Tag: Speeches

Nick Gibb – 2016 Speech on a Good Education

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, at Hild Bede College, Durham University on 4 February 2016.

Can I start by saying thank you for inviting me to come and speak to you today. It is a great pleasure to be back at my old college.

One thing that I miss enormously from my undergraduate days is the time to think, and the time to read. Ministerial duties permitting, I still try to carve out spare hours to enjoy a good book. Ever since becoming Schools Minister, I have been particularly entertained by passages in novels which address English schools.

Zadie Smith’s wonderful account of life in modern London, ‘NW’, features the protagonist Natalie Blake – an upwardly mobile Londoner who goes from her inner-city school to university, and then on to a successful career as a lawyer. Whilst seeking out a primary school for her son, she visits a medieval parish church which has been engulfed in the urban sprawl of north-west London.

A dedicated autodictat, we are treated to Natalie Blake’s stream of consciousness as she picks up and reads a leaflet in the church: “…present church dates from around 1315 … Cromwellian bullet holes in the door…”.

Natalie’s reading continues: “… the famous shrine of Our Lady of Willesden, ‘The Black Madonna’, destroyed in the Reformation and burnt, along with the ladies of Walsingham, Ipswich and Worcester – by the Lord Privy Seal. Also a Cromwell. Different Cromwell. Doesn’t say. This is where decent history GCSE-level teaching would have come in helpful…”.

On reading that passage, I wondered whether Natalie’s life is irretrievably held back by her inability to distinguish between Oliver and Thomas Cromwell? Perhaps not. But the situation described in this passage of the novel is indicative of a broader phenomenon: that the recipient of a core academic curriculum leaves school with an intellectual hinterland, which allows them to make sense of the world around them.

Since coming into government in 2010, our reforms to the A levels, GCSEs, and the national curriculum have focused on bringing a new level of academic rigour to English state schooling. And central to this mission has been elevating knowledge to become a central component of a good school education.

Had Natalie studied for the new reformed history GCSE, due to be taught from September 2016, she would have stood a better chance of knowing about both Oliver and Thomas Cromwell, thus having the knowledge to understand the historical significance of her parish church.

‘Knowledge’, I hear people gasp. ‘Surely education is about so much more than that. It is about creativity, problem solving, thinking critically, and inventing?’.

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly that a good education is about all those things. But each of them is dependent upon, and impossible without, a fundamental basis of knowledge about the subject in question. Put simply, a commitment to social justice requires us to place knowledge at the heart of our education system. And this is not a statement of opinion – it is a fact established by decades of research by cognitive scientists, as I shall soon explain.

It is an unfortunate fact, however, that many modern conceptions of education either ignore the importance of knowledge, or actively deride it. During the 1960s, it became fashionable amongst educationists to dismiss the accumulation of knowledge as a joyless anachronism: rote learning of unconnected facts, inflicted upon bored and unwilling pupils. School curricula were increasingly rewritten to focus not upon subject content, but upon skills and dispositions.

History became less about mastering the understanding of a period, and more about analysing primary sources. Foreign languages teaching moved away from learning grammatical structures and a wide vocabulary, and towards communication. And in maths, it was believed that memorisation of times tables and basic arithmetic at an early age could be bypassed by learning through real-life mathematical problems.

This philosophy endured and strengthened over the next half century, and had a marked effect on the quality of education that generations of children have received in Britain. For me, the crowning glory of this dumbing down was the 2007 rewrite of the national curriculum, which systematically expunged any mention of subject content, replacing it with references to ‘processes’, ‘concepts’, and with an overlay of ‘personal, learning and thinking skills’ such as ‘independent learning’ and ‘learning to learn’.

As Schools Minister, I have visited around 400 schools, watched thousands of classes, and seen countless examples of this philosophy in action. It always saddens me to see thrilling content of education, be it timeless literature, scientific wonders, or great historical events, being relegated to a backseat, so that these comparatively joyless ‘skills’ and ‘processes’ can come to the fore.

Now, I am sure that many here may be thinking back to their own recent education, and contending that you studied a core, subject-based academic curriculum at school. If that is the case, you should feel fortunate that you were part of a minority.

On entering government in 2010, we were concerned that nationwide only 31% of pupils were taking a GCSE in history. Only 26% of pupils were taking a GCSE in geography. Worse still, only 43% of pupils were studying a GCSE in a foreign language, down from 76% in 2000.

We saw that the majority of English pupils were not studying a combination of academic subjects which – up to the age of 16 – would be seen as entirely standard at most independent schools, and indeed in many foreign countries.

And even for those who did enter GCSEs in academic subjects, the examination content had been so watered down that it no longer represented a mastery of any given subject. A history GCSE could consist entirely of 20th-century topics; a religious studies GCSE could consist of just 1 religion, or very little religion at all; and around 90% of pupils entering the English literature GCSE delivered by 1 exam board answered questions on a single text: ‘Of Mice and Men’. Now, John Steinbeck is a great author – ‘East of Eden’ is my all-time favourite novel – but even I doubt this short novella was deserving of such overwhelming attention.

In addition, grade inflation had been allowed to diminish the value of our qualifications. From 2005 to 2010, the proportion of pupils achieving 5 good GCSEs increased year on year. But as Professor Robert Coe of this university showed, English pupils’ performance in international assessments and annual benchmarked aptitude tests showed no improvement at all.

This was the state of English education that we inherited on coming into government in 2010. Since then, our reforms have focused on raising the ambition of what pupils are expected to study at school, and putting subject content – which I believe to be the real joy of education – at the core of school life.

We have removed over 3,000 low-value qualifications from performance tables and introduced rigorous new standards for the technical and professional qualifications that remain.

We introduced the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) measure in 2010, which shows the proportion of pupils in a school being entered for a combination of GCSEs in English, mathematics, 2 sciences, history or geography, and a foreign language. Schools have risen to this challenge: the proportion of pupils entering this EBacc combination of subjects nationwide has risen from 23% in 2012 to 39% in 2015.

And due to a long process of examination reform which is only just coming to fruition, the examinations that children are taking are becoming more academically ambitious, not less. Since September, pupils have been studying the reformed English literature GCSE for the first time, including the study of both a 19th-century novel and a modern text. Instead of a strict diet of Steinbeck, pupils can read George Orwell and Jane Austen, Kazuo Ishiguro and Charlotte Bronte – and they will be reading the whole novel, not just extracts.

From September, the new history GCSE will be studied, which will supplement 20th-century global history with British depth studies, from the reign of King Edward I to the English Civil War and Restoration.

Our curriculum reforms also look to the future, as the school curriculum must adapt to incorporate the breakthroughs of the technological age. That is why we have introduced a new national curriculum for computing, which focuses on programming languages, computational thinking, and Boolean logic – making this country, I believe, the first in the G20 to do so. The old IT curriculum simply taught children to use programmes such as Microsoft Word: now, pupils are learning to code and create programmes for themselves.

This culture of increasing academic ambition is having a beneficial knock on effect for A level studies, where since 2010 there has been a 27% increase in pupil entries for further maths, a 15% increase in pupil entries for physics, and a 15% increase in pupil entries for chemistry.

Non-STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects are seeing similar increases at A level. Economics, up 29%. Religious studies, up 19%. Spanish and geography, both up 16%. Whilst for years, comments about ‘the youth of today’ have implied decline and disappointment, today’s youngsters will be better educated and better informed about the world than the generations preceding them.

In England, it has always been possible to secure a good education, through top comprehensive schools, grammar schools or independent schools. But it is socially disadvantaged pupils who have historically missed out, and found their life chances limited by the quality of education they received. Research by the Sutton Trust in 2014 showed that pupils eligible for free school meals who scored in the top 10% nationally at the end of primary school were significantly less likely to be entered for the EBacc than their wealthier peers who achieved the same level aged 11. Disadvantaged pupils – the very children most in need of an academic, knowledge-based curriculum – were the least likely to be given the opportunity to benefit from it.

It is the driving ambition for this government that a core academic curriculum should not be the preserve of a social elite, but instead the entitlement of every single child. Though there are some inequalities which schools cannot address, the unequal distribution of intellectual and cultural capital is one that they can.

But there remain many working within education who would challenge my assumption that a core academic curriculum is a valuable inheritance for all pupils. Such figures think it superfluous to know, for example, Oliver Cromwell from Thomas. I am sure many here will have seen the Royal Society of Arts talk by the educationist Sir Ken Robinson, now pushing 14 million views on YouTube. In his talk, he accuses the traditional, academic curriculum of being a relic of the 19th century, a ‘factory model’ of schooling, which squanders pupil creativity.

As his enormous popularity shows, Sir Ken Robinson’s views are superficially appealing. But I believe them to be profoundly wrong.

An educationist who has shaped my thinking on this more than any other is Daniel Willingham, professor of cognitive science at the University of Virginia. With reference to robust scientific evidence, he explains how the ‘thinking skills’ most prized by schools and employers – problem solving, creativity, inventiveness – are dependent upon considerable background knowledge.

You may suppose that ‘thinking scientifically’ is a discrete skill, that when learnt can be applied to any new context, but this is not the case.

To give one of the many examples that Professor Willingham cites, in one experiment, eighth-grade pupils in America were given 2 tasks. In 1, they had to manipulate a computer simulation to keep imaginary creatures alive. In another, the pupils had to evaluate how the surface area of swimming pools was related to the cooling rate of its water.

Students were consistently better at thinking scientifically on the first problem, rather than the second – something that the researchers attributed to pupils’ greater familiarity with the relevant variables. In general, American eighth-graders are better informed about health and survival, compared to volume, surface area and cooling rates.

And it is a well-known principle that great inventions are made, not through a moment of pure inspiration, but through analogical thinking. The ‘eureka moment’ of any great invention occurs when existing knowledge is brought to bear in new contexts: the novel application of what is already known.

Alexander Graham Bell’s first diagrams for the telephone made explicit reference to the biological structure of the human ear. George de Mestral invented Velcro through looking at the tiny hooks of the cockle-burs which stuck to his dog’s fur when he was hunting in the Alps.

This insight, that complex thinking depends upon background knowledge, can be applied to any subject of study.

It underlies our recent announcement that all pupils will be tested on their multiplication tables at the end of year 6, an announcement which was strongly opposed by the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers. She expressed the classic anti-knowledge view, suggesting that number recall is not necessary for understanding mathematical concepts, and arguing that children today can always look up their times tables on their mobile phones.

Such a position is called into question by 5 decades of research by cognitive psychologists, which shows that pupils and adults who are able to solve complex mathematical problems, also have strong recall of their times tables and basic arithmetic. This should not come as a surprise – it is far easier to simplify the ratio 21:63 when you instantly recognise that both numbers are divisible by seven.

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 their number knowledge. The pupils were then tested on areas such as word problems, simple 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.

Number knowledge tutoring does improve maths ability and the repeated practice of simple arithmetic helps pupils to solve more complex mathematical problems. Yet some educationists still insist that such practices are old-fashioned and unpleasant for pupils, and impoverish the education that our pupils receive. Little better exemplifies the unwitting cruelty of good intentions.

The anti-knowledge – and, I would argue, anti-evidence – position in education debates has, in recent years, been bolstered by the advent of the internet. One well known educationist shot to fame a few years ago with a popular TED talk, extolling the ability of pupils to learn independently from the internet. He asked in his talk: ‘if there’s stuff on Google, why would you need to stuff it into your head?’, and added ‘I decided that groups of children can navigate the internet to achieve educational objectives on their own.’

