audits of domestic abuse referrals to children’s social care. These audits identified that not enough was being done to engage with men in families, which had implications for children’s outcomes. So, training was introduced to raise awareness among practitioners and improve this engagement.

    Yet, despite their potential to drive improvements, the number of SCRs being published remains disappointingly low – around half (99) of the 181 SCRs started since June 2010 have been completed, but only 44 have been so far been published.

    This does show an increasing trend – 10 SCRs have already been published in the four months of this year compared to just seven for the whole of 2011. But too many SCRs still take too long to complete and too many are not published.

    We’re keen to see these numbers rise significantly. It’s why we’re establishing a new national panel of independent experts to scrutinise and advise on LSCB decisions not to initiate or publish SCRs. One of the big issues to emerge from published SCRs and which bedevils multi-agency working is the failure to share information effectively.

    Only yesterday, I met a council lead member for children’s services who was frustrated that many professionals still don’t know what facts they can share with other professionals about children at risk, often because of confusion about data protection rules – which is madness, when you consider that passing on the right information at the right time to the right organisation could quite literally mean the difference between life and death for a child in danger.

    The modified Working Together guidance addresses this issue head-on, making it clear that, where a vulnerable child is concerned, the presumption should be to share information.

    Health – information sharing

    It’s right to say that the health service’s track record in this area has been a notable source of frustration. It’s a common complaint from LSCB Chairs that the NHS has an abundance of information, but doesn’t necessarily share it with other agencies.

    So I’m pleased that my colleagues at Health are making moves to tackle this, with Dame Fiona Caldicott working on a statutory code of practice for information sharing.

    And in December, there was the launch of a new system to make child protection information available to NHS doctors and nurses who suspect abuse or neglect when treating children in emergencies and unscheduled care.

    The NHS Commissioning Board has also just published its accountability and assurance framework for safeguarding in the NHS, making it much easier for health professionals to understand what they need to do keep children safe.

    But what we’re really grappling with, when it comes to better information sharing and, indeed, refocusing the system on the needs of the child, is the need for a shift in attitudes and culture.

    Looking ahead

    Fundamental to this are our reforms to bolster the workforce and improve practice.

    Social workers do one of most critical, most demanding and, yes, potentially, most rewarding jobs in our society.

    Something apparent when I accompanied social workers on family visits in Halton, in the north west, a few weeks ago.

    One of the visits was to a family with four young children, in which the mother had learning difficulties and the father, mental health problems and suicidal tendencies. I was hugely impressed by the strong relationships and meaningful communication the social worker had established with the family.

    This meant that her direct, practical attempts to support the parents by, for example, attaching a checklist of small steps to follow on the fridge, really hit home, rather than just eliciting platitudes that change nothing. I was also struck by the high morale and signs of strong leadership I saw when visiting the council offices. I was particularly interested to hear about a case file audit system they’d introduced, that had initially been greeted with unease by social workers, but had now been embraced it as a useful tool to motivate staff and manage performance.

    This is just the kind of positive approach I’d like to see spread more widely – a commitment to self-improvement where professionals are not afraid to challenge one another.

    And our reforms to provide greater leadership and support to the profession should go a long way towards this.

    We’re appointing a chief social worker to lead the debate nationally about reform and ensure the profession has a strong voice at a national level.

    Locally, each council is appointing a principal child and family social worker to lead on standards of practice and on learning locally. We’ve also set up the College of Social Work, a Step up to Social Work programme, and initiated a strengthened Ofsted inspection framework. And we’re keen to do for social work what has been done for teaching through TeachFirst.

    Which is why we’re so supportive of Frontline, a brilliant idea by a TeachFirst Graduate, to get talented, committed graduates into social work.

    I’m hopeful that we can get it up and running so some of our brightest and most committed graduates can start making a difference to our most vulnerable children and provide a welcome boost to the profession.

    Conclusion

    It’s by investing in people working on the frontline in this way that, I believe, gives us the best chance of driving the decisive shift in culture that’s needed to truly put children’s needs at the heart of the child protection system.

    There’s little doubt that the fight against child cruelty continues to challenge and test us as a society as no other issue.

    Even in our supposedly cynical age, we’re shocked by the extreme violation visited on the victims of child sexual exploitation. We worry about new threats to our children online.

    Thankfully, as your report recognises, we’re making good progress towards keeping children safer, but it’s clear we need to do more to intervene earlier and more effectively, especially in a technological landscape that’s rapidly changing.

    As I’ve just outlined, our overhaul of child protection and social work and proposals to put internet safety on the National Curriculum aim to do just that.

    There’s nothing more important than protecting children from harm. Where children are suffering abuse or neglect they should be taken into care more quickly.

    By re-focusing the system on children’s needs through our reforms, we’ll help ensure that each child gets the right support at the right time. And key to such timely intervention is the need to listen to the children and young people involved.

    This message emerges loud and clear, time and time again, from the children who contributed to Professor Munro’s review, from the victims of child sexual exploitation and from the many letters I receive from young people.

    As one of the older children interviewed for Professor Munro’s review said: ‘You’ve left me for too long.’

    It’s, sadly, a plea that many vulnerable children would echo; starkly illustrating the uphill struggle they face in getting their voices heard and getting the timely help they so desperately need.

    It’s only when young people no longer feel the need to make these pleas, that we can honestly say that we’re making the leap required of us – to properly protect them from harm and to reduce our chances of having to say ‘never again’ in years to come.

    Thank you.

  • George Osborne – 2013 Speech at Currency Paper Launch

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 23 April 2013.

    In seventeen months Scotland will decide whether or not to end over three hundred years of partnership with the other nations within the United Kingdom.

    As decisions go, they don’t come much bigger.

    This isn’t a decision for the UK Government or me to take.

    It’s a choice for people living in Scotland.

    The UK Government is today publishing an in depth economic paper; the first of a series about the economic implications of Scottish independence.

    With this, and future Scotland analysis publications, the UK Government wants to inform the debate and help people to make up their own mind.

    The paper deals with one of the most important decisions that would face a separate Scotland – how to arrange its currency and wider monetary and fiscal affairs.

    This analysis has been prepared by Treasury civil servants, which is why I’m speaking to you today.

    Their analysis shows that the current arrangements of a full, monetary, fiscal and political union bring economic benefits to all parts of the UK.

    Breaking up that union would represent a fundamental change, and confront an independent Scottish state with difficult choices about what to put in its place.

    The paper provides evidence of how the United Kingdom benefits from being a deeply integrated single domestic market.

    We trade together – Scotland exports to the rest of the UK nearly a third of everything it produces.

    We do business together – nearly one in five private sector jobs in Scotland is for business based elsewhere in the UK.

    We work together – each year over forty thousand people move across the border in each direction to live and work.

    It’s not surprising then that Scotland’s economy is so closely aligned with the rest of the UK and its interests so inextricably linked.

    So the analysis makes clear the value of being able to fully co-ordinate our monetary, fiscal, and financial stability policies.

    Such co-ordination allows us to:

    our central bank, the Bank of England, to set interest rates to suit conditions throughout the UK and to have the ability to step in rapidly to stabilize our financial system when the need arises;
    take advantage of the UK’s ability to borrow in its own currency and credibility and track record with the international financial markets – built up over many, many years – to access cheaper financing;
    leverage the UK’s large and diverse tax base of thirty million individual taxpayers and nearly two million registered businesses to ensure when times are tough there is the fiscal firepower to ensure resources go to wherever in the UK they are needed most.
    As the Scottish Government’s own Fiscal Commission puts it:

    Retaining a common currency would promote the single market and help facilitate trade and investment to and from the rest of the UK and elsewhere.

    And the Commission is right on this point.

    Who would conclude the answer to today’s economic and financial challenges is to:

    – erect barriers between you and your most important trading partner;

    – accept a premium on the cost of borrowing when money is tight;

    – and conduct your business in two different currencies, across fluctuating exchange rates, when currently you don’t have to – with all the additional costs involved?

    The Treasury paper identifies four potential alternative models from which a separate Scottish state could pick its currency and monetary arrangements.

    All are a profound change from the pound we have today.

    An independent Scotland could:

    – adopt the pound unilaterally, just as Panama uses the US dollar;

    – seek a formal agreement, like the Eurozone have with each other, to form a sterling currency zone with England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the continuing UK;

    – agree to adopt the euro itself;

    – or introduce a new Scottish currency.

    And the analysis is clear: all of these alternative currency arrangements are less suitable economically than what we have now – for both Scotland and for the rest of the UK.

    Scottish Government Ministers have made it clear they want an independent Scotland to keep the pound, the Bank of England and to enter a formal currency union with the rest of the UK.