However, according to research from academics such as Professor Hattie, web-based education has so far been a great disappointment in raising education standards. This is backed up by international evidence from the OECD which shows that increased internet use in schools does not lead to higher academic outcomes. The 5 countries where pupils spend the least time using the internet in school – Poland, Japan, Hong Kong, Shanghai and South Korea – are all amongst the world’s highest achieving jurisdictions in international tests.

Now, I am a great supporter of the intelligent use of computers in schools, but it is mistaken to believe you can outsource your memory to Google and still expect to think well. Say, for example, you are reading an article about nuclear energy, and come across an unfamiliar term: radiation. So you Google it. But the first paragraph on the Wikipedia article mentions another unfamiliar term: particles. So you look it up, but the definition for ‘particles’ uses another unfamiliar term: ‘subatomic’. The definition of which in turn contains the unfamiliar terms ‘electrons’, ‘photons’ and ‘neutrons’, and so on and so forth in an infinite series of google searches which take the reader further and further away from the original term ‘radiation’.

It is no more possible to think fluently on a given topic with the help of the internet, than it is to talk fluently in a foreign language with the help of a bilingual dictionary.

As cognitive psychologists such as Daniel Willingham explain, the interaction between long-term and working memory is foundational to how we learn. Our working memory can only cope with between 5 and 7 new pieces of information at once. All other information must already reside within long-term memory for new information to be assimilated, or else cognitive overload is the result. This is precisely why it is so difficult for a novice to learn new information by browsing articles on the internet.

Many of us here will have a rough understanding of the structure of atoms, and the science behind radiation. We have known about it for so long, that we tend to take for granted. That, and so many other bits of factual knowledge that we draw upon in our daily life, reside in our long term memory because once, in the dim and distant past, a teacher took the time to teach it to us.

From talking to officials and teachers who have visited schools in the Far East, it is clear that countries such as China and Singapore have a pronounced pro-education culture. But I worry that in the West, we can have a tendency to disparage the importance of school. People like to quote great intellects, such as Mark Twain, who stated ‘I’ve never let my school interfere with my education’, or Albert Einstein who purportedly, but probably didn’t, say ‘education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned at school’. I could not disagree more strongly: a good education is transformative, and I am sure everyone in this room can think of at least one teacher who changed the direction that their life has taken.

When I defend the merits of an academic curriculum, I am often assailed with the same argument: ‘I learnt all about algebra at school’, or ‘I learnt all about atoms and radiation, and have now forgotten the lot. What use has it been?’ To that argument, I would have two answers.

Firstly, when knowledge recedes from instant retrieval in our memory, it still remains logged in our long-term memory.

This is shown by a cognitive principle is known as savings in relearning. Say, for example, that 15 years ago you gain an A grade in GCSE Spanish, but have forgotten it all in the intervening years. Ten years later, you find yourself working in Spain. You will have to learn Spanish again from scratch, but will it be easier second time round? Your intuition may say yes, and it would be correct.

This phenomenon has been confirmed by researchers in Japan. Japanese missionaries, who had spent time doing working in Korea up to 45 years previously, were tested on Korean words. They were then made to learn those that they did not get correct. At the same time, they were made to learn pseudo-words to act as a control. The former missionaries relearnt the Korean words much more quickly, even though the initial test suggested they had been forgotten. This shows that a residue of knowledge remains in the mind even when it can no longer be recalled.

But even if you never relearn content learnt at school, I would maintain that such content was not learnt in vain. Perhaps you are now firmly attached to your English literature degree, and resent all of those hours spent learning about enzymes, ecosystems and eukaryotic cells for your biology GCSE.

But at the age of 14, would you really have been in a position to decide where to specialise? Being exposed to a broad and encompassing academic curriculum at a young age is a great privilege, as it enables you to make an informed decision about which paths you wish to pursue later in life.

On this point, I often consider the novel ‘Of Human Bondage’ by Somerset Maugham. In a story based on Maugham’s own difficult youth, which was full of failures and false starts, the protagonist studies German in Heidelberg, he studies to be a painter in Paris, he works as an accountant and a dressmaker, before finally realising his calling to be a doctor.

In his first anatomy lecture at medical school, the lecturer tells the young students: “You will have to learn many tedious things, which you will forget the moment you have passed your final examination, but in anatomy it is better to have learned and lost than never to have learned at all.”

I think that Maugham was onto something. What is true in anatomy, is true in wider life. The lecturer was, of course, paraphrasing Tennyson’s famous couplet in his poem ‘In Memoriam’, that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

As such phrases demonstrate, great poetry has a remarkable ability to etch itself into the conversation of society. Thomas Gray’s poem ‘Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard’ is, I believe, one of the most moving poems in the English language. Its verses leant the title to both Thomas Hardy’s novel ‘Far From the Madding Crowd’, and Stanley Kubrick’s film ‘Paths of Glory’.

Much like Natalie’s visit to a medieval church in ‘NW’, Thomas Gray’s poem was inspired by an evening looking at a graveyard, which sets his mind wandering. In particular, he regrets the potential that must be squandered when people are brought up in poverty and in ignorance – this was 1751, a long time before universal state education. As he puts it: ‘Knowledge to their eyes her ample page | Rich with the spoils of time did ne’er unroll’. Gray suggests that within the country graveyard, there may be ‘some mute inglorious Milton’, whose lack of a good education forever left his potential untapped: ‘Full many a flow’r is born to blush unseen’.

It is this thought that animates me most as Schools Minister: the generations of school children whose potential was squandered by schools which never taught them the rudiments of literacy and mathematics, which never challenged them to read timeless works of literature, which fobbed them off with so-called vocational courses when they were more than capable of benefiting from a core academic curriculum or high-quality technical and vocational qualifications.

Our education system should be an engine of social mobility, extending opportunity to every young person, ensuring that they reach their potential.

We have already made significant progress in building an education system which delivers on that vision. But we have further to go, and you could help realise that objective. I think the final message I would like to give today, particularly to the undergraduates in this room, is of the joys of being a teacher.

I have always hated that lazy saying, ‘if you can’t do, teach’. My mother was a primary school teacher, and I am a profound believer that teachers have the power to change children’s lives.

The thought that always strikes me when I see an inspiring teacher, communicating the subject that they love with warmth and passion, is what a remarkable and difficult craft effective teaching can be.

Great teachers are masters of their subject, who tell stories, impart wisdom and inspire curiosity. They motivate, cajole and guide pupils to surpass their own expectations of themselves. And evidence suggests that teaching is finally gaining the status it deserves in this country.

In 2010, 61% of trainee teachers had an undergraduate degree at level 2:1 or above. This year, that figure is 74%. Crucially, in 2012 the proportion of trainee teachers with a 2:1 or above surpassed the national average of that year’s graduating cohort for the first time. The annual initial teacher training census shows us that the proportion of new teachers holding a first-class degree is at an all-time high.

To ensure that the calibre of teachers keeps on improving, we have expanded schemes such as Teach First, which this year has sent over 1,500 teachers to work in primary and secondary schools serving low-income communities in every region of England. Teach First is now the single largest graduate recruiter in the UK, a remarkable achievement.

Since 2010, we have put teachers in the driving seat of our reforms to improve state education in England. We have given schools, and teachers, unprecedented freedom to teach as they see fit, without an overbearing education bureaucracy driving their actions.

To this end, we have removed 21,000 pages of unnecessary school guidance, reducing the volume by 75%. In addition, teachers who believe that they are able to create something better within the state education system than the status quo, are now empowered to do so through the free schools programme, which is providing outlets for idealism across the country.

We are working to create a teaching profession which recognises talent and ambition, as well as time-served. We have funded targeted programmes to develop excellent teachers for challenging schools, such as High Potential Senior Leaders, currently delivered by Future Leaders. For bright and ambitious young graduates, a career in teaching now offers rapid advancement opportunities to rival any other profession.

I genuinely believe that there has never been a better time to become a teacher. So if you love your subject, and want to share that love with eager young minds, then there can be few better careers for you than teaching. And if you do not, then at least be thankful of the enormous privilege it is to be the recipient of a good education.

February 6, 2016
Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech on Britain’s Young People

Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, at East Wintergarden, Canary Wharf, London on 4 February 2016.

I’ve had the privilege to live and work in different countries and cultures all around the world.

And I’m not exaggerating or being trite when I say that the UK is, by far, the best.

It’s the most open, the most tolerant, the most diverse in every way.

My parents had very little when they left Pakistan for Britain.

This nation has given them so much.

It gave them a place to start again.

The opportunity to work hard and be rewarded for it.

The chance to make good on that most basic of ambitions.

To secure for your children a better, more comfortable life than your own.

So I have a lot of love for my country, and I never take it for granted.

But I’m not blind to reality.

I know things are far from perfect.

That the playing field is far from level.

And that equality before the law, equality on paper, does not guarantee fairness in the real world.

I first noticed it when I was a kid, in a Bristol playground, when I saw that people who looked like me were treated differently by some people.

Called different names, told different things, presented with different expectations.

Today, 40-odd years later, it’s impossible to deny that our tolerant, diverse, open society still has a long way to go.

Just look at the statistics.

Only 6% of MPs are from ethnic minority backgrounds, compared to 14% of the people they serve.

More than half of FTSE 100 CEOs went to private schools, even though only 7% of Britons do.

Not even a third of Britain’s local councillors are women.

Young black men are more likely to be in prison than in a top university.

And if they do make it into higher education, they can expect to earn 23% less than their white counterparts after graduating.

The first Race Relations Act was passed 4 years before I was even born.

But after half a century of equal opportunities legislation, race, class and gender still play an immeasurable role in people’s life chances.

And even if we could click our fingers and eliminate, overnight, all the explicit and unconscious bias in society, it wouldn’t be enough.

So much in our society depends on networks, on experience and on expectations.

On knowing people who have been there and done that.

On having someone pushing you in the right direction, telling you what is possible rather than what’s not.

It’s the kind of support that many people in this country take for granted.

But for too many of us, it is still sadly lacking.

And that’s why UpRising is so important.

Because it creates those networks.

It provides the mentors that more privileged individuals have always had access to.

It gives young people a positive message, the support and encouragement that has too often been denied them because of who they are or where they come from.

Above all, it gives them the confidence to go out there and fulfil their potential.

To follow their dreams rather than limit them.

And that’s not just morally sound, it makes good economic sense.

As Business Secretary I know that the job descriptions of tomorrow have yet to be written.

But I do know for sure that, if Britain is going to remain competitive, we will need our workforce to be diverse, innovative, flexible and mobile.

And that’s a perfect description of UpRising’s alumni.

I’ve been particularly impressed by the Emerging Leaders Network (ELN).

It reflects, far better than the House of Commons or the City boardroom, what modern Britain is all about.

And I was delighted to hear that many ELN members have set up their own companies.

A nice boost for the long term economic plan!

So I’d recommend to any aspiring young leader that they become a part of this network.

And I’d urge all the organisations here tonight to support it.

Because I know what a difference it can make when you find the right champion, the right mentor, the right inspiration at the right time.

I know it because I was lucky enough to find 3 of them myself.

I was born in Rochdale, but I grew up in Bristol in a place called Stapleton Road.

A tabloid newspaper – one based in a tower just over there! – once dubbed it “Junkie Street”.

They said it was the most dangerous road in Britain, “a moral cesspit”.

So when I was doing my O-levels and thinking about what to do next, my school was very clear.

I should leave at 16 and go get a low-paid, low-skilled job.

Not because it was the best thing for me, or because I wasn’t clever enough to do A-levels.

But because that’s what kids from Stapleton Road did.

We didn’t do A-levels.

We didn’t go to university.

We certainly didn’t set our sights on the FTSE 100 boardroom or the green benches of Westminster.

In the end I had to change school in order to be allowed to carry on with my studies.

And it was at my new school, the brilliant Filton Technical College, where I met the first of my great mentors.

A guy named Stan.

Stan taught economics, and he was great at it.

But he didn’t just teach.

He inspired.

People raised eyebrows when I announced I was thinking of going to university.

Voices all around me were saying I should quit while I was ahead.

Leave school at 18 and get a job in an office somewhere.

They said there was no point applying to university, I’d only be disappointed and dejected when I got turned down.

That people like me didn’t go into higher education.

Not Stan.

He encouraged me, he supported me, he wrote me references.

Above all he made me believe in myself, gave me the confidence to apply and to succeed.

So, thanks to Stan, when I was 18 I packed my bags and headed off to university.

The first Javid to ever do so.

And that was my first great UpRising.

I loved Exeter University, thrived there.

I made good friends, lifelong friends.

I studied hard, I had fun, I learned more about myself and more about the world.

But after nearly 3 years, when I started thinking about what to do next, the naysayers surfaced once again.

I’d become fascinated by international finance…

I wanted to go to London and work for one of the big city banks.

And people told me not to:

“Don’t bother applying Saj…”

“People like you don’t work in the Square Mile…”

“You’ll only be disappointed…”

And in many ways they were right.

I applied to all 5 of the major British merchant banks.

I was rejected by every single one!

I remember an interview at Rothschilds, I was full of excitement.

I walked into the room, and was faced with a panel of 7 old, white men in pin stripe suits.

It was the living, breathing embodiment of the old boys’ network!

One of the first questions they asked – after whether I’d gone to a private of state school – was what my father did for a living.

So I said “He used to drive a bus, now he runs a little shop selling women’s clothes”.

The panel didn’t so much answer as make a noise: “Ewww….”

And at that point I realised I probably wasn’t going to get the job!

Fortunately there were some more enlightened minds around, and I got a job with Chase Manhattan on Wall Street.

It was a brilliant place to work, mostly because of my boss, an American woman named Cindy.

And she was my second mentor, the next person I have to thank.

She showed me the ropes, she invested a huge amount of time in my career.

She wanted me to do well and she made sure I did.

When people ask how I got to be a vice-president of Chase Manhattan at the age of 25, I can answer with 3 words: “Because of Cindy”.

So that was my second great inspiration, and my second great UpRising.

Now I’d always loved politics, I have my dad to thank for that.

And by 2005 I was thinking about switching careers.

About becoming an MP.

A Conservative MP.

And yet again those voices came whispering back.

“It’s the Conservatives, Saj, they’re the whiter than white party…”

“They’ve been around since 1834, they’ve only got two BME MPs and have never had a single Muslim one…”

“People like you don’t get selected…”

“Know your limits, don’t overreach, you’ll only be disappointed.”

By now I was getting used to ignoring such advice!

I found a wonderful association in wonderful constituency.

And in May 2010 I had the honour of becoming the Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove.

A constituency that’s more than 95% white!

I was as shocked as anyone!

I remember driving home after the count, I turned to my wife and said “Laura, in your wildest dreams did you ever think I’d actually become an MP?”

And she looked at me and said: “Darling, you’re not in my wildest dreams.”

Received wisdom for new MPs says you should keep your head down, learn the ropes, find your way around.

Park any thoughts of promotion until you’ve clocked up a couple of terms on the back benches.

And the usual suspects were there once again, warning that people like me shouldn’t be too ambitious.

But the third person I have to thank saw things differently.

You might have heard of this one, he’s called George.

George Osborne.

He gave me my first real break in government when, in 2011, he invited me to become his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

A year later I joined his ministerial team at the Treasury.

And I continued working with him right up until I joined the Cabinet in 2014.

So he was responsible for my third great UpRising.

I’m still in touch with Cindy, I saw her last year.

I don’t know what Stan’s doing now, or even if he’s still with us.

If anyone at Filton knows where he is I’d love to thank him in person.

And as for George… I hear he’s doing quite well!

I can honestly say that if I hadn’t stumbled across Stan, Cindy and George when I did, I wouldn’t be standing here today.

And I am absolutely committed to making sure that the next generation don’t have to rely on being that lucky.

Now I know the world of politics is a pretty partisan place at present.

The dividing lines between right and left are starker than they’ve been for some time.

And it’s certainly not fashionable for an MP to praise a member of the other team.

But you know what?

Some things are bigger than party loyalty.

That’s why I cannot praise Rushanara Ali highly enough for her work with UpRising.

Rushanara, thank you so much, what you’re doing is just incredible.

And that’s why I was delighted to see the Prime Minister recruiting David Lammy to lead a review of perceived racial bias in the criminal justice system.

Last weekend you will also have heard the Prime Minister saying that he wants to tear down barriers of race, class and gender at our top universities.

In 2014 just 27 black students entered Oxford University out of an intake of more than 2,500.

And only 1 in 10 of the poorest white working class boys enter higher education.

That’s why we’re introducing a new transparency duty for universities.

It will highlight those universities where representation of ethnic minorities and those from disadvantaged groups are low.

And it will help schools, colleges and higher education institutions identify where more work needs to be done.

Of course, such challenges aren’t limited to the education system.

So tonight I can announce that we’ve asked Baroness McGregor-Smith – Ruby to her friends! – to lead a review of the issues faced by businesses in developing BME talent, all the way up to executive level.

Ruby has been there and done that.

Born in Northern India, raised in West London, she has worked her way up to become CEO of a £2 billion company.

She’s seen for herself the challenges that young BME people face.

She knows all too well how your background can be a barrier in too many workplaces.

And she’s shown us all how it’s possible for an Asian woman to succeed in modern Britain.

Ruby is an inspiration, a role model, and I wish her all the very best.

Because we have a claim to be the most successful multiracial, multifaith democracy on earth.

But our success isn’t enough if there are young people who don’t feel like there’s a fair chance for them.

Take that guy in the video we just saw.

He could see the towers of Canary Wharf looming over his estate.

But they may as well be on a different planet for all the contact he had with the people who worked inside them.

You shouldn’t look at people like me or Rushanara or Ruby and say it’s amazing that we’ve succeed in spite of our backgrounds.

You should be asking why more people with our backgrounds haven’t made it this far.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, author of the Little Prince, once wrote that:

Building a boat isn’t about weaving canvas, forging nails, or reading the sky.

It’s about giving a shared taste for the sea.

We can ban discrimination.

We can pass legislation.

We can guarantee equal rights.

But that alone is not enough.

If we’re going to deliver the true equality that Britain’s disadvantaged young people deserve, we can’t just open the doors.

We have to let them know they are open.

We have to give them the confidence and the means to compete with their more privileged peers.

We have to give them a shared taste for the sea.

So I applaud the work being done by UpRising to make that happen.

And I’d urge everyone here tonight, and everyone across the country, whatever their politics, to play their part in making the UK a fairer, more equal place.

One where everyone can find their own Stans and Cindys.

One where what you can do matters more than what you look like.

Where everyone has the chance to experience their own UpRising.

Because the UK is the best country on earth, and its young people deserve no less.

Thank you.

February 6, 2016
Michael Fallon – 2016 Speech on Defence Thinking

Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, at the Royal College of Defence Studies on 4 February 2016.

It’s good to see so many of you here today and I’m proud to know that we have some 50 nations represented in this room.

Today is a chance for me to give you an insight into our UK defence thinking at present.

But it’s also an opportunity to pick your brains.

Great challenges require great military minds

…and when we have so many brilliant brains in the room

…we can’t fail to come up with some solutions.

Challenges

Let me return to the challenges we’re facing.

As our National Security Strategy identified not long ago.

…the world is becoming more dangerous and uncertain

…with the interconnected threats we’re facing

…increasing in scale, diversity and complexity

Our strategy identified a number of issues likely to preoccupy us in the coming decade

…increasing terrorism, exemplified by Daesh

…the resurgence of state based threats, such as Putin’s Russia

…and the rise of technology, especially cyber

…which as the attacks on TV stations and banks in recent months show…poses a very real threat.

Taken together these dangers are destabilising the rules based order and undermining our security and prosperity.

In the past few months we’ve been also reminded of other interrelated issues putting our system under further strain.

Rogue nations like north Korea are testing nuclear weapons

…and a huge migration is spilling into the Med

…and testing Europe’s commitment to free movement

Response

In response to these challenges the UK government set out a comprehensive strategy with overriding national security objectives:

– protecting our people

– projecting our global influence

– promoting our prosperity

To deliver those priorities we’ve chosen to invest in bigger, bolder defence

…spending 2%, to grow our budget year on year

…and using an augmented £178 billion equipment plan

…to fit out a larger joint expeditionary force backed up

…with new carriers, more F35 earlier, maritime patrol vessels, successor submarines and Ajax Armoured Vehicle.

I’m sure you’re up to speed on the contents of our National Security Strategy.

So let me make 3 points about our approach

Active

First, it’s about being more active.

We need to be able to respond to multiple threats on many concurrent fronts.

Last year we took part in more than 20 operations in 19 countries.

This year we’re maintaining that operational energy.

UK’s Typhoons will be back in eastern Europe for the third time

…policing Baltic skies

We’ll be intensifying our efforts in NATO exercises

… sending more than 1,000 troops

…to support Exercises Anaconda and Swift Response

…based in Poland and the Baltic states

We’re playing a major role in defeating Daesh.

And following the decisive Parliamentary vote, our planes are now striking the terrorists.

In Syria as well as Iraq.

We’re also leading the coalition’s strategic communications work as well

…exposing the evil nature of the extremists

At the same time we’re doubling UN peacekeeping effort.

At Christmas I was in Nigeria meeting our forces helping the government it is fight against Boko Haram.

Integrated

Secondly, our approach is about becoming more integrated.

At a time of increasing demands

…when the threats facing us as a country transcend departmental boundaries

…we’ve recognised the need to take a “whole government” response

…co-ordinating effort across Whitehall departments

That’s why we conduct not strategic defence reviews but strategic defence and security reviews.

…combining our National Security Strategy

And it’s why we now have bodies such as the National Security Council

…providing collective strategic leadership across Whitehall

…on national security and crisis issues

Our integrated approach isn’t just illustrated by new structures

…but by our response on the ground

Look at the way we dealt with Ebola in Sierra Leone.

Our armed forces built treatment centres

…that were staffed by NHS volunteers

…delivering life saving care.

While staff from our development department and FCO

…alongside our charities

…got out into the villages

…to educate local people about prevention.

Significantly, this work and our Afghanistan operation made increasing use of stabilisation units

…combining civilian and military effort to build stability overseas

In fact, we’ve come to the view that defence and development are two sides of the same coin.

You can’t tackle extremism without tackling the instability that feeds it.

Which is why we’re the only major country in the world not just meeting the NATO target.

…but spending at least 0.7% on development

And we’re now applying our integrated template to the policy arena.

This year we’re creating a number of new policy making and delivery Joint Units.

…bringing together diplomatic and defence expertise to develop and implement UK policy for NATO and for EU Common Security and Defence Policy

…joining up defence and the FCO to formulate UK policy on UN peacekeeping missions

…and consolidating our approach to arms and counter proliferation into a single place…here at MOD.

Battle of ideas

But perhaps the most interesting area where this joined up approach is being employed

…is in the battle of ideas

Today we’re seeing countries and religions

…who feel they have been denied their due place in the world

…becoming increasing assertive

…looking to redraw the map and aggressively impose their views

So our security depends as much on winning the argument as it does on winning the fight.

That requires unity of purpose

…and a total cross government response

This is precisely how we’re now tackling Islamist extremism.