    The Treasury paper cautions that a formal currency union between two completely separate countries is not the same thing as keeping the pound we have now.

    First, financial markets would need to be convinced such a union was built to last.

    A durable currency union between two separate countries requires very strong and credible political commitment. The very opposite of what the SNP is proposing with its determination to break the political ties with the rest of the UK.

    But the lesson from the Euro is stark – they want to weaken the political ties in a dramatic way.

    Monetary union without close fiscal and political integration is extremely hard to sustain.

    That’s why the Euro area is having to reform its institutions, as the original measures to maintain budgetary discipline of its member states proved inadequate.

    Countries with the euro now have to:

    – submit their budget plans to Brussels alongside their own national parliaments;

    – commit by the Fiscal Compact to keep budgets balanced or in surplus;

    – and face the prospect of sanctions if they run excessive deficits and fail to take effective action to cope with them.

    And that’s not all.

    You only have to look at the problems facing smaller members of the euro area such as Portugal, Ireland and Greece. The most recent reminder of how difficult things can become are the events in Cyprus.

    Cypriot authorities have had to put in place temporary capital controls.

    This wouldn’t happen within the US or within the UK.

    And the Treasury paper cites the example of the last two nations to try to form a currency union following separation – Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

    Their union fell apart after only thirty-three days as capital flowed from one to the other as investors and savers sought what they saw as a safer haven for their funds.

    So the challenges for establishing a formal currency union between Scotland and the remaining UK are not hard to imagine.

    The political commitment to maintaining the currency union would be tested daily in the financial markets; particularly if there was any hint of that currency union being a temporary arrangement – a real possibility if an independent Scotland was committed as a condition of EU membership to join the Euro at some point.

    Indeed the Scottish Government’s own Fiscal Commission talks only of retaining sterling “immediately post-independence” and of how its proposed framework was “designed to be flexible” should Scotland’s economic conditions change post-independence.

    Instead of talking up the strength and permanence of currency union, they are talking up the flexibility and short-lived nature of it.

    Second, the Treasury analysis suggests that an independent Scottish state would have to accept significant policy constraints, even if the financial markets could be convinced of both countries’ commitment to maintain for the long-term a formal currency union.

    Monetary policy set by the Bank of England in such a union would over time become less and less suitable for both countries, as tax and spending policies diverge.

    Tax and spending would therefore need to take more of the strain to stabilize the Scottish economy in the face of economic shocks.

    And the paper suggests that an independent Scotland would be more exposed than the UK to volatile revenues from oil and gas, and a large banking sector relative to the size of the Scottish economy.

    Today in the UK we pool our tax resources – a common insurance policy where all pay their share of the premium.

    We are able to transfer funds to help areas of the country adjust to economic shocks.

    A co-ordinated UK response is automatic.

    Such arrangements couldn’t simply be translated into a currency union of two separate countries.

    An independent Scotland would have to agree its tax and spending plans with what would become a foreign government.

    So the big contradiction is that those proposing separation are campaigning to “bring powers home” with one hand, while planning to give them away with the other.

    Third, there is no guarantee that the terms of a formal currency union could be agreed between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK.

    There are no modern examples of a successful formal currency union between two countries of such unequal size.

    There are currently seventeen members of the euro area.

    The largest member – Germany – represents just less than thirty per cent of the GDP of the euro area as a whole, a sterling currency union would be much more imbalanced.

    The continuing UK would comprise around ninety per cent of the total GDP in a sterling currency union with an independent Scotland.

    Some have quoted the example of the Belgium-Luxembourg economic union, two countries with a similar difference in size.

    But both countries kept separate currencies.

    Luxembourg effectively ceded all control of monetary policy to the Belgian central bank.

    And the monetary association nearly failed in the early 1980s when Luxembourg made plans to make the Luxembourg franc independent.

    So let’s be clear: abandoning current arrangements would represent a very deep dive indeed into uncharted waters.

    Would a newly independent Scottish state be prepared to accept significant limits to its economic sovereignty?

    To submitting its budgetary plans to Westminster before Holyrood.

    To constrain the degree of tax competition between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

    To accept some continuing oversight by UK authorities of its public finances.

    And what is the economic case for the remaining UK?

    The Treasury analysis suggests that the answers are not clear.

    Of course there could be some benefits for the rest of the UK in keeping the same currency as an independent Scotland using the pound, but it would also create significant economic risks.

    However, the imperative to agree to a formal currency union would not be as strong for the rest of the UK as for Scotland.

    While around 30 per cent of total Scottish output is exported to the rest of the UK, the rest of the UK relies on exports to Scotland for less than 5 per cent of its total output.

    The benefits of this trade would need to be judged against the imbalance within the sterling currency union of exposure to economic and financial risk.

    The rest of the UK – as the larger economy – would be much more exposed to the risk of an independent Scotland running into fiscal and financial difficulties.

    As Professor John Kay – formerly a member of the Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisers – has put it:

    It is easy to see why the rest of the UK, representing 91.5% of a monetary union, might seek oversight of the economic affairs of Scotland, representing 8.5% of the same union. It is more difficult to see why the rest of the UK representing 91.5% of a monetary union should concede oversight of its policies to Scotland, representing 8.5% of the union.

    The fundamental political question this analysis provokes is this.

    Why would fifty-eight million citizens give away some of their sovereignty over monetary and potentially other economic policies to five million people in another state?

    Before the rest of the UK could ever agree to enter a formal currency union, any future UK Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of independence would have to provide the British people with a clear and compelling answer to this question of sovereignty.

    The SNP asserts that it would be in everyone’s interests for an independent Scotland to keep the pound as part of a Eurozone-style sterling zone.

    But the Treasury analysis we are publishing today shows that this is not the case.

    Let’s stop speculating – and look at the evidence: would the rest of the UK family agree to take that risk?

    Could a situation where an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK share the pound and the Bank of England be made to work?

    Frankly, it’s unlikely, because there is real doubt around the answers to these questions.

    In other words, the only way to be sure of keeping the pound as Scotland’s currency is to stay in the UK.

    The Treasury paper also discusses other alternatives open to an independent Scottish state if it proves impossible to agree a formal currency union with the rest of the UK.

    It could continue to use the pound without the rest of the UK’s agreement.

    However, to do so would leave an independent Scotland with no control over its own monetary policy.

    The Bank of England would continue to set interest rates – but without any regard for conditions in Scotland.

    And with no ability to print money, a Scottish monetary authority could only play a very limited role as a ‘lender of last resort’ to Scottish commercial banks.

    In this scenario an independent Scotland would be faced with severe monetary and fiscal constraints.

    Some small countries have adopted this approach.

    Montenegro uses the euro.

    Panama the US dollar.

    But, both the Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commission and the Treasury’s analysis conclude that this option would not be appropriate for a country of Scotland’s economic size and complexity.

    Another option is that Scotland could apply to join the euro area.

    Indeed, it may well have to as part of conditions for EU membership.

    But this would mean losing the pound, imposing new transaction costs on Scottish businesses’ trade with their largest market – the rest of the UK.

    And the Scottish economy differs significantly from the euro area.

    It is certainly less well integrated with the EU than with the UK as a whole.

    The policies of the European Central Bank would therefore be less well suited to conditions in Scotland than those currently pursued by the Bank of England.

    And an independent Scotland would face the same constraints designed to ensure the eurozone’s stability as its other smaller members.

    Finally it could introduce a new independent Scottish currency.

    An attractive option for many as it’s the only one where an independent Scotland would not have to give up control over some or all of the economic levers at its disposal.

    However, the Treasury analysis shows that this freedom would come at a cost.

    The transition costs of establishing a new central bank and to replace the pound coins and notes currently in circulation;

    The risk that capital could flow out of Scotland if Scottish residents preferred to hold their assets in an established currency, with the need as a result for capital controls in the transition period;

    The higher transaction costs of doing business with all of Scotland’s trading partners – particularly the UK;

    And the risks of a volatile exchange rate deterring long-term transactions and investment.

    So the analysis concludes that in comparison to current arrangements the benefits of an independent monetary policy are unlikely to outweigh these costs.

    The conclusion is clear.

    The pound we share works well.

    The saying goes,

    If it ain’t broke why fix it?

    But I say –

    if it ain’t broke don’t break it.

    The alternatives to the way Scotland now uses the pound are second best.

    Is second best really good enough for Scotland?

    I want the best for Scotland and for all our United Kingdom.

    We’re better together.

  • Chloe Smith – 2013 Speech at Infosec

    chloesmith

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chloe Smith, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at Earl’s Court in London on 23 April 2013.