We’re not just looking to target the terrorists

…shut down their online presence

…stop their financial support

…and prevent their fighters crossing our borders

We’re looking to call out their extremist narrative

…supporting reforming voices within the Muslim community to put a moderate perspective

…stopping the apologists from painting this as a clash between Islam and the west

…and preventing the fusion of religion and politics…followed by the swift slide into radicalisation

But we’re also looking to do something else.

We’re looking to make our case

…as a proud nation with much to offer the world

A nation that offers its citizens

…freedom from discrimination

…religious tolerance

…and opportunity for all…whatever your class, creed or colour

Challenges

Yet we face a significant barrier in getting our messages across.

Our enemies

…unencumbered by truth

…are able to use social media

…using other cyber tools to instantly pump out their malignant messages

…to distort evidence in a Babel of voices

…while we are hampered by our need to check every fact

So we’re having to develop better strategic communication that allow us to deliver a faster truth.

Taken together our new integrated approach is revolutionising defence and government.

My military colleagues are now having to get used to the sensation of feeling somewhat less independent.

On the other they’re revelling in getting a seat at a bigger table

…guaranteeing them greater influence

National resilience planning is one such area.

Instead of just being called out when the storm hits

…military planners are being embedded in key government departments

…so their vital expertise is plugged into the contingency solution

International

My third point continues the theme of integration.

But it is about integration at an international level with allies and partners.

We can’t deliver our national security goals and tackle global threats without their support.

So the UK is now looking to become international-by-design

…and work far more closely with our allies and partners.

NATO

You’ll see us…in the coming year…doing even more to modernise NATO…the cornerstone of our defence

At the last NATO summit I attended in Wales

…Barack Obama and David Cameron called on the alliance

… to address the lack of investment…

…danger of equipment obsolescence

…and need for faster response

Since then seven nations have pledged to increase their spending and put together rapid reaction force

…with the UK setting the pace

…committing to 2%

… and leading the Spearhead Force in 2017.

But as we look ahead to the Warsaw conference in a few months’ time

… big challenges remain

We need to galvanise the alliance

Not only do we need it to live up to the commitments made at the last summit.

Not only must we provide a strong response to Russia

… and decide how NATO can respond to threats on its Southern flank.

But we have to make sure NATO continues to evolve and adapt, military, politically and institutionally, so it’s capable of dealing with whatever is thrown at it.

In particular, we have the grander…no less vital task… of reinventing deterrence for the 21st century.

Making sure it can deal with

…not just with traditional military aggression but the hybrid challenge…of war waged through proxies

…and cyber attack, which blurs the line between military and civilian

EU

The UK isn’t just committed to NATO.

We’re pressing for a more coherent European security architecture

…that sees the EU and NATO properly coordinated

…with both playing to their strengths

We’ve seen the effect EU economic sanctions have had on Russia

…and the security co-operation that followed in the wake of Paris

We’ve also seen the EU and NATO make good progress on strategic communications and countering the hybrid warfare threat.

But we must sure this new found sense of coherence continues

Worldwide footprint

Besides upping our impetus on the multi-lateral front

…we’re also expanding our worldwide footprint to ensure we can continue having a global impact

When the problems arise we need to be able to react quickly.

That’s why we’re leading on the Joint Expeditionary Force.

… with our Baltic, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian friends

…allowing us to rapidly deploy a specialist force in the event of crisis.

And our fleet of foot will also be significantly enhanced through our UK/France Combined Joint Expeditionary Force which stands up this year.

Meanwhile, our partnership with the US and Germany… in the Transatlantic Capability Enhancement and Training initiative (TACET) which will improve our understanding of the situation in the east and again improve our ability to respond.

Projecting power is one thing.

But we also need to be able to project the influence that can spot trouble down the track

…and head it off before crisis turns to chaos

We’re working hard right across the world.

We’re building a naval base in Bahrain to magnify the support we can provide across the Gulf.

We’re doing more in Asia, getting more out of our forces in Brunei working with Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand to improve our 5 powers defence arrangement and engaging regional allies such as Japan and India

We’re reinforcing our on-going engagement with south American defence partners.

And we’re now creating British Defence Staffs in the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Africa

…giving us an enduring footprint across those regions.

Conclusion: questions

But talk of defence diplomacy brings me back to you.

If there’s one thing more important than money or kit to international work

…it’s dialogue.

Only by sitting down together

…discussing the issues we face…in an academic forum such as this

…can we hope to come up with some collective solutions

So in a break with the traditions of a speech

…which require you to ask me questions at the end

…I’d like to pose you a few questions first.

Developing some of themes I’ve discussed.

How can we develop a 21st century deterrence posture with a clearer understanding of the types of activity that can threaten a nation?

How can we ensure an effective collective response to such challenges?

And how can we work together to put out that faster truth so necessary in winning the great battle of ideas?

As with any diplomatic engagement, getting an immediate answer isn’t the point.

Having the conversation is what counts.

February 6, 2016
Philip Hammond – 2016 Speech on Global Uncertainty

Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, at the Savoy Hotel in London on 4 February 2016.

It’s a great pleasure to address such a senior business audience.

Lloyds Business Leaders Meeting
I think it’s true to say that the business and political cycles don’t always coincide.

But I suspect right now is the exception that proves the rule: most of you will be watching developments as we enter the final stages of our EU renegotiation process just as keenly as most politicians.

And I will, of course, talk about those EU reforms later in my remarks: why they’re necessary for the future health of both the British and the wider European economy.

But our EU reform agenda is just one part of a much wider, more ambitious package of reforms, aimed at equipping Britain to compete and win in this 21st Century globalised economy.

As we enter 2016, the world is once again facing economic uncertainty; but this time, unlike 2008-2010, we are simultaneously dealing with a level of global strategic insecurity and instability that we have not seen since the end of the Cold War.

The start of this year of course has underlined just how uncertain the global economic outlook is.

You all know the key statistics.

The IMF estimates that the global economic growth rate in 2015 will be just 3.1% – the lowest for 7 years.

Oil prices dipping below $30 a barrel.

Stock markets around the world volatile, to say the least.

And there’s been significant speculation about the nature of the slowdown in the Chinese economy and the Chinese authorities’ ability to manage it, and what all that means for global growth prospects.

Combined with this economic instability, the global security environment remains extremely volatile.

Just four weeks ago, the DPRK announced the test explosion of what it claimed was a thermonuclear, or hydrogen, bomb, reminding us all of the ambitions of North Korea’s illegal nuclear programme.

And despite the cooperation with the international community that led to the nuclear deal, Iran has continued to test fire ballistic missiles, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile the old adversary, Russia, is rearming at an alarming pace, despite its economic difficulties, and challenging the international community with aggressive behaviour in Syria, Ukraine and indeed closer to home as Cold War-style probing flights test our defences on a regular basis.

The migration crisis in Europe, driven by the civil war in Syria and the rise of Daesh in Iraq and Syria, continues, and represents a real political threat to some of Europe’s Governments.

If we add to these challenges the spread of Daesh and its affiliates to North Africa and parts of Asia; the civil war in Yemen; continued tension across the Middle East; and recent terrorist outrages in Europe and elsewhere in world; and the strategic impact of oil prices on critical and / or fragile countries across the Middle East, it all adds up to a picture of serious instability across the world.

A potentially toxic mix of threats that represents a grave challenge to UK and to global security.

So what is the Government’s response to this broad ranging set of challenges?

You all know just as well as we know, that businesses, and thus, economies prosper when uncertainty about the long term business environment is minimised and confidence is maximised.

We, of course, cannot be immune from the international climate, but domestically we can and we will seek to insulate the UK economy as much as we can through our long-term economic plan. We are continuing the transition from a low skills, low wage, high tax, high welfare economy; to the higher skills, higher wage, lower tax, lower welfare country that we want to see.

In 2014, we were the fastest growing economy in the G7; and in ‎2015 we were up there again, as one of the two fastest-growing major advanced economies alongside the United States.

We’ve grown almost three times faster than Japan, twice as fast as France and faster than Germany.

We’ve backed business, cutting Corporation Tax from 28% to 20% over the last Parliament, one of the biggest boosts British business has ever seen – with further phased cuts to 18% by 2020 still to come.

And, despite the dire warnings about our austerity programme from the doom-mongers and those who wanted to spend and borrow more, there are now 2.7 million more private sector jobs than there were in 2010; and over 900,000 more British businesses.

Living standards are rising.

But as we’ve recovered from the recession, the old structural weaknesses that have plagued the British economy for decades have re-emerged into the limelight:

Failings in our education and training system;

A welfare system that has too often acted as a disincentive to work;

And an infrastructure deficit that will take decades to correct.

And I am proud to say that we are tackling these familiar challenges – starting during the Coalition, despite the economic and fiscal difficulties that we faced, and continuing under this Government.

And all the while reducing the public sector deficit steadily to our target of delivering a surplus in 2019-20.

Reforming our schools and our vocational training; transforming student finance to ensure our universities have the funding they need to compete in the global marketplace for talent.

Fixing a welfare system that politicians – of all parties – have talked about for years, but always shied away from reforming. We’re fixing that welfare system so that work really will pay, all the time, for everyone.

And investing in infrastructure, right through the difficult years of fiscal austerity, and now increasing by 50% our investment in roads and rail to give Britain the networks it needs – as well as facilitating massive private investment in Britain’s creaking power generation sector.

In short, and if I may coin a phrase, we are fixing the roof.

And when it comes to the global economy, we reject the advice from those who say we should cut ourselves off from the rest of the world – somehow isolate ourselves from the world’s problems whether they are economic or political.

In a globalised, interconnected economy, sustainable economic growth will not come from isolation.

We have to engage with the fastest-growing economies of the world, and the economies with the greatest potential, like never before.

And we are.

Through the Spending Review, we have protected the crown jewel of the Foreign Office – our global diplomatic network – and given it a mandate to lead the charge for British businesses across the globe.

Now I know that Diplomats can’t do your overseas business for you. And we won’t try to.

But what we can do is coordinate British business approaches to key opportunity sectors; lobby foreign governments for access and for fair treatment; and help to create the most benign environment possible for British business through advocating and supporting liberalisation and reform in the fastest-growing economies.

We’re reforming UKTI, as Francis Maude I suspect has already explained to you this morning, making it leaner and more focused on the markets where we, Government, can make the biggest difference to what you, business, are doing.

And I can’t mention UKTI without thanking Lloyds for your support for the GREAT campaign, which is has done huge amounts to boost Britain as a brand around the world.

With China, we’re forging a new, 21st Century partnership – demonstrating in deeds our stated intention to be China’s partner of choice in the West; and to do that by being the Western market most open to Chinese investment.

And we are also opening up new markets for British businesses back in China, creating greater access to the world’s fastest-growing consumer market.

And it’s not just China.

We’re building a closer relationship with India, building on Prime Minister Modi’s visit at the end of last year and the agreements reached by the Chancellor and Finance Minister Jaitley on financial services, infrastructure and technology.

We’ve seen exports to South Korea more than double since 2010.

We’re the driving force behind efforts to deliver an EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement that could deliver an extra £6 billion in UK exports.

And now, Britain is the leading advocate, working with the US and other like-minded EU partners, for a new Transatlantic Trade Deal – TTIP – that has the potential to add almost £100bn annually to Europe’s GDP, and £10bn to Britain’s, bringing huge benefits for particularly the City, but for British businesses in general and for the British people.

Reforming the EU to make it more competitive

And a core part of our plans to boost the international competitiveness of the UK economy is the package of EU reforms that were outlined in documents published by Donald Tusk on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister has said this is a deal that is far from done.

And some of the most important details are still up for negotiation in the run up to the February European Council.

But I believe that the framework represented in that package, if – and only if – we can get agreement on the details, has the potential to address the four most important areas of concern about our EU membership for the British people.

The text draft delivers substantial progress in each of those areas – welfare, sovereignty, competitiveness and governance of the Eurozone.

Now I know that not all of these baskets of issues are as important to business as they are to the British electorate and I won’t go through the detail of all of them.

But I do want to address the two baskets that business leaders tell me are of greatest concern to them: the arrangements for a fair settlement between the Eurozone and the non-Eurozone countries in the EU; and the competitiveness agenda.

First, competitiveness.

We all know the problems created by the over-regulation and bureaucracy emanating from the Commission in Brussels that imposes burdens on business, limiting growth and costing jobs.

Making the EU more competitive in the global economy is crucial to Britain’s continued membership.

And the good news is that, after many years of a, frankly, cavalier attitude to Europe’s declining competitiveness, most of our EU partners, and certainly the Juncker Commission – one very nasty recession and 7 years of persistent high unemployment later – do now get it. That we do need to be competitive if we are going to maintain our current position.

The separate draft Council Declaration on competitiveness that was published on Tuesday sets out the significant steps the EU will take to deliver progress in all the areas that we’ve been pushing:

– progress towards completion of the single market, including in energy, digital and services;

– on completing international trade deals, including TTIP;
and, for the first time, introducing sector-specific regulatory burden-reduction targets, with an accountability mechanism, which will be particularly important to small and medium-sized businesses.

Secondly, in the equally crucial area of ensuring that Britain – and in particular, our hugely important financial services industry – will not lose out as a result of our decision not to join the Euro, we have secured the protections that we need.

We want the Eurozone to succeed. The Eurozone countries are our biggest market, and we want to be able to continue to grow our trade with them.

But we cannot allow Britain to be bullied into changes to facilitate Eurozone integration that would be bad for Britain.

We cannot accept the British economy, British businesses and British workers losing out as a result of changes imposed on the EU by the Eurozone countries who now form a Qualified Majority in the EU.

Now, for the first time, in these texts we have proper recognition that the EU has more than one currency, with explicit recognition that further Eurozone integration must not discriminate against non-Eurozone members, like the UK; that any discrimination based on the currency of a member state is unlawful.

If we can deliver this deal as drafted, never again will Britain be forced to bail out Eurozone countries; and never again could the EU attempt anything as clumsy as its “location policy” seeking to limit the clearance of Euro-denominated financial instruments to institutions located in Eurozone countries.

And underpinning these measures is a new mechanism – a brake that we can pull – to ensure that if these safeguards are not being properly applied in accordance with this agreement, the issue in dispute will be addressed at the European Council.

Now as I said earlier, this is far from being a done deal.

And there will be some robust discussions with the EU institutions and with our EU partners on these two baskets – and on the sovereignty and migration issues that are of even greater salience with the British people – in the run-up to the February Council in two weeks time.

But we are confident that we can reach an agreement that delivers what we need. But we are clear that we’re in no rush to do this.

Getting the right deal is more important than getting a quick deal; if it can be done at the February Council, good. If it can’t be done at the February council we’ll continue working on it. And only when the deal is done will we decide the timing of the referendum that will put it to the British people. But whether it’s sooner or later, that referendum is a commitment we have made and a commitment that will be delivered.

And as the public debate on our EU membership reaches its crescendo, I would urge all of you as business leaders, on whatever side of the argument you come down, to please get involved in that debate.

And I know, from my many discussions with business leaders, the frustrations that many of you have with the EU and actions that have, in the past, seemed like an attack directed at the success particularly of the financial services sector in this city.

But I also know that most of you will regard access to the single market, and Britain’s unique position as the first point of investment for many foreign companies into the EU, as of paramount importance to your future success.

And I say this to you: Business has a crucial role to play in this debate. These are complex economic issues and people who work for you will expect that you understand these issues better than they do, that business is in a position to make an objective, dispassionate judgement about the balance of advantage for Britain staying in the EU versus leaving it. And they deserve to hear it from those who are qualified to opine on all sides of this debate before they make up their minds, so that when they come to cast their votes, however they choose to vote, they have done so in full possession of the facts.

Delivering reform in the future

For my part, the most significant part of this deal is not the detail.

It’s something more fundamental.

It’s the fact that this negotiation has happened at all and that, if we get agreement at the Council meeting later this month, we will have delivered significant and enduring change to the way in which the European Union operates.

Because for the last forty years the European Community, now the European Union, has operated on a one-way ratchet.

It has accrued more and more powers from the Member States’ Governments, extending its areas of competence far beyond our membership of the single market that was the basis of the last European referendum in this country in 1975.

But if this deal is agreed and implemented we will have passed the peak of European Union interference in the UK.

The tide will be running in the right direction – and we see more and more people across Europe aligning themselves with our views on competitiveness, burden reduction and subsidiarity.

More and more governments being elected in the European Union countries that agree with our vision of the future of Europe.

The ratchet will have been broken – in favour of a more balanced, less ideological, more pragmatic, two-way mechanism.

Other countries, particularly those in the Eurozone, will wish – and will need – to integrate further in the future.

But Britain and the British people have never been signed up to ever closer union.

We have never believed in the one-way ticket to economic, social, fiscal and political union – the inevitable destination of the Eurozone, if it is to succeed.

And we have never believed that the key decisions affecting how this country is governed should be made in Brussels rather than just up the river, in Westminster.

The draft text presented this week demonstrates that powers can flow back from Brussels to the Member States; that restrictions can be applied to new migrants; and that the powers of Eurozone Member States can be fettered to protect the interests of the non-Eurozone Member States.

But let us be clear: whatever agreement is reached will not be the end of the process.

No-one is asking, no-one is suggesting, that Britain should stop fighting for open markets and free trade if we stay inside the European Union.

No-one is asking us to endorse as “final” or “perfect” any part of the EU arrangements.

Britain can, and will, continue to fight for an outward-facing, open-market, non-interventionist EU from the inside as we have done for years and, if I let you into a secret, as many of our fellow Member States would want us to carry on doing in the years ahead.

Britain is the second largest economy in the EU; and may well become the largest in the next 20 or so years.

And if the British people decide that our future is in the EU, that should be a future of leadership, a future in which Britain shapes the European Union for the future not grumbles from the sidelines about the direction of travel.

So Ladies and Gentlemen, I return to the theme I set out at the start

With a potentially toxic mix of instability in the international markets and a particularly volatile global security environment, charting a clear and certain course is vital to maintaining our economic security, the foundation upon which our national security is built.

Whether it’s the reforms to our tax system, to our welfare system or to the business environment here at home, the crucial international trading relationships we’re strengthening abroad, our commitments on Defence spending and the overseas aid budget or the renegotiation of the terms of our membership of the EU, we are taking the actions needed to ensure Britain’s prosperity.

And to ensure Britain’s national security.

We can’t be immune from external shocks.

And we cannot isolate ourselves from global threats.

But by enacting our bold reforms, backing business, backing job creation, strengthening our Armed Forces, boosting our competitiveness and building up global trade we will maintain and grow Britain’s position as one of the most competitive and dynamic developed economies in the world, and one of the most capable partners in defending the Rules-Based International System.

Business, and business leaders, are and will be a vital part of that success.

And I and all of my colleagues in Government look forward to continuing working with business to deliver it.

Thank you.

February 6, 2016
George Zambellas – 2016 Speech on the Royal Navy

Below is the text of the speech made by Sir George Zambellas, the First Sea Lord, at the Navy Club in London on 4 February 2016.

Thank you for that kind introduction.

It’s a pleasure to follow the Minister for Defence Procurement, and I very much intend to pick up on some of his themes.

But first, I’d like to say a few words on where the Royal Navy stands following the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

SDSR overview

Almost 18 months ago, on a dark November day, the Navy Board met in Scotland to determine our SDSR strategy.

We made what, in retrospect, was a quite extraordinary decision to define a highly ambitious future for the Royal Navy, based around 3 core capabilities of Continuous At Sea Deterrent and Carrier Strike, together with Amphibious Readiness.

It was reasonable in terms of an aspiration for a great nation.

But it was extraordinarily ambitious simply because of the wholesale political and budgetary uncertainties of the time.

Yet, with May’s General Election everything changed, and the first part of our plan looked possible.

The newly elected majority government had already committed to renewing the deterrent, and to bringing both our 2 new aircraft carriers into service, so the big building blocks of our future were already in place, even before the SDSR began.

And then the July budget last year defined a financial future of 2% for defence that gave our plan fiscal depth, perhaps not so much in the very early years, but certainly thereafter.

So, our focus switched, therefore, to making sure that the totality of these strategic promises were met, and that the necessary supporting and enabling components were properly credible.

And that, by and large, is what the SDSR delivered:

8 highly credible anti-submarine warfare Type 26 frigates;

9 new Maritime Patrol Aircraft necessary to protect the deterrent and support sea control;

At least 5, and listening carefully to the Prime Minister and Chancellor, probably more, new general purpose frigates too;

More F35B jets flying from our carriers, and earlier than planned;

Plus the Fleet Solid Support Ships necessary to sustain their global reach.

So nothing fancy, merely the necessary supporting components to deliver these 2 strategic responsibilities credibly.

Balanced fleet

But there are 2 other really noticeable features of the SDSR.

Firstly, we’ve met this objective while maintaining investment in a balanced fleet.The Royal Marines remain the UK’s ‘go-to’ contingency force.

The drumbeat of submarines under construction at Barrow continues, with signs of improved support performance.

Every helicopter type in the Fleet Air Arm is being replaced or upgraded.

There are 4 new tankers as well as supply ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

Plus investment in larger patrol ships, unmanned mine countermeasures technology, Special Forces, reserves and all the other capabilities which deliver power at sea, and from the sea.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

The second noticeable feature was that 2015 marked the first time in decades that the Royal Navy emerged from a defence review unscathed. In fact, we’re set to grow, in ships and people. The increases may be modest for now, but soon the government will unveil its National Shipbuilding Strategy. It will set out plans to replace all 13 Type 23 frigates on a one for one basis. This will be achieved, as I’ve said, with 8 Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates together with at least five general purpose frigates.

Those 2 small words, “at least”, are hugely significant. For the past 20 years, and longer, we’ve have to make do with the words “up to”.

Remember the phrase “Up to 12 Type 45 destroyers”, which of course became 8 and then 6?

So I don’t know about you, but I’ll take the words “at least” over “up to” any day.

Carrier journey

And none of this journey and outcome happens by accident. SDSR 2015 was a huge team effort across the Royal Navy, and defence.

Yet the seeds were sown many years ago, decades ago in fact.

It’s down in no small part to the strategic foresight and steadiness under fire of the men who have stood in my place, and all those who supported them, many of whom are here tonight.

And while there have been setbacks along that journey, too often the focus was on what was lost, when it should have been on what was retained.

Because the navy of tomorrow is born out of the navy of today; and our case was reinforced, year-after-year, by our sailors and marines on operations, demonstrating what we offer the nation.

Nothing is more reflective of this truth than our carrier journey.

This year, this month, marks the fiftieth anniversary of Denis Healy’s seminal 1966 defence white paper, which cancelled the CVA-01 carrier project. 50 years.

Some thought, perhaps hoped, it would mark the end of British carrier based air power.

Yet there followed in the 1970s perhaps some of the most imaginative staff work the Ministry of Defence has ever seen as 3 “through-deck cruisers” slowly, quietly, evolved into small aircraft carriers.

And so began what Nick Childs aptly termed “the Age of Invincible”: 3 decades of carrier operations: in the Falklands, followed by Bosnia, the Gulf, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone.

Indeed, those who argue that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are too big, fail to appreciate that their size was determined precisely because of experience gained through back-to-back operations in the 80s and 90s.