    Introduction

    Many thanks to the organisers for inviting me to give the keynote address. I know that this is a well-respected event by the sheer numbers of exhibitors and the investment you’ve made to be here.

    It is heartening to see that this sector is thriving and that there is so much innovation and vitality in this field. With so many global and UK companies represented it is clear that the UK has an important role in this growing sector. Today, I would like to share with you some of the steps we are taking to raise the profile of cyber threats and generate demand for more and better cyber security products and services.

    Firstly though I would like to give you a brief overview of our UK Cyber Security Strategy and objectives.

    The threat

    In 2010, when this government first came into power, the Strategic Defence and Security Review determined that cyber attacks were one of the top four threats to our national security. This is still the case today.

    Cyber threats come from a variety of sources but we broadly categorise them as emanating from state-sponsored actors, hacktivists or cyber criminals. The motivations for attacks vary from ideological, political or fanatical, to financial.

    I don’t need to tell this audience that almost every day there is a news story about an organisation being ‘hacked’ or individuals being defrauded by online criminals in new and ever more sinister ways.

    And government is faced with these threats on a daily basis. On average over 33,000 malicious emails are blocked at the Gateway to the Government Secure Intranet every month. These are likely to contain – or link to – sophisticated malware, often sent by highly capable cyber criminals and state sponsored groups. A far greater number of malicious emails and spam, but less sophisticated emails and spam are blocked each month.

    Strategy and objectives

    So what is government doing to help protect UK interests in cyberspace? In 2011, we produced our UK Cyber Security Strategy, setting out 4 clear objectives:

    We must make the UK one of the most secure places in the world to do business in cyberspace

    We must make the UK more resilient to cyber attack and better able to protect our interests in cyberspace

    We must help shape an open, vibrant and stable cyberspace that supports open societies

    We must build the UK’s cyber security knowledge, skills and capability.

    £650 million of investment over 4 years has been put in place; in of course one of the tightest fiscal environments government has ever seen. This underlines the importance we place on cyber security.

    In December last year we reported on progress against the strategy and the work being carried out under the National Cyber Security Programme as well as our forward plans. This covers all the objectives I’ve outlined in terms of enhancing skills, research and education, policing and tackling cyber crime, international engagement and capacity building, new measures to help protect the UK industry as well as the Critical National Infrastructure. Information on all these efforts can be found on GOV.UK and we will be reporting back again to parliament again at the end of this year.

    Making the UK a safer place to do business

    Objective 1 of the strategy relates to the need to protect and fuel UK business interests and is what I would like to focus attention on today.

    Industry is by far the biggest victim of cyber threats. We have stated before that cyber crime, ranging from IP theft to cyber espionage to online fraud, is costing the UK economy billions of pounds a year. And as businesses and government move more of their operations online, the scope of potential targets will continue to grow.

    Later today David Willetts, the BIS Minister, will be releasing the 2013 Cyber Security Breach survey results. The statistics are very revealing and provide us with the insight we need to determine how and where we direct resources to support UK industry.

    In particular response to this, we are launching today new guidance for SMEs on how to protect themselves from cyber threats. In addition, we are announcing a new Innovation Voucher Scheme for small businesses through the Technology Strategy Board. An Innovation Voucher provides companies with a grant to work with a supplier for the first time and should be invested in an idea or problem that is a challenge for the business and for which specialist support is required. The cyber security element of this scheme will fund 100 companies with Innovation Vouchers of up to £5000 each.

    Across government then we are working hard to raise awareness of cyber security throughout industry and ensuring that the right incentives are in place for industry to take responsibility for securing their own interests. But where government can help, we will.

    For example, at the end of March, Francis Maude launched a ground-breaking partnership between government and industry – the CISP (Cyber Security Information Sharing Partnership). The scheme currently involves 160 companies allied with government to share information and intelligence in ‘real-time’ on cyber threats to UK companies and how to mitigate them. As part of this we have set up a ‘Fusion cell’, funded by the National Cyber Security Programme, which brings together experts from the security services, law enforcement and industry to work together to address cyber threats in a trusted environment. The ultimate aim is to extend this scheme beyond CNI (Critical National Infrastructure) companies and eventually to include SMEs.

    Raising awareness in industry

    We are working to create better awareness of the threat throughout both the public and private sectors; this is to help drive informed demand at the very highest levels within organisations to ensure that their key information assets are well-protected.

    To this end we have been giving advice and guidance to businesses. Last September, for the first time amalgamated advice from the Cabinet Office, the Security Services and BIS was delivered to an audience of 200 Board-level directors of FTSE companies. The “Ten Steps to Cyber Security” booklet has been well-received to such an extent that in January this year at Davos, the World Economic Forum cited it as an example of best practice. Copies of the booklet are available on the CESG stand here today andit is also available on .gov.uk

    The Cyber Security Sector

    As we are successful in raising cyber security standards across the private sector, growth in demand for products and services to support this should follow.

    So we are putting in place the right environment for a vibrant and self-sustaining cyber security market-place of good UK based cyber security providers.

    We are determined to help seize the business opportunities in cyber, promoting the UK cyber security industry both domestically and across the globe.

    Cyber security represents an opportunity for the UK – both for companies where cyber is core to their business and for companies across all areas of the economy who need to develop a competitive edge through demonstrating that they handle information responsibly and protect the details of those they do business with. We have every reason to believe that UK firms are well placed to capitalise on this growing market.

    The UK has history of being innovators in technology and in technical areas such as cryptography which is maintained to this day in our universities. We know how to implement this as our ongoing strengths here underpin our cutting edge position in areas such as online commerce and banking. Undeniably, there is a massive growth potential for UK businesses and innovators to do very well in the cyber security sector.

    SMEs

    Making a difference often relies on the forging of new partnerships – not necessarily between government and industry but business to business. A good example of this is an SME in Malvern, called IASME, a small business that has developed a cyber security standard specifically for SMEs. IASME has partnered with a local insurance provider (Sutcliffe and Co) underwritten by AIG to offer reduced premiums to those companies that are assured against the IASME standard. This approach is helping to grow these two small businesses, offering an innovative approach to cyber risk management, as well as growing the cyber security market in the local area. Linked to this is a series of awareness-raising events that IASME are holding around the UK for SMEs to introduce them to cyber risk and promote this insurance offering: quite impressive stuff for a micro-business. We applaud this approach and BIS is also contributing to these ‘roadshows’ to offer the government view and present on HMG is doing to stimulate supply and demand for cyber security.

    Standards

    And to help more companies demonstrate that they are cyber savvy we are also bringing clarity to the broader standards landscape helping companies identify the best of the standards that exist in the marketplace and to protect organisations against cyber attacks.

    GCHQ and BIS have drawn up, in partnership with industry, a series of requirements for what a good organisational standard for cyber security would look like. We are relying here on market support and industry telling us what their preferred standard is and how it aligns with the requirements.

    Sector growth

    At the last count, there are around 2380 UK companies in the cyber security sector which equates to 21 % of all UK security companies. In total, these companies support well over 26,000 jobs – currently 16% of all UK security employment. According to a UK Security Sector Report, UK Cyber Security sales amounted to £3.8bn with UK exports of £800m. Cyber security global growth is forecast over the next four years to be over twice that of the security sector as a whole as economic constraints bite in traditional defence and security markets. So it is clear that this is a growth sector and one which we should encourage and nurture.

    The Cyber Growth Partnership

    To this end, we have launched a new Cyber Growth Partnership, led by BIS and Intellect, the ICT representative organisation, representing over 850 large and small technology organisations. Central to this will be a high level group which will identify how to support the growth of the UK Cyber security industry, with an emphasis on exports. It will also help identify what currently stops the cyber security sector from growing, with a particular emphasis on SMEs and boosting their market potential.

    The first meeting of this group took place last month. The main outcome of the meeting was an agreement with industry on the practical steps they needed the government to take to support export growth. For example we are looking at ways in which those businesses which government has procured cyber security products from can promote the fact that they are an HMG supplier to their prospective customers overseas.

    We also discussed how industry and government can work together to ensure that the right inputs such as skills, R&D and funding are available to support growth.

    It is early in the life of the group and we are keen that we don’t lose momentum – however the indications are that this group can play an important role in addressing issues that impact on sector growth.

    Skills and research

    The ideas for skills and research we discussed as part of the cyber growth partnership are focussed on what we can and have to do in the future.

    Through the National Cyber Security Programme we are investing in skills research and training. Last week two new Centres for Doctoral Training in Cyber Security were established within UK universities to bring people with the right skills and knowledge into the cyber security field. The CDTs will provide broad training focused exclusively on cyber security and engage with industry to ensure that this training reflects the complex and dynamic nature of cyber threats. This is in addition to funding for Academic Centres of Excellence in Cyber Security status to 11 UK universities and 3 new Research Institutes.