It’s now 18 years since George Robertson stood up in Parliament and set this project in train.

It’s not been an easy journey since then.

There were a few moments when it was frankly touch-and-go.

Plenty of people predicted they wouldn’t be built, or that they would suck the rest of the navy dry.

Even 5 years ago, we had commentators helpfully suggesting that the Libya intervention was evidence yet again that we could rely on land based air power for future operations.

Not only had they forgotten the lessons of 1982, but they seemed not to notice when France and Italy deployed their carriers, despite having airfields within easy reach, or our own brilliant creative use of HMS Ocean for Apache strike, which once again showed that the navy does not let the nation down.

And just look at where we are today.

In the United States, the first squadron of US Marine Corps F35Bs is operational, with UK personnel alongside them every step of the way. This summer you’ll see the F35 in UK skies. Get used to the sight because many more are coming our way.

Meanwhile, in the Gulf, our frigates and destroyers have been working with US and French carriers. Our people have been integrated with theirs; in both cases honing the skills that will serve our own carrier centric future.

And then in Rosyth, HMS Queen Elizabeth’s diesel generators and gas turbines are up and running. Her radars are turning and burning. She is alive.

Prince of Wales is catching up fast: now structurally complete; the first members of her Ship’s Company joined last month.

HMS Queen Elizabeth’s sails from Rosyth later this year. It will be a great day for the Royal Navy. It’s the day when the ghosts of 1966, and 1981, are finally laid to rest. The 50 year circle will be closing.

But as you will appreciate, to view these 2 ships as a mere replacement for the Invincible class, or a return to the halcyon days of fast jet carrier operations in the 60s and 70s, is to underestimate entirely what they represent in both practical and symbolic terms.

From the mid-2020s the UK, already one of only three nations to maintain a Continuous At Sea Deterrent, will become one of an equally select few to wield a Continuous Carrier Capability.

Indeed, it was telling that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who announced that more jets would be ordered sooner than expected to “step up the carrier punch of the United Kingdom”.

These ships symbolise our military strength, our engineering and technical ability, our global economic ambition and our international authority.

So thank you. Through the years we’ve stuck to our course.

We’ve quietly and persistently made the case… well, perhaps not always quietly…

There is now a huge amount of work in the years ahead.

But the Royal Navy is heading forward at full steam to where we belong, back as a big deck carrier operator; back at the heart of our nation’s defence; back to the front rank of maritime powers.

Innovation and the future

So in the last few minutes, I want to look ahead.

Those who know me well know that I couldn’t be on my feet without saying a few words about innovation.

Innovation in the minds of some is fundamentally about technology.

But innovation is much more about attitude than technology.

So what the navy, or perhaps more widely defence, needs to do is create the environment in which people feel free to think, free to change, and comfortable in taking risk.

There is no doubt that the world that the world in which we are operating is changing rapidly.

So the utility of innovation, the flexibility of our approach to leadership, war fighting and capability, has at the very least to match, if not beat, what today’s enemy can achieve.

Meanwhile, underwater, some of you will know, and I won’t expand, we have seen extraordinary performances from our submarines.

We have met our operational responsibilities precisely through imaginative, innovative, utilisation of underwater technologies, and all credit to our submariners for their phenomenal performance.

So I just wanted to say that the future of the service shouldn’t be seen through the binary utility of innovation in a technical sense.

It will be through the attitude of our young leaders, and through the imagination of our command and management structures.

And that more than anything else, is our future.

Conclusion

So the SDSR 15 marks the start, not the end, of the Royal Navy’s ambition.

Much of this will fall on the shoulders of the young men and women stepping off the parade ground at Raleigh, Dartmouth and Lympstone.

But the commitment, the enthusiasm, the professionalism do not change.

They have fantastic careers ahead of them, in a Royal Navy now growing in size and ambition, as well as capability.

If I could do it all again I would in a flash, and I’m sure many of you would too.

But the next generation will continue what you, and what I, have always sought to do:

To protect and advance our nation’s interests;

To take the UK’s message of maritime prosperity and ambition around the world;

And, when called to do so, to “engage the enemy more closely”…to fight and win.

Thank you.

February 6, 2016
Justine Greening – 2016 Closing Speech at Syria Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, in London on 4 February 2016.

Thank you Baroness Anelay. I now have this amazing privilege of being the person that gets to wrap up this incredible conference that we’ve had today.

I want to start by saying a huge thank you to absolutely everybody who’s contributed today, and to everyone who’s been working so hard, over so many weeks and months, to put this Conference together.

On behalf of the UK Government, I’d also like to massively thank our co hosts Germany, Norway, Kuwait and the UN.

But most of all, I want to say thank you to everybody here, individuals, countries, NGOs and businesses, who came here today and pledged to stand by Syria in the weeks, months and years ahead.

I think nobody came here this morning doubting the scale of the challenge we’re facing. We’ve heard so many speakers today talk about that.

This is not only the world’s biggest and most urgent humanitarian crisis but its far-reaching consequences are touching all of us. The unprecedented people flow. A whole generation of children at risk of being lost to conflict.

And in these last five years the people of Syria have endured so many horrors – the barrel bombs, starvation and torture inflicted by the Assad regime, the unspeakable atrocities committed by Daesh and others involved in the fighting.

Now, peace alone will give the Syrian people their future back but in the meantime the question that we faced today was could the world come together and make a real and lasting difference to the lives of the millions of people affected by this crisis?

Could this be a turning point and a day of hope for those people affected by the Syrian conflict?

And in the end it all comes down to choices.

And I believe that today we’ve made the right choices.

Because countries, donors and businesses have all stepped up, you’ve all come forward, and we have raised new funds for this crisis to the amount of over $10billion dollars.

As the Secretary General said, together we have committed the largest ever amount in response to a humanitarian crisis, in a single day.

That is a phenomenal, record-breaking total but it also fully reflects the enormity of the crisis that we’re all facing and the scale of the suffering.

It also represents a promise, a promise not just to the Syrian people but to those countries that we’ve heard from today who are supporting them, countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt who have shouldered so much of the responsibility.

But we’ve gone beyond simply funding. Because today was more than that, it was more than about getting funding for UN agencies and NGOs to provide day to day life-saving support, as vital as that is.

We also made a choice on behalf of Syria’s children and children in host communities as well. Today the world has been unequivocal: that there should be no lost generation of children affected by the Syrian conflict.

And we have pledged to deliver education to children inside Syria and outside Syria. We’ve pledged to make sure that there’s access to education for all refugee and host community children by the end of the 2016-17 school year. Now this is a monumental pledge and a crucial one – not just for those children and their hopes for their future. But it’s an investment in Syria’s future as much as anything that we’ve done today.

And today we’ve also made a second critical choice on supporting jobs for refugees and economic growth in the countries hosting them.

And these historic agreements with Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have the potential not only to open up economic opportunities for refugees – but to create jobs as well for local people, and to leave a legacy of economic growth in the countries that have so generously opened their borders to the vast majority of Syrian refugees.

Finally, and critically, we have all condemned – again – the ongoing atrocities committed by all parties to the conflict. We do not accept them – the barrel-bombing, the sexual violence, the targeting of schools and hospitals. And today with one voice we have rightly called on all parties to the conflict, and those with influence over them, to ensure that International Humanitarian Law is upheld.

Today’s been an unprecedented response to an unprecedented crisis. We’ve offered an alternative vision of hope to the people of Syria and all those affected by this crisis.

And we should take real pride in what we’ve been able to achieve today.

Now, though, we need to deliver.

Today we’ve set the ambition. For the sake of Syria and for all of us, we’ve now got to make that ambition a reality. And we’ve got to keep our promise to the Syrian people.

If we can, I believe that in the years ahead we can truly look back with pride and with hope on what we’ve managed to accomplish today.

And I think that in the years to come, we will truly be able to say that we’ve been part of a historic and incredible day.

February 6, 2016
Harry Harpham – 2015 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Harry Harpham in the House of Commons on 17 June 2015.

May I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and say what a pleasure it is to follow him?

As the new Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, I stand here with a good deal of trepidation, knowing the tireless and dedicated service that my predecessor, David Blunkett, devoted to his constituents. From both the Front and Back Benches, David fought unceasingly to improve the lives of ordinary people. David is Sheffield through and through. He was born in the constituency he would go on to represent, became a councillor at the age of 22, and led the city through the turbulent years of the 1980s. He was elected to the Commons in 1987, moved swiftly into the shadow Cabinet, and finally became a Cabinet Minister in 1997. He fought ferociously for his point of view in Cabinet, and although he may not always have got his way, as a lifelong Sheffield Wednesday supporter he was well accustomed to taking the rough with the smooth.

David carried the views of his constituents into Cabinet, and despite his heavy workload as Secretary of State for Education and Employment in Labour’s first term, and as Home Secretary dealing with the aftermath of the Oldham riots and the 9/11 terrorist atrocities in New York, he made a point of continuing to attend his constituency advice surgeries in person. He was relentless in his desire to drive up educational standards and improve the educational opportunities of all. Throughout his career, David was dedicated to the idea that for democracy to be worth the name, it should be a truly collaborative endeavour, and that politicians should reach out to the disaffected and the disfranchised. I pay tribute to the work of a man who has made an indelible mark on British politics.

Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough covers the north-east of the city and is dominated by the low-rise housing that was originally built for those working in the steel industry centred in the nearby Don valley. These days, employment patterns are more diverse, and many of my constituents work in the retail sector and in health and social care. There is an iron age hill fort at the eastern end of the constituency on Wincobank hill. This was built by the Brigantes tribe to keep out the Roman legions, so clearly our ancestors were against further integration with Europe. Perhaps if they had had the Prime Minister renegotiate the terms, they might have thought differently.

Despite the fort, we are a diverse constituency, but we are a community that faces some stiff challenges. My constituency is ranked 19th highest in the country for the proportion of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance—6.4%, a rate well over double the national average—and the number of children living in poverty is double that found across the UK as a whole. Much of the so-called economic recovery in our area has come in the form of low-paid, zero-hours contract work, leaving families unable to budget from one week to the next. Despite the Chancellor’s crowing, far too many of my constituents are still struggling to make ends meet. There are 6,000 households in my constituency living in fuel poverty, 14% of the total in the whole of the Yorkshire and the Humber region. That is one of the issues I will take up vigorously over the coming weeks and months.

Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to full employment and the creation of more apprenticeships, this by itself is not enough. We need not just more jobs, but better jobs. Our poor productivity is holding back our economy and holding down living standards. I am deeply concerned that the Government have no clear plan for boosting output. What we need is the investment in infrastructure and a properly thought out skills agenda that will not only lead to more stable, meaningful jobs but address the pressing problem of productivity that Britain is facing. Unless Ministers act on this, not only will UK businesses fall behind their international competitors, but working people will not see the improvement in their standard of living that Government rhetoric leads them to expect.

In Sheffield, budget cuts have left the public services that so many of my constituents depend on struggling to cope. In spite of the innovative and dedicated efforts of the council, local NHS services and ordinary men and women in my constituency, people are turning to support that more and more simply is not there.

I am originally from Nottinghamshire. At 15, I left school on a Friday and started down the pit on the Monday morning. I had no qualifications to speak of. It was moving to Sheffield that gave me a second chance at education. It is the city where knowledge that everyone’s chances can be improved has been found in the past, and where I will do my best to make sure that it can be found in our future.

I got into politics because I know the good that can be done by public servants working in the interest of the communities they serve. From the Opposition green Benches, I will do what I can to protect those services from ideological attacks that would reduce them to a shadow and leave those they serve paying the price.