    We are also taking steps to improve cyber security skills among young people and to widen the pipeline of talent coming into this field. e-Skills UK is developing interactive learning materials on cyber security for GCSE and A-level students. We expect these materials to be available to schools from September 2013.

    At the end of last year, GCHQ and the other Intelligence Agencies launched a new technical apprenticeship scheme which aims to identify and develop talent in school and university age students. They aim to recruit up to 100 apprentices who will be enrolled on a tailored two-year Foundation Degree course. We also sponsor the Cyber Security Challenge UK in its work providing advice, support and guidance for anyone interested in a career in cyber security, and we want to create opportunities for employers and previously unidentified talent to come together. Since its launch in 2010, over 10,000 people have registered with the initiative.

    GCHQ has also established a set of certification schemes to improve the skills and availability of cyber security professionals. The Certification for Information Assurance Professionals scheme will help Government and Industry to recruit cyber security professionals with the right skills at the right level, and into the right jobs. It will also assist participants to build a career path and to have the opportunity to progress through re-assessment as skills and experience grow.

    All this will take time to filter through but we are putting in place the right processes to achieve increase the numbers of skilled people needed to help protect UK business.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, cyber threats are an increasing challenge for UK businesses but they also present many exciting opportunities as well. We are making every effort to address the threats through improving our ability to detect and defend UK interests in cyberspace. We have to work with you, with UK businesses to help this growing sector to thrive. We want to work with industry through real and meaningful partnerships to ensure that UK businesses capitalise from this growing demand for the benefit of the UK as a whole.

  • William Gladstone – 1885 Statement on Lord Salisbury Becoming Prime Minister

    williamgladstone

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Gladstone, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 15 June 1885.

    Mr. Speaker, I have received authentic information that Lord Salisbury has undertaken the formation of a Government, and I have likewise received an expression of a desire, to which I am sure the House will be as ready to conform as I am, that I should move to-day that the House, at its rising, should adjourn until Friday next. That accordingly is my intention, and I believe it will be quite conformable to precedent, as it is to the reason of the case, in this necessarily early stage of the arrangements. That being so, we have before us the question whether it is desirable to proceed with the Lords’ Amendments to the Redistribution of Seats Bill—a matter upon which, as I have said before, I am in the hands of the House. But my opinion is that, on the whole, it is for the public interest and for the satisfaction of all parties that we should proceed to deal with them and to complete the measure.

    There is another arrangement, rather less in magnitude, but which, at the same time, touches matters of feeling in relation to Royalty of such a nature as makes it desirable for me to submit to the House whether another exception ought not to be made to the more usual practice. The House will remember that some time ago—I do not know how many weeks ago—it was determined, by a very large majority, to introduce the usual Annuity Bill for the marriage of Her Royal Highness tie Princess Beatrice. That Annuity Bill has reached its third reading, and, although it is true a limited opposition was made to it on its first stage, that opposition has not been revived. The House has, therefore, on the various stages of the measure, except upon one occasion, given its unanimous assent to the Bill. As there are practical arrangements connected with that measure, and as it touches the relation of the House towards the Throne, and the loyal feelings of the House, my opinion is that there will be a general disposition on the part of the House to approve that course, if I should proceed to move the third reading to-day.

    There is another portion of the arrangements as to which I do not propose to take a similar course, for reasons which, I think, will be obvious. The custom has always been, besides the Annuity, to propose the grant of a capital sum. But towards the grant of that capital sum in the present instance—which is precisely based upon former precedents—owing to the course of Business, the first stage which is to procure the voting of that capital sum has not yet been taken. I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind that that capital sum will be voted with the same readiness and the same loyalty as was the Annuity. But the House has given no decision upon it, and I wish to call attention to that point—that the House has given no decision upon it, and has not become a party to it. The proposal itself is a responsible act, and I think it is better, being a responsible act, however sure we may be of the decision the House will give, that we should properly reserve it to the House, to be dealt with in the usual manner, upon the proposal of a responsible Government.

    Consequently, I do not intend, as far as I am concerned, to take any steps in regard to that proposal; but with respect to the third reading of the Annuity Bill, the House will probably be inclined unanimously, as it has been on the later stages of the Bill, to think that, under these circumstances, it is just to make that also an exception to our usual methods of proceeding, and allow the Bill to go forward to the House of Lords by reading it a third time tonight. I beg leave to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Friday next.

  • Nick Gibb – 2016 Speech on Mathematics

    nickgibb

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, at Elmhurst Primary School in London on 11 February 2016.

    It is a delight to be back here at Elmhurst Primary School. During my time as Schools Minister, I have learnt a great deal from both Elmhurst Primary School and your inspiring head Shahed Ahmed, and I have enormous admiration for the academic outcomes that your pupils achieve.

    I’m sure he won’t mind me saying, Shahed and I share a belief in the importance of getting the basics right in primary education, be it phonics, arithmetic or handwriting. But that is not the only thing we share. My sources tell me that in a previous life Shahed, like me, worked as a chartered accountant – though I believe that I lasted a little longer in the profession than Shahed.

    Now, as accountants, we belong to a small minority of people in England for whom it is not socially acceptable to say ‘I can’t do maths’. Sadly, for many others in this country, such a claim is commonplace. It is extraordinary that in a country which produced Charles Babbage and Bletchley Park, a deficiency at mathematics has come to be seen as a defining national feature.

    The idea that maths is something some people can do, and some people cannot, is cognitively untrue for all but a tiny minority of people. It is also of dire consequence for adult’s livelihoods, and our country’s economy.

    According to the international PISA tests carried out every three years by the OECD, 22% of fifteen year olds in this country are functionally innumerate. This means they are unable to carry out simple tasks such as recognising that travelling 4km in 10 minutes means going at the same speed as travelling 2km in 5. Such a record places us well behind countries such as Korea and Singapore, and cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai in China, where the percentage of innumerate 15-year-olds is below 10% in each.

    The PISA survey which produced those results was carried out in 2012. Since then, the situation may, perhaps, have been changing for the better. Today, I want to celebrate a renaissance in mathematics teaching that is taking place in our schools. Currently happening on a small scale, it has the potential to revolutionise the teaching of the subject in this country.

    Elmhurst Primary School’s fantastic results, where 60% of pupils last year achieved a level 5 or above in their key stage 2 mathematics – is an example of the excellent standards English schools can achieve. Due to its strong track record on mathematics, Elmhurst was made one of England’s 35 maths hubs in 2014. The maths hubs have been funded by the Department for Education to disseminate expert mathematics teaching throughout this country’s schools.

    In particular, teachers at maths hubs are finding out what we can learn from international leaders, such as Singapore and Shanghai. Over the past 2 years, the maths hubs have arranged for 127 teachers from Shanghai to teach in English schools for 3 weeks, and 131 teachers from England to teach in Shanghai.

    Through visiting maths hubs and talking to their teachers, I have been consistently impressed by how positively teachers are engaging in this project. The Maths Hub programme will continue into 2016 to 2017 and hub budgets will be confirmed in March 2016.

    One of the most inspiring teachers I have met since becoming Schools Minster is Bruno Reddy. As head of mathematics, he helped found King Solomon’s Academy in 2009. As a maths specialism school, it developed a mathematics curriculum which focuses on depth of understanding before breadth of study. In the school’s most recent results, 82% of its pupils gained a GCSE in mathematics at B or above, and 95% at C or above – an astonishing achievement for any school, let alone an inner-city school with a proportion of disadvantaged pupils around 3 times the national average.

    At A level, pupils appear to be gaining, not losing, an enthusiasm for mathematics. Due in part to this government’s emphasis on the importance of STEM subjects, there has been, since 2010, a 15% increase in pupil entries for physics, an 18% increase in pupil entries for maths, and a 27% increase in pupil entries for further maths.

    2014 saw the opening of the Kings College London Maths School in Lambeth, a small free school for sixth formers where all of the pupils study mathematics, further mathematics and physics. This summer, the school reported that 72% of pupils attained AAB or better, and 97% of pupils attained an A-grade in mathematics. Such exemplar schools show what can be achieved by pupils in this country. The challenge now is making sure that the approach to mathematics that characterises the best of our schools, can spread to the rest of our schools.

    I do not believe that outcomes in mathematics are low for many pupils in this country because of bad teachers, or bad schools, or bad parents. Where pupil outcomes are low, I believe it is because of bad ideas.

    What ideas am I talking about? I am talking about the idea that sustained practice is too boring to engage pupils. I am talking about the idea that teacher led instruction and worked examples in mathematics are passive. I am talking about the idea that memorising your multiplication tables is antiquated in the age of the smart phone. For half a century, these ideas have been propagated by a romantic belief that the discipline can be taken out of mathematics, and the learning can remain. But as our best schools know, this is not possible. Memory, testing and teacher instruction are all vital components for success in the subject.

    Take the last example – multiplication tables. This government has pledged to introduce a computerised multiplication check for all year 6 pupils at the end of primary school. The announcement was received positively by many parents and teachers. But some influential voices within education remain opposed.

    One English educationist, now residing at an American university, appeared in the TES in December arguing she would ‘ban’ times table tests, and told the Telegraph that they have nothing to do with mathematics. Earlier last year, Conrad Wolfman wrote in the Financial Times that calculation is an ‘obsolete skill’, thanks to technological advances of the 21st century.

    That last comment reminded me of an influential pamphlet about the future of mathematics entitled ‘I do, and I understand’, which suggests that in the age of the computer and the ‘simple calculating machine’, mental arithmetic has become a thing of the past. That pamphlet was written in 1967. Its romantic view was wrong then, and it is wrong today.

    Five decades of research by cognitive psychologists, as reviewed by the American psychologists James Royer and Loel Tronsky, shows that there is a positive relationship between computational automaticity and complex mathematical problems solving skills.

    For example, a 2001 study gave 200 American pupils aged 7 to 11 a battery of tests assessing basic skills, followed by a mathematics test involving complex problem solving. Speed at basic arithmetic in 4th grade still had a small but statistically significant relationship with complex problem solving ability 1 year later, when controlling for a child’s verbal IQ, processing speech, and reading ability.

    In 2013, a controlled trial was carried out where 195 first grade pupils in America who were struggling with mathematics were given 16 weeks of specific tutoring where they practiced simple sums. The pupils were then tested on areas such as word problems, arithmetic and 2-digit calculations. Compared to the control group who received no such tutoring, these pupils had a statistically signification improvement in all 4 areas tested. Revealingly, those children who practised simple sums in timed conditions using flashcards, improved even further, showing that repeated practice aids memory.

    And there is absolutely no reason why such practice has to be dull and dispiriting. Just look at the ‘Rolling Numbers’ chants developed at inner-city American charter schools to learn multiplication tables, or the wildly successful Times Tables Rock Starts programme developed by Bruno Reddy. You will see children delighted with the sense of achievement which comes from mastering mathematical knowledge.

    Of course, mathematics is not limited to number knowledge, just as reading is not limited to decoding words. Memorising sums and times tables is simply an important gateway for achieving the far more valuable prize of conceptual understanding in mathematics. When your working memory is freed of having to make simple calculations, it can think more fully about the conceptual underpinnings of a problem. As the American cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham has written, ‘This automatic retrieval of basic math facts is critical to solving complex problems, because complex problems have simpler problems embedded in them.’

    A lovely example of this was provided by the mathematician Hung-Hsi Wu, in the magazine American Educator. Being able to carry out long division can open the door of understanding as to why some fractions, such as one third, are repeating decimals. You keep on dividing, and you keep on getting 3!

    A large body of evidence from cognitive scientists demonstrates that knowledge and understanding in mathematics proceed in tandem, and should be taught together. This insight is well understood by mathematics teachers in the Far East.

    I have been most impressed by the focus teachers from Singapore and Shanghai place, not just on basic skills, but also on developing clear conceptual understanding. From the maths hubs, I have learnt about the importance of using real life illustrations of mathematical problems to give pupils a clear understanding of the concepts that underlie procedures. Lessons move from concrete examples, to pictorial examples, to abstract procedures. From sharing biscuits, to dividing up a shape, to simple division – as an example.

    And a huge amount of thought goes into finding examples which will resonate with pupils. One teacher joked with me that whilst household pets may be an excellent analogy for gathering like terms, it is much better to discuss splitting a journey along a road into thirds, than a kitten.

    Crucially, the knowledge, examples and questions which underlie successful teaching in the Far East are embodied in a detailed curriculum, and high quality resources. An enormous amount of thought and care goes into the construction of mathematics textbooks in Shanghai and Singapore, planning in great detail every step of the algorithm or calculation. No pupil’s understanding is left to chance or accident: every step of a lesson is deliberate, purposeful and precise.

    It is revealing that, according to the 2011 TIMSS international survey, 70% of Singaporean pupils in year 5 are taught by teachers who use textbooks as a basis for instruction in lessons. In England, that figure was 10%.

    This is not to say that the common curriculum and textbooks in the Far East constrain teacher creativity. Quite the opposite: high quality resources provide a foundation upon which creative and imaginative teaching can be built. I am delighted that England’s maths hubs are currently trialling 2 English adaptations of Singapore mathematics textbooks, entitled ‘Maths No Problem’ and ‘Inspire Maths’.

    In addition, Shanghai teaching methods depend upon whole class instruction from the teacher. As Charlie Stripp from the National Centre for the Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics has observed, this does not mean reducing pupils to being passive recipients, as some caricatures of Chinese teaching suggest. Shanghai teaching is teacher-led, but not teacher-dominated, with constant questioning and interaction between the teacher and the class.

    In 2014, a fascinating piece of research was published by Professor David Reynolds of Southampton University, and his Chinese postgraduate research student Zhenzhen Miao. They videoed lessons in both countries, to find out what teaching methods were being used to such great success in the Chinese classroom. The answer was clear: in Chinese classrooms, interactive whole-class teaching made up 72% of lesson time, compared with only 24% of lesson time in England. In England, almost half of the time – 47% – was used up on pupils working individually or in groups, compared with only 28% of the time in China.

    But perhaps most importantly of all, Shanghai mathematics teaching is based upon the principle that, if taught well, all pupils can master the content of a lesson. Differentiated teaching is not common in Shanghai, as it reinforces the performance gap between pupils. Across the OECD as a whole, the use of differentiating by ability whilst teaching has a negative relationship with pupil outcomes – an insight provided by the maths teacher and education blogger Greg Ashman.

    There appears to be no conception in Shanghai that some pupils can ‘do’ mathematics, whilst others cannot. Instead, the focus is on all pupils mastering a concept before moving to the next part of the curriculum sequence, allowing no pupil to be left behind.

    The benefits of a good understanding of mathematics for pupils’ life outcomes are unarguable. The phrase ‘I am not good at maths’ should be banished from English schools, as it implies current difficulties are fixed within a child, suggesting that there is no hope of these difficulties being overcome.

    The way that we are going to improve maths in this country is simple: improved curriculum, quality resources, and better teaching methods.

    I am delighted to be here today to open the new building at a maths hub which is leading the way in these developments. Through Shahed’s travels to Shanghai, and Elmhurst Primary School’s involvement as a maths hub, this school is an inspiring example of how we can learn from international best practice.

    I hope that where Elmhurst Primary School leads, the rest of this country will follow. If so, we may one day have a country where mass innumeracy is a thing of the past, and all pupils – not just the future accountants – know they have it within them to ‘do maths’.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2016 Speech on Northern Ireland

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at Ulster University in Belfast on 11 February 2016.

    This morning I want to talk about this Government’s approach to the past, and set out our proposed way forward on delivering the legacy bodies in the Stormont House Agreement.

    It is evident that for many people in today’s Northern Ireland, the legacy of the past continues to cast a very dark shadow over the present.

    And it’s not hard to see why.

    Over the period of the so-called Troubles, broadly speaking from 1968 to 1998, over 3,500 people were killed, mostly, though not all, here in Northern Ireland.

    Thousands more were maimed or injured.

    Businesses and livelihoods were destroyed, pre-existing sectarian divisions were deepened and entrenched.

    Widespread disruption, either as a result of terrorist activity or the security presence needed to counter it, was a daily fact of life.

    And of course of those who might not have suffered physically, many still carry the mental scars of what happened.

    Bearing in mind that for much of this period the population of Northern Ireland was around 1.5 million, it follows that a large proportion of those living here were directly touched by the Troubles.

    And even those not directly affected themselves will invariably know someone who was.

    So I never underestimate the continuing impact of the Troubles today, not just on individuals, but also on society more widely.

    For all that’s been achieved in moving Northern Ireland forward, public housing and education is still very segregated, interface barriers loom over many streets, and disputes over flags and parades retain the capacity to spill over into serious public disorder.

    Moreover the costs of division are an additional financial burden on an already stretched public purse.

    So as the representative of the sovereign Government here I am acutely aware that we have a responsibility to do all that we can to tackle the legacy of the past in this part of the United Kingdom.