February 5, 2016
Nicholas Macpherson – 2016 Speech on Keynes’s General Theory at 80

Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, at HM Treasury in London on 4 February 2016.

Keynes was the greatest British thinker of the 20th century. He had an extraordinary mind. He was a brilliant polemicist. And I am proud that he served in Her Majesty’s Treasury, whose view I shall seek to represent here tonight.

But 80 years on from the General Theory he remains elusive. Partly because he was a creature of his time – the chronic under demand of the inter war years. And partly because his ideas were continually evolving. Keynes was and is a paradox. A liberal who proposed protection. A capitalist who regarded most business people with contempt. A conscientious objector who worked round the clock in support of the war effort.

The General Theory is a masterpiece. It put macroeconomic analysis and policy firmly on the map. It provides huge insights into expectations, uncertainty and the operation of markets. His description of the stock market in chapter 12 should be compulsory reading for economists and investors alike.

It also provided much though not all of the basis for what came to be known as “Keynesianism”: a view that government could not just manage demand but seek to smooth the operation of the trade cycle through fiscal policy.

Whether Keynes himself would have supported such an approach, had he lived, we will never know: the General Theory was focused on addressing persistent depression. Chapter 22 (Notes on the Trade cycle) is almost an after-thought. It was Hicks, Meade and others who sought to operationalise “Keynesianism”.

Now is not the time to set out a defence of the much maligned Treasury view of the 1920s and 1930s. I would merely make two points.

First, the Treasury view evolved over time: as George Peden has shown, it was much more nuanced than some of its critics have claimed. And secondly its focus on monetary policy as a way of regulating the economy, set out in Ralph Hawtrey’s seminal Economica article of 1925 , is still relevant today.

The Treasury policy of loose monetary policy and tight fiscal policy after the UK came off the gold standard in 1931 proved highly effective.

Similarly, in recent years, the speed of the authorities’ interventions on monetary and credit policy have been instrumental in the UK’s recovery.

And so the question I would like to address tonight is whether, beyond the initial loosening and tightening of fiscal policy by the then Chancellor in 2008-09, the Treasury should have made more use of Keynesian policies in recent years.

I will set out 9 reasons why the Treasury remains cautious if not sceptical about an activist fiscal policy. For completeness, I should make clear that many of the arguments apply equally to using monetary policy as a tool for fine tuning: the Treasury has always been as sceptical about crude monetarism as naïve Keynesianism. First, the labour market is much more efficient than it was in the inter war period. Policy since the 1980s has focused on reforming industrial relations, improving work incentives and pursuing more activist welfare to work policies. Just as unemployment peaked at a lower level in the 1990s recession, so did it again in the 2009 recession, with unprecedented real wage adjustment facilitating the maintenance of employment. Keynes’ case for public works in the 1930s rested on his view that nominal (and hence real) wages could not adjust not least because of the strength of the trades union movement.

Secondly, over my working life, there has been a persistent tendency to mistake structural weakness for cyclical weakness. Keynes was writing at a time of chronically low demand but it’s not at all clear that recent experience fits this description. Apart from a brief hiatus in 2011 caused by the Eurozone crisis, unemployment has been falling persistently since early 2010: in the last three years, it has fallen by over a third, while the rate of employment has reached a record high. Throughout this period, until input prices began to plummet in 2014, core CPI inflation remained above its pre-crisis average, and did not fall below 2 per cent on a sustained basis until September 2014. Neither of these indicators are obvious signs of chronic lack of demand, and I doubt Keynes would have seen them as such, while the evidence is building that the growth of productive potential in the UK (and the US) has slowed significantly since the financial crisis. But throughout this period the “Keynesian” prescription has been the same: more stimulus and a higher deficit.

That naturally leads on to my third argument: the issue of asymmetry. For most of the post war period, Governments found it much easier to lower interest rates than to increase them, and to relax fiscal policy than to tighten it. No wonder there was a tendency for inflation always to be a little higher than desirable and for deficits to predominate at the expense of surpluses. Now, Gordon Brown dealt with the former through making the Bank of England operationally independent in 1997. In a democracy, it is difficult to see how fiscal policy could be contracted to an independent body. However, successive governments have sought to address this tendency through elaborate fiscal rules, and more recently through George Osborne’s creation of an independent Office for Budgetary Responsibility.

Fourthly, “Keynesian” demand management is likely to be much more effective in a relatively closed economy, like the United States, than an open economy like the UK. Here, demand expansion has historically fed through into imports and the current account: as Mark Carney recently pointed out, you cannot always rely on “the kindness of strangers” to help solve balance of payment problems. That led Keynes to argue for protection in the 1930s, just as Wynne Godley and the new Cambridge School argued for import controls in the 1970s. The Treasury has consistently set a very high bar when considering protection. Its commitment to Free Trade dates back to Gladstone. And you only have to look at the famous Kindleberger spider web diagram to see the damage protection did to the world economy in the 1930s.

Fifthly, the mythical “shovel ready” infrastructure project is precisely that: a myth. This is nothing new. The Treasury made the same point in the 1930s. But it is more of a problem today given the inexorable growth in planning law and wider regulation. Keynes’s suggestion in Chapter 10 of the General Theory that “the Treasury fill old bottles with bank-notes, bury them…in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise…to dig up” would be the victim of many a health and safety regulation and environmental impact assessment today. In short, the lead times for getting public investment up and running are long and variable.

That leads some latter day Keynesians to advocate short term tax changes. Here, there tend to be administrative lags: for example, a change in the national insurance rate takes six months. That takes you inexorably to changes in VAT, which Alistair Darling reduced on a temporary basis in November 2008: that did bring forward expenditure albeit at some cost. An alternative is to increase current spending. But the problem there is that you can only do that by increasing entitlements, or employment or wages. Such changes are notoriously difficult to reverse.

Sixthly, there are the economic costs to businesses and individuals of continually changing tax rates and spending programmes. Businesses and consumers want a stable tax system. It enables them to plan with certainty. Tax policy is best set in a medium term framework, as for example the current Chancellor has been seeking to do with the corporate tax regime. The move to multi-year spending reviews from 1998 onwards also reflected the view of successive Chancellors that public service managers can spend money more efficiently if there is budget certainty over the medium term.

Seventhly, Ricardian equivalence is also relevant to fiscal policy’s effectiveness. A “permanent” stimulus will lead consumers to conclude that it will have to be financed, neutralising its impact. A theoretical case can be made that any Ricardian offset will be smaller if consumers know that a stimulus is temporary. Nevertheless, they are still likely to “look through” the change to some degree, reducing any inter-temporal effect. Whether for Ricardian reasons or because of wider leakages to imports, the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated the fiscal multiplier at less than one. And interestingly, Nick Crafts has estimated that fiscal interventions in the early 1930s would not have paid for themselves .

The role of the multiplier takes me to a eighth argument: the sheer magnitude of the fiscal interventions that would be necessary to stabilise the economy. This can best be illustrated either by looking at the extent to which the private sector savings ratio varies year by year; or by the extent to which output diverges from trend. The latter is much easier to estimate ex post than ex ante. But on the face of it, output has diverged from trend by up to 4 per cent of GDP since 1990. Using OBR estimates of the multiplier, stabilising the output gap would have required at times interventions of £100 to £250 billion compared to a neutral stance. And even if a limit was placed on discretionary counter cyclical interventions of, say, 1 per cent of GDP in any one year, there would still be regular changes in policy of up to £18 billion a year. Whether or not that would unsettle the market, it would certainly trigger the damaging effect on economic efficiency I mentioned above.

Finally, I would argue that there are positive benefits (as well as costs) to the trade cycle provided it can be kept within reasonable bounds. As Nigel Lawson has said, “the superiority of market capitalism lies in particular in two areas: the freedom and encouragement it gives to innovation and risk taking…,and the discipline that drives up efficiency and drives down costs. The former is stimulated most during the cyclical upswing, and the latter is compelled most during the downswing. It is at least arguable that if economies moved in a straight line rather than a cyclical pattern, there might, in the long run be less of both these benefits. ” In short, Schumpeter may still have as much relevance today as Keynes.

The Treasury may be sceptical about activist demand management. But that does not mean it abdicates responsibility for economic performance. As the nation’s economics ministry, it attaches a high weight to microeconomic policies that promote growth, productivity and employment.

Since the 1970s, successive Chancellors have sought to create a macroeconomic framework which seeks to create price stability. For the most part the Treasury has relied on monetary policy to achieve that objective: since 1997, an operationally independent Bank of England has been tasked with hitting a symmetric inflation target. Fiscal policy has generally played a subsidiary role, with Chancellors setting it to achieve a medium term objective – a surplus under Nigel Lawson and George Osborne; a current surplus under Gordon Brown – underpinned with a target for the national debt.

That does not mean that there is no role for fiscal policy. In the recent downturn, the automatic stabilisers played an important role in supporting demand. As George Osborne has said “by not chasing the debt target we…allowed the automatic stabilisers to operate and that is a sensible economic decision… That supports the economy in that sense, during a cyclical downturn. ”

And as a pragmatic institution, the Treasury would never rule out recommending a fiscal response if the conditions were right.

But it is no surprise to me that the response to the recent crisis has focused on monetary policy and the credit channel rather than on fiscal policy. In 2008 we saw the advent of the special liquidity scheme, the credit guarantee scheme and “quantitative easing”. Latterly, we have seen the funding for lending scheme, supplemented by other interventions such as “help to buy” – all of which have been designed to reduce the gap between official interest rates and the rates companies and households pay.

If you have a banking crisis followed by a credit crunch, you need to treat the disease rather than the symptom. Similarly, it’s in the nature of a banking crisis that government deficits are likely to rise, often sharply. That is not a time to take risks with the deficit – there are always inflection points when just a little extra borrowing can do untold damage to how you are perceived in the market. Yields start to rise. Debt servicing costs begin to spiral. And that risk increases if you go into a down turn with an already high debt level.

Some neo-Keynesians may write off the modern Treasury view as expounded by “practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, [but] are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. [Or] Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, [and] are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.” But I’d like to think that Maynard Keynes – who understood markets as well as anybody – would have approved of what the Treasury has done since 2008.

February 4, 2016
David Cameron – 2016 Speech at Supporting Syria Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London on 4 February 2016.

A warm welcome to London – and on behalf of my co-hosts Chancellor Merkel, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Prime Minister Solberg, and His Highness the Emir of Kuwait – thank you for your support today.

We could not have a stronger gathering to address one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time. World leaders from 30 different countries, delegations from 60. Non-governmental organisations and civil society – the majority from within Syria. UN agencies, international financial institutions, multilateral development banks, and more – all here with us today.

And if ever there was a moment to take a new approach to the humanitarian crisis in Syria – surely it is now. We are facing a critical shortfall in life-saving aid that is fatally holding back the humanitarian effort.

And after years of conflict we are witnessing a desperate movement of humanity, as hundreds of thousands of Syrians fear they have no alternative than to put their lives in the hands of evil people-smugglers in the search for a future.

Meanwhile Syria’s neighbours are struggling under the strain of hosting huge numbers of refugees, and trying to maintain services, and create jobs for their own people.

Of course, the long-term solution to the crisis in Syria can only be reached with a political transition to a new government that meets the needs of all its people. And we must continue to work towards that, however difficult it may be.

But while we pursue a solution to this horrific conflict, we can also take vital steps now which will make a real difference to people’s lives, both today and long into the future.

We can provide the help that Syrians need now – with pledges of aid – food and medical supplies – that will quite literally save lives.

We can provide refugees with the opportunities and skills they need to make a life for themselves and their families in host communities – giving them a viable alternative to remain in the region, and equipping them for the day they can eventually return home to rebuild their country.