    The Government fully recognises that it will be much more difficult to achieve our objective of building a genuinely shared future for everyone in Northern Ireland unless and until we can find some way of coming to terms with a divided past.

    Of course people’s opinions on the past will always differ sharply, shaped by their own background and experiences.

    It is not an area where we can ever achieve a consensus view on what happened, though we might at least be able to come to some common understanding of key facts through initiatives like the historical timeline project envisaged in the Stormont House Agreement.

    For the record I want to set out the position of this UK Government.

    The first and most fundamental point is this.

    In our view terrorism was wholly wrong.

    It was never and could never be justified,from whichever side it came, republican or loyalist.

    No injustice, perceived or otherwise, warranted the violent actions of the paramilitary groups.

    The terrorist campaigns caused untold misery and suffering.

    And we will never agree with a version of history that seeks to legitimise them.

    We wholly reject any suggestion of equivalence between the security forces and those who carried out acts of terrorism.

    And I believe that there is a real risk that those who seek to justify the terrorist violence of the past risk giving a spurious legitimacy to the terrorist violence of the present.

    Ultimately, of course, terrorism did not succeed here.

    And I believe there were three main reasons for that.

    First, there was the sheer resilience of the people of Northern Ireland, supported by the overwhelming majority of citizens throughout these islands.

    In this I include those involved in politics, business, and wider society who even in the darkest days, and often at great personal risk, helped to hold this place together.

    Second, there was the insistence of successive UK Governments that the future of Northern Ireland would only ever be determined by democracy, and never by violence.

    The consent principle enshrined in the 1993 Downing Street Declaration which went on to form such a key part of the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

    And third, there was the remarkable dedication, professionalism and courage of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Armed Forces.

    Over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives over the period of Operation Banner – the longest continuous military deployment in our country’s history.

    Around 7000 awards for bravery were made and, quite simply without the dedication of the security forces to keeping people here safe, the circumstances that enabled the peace process to take root would never have happened.

    Yet today we face a pernicious counter narrative.

    It is a version of the Troubles that seeks to displace responsibility from the people who perpetrated acts of terrorism and place the State at the heart of nearly every atrocity and murder that took place – be it through allegations of collusion,misuse of agents and informers or other forms of unlawful activity.

    For some, every allegation of wrongdoing by the State – or those working for it – is treated as fact,however unsubstantiated or whatever the source, and whatever the consequential distress to victims.

    Let me be clear.

    I am not going to say that over a period of thirty years there were no instances where members of the police and armed services fell below the high standards we expect of them.

    Sadly we know that there are some truly shocking instances where they fell drastically short of those standards.

    That includes the appalling murder of Patrick Finucane, the anniversary of whose death takes place tomorrow.

    And like the Prime Minister I will never seek to defend the security forces by defending the indefensible.

    Where there is evidence of wrongdoing it will be pursued. Everyone is subject to the rule of law.

    Yet we need to be mindful of the context in which the security forces were operating.

    While we will always judge our security forces against the highest standards of integrity and professionalism, both then and now, we do need to recognise that policing practice and methodology has changed radically over the intervening years, right across the UK.

    We should therefore be wary of expecting modern investigatory practices to have been applied in past decades, lest we become guilty of historical anachronism.

    We should also be conscious that gathering and assessing intelligence is not, and never will be, an exact science.

    It varies greatly in quality, clarity and reliability.

    Assessing its credibility can frequently involve finely balanced judgements.

    What might seem to have a certain meaning with hindsight, at the time could well have been just one of a long list of conflicting and vague reports all pointing in different directions.

    As a government, we have been more forthcoming than any of our predecessors in accepting where the State has failed to live to the highest standards, and in apologising where that is the right thing to do.

    The Prime Minister’s ground-breaking statement on Bloody Sunday is the most obvious example of that, but it’s not the only case.

    We also issued full and clear apologies in the Patrick Finucane and Claudy cases.

    And where it is warranted we will continue to do this.

    But to suggest that misconduct by the police and our Armed Forces was somehow rife or endemic is, in the view of this Government, a deliberate distortion and a narrative of the Troubles that is not justified by the facts.

    Of all the deaths that occurred during the Troubles, 60 per cent were caused by republican groupings, 30 per cent by loyalists, and 10 per cent by the State.

    I don’t for one moment dismiss the scale of the tragedy which that 10 per cent involves.

    It includes many terrible losses for which families still grieve to this day.

    But over 250,000 men and women served in the RUC and the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

    I am convinced that in the vast, vast majority of cases they carried out their duties with exemplary professionalism, fully within the law.

    Remember this.

    It wasn’t the RUC or the Army who planted the bombs at La Mon, Enniskillen, or the Shankill, or pulled the triggers at Loughinisland or Greysteel.

    But it was the RUC and the Army who, often at great personal danger , foiled countless terrorist plots and attacks and in doing so saved hundreds of lives.

    So as we said in our manifesto we will always salute the RUC and our Armed Forces for the role they played and the sacrifice they made.

    We will never forget the debt of gratitude that we owe them.

    Today of course Northern Ireland is a very different place.

    While we continue to face a severe and lethal threat from dissident groupings, the overall security situation has been transformed.

    We have inclusive, power sharing devolved government, with parties taking their place in the executive as of right and according to their mandate.

    Because of the Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements I believe devolution is now on a more secure and stable footing than for some time.

    Thanks to the UK Government’s long term economic plan, and to the hard work of the people of Northern Ireland and the Executive they elect, the economy is growing and unemployment is falling.

    But as I said at the outset of my speech, legacy issues have a continuing capacity to disrupt that hard won political progress.

    There is a pressing need to make progress because it is clear that the current structures for dealing with legacy cases are not working as they should.

    They are not working for victims and survivors – as I know at first hand from my many meetings with their representatives.

    They currently focus disproportionately on cases where the State was involved or alleged to be involved, leaving families in other cases feeling overlooked and disregarded.

    And the legal aid bill continues to grow, diverting resources which could be used for policing the present rather than the past.

    I fully understand the concern felt about delays in the inquest system and would emphasise that the UK government and its agencies and the PSNI are working hard to fulfil the disclosure requirements placed on us.

    I do not accept the argument that the problems with inquests stem from lack of commitment on the part of the Government or the police.

    The PSNI holds over 9 million documents relating to the Troubles and they and the MoD have between them disclosed thousands of documents through inquests and other legal processes.

    Rather, it’s a simple fact that the current system was never designed to cope with a large number of highly complex and sometimes linked cases involving very sensitive information.

    So we will continue to seek a workable reform of the system of legacy inquests.

    I understand the concern felt about resources and if reforms go forward, of course the UK Government would look very seriously at whether some of the Stormont House legacy funding could be released early to support inquests.

    But even the problems with inquests are tackled, it is clear that additional mechanisms are needed.

    So we are committed to establishing the legacy bodies set out in the Stormont House Agreement – the Historical Investigations Unit, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group, along with the Oral History Archive and the Historical Timeline project.

    We have an express manifesto commitment to deliver them.

    And in our view, they offer the best way forward if we are to achieve better outcomes for victims and survivors, the people who suffered more than anyone else as a result of the Troubles.

    They also come with an additional £150 million of funding from the UK Government – just one part of the financial packages supporting the Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements which give the Executive around £2.5 billion in extra spending power to reflect the unique circumstances faced by Northern Ireland.

    So the Government shares the widespread disappointment felt that the Fresh Start talks last year were unable to deliver the new structures set out in the Stormont House Agreement.

    And today I re-affirm the Government’s determination to do all that we can to remedy that -working with victims’ groups,with the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government on seeking a way forward.

    In fact this Government has taken this issue further forward than any of our predecessors.

    Very significant progress was made in both sets of cross party talks thanks to the hard work of the participants, including dedicated input from Charlie Flanagan and the Irish Government.

    I believe we are closer than ever before to finding a way forward.

    We have listened very carefully to those who fear that any new bodies will have a disproportionate focus on the State and the security forces, and others who fear they might not be independent enough.

    So we would write into legislation in the clearest terms the requirement that these bodies are under an obligation to carry out their functions in ways that are fair, equitable, balanced, proportionate and transparent.

    We have sought to remove the politics from sensitive appointments – for example the director of the Historical Investigations Unit.

    And, crucially, any legislation we bring forward will make absolutely clear that there will be no amnesties or immunity from prosecution.

    This Government believes in the rule of law – and we will not countenance amnesties.

    And although the cross party talks did not result in sufficient consensus to enable legislation to be introduced, we did establish common ground between the participants on a significant number of important questions.

    The most difficult outstanding issue relates to how the Government fulfils its duty to protect national security.

    I accept that for some this is a loaded term.

    But what it means in practice is the Government’s duty to protect its citizens from harm.

    As the text of Stormont House Agreement recognises, it is the Government’s duty to keep people safe and secure, and to ensure no individuals are put at risk.

    All the participants accept that this vital responsibility must be upheld.

    The remaining issue is how best to do so, and how any necessary decisions can be reviewed and appealed.

    National security is not an open-ended concept which can be used to suppress information about whatever actions the State does not want to see the light of day.

    In fact, as I have said, over recent years the State and its security forces have already disclosed several thousand of documents on Northern Ireland’s Troubles.

    During the talks, I listened carefully to those who were worried that the UK government might misuse its powers relating to national security.

    And we agreed that the Government and its agencies would give full disclosure of all relevant documents to the HIU without any redactions – that is everything – all we have which relates to the cases HIU will investigate.

    The dispute is not about whether the HIU will have access to all the information it needs, It will.

    The dispute is about onward disclosure from the HIU.

    And it is an inescapable fact that there is information which would put lives at risk if it were put into the public domain.

    There are notorious examples of where people accused of being informants have been hunted down and murdered.

    I do not want to be explaining to inquests in years to come why I failed to protect the information which led to more such tragedies in the future.

    And there are techniques and capabilities available to our security services that if known would be of value to terrorists.

    That’s not just violent dissidents in Northern Ireland, but also Islamist terrorists who want to attack our whole way of life.

    No responsible government could allow this to happen, and we must retain the power to prevent it.

    This has led some to assume that the Government will be constantly seeking to block the onward disclosure by the HIU of information to victims’ families and the public.

    This is simply not the case.

    The fact that disclosure of information may be embarrassing or difficult is not a justification to withholding it and no one is suggesting that it should be.

    In order to offer re-assurance we stretched ourselves during the talks and offered a significant compromise.

    I was able to agree with Government colleagues that where material or information is withheld on national security grounds, families would be told this.

    And then they or the HIU director would be given an automatic right to challenge it in the High Court.

    We believe this to be both fair and reasonable.

    Anyone who doubts the independence of the High Court should consider the regularity with which it rules against the UK government.

    So I would like to conclude my speech on a note of optimism.

    I do not believe that the remaining differences which exist in relation to establishing the new legacy bodies are insurmountable.

    That is why I am determined to do all I can to resolve them as soon as possible.

    We owe victims and survivors nothing less.

    I’m not for a moment suggesting that the new structures will be perfect, or that they will provide all of the answers to all of the questions posed by victims and survivors.

    Unfortunately there is no set of proposals which could ever deliver that or make up for even a fraction of the pain and loss suffered over the thirty years of the Troubles.

    But I am confident that they will be a significant improvement on what we have now.

    For that reason I believe that they are worth pursuing – as part of our commitment to do more for victims and survivors, and as part of our broader commitment . As a One Nation government dedicated to bringing our country together, to build a more stable, peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland and create a brighter, more secure future for everyone who lives here.

  • Lord Bourne – 2016 Speech on Investing in Green Innovation

    lordbourne

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Bourne, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Climate Change, on 11 February 2016.

    It is fantastic to be with you today at Cleantech Innovate.

    I am really pleased to be partnering here with the Swiss Federal Office of Energy.

    And Doris Leuthard the Swiss Government Minister for Energy and Climate Change, will be giving her own perspective on cleantech innovation immediately after me.

    This fourth London showcase event promises to be a real celebration of ground-breaking, green innovation.

    How fitting that it is taking place at the Royal Institution, where so many pioneering, great British scientists made their own historical, ground-breaking discoveries that ‘changed the world’:

    – Michael Faraday, with his advances in steel alloys, electro-magnetism and electricity,

    – Humphry Davy and his pioneering work, including on optical glass and the miners’ safety lamp

    – And John Tyndall, who identified the ‘greenhouse effect’, so significant in a world that faces the biggest change of them all – global climate change.

    Why green innovation is crucial

    Modern day innovators need to make their own ground-breaking discoveries to tackle climate change, and in my Ministerial role I have already seen impressive progress, including the ‘SPECIFIC’ project near Port Talbot.

    Work being done there – by Swansea University’s Innovation and Knowledge Centre – is developing functional coated steel and glass products.

    These can improve the energy performance of buildings and even build a surplus, turning them into mini power stations.

    Potentially a disruptive technology break through, and the very innovation we need to tackle the status quo and the challenge of climate change.

    Paris

    That is why the deal secured in Paris in December was so important.

    For the first time ever the world committed to work together to limit global temperature rises, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

    The outcome of Paris certainly gives a strong signal for investment in green innovation.

    And other initiatives are reinforcing that message.

    The Prime Minister joined 19 other world leaders to launch ‘Mission Innovation’ in Paris.

    All 20 member nations of Mission Innovation pledged to double clean energy research and development investment over 5 years.

    Doubling our investment means the UK public sector as a whole will spend over four hundred million pounds in 2020/2021 on clean energy R&D.

    What is being done to invest in green innovation?

    DECC and Innovate UK

    As part of that commitment, DECC will double our 5-year budget for clean energy research, development and demonstration.

    Our new innovation programme will be worth over five hundred million pounds.

    Our investment will stimulate and leverage private sector investment in the most promising technologies and systems.

    And our investment in new ideas will go hand-in-hand with breaking down barriers to market entry, creating the right environment for innovation and helping new ideas flourish.

    Others in the public sector are also investing in green innovation. Innovate UK – fellow sponsors of today’s event – will be introducing new finance products to support companies to innovate.

    These products will replace some grants, and will be worth one hundred and sixty five million pounds by 2019-20 – across a range of innovation activities, including energy.

    Wider UK Government

    Our public sector innovation partners are working with us, investing in green, innovative technologies that will take-off at scale, bring about system change, and bring down costs.

    But we must also use public money wisely and invest where we can make a difference – remembering that subsidy should be short-term, not for ever.

    We know we do not have all the low carbon innovation answers, yet we must develop technologies that are both cheap and green.

    We know prices can fall from the examples of onshore wind power and solar. We must aim for a balance between supporting new technologies and being tough on subsidies, to keep bills as low as possible.

    For those reasons, we are looking to enhance the way public sector organisations supporting green innovation work together, sharing resources and expertise and refining our existing shared evidence base.

    Prioritising technology support

    DECC has already used evidence to choose technology areas we will support, that we can make work at scale. Progress that was made on energy technologies in the past – such as nuclear here, and shale gas in America – did not happen by accident.

    Spending on energy research and development needs to be better targeted; and we need to be tough on how we spend it – on areas that will help the UK.

    So we are targeting offshore wind and nuclear. We are world leaders in both these areas, and globally we can make a lasting technological contribution.

    On current plans, we expect to see 10GW of offshore wind installed by 2020.

    This is supporting a growing installation, development and blade manufacturing industry, with around 14,000 people employed in the sector.

    For nuclear, too, our expertise is already world leading.

    But innovative new technologies could offer energy security and economic benefits – such as small modular reactors.

    These are small nuclear power stations – up to 300 megawatts in size – that could be factory-made in the UK.

    Each one could supply the total annual electricity needs of around 500,000 households.

    A detailed study currently taking place will help assess these benefits.

    From DECC’s five hundred million innovation budget, we have set aside two hundred and fifty million pounds to invest in nuclear innovation in general, including small modular reactors.

    We will ensure that our clean energy technology priorities fit with our wider Departmental goals on decarbonisation, smart systems, heat in homes and in industry, and energy efficiency.

    And they will fit with our top priorities of keeping the lights on, keeping bills low, and reducing emissions in the most cost effective way.

    Innovation in energy

    It is becoming increasingly clear that investing in green innovation is crucial and cross-cutting right across the energy agenda. From community energy, biogas, hydrogen and heat pumps, to digital platforms and demand side response and storage.

    Not only is green innovation in energy technologies vital, but so are radical new models or business ideas, and price-lowering competition and novel approaches in the energy markets.

    Such as Moixa Technology’s Maslow Energy Storage System – supported by DECC’s Energy Storage Demonstrator.

    This is a platform for smart control of distributed battery energy storage for homes and offices.

    It stores spare solar or night-time electricity to reduce peak demand and costs – giving user cost savings, but also bringing grid benefits.

    Cleantech Innovate

    The list of 36 finalists presenting here later today is equally impressive.

    As is the engagement in this area of all attending Cleantech Innovate – whether you are inventors, entrepreneurs, investors or related service providers. Just by being here you are ‘investing’ your time and commitment in this important area.

    Let’s not forget that one of the aims of today is to give investors exclusive access to innovators building fast-growth commercial green solutions.