And, critically, we can support those host countries and communities which are showing such enormous generosity in providing refuge to Syrians with no choice but to flee destruction.

February 4, 2016
Theresa May – 2016 Speech on Police and Crime Commissioners

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Policy Exchange in London on 4 February 2016.

It is a pleasure to be here today and to stand on a Policy Exchange platform – a think tank that has long argued for localism and democratic accountability in public services. It is fitting that I should be able to give this speech here.

It is now more than 12 years since Policy Exchange first proposed popular elections to improve police governance, and three and a half years since more than five million members of the public went to the polls to elect their local police and crime commissioners.

In fewer than 100 days time voters up and down the country will go to the polls again and pass judgement on the pioneering generation of police and crime commissioners for the first time.

With that vote they will be exercising the right to have their say on how policing is run in their area. The right to influence their local policing priorities. To ensure that crime in their neighbourhood is taken seriously and does not go unpunished. To scrutinise spending decisions with their taxes and the management of their force’s multimillion pound budget. To make their voice heard about police misconduct. And to ensure that a chief constable who is not delivering for local communities can be removed and someone who can do better appointed in their stead.

Now it’s easy to take these rights for granted now. The ability to influence local policing priorities and hold someone to account for delivering them feels indisputable. But we shouldn’t forget that up until recently the idea of proper local accountability in policing was not just neglected in England and Wales – but outright rejected by the other mainstream political parties.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats have only come around to PCCs since the general election last May. But the fact they no longer want to go back to the dark days of indirectly elected policing boards is welcome. It is good for democracy and I think shows the power of the police and crime commissioner model.

Because whatever you might think of individual police and crime commissioners, whatever you might think of the decisions they have taken, or the priorities they have set – there is no denying that direct democratic accountability through the ballot box has brought real scrutiny, leadership and engagement to local policing in a way that never existed before.

The dark days of police authorities

When I first became Home Secretary, the system of police governance was broken. Back then, police forces were supposedly held to account by police authorities – invisible committees of appointed councillors. Theoretically they acted on behalf of the public and had a duty to engage local people and businesses in setting priorities and local taxes – but in practice they did nothing of the sort.

Just one in 15 people knew that police authorities even existed. Public meetings were barely attended, if at all, and decisions taken were communicated only in obscure minutes in forgotten corners of their websites. In 2010, an inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that only four of the 22 police authorities inspected were judged to have performed well in two of their primary functions – setting strategic direction and ensuring value for money for taxpayers.

So – as I have said before – how police authorities were supposed to convey the concerns of the local public, how they were supposed to provide a link between police leaders and the people, how they were supposed to have legitimacy in making important decisions and holding their forces to account – when they had no contact with the public, when they did their business effectively in secret, and when they were installed rather than elected – is beyond me.

That is what went before. Opaque, bureaucratic and undemocratic. And it needed to change. That’s why we brought in PCCs – and their purpose was clear.

They’d be elected, visible, well-known in their communities and accountable to the electorate. They’d provide an impetus to reform, innovate and deliver policing more efficiently. They’d be powerful figures, with responsibility for writing the police plan, setting the police budget and precept, and hiring and firing chief constables. And they would focus relentlessly on the job of cutting crime and keeping communities safe. In short, they would bring – for the first time ever – real local scrutiny of how chief constables and their forces perform and real energy to the important task of policing – keeping families, neighbourhoods and businesses safe and secure.

Proving the critics wrong

But when I first set about introducing police and crime commissioners, I was met with a barrage of criticism. I was told that PCCs would politicise the police and operational independence would be undermined. The Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and former chiefs of the Metropolitan Police all said that politically motivated commissioners would interfere with investigations.

I was warned by some critics that the job was too much for one person to handle and, by others, of the risks of putting too much power and influence into the hands of a single individual.

I was cautioned that giving PCCs the power to hire and fire chief constables would lead to professional relationships between the two that were either too fractious on the one hand, or too close and corrupt on the other.

And, the other mainstream parties reacted with cynicism. The Labour Party opposed police and crime commissioners in principle, but nominated candidates to stand in practice. And despite being part of the Coalition Government that introduced PCCs, the Liberal Democrats delayed the vote until November, when less people would cast their ballots.

So in 2012, you could be forgiven for thinking that we were creating a monster. And I’d be lying if I said there weren’t times over the last three and a half years when I thought we might have done just that…

As I told Policy Exchange two years ago, there has been good and bad over the last three and a half years. We all remember the incidents that have given PCCs a bad name.

In South Yorkshire, Shaun Wright’s initial refusal to resign following damning revelations of child sexual abuse in Rotherham and the failure of the police, local authorities and other agencies to confront that abuse.

The appointment of a youth commissioner in Kent with no background checks, only for her to have to stand down after it was revealed she had posted offensive tweets as a teenager.

And in Surrey, the decision of Kevin Hurley to attack the leadership of his former chief constable and now Director-General of the National Crime Agency, Lynne Owens, despite proposing pay rises for her over successive years.

These episodes have been disappointing and there’s no doubt that some of them have brought the office of the PCC into disrepute.

But unlike police authorities, police and crime commissioners are accountable to the people and in May each and every PCC will be judged individually at the ballot box.

And every single one of the doomsayers’ predictions in 2012 have been proven wrong.

There has not been a single established case of a PCC influencing a police investigation or undermining the operational integrity of their police force. Having sworn the Oath of Office to protect operational independence when they took up office, PCCs have respected the historic division between policing and politics in this country.

Far from being too great a workload for a single individual, PCCs have used their personal mandate to drive positive change not just in policing and crime, but criminal justice, mental health, and the wider emergency services. In doing so, they have faced up to the limits of their own direct influence and used partnership not overbearing to drive collaboration and joint working.

And while there is no doubt that PCCs and Chiefs have clashed on occasion, both privately and publicly, the relationship between chief constable and elected official has by and large been one of healthy tension and respect for one another’s positions.

As Sir Peter Fahy told the Home Affairs Select Committee in November 2013, and I quote: “I would have to say that on the whole having one person who holds you to account and you can work with very closely and is able to provide a lot more local flexibility has worked very well.”

And – as I have said – there is now political consensus that police and crime commissioners are valuable and that they are here to stay.

The benefits of police and crime commissioners

So the case for PCCs was a hard fought reform and it has been hard won by the pioneering first generation of PCCs.

In the last three and half years, PCCs have engaged with the public in ways that police authorities never did or could. Collectively police and crime commissioners are getting upwards of 7,000 pieces of correspondence every month, and their websites are being visited by over 85,000 people, every month. And through web-casts and public accountability meetings, like those pioneered by Katy Bourne in Sussex, you are involving the public in the practice of holding the chief constable to account.

PCCs have commissioned reviews when there are specific areas of concern to local people. For example in Devon and Cornwall, PCC Tony Hogg commissioned a review of call handling following complaints about the service from the public. And in Greater Manchester, PCC Tony Lloyd’s decision to commission the Coffey Report into child abuse demonstrated firm action on this difficult and sensitive issue.

PCCs have worked together to protect vulnerable people and make sure they get the help and support they need and deserve. In Northumbria, Vera Baird is tackling violence against women and girls through a range of initiatives, including encouraging door staff to adopt a duty of care towards all those in the night time economy and partnering outreach workers with police officers on domestic violence callouts.

They have delivered value for money for taxpayers by finding efficiencies and ensuring sense in how police budgets are spent. Some, like Chris Salmon in Dyfed Powys, have managed to keep taxes down by freezing the police precept element of council tax year on year.

And locally and nationally, PCCs are providing leadership that was simply non-existent four years ago. As the Home Affairs Select Committee recognised in their 2014 report, and I quote: “PCCs have provided greater clarity of leadership for policing within their areas, and are increasingly recognised by the public as accountable for the strategic direction of their police force.”

The range of initiatives is broad. The ideas are fresh and innovative. And the benefits to the police and the public tremendous. In sum, PCCs are doing things that police authorities could never have imagined, and could never have hoped to achieve.

Overall, PCCs have presided over a reduction in crime of more than a quarter since their introduction – according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales – at the same time as police funding has reduced by a fifth. And they have done so while maintaining public confidence in the police.

And these accomplishments matter. They matter to local people and they matter for the integrity of the policing system as a whole.

But, most importantly, if members of the public haven’t been impressed, or they think their PCC hasn’t achieved what they said they would, in just a few weeks’ time they can say in the strongest terms possible – by voting for someone else at the ballot box.

The next stage of reform

So PCCs have brought leadership, scrutiny and engagement. They have helped cut crime. And they are working closely with local partners to protect the vulnerable and keep communities safe and secure.

But two weeks ago the latest set of crime statistics revealed that there are still 6.6 million crimes in this country. That is down from 9.3 million in 2010 but still far too high and the growth of fraud and cyber related crime will require a new response.

And there are still huge opportunities to improve capability between police forces, collaborate with other emergency services, and drive better joint working with the criminal justice system.

These are the challenges that the next generation of PCCs, elected in May, will need to tackle. And this Government is committed to helping them do so.

As I announced in Hampshire three weeks ago, we will introduce legislation to allow chief constables to use specialist volunteers – financial analysts and ICT experts – in the fight against complex fraud and cyber crime. In Hampshire, £1.5 million of funding from the PCC is already helping to make such a model a reality, bringing together academics, cyber specialists and police forces to improve its skills in preventing and solving cyber crimes.

As the Government will be announcing in the Police Grant Settlement today, on top of the overall protection for police force budgets over the Parliament, we are also investing hundreds of millions to transform police capabilities to face modern crime demand. That includes £34 million next year to support firearms training and resources to ensure we can respond to a Paris-style attack, and further funding dedicated to digital investigation and digital justice.

Because as many forces have shown, we should be thinking strategically about where capabilities are delivered. Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, for example, have joined together to share specialist policing units such as armed policing, roads and dogs units, and the support services that underpin them, with estimated savings in the region of £15 million, and have announced plans to save at least £4 million a year through merging control rooms across the three forces, as well as a further £11 million planned by 2019 through collaboration of criminal justice, custody, ICT functions and continuing to improve their existing collaborations.

And in the Policing and Crime Bill, we will introduce measures to enable PCCs, where a local case is made, to take on responsibilities for fire and rescue services locally. Further, we will enable them to take an additional step to create a single employer for the two services and bring together back office functions.

And I am pleased that the Home Office has taken on responsibility for fire and rescue, and I am delighted that my colleague Mike Penning MP the Policing Minister has agreed to add fire to his portfolio.

Collaboration between the police and fire service is tried and tested, pioneered by PCCs and offering huge opportunities for savings and more effective emergency services. In Northamptonshire, for example, Adam Simmonds has developed a joint operations team between the police and fire service, responsible for the Multi-Agency Incident Assessment Team, and bringing together three experienced members of staff and their own specific operational knowledge from the relevant emergency service. In Staffordshire, Matthew Ellis has created a tri-service neighbourhood centre at the site of the existing fire station, with specific space for each service plus a shared service area.

And we will give PCCs a greater role in the handling of complaints against the police – to bring accountability and independence to that process too.

But in the future, I would like to see the PCC role expanded even further still. Together with the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, I have been exploring what role PCCs could play in the wider criminal justice system. This is something that I have long believed in and which a number of PCCs have shown interest in. As they say, there is a reason that we included the words “and crime” in PCC’s titles.

So after the May elections, the Government will set out further proposals for police and crime commissioners. Because as a number of PCCs have argued, youth justice, probation and court services can have a significant impact on crime in their areas and there are real efficiencies to be had from better integration and information sharing. We have yet to decide the full extent of these proposals and the form they will take, but I am clear that there is significant opportunity here for PCCs to lead the same type of reform they have delivered in emergency