    We can build upon the UK’s success in green innovation investment.

    Cleantech Clusters

    The UK already has Europe’s largest cleantech innovation cluster, incubating green technology business start-ups.

    And cleantech clusters are particularly clever at capitalising on innovation through collaboration.

    Collaboration will become increasingly important, both within the UK and beyond these shores.

    We are not alone in transforming our energy system.

    The scale of the challenge faced to develop new and improved technologies for low carbon transition, is larger than any single country’s budget can afford.

    Horizon 2020

    In Europe, Horizon 2020, the EU’s Research and Innovation funding Programme, has a budget of around €6billion for energy innovation between 2014 and 2020.

    Despite strong competition, provisional results for 2015 indicate that UK organisations have been allocated €85m, the second largest share of 40 countries at 15% of the budget. A great result for the UK.

    We now need to build on this success. For 2016, there is around €340m available in the current Horizon 2020 Energy Call. Let’s make sure UK innovators obtain a good share of this and its future business opportunities.

    Our Swiss fellow sponsors of this event are also actively looking for collaboration opportunities. I know that some Swiss and British innovators met up yesterday to look for links and synergies between their work. And we are keen for collaboration to deliver for both our countries.

    Worldwide investment

    But UK and European investment in green innovation is not enough on its own.

    We need to leverage worldwide investment through existing and new international initiatives, for mutual benefit – and we hope UK innovators will be a part of this.

    Through international collaboration, risks can be shared; new knowledge, skills, research facilities and funding can be accessed; and new business networks developed.

    Mission Innovation, which I mentioned earlier, is an exciting new opportunity to stimulate increased investment – both from the public and the private sectors.

    Conclusion

    Increased investment in green innovation is absolutely critical. The International Energy Agency recently stated that:

    “Innovation support for technologies across all energy sectors provides the greatest potential to keep the 2 degree climate goal achievable.”

    So, in conclusion, thank you for what you are already doing – learning by linking up, collaborating together, engaging internationally – but most of all, please carry on investing in green innovation – your involvement really does have the power to change and transform our world.

  • Andrew Jones – 2016 Speech on Buses

    andrewjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London on 11 February 2016.

    Introduction

    It’s a real pleasure to open the Transport Times UK Bus Summit 2016.

    I’m really grateful to the Transport Times for running the event and to everyone here for coming.

    I’ve chosen as my topic this morning (11 February 2016) the government’s forthcoming Buses Bill.

    I want to set out clearly, and in more detail than the government has done before, why we are introducing a Buses Bill, what the bill will do, and what we expect to change as a result.

    Context and aim of the bill

    But first, I would like to provide some context.

    In preparing this bill, we have one clear aim, which is this: to increase bus passenger numbers.

    Buses help people get to the shops and to work, boosting our economy.

    Buses enable people to visit friends and family, providing great social benefits.

    And buses can reduce congestion and air pollution, offering great benefits to our environment.

    So it is a matter of concern that over the years there has been a general decline in passenger numbers. And it explains the overriding aim of our bill; to get more people using buses.

    What the bill will not do

    But second, I would also like to dispel a few misconceptions by setting out what the bill will not do.

    The bill will not impose any particular arrangement on local authorities or on bus operators.

    Neither will the bill give local authorities new powers to take bus operators’ assets, such as vehicles or land.

    Oversight of anti-competitive behaviour will be left to the Competition and Markets Authority — exactly where oversight lies at the moment.

    And nor does the bill impose wholesale re-regulation.

    Instead, the Buses Bill is an enabling bill.

    It gives local authorities new choices.

    Choices about how they can improve bus services in the interests of their residents, and, I believe, in the long-term interest of the bus industry too.

    So, why are we introducing a Buses Bill?

    After all, the government is plainly on the side of free enterprise.

    We are in favour of cutting red tape, and giving the private sector the space it needs to grow.

    And there’s so much about today’s de-regulated bus industry that works well.

    The latest Transport Focus survey shows that nearly 9 out of 10 customers are satisfied with their bus services. In my own area I can see good practice, with Transdev launching new state-of-the-art buses on route 36 between Leeds, Harrogate and Rippon.

    At the same time, a challenger operator — Connexions buses — is pioneering new routes and reaching new markets.

    Across the country, commercial operators are introducing smart cards, installing Wi-Fi, co-ordinating timetables, and making great strides in improving accessibility — 89% of buses comply with accessibility standards, and we are on track for virtually 100%.

    All this progress is down to operators taking decisions in the interests of their passengers.

    It shows that the de-regulation of the industry has been a success.

    But it would be wrong to pretend that there’s no room for improvement.

    We only have to look to the streets outside this building to see how, in some circumstances, things can be done differently.

    And just as in London, passengers right across the country want Oyster-style ticketing, better access to information about timetables, better information on fares before they travel, and real-time data about when the bus is going to arrive at their stop.

    There are many other opportunities for improvement, too.

    To make sure that bus routes reflect and support local economic development, such as new housing, and new business parks.

    As things stand, areas that want these improvements have a choice.

    They can enter into voluntary partnerships with bus operators.

    They can agree quality partnerships, which have the backing of law.

    Or they can propose quality contracts, under which local authorities take on responsibility for services. But each of these choices have drawbacks.

    Voluntary arrangements are only as good as the personal relationships between those involved.

    Statutory partnerships force local authorities, by law, to spend public money on new infrastructure, even when everyone agrees it isn’t needed.

    While the quality contract scheme process — introduced in 2000 — has proved more time consuming, costly and challenging than anybody could ever have imagined.

    So we believe there’s room for some additional choices.

    Choices that keep the best features of a de-regulated market, but that give local areas greater say over bus services.

    What the bill will include — open data

    So, first, our bill will address passengers’ need for better information.

    It is in everyone’s interests for people to know as much as possible about the bus services in their area. So our proposal is that all operators will be required to make data about routes, fares and times open and accessible.

    It will allow app makers to develop products that passengers can use to plan their journeys, and give people the confidence to leave the car at home and take the bus instead.

    What the bill will include — new partnerships

    Second, the bill will introduce new arrangements for local authorities and bus operators to enter into partnership.

    We will remove the requirement that a quality partnership scheme must always involve new infrastructure. And we will introduce new, enhanced, partnerships that allow local authorities and bus operators to agree their own standards for all services in their area — perhaps focusing on frequency and reliability along a particular route or transport corridor, or setting emissions standards to improve local air quality, or introducing common branding, marketing and ticketing rules over a wider geographical area.

    In this way, the bill will build on the strengths of existing partnership arrangements while addressing their weaknesses, including the weakness that allows a small minority of operators to block improvements that have been agreed by the majority.

    This new partnership approach won’t be right for every area. In many cases it may be better to leave things just as they are. For those cases, our message will be — if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. The status quo is acceptable too.

    Yet sometimes there will be a case for more radical change. For example, some of the things that Londoners have come to expect can be difficult to deliver in a fully de-regulated bus market, such as a single fare structure across different operators and transport modes.

    What the bill will include — franchising

    So the bill will honour our devolution deal commitments to give local authorities the choice to use new powers to franchise bus services in their areas.

    I want to keep the good parts of the quality contract scheme process, which at least forces people to think things through properly, but I want to lose the parts which don’t work, such as the excessive cost, the bureaucracy and the second-guessing.

    The decision to take up those powers will for local areas to make.

    Local areas will need clear arrangements for ensuring the powers are used accountably, the capability to meet their promises to passengers, and a system that does not disadvantage bus services that cross local authority boundaries.

    Operators will need to play their part too.

    This will an important decision for local areas to make, and it must be made on the basis of solid information, provided in a timely way.

    We certainly do not foresee a one-size-fits-all approach in every area.

    Some local authorities may want to introduce newly-integrated, uniformly branded networks of services just as you see in London.

    Others will just want to build and improve on what’s already there.

    Whatever approach is chosen — and that will be a local decision — we want to ensure that bus operators and the wider supply chain have as much notice of change as possible.

    And that the effects on small operators are considered properly.

    In every case, local authorities will need to work closely with the operators in their area to manage the process in the best interest of passengers, particularly during periods of transition which will need to be handled with care.

    Conclusion

    So in conclusion, I hope that’s given everyone plenty to talk about.

    I can’t yet tell you exactly when the bill will be introduced into Parliament, save to say that the finest minds are working on it and you will see it very soon.

    We are hoping for Royal Assent by early next year.

    But we are certainly not at the end of the road just yet.

    Everything in the bill will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

    And it won’t become law until Parliament is satisfied.

    So there’s plenty of opportunity to shape the content.

    And I look forward to much debate and discussion in the months ahead.

    Thank you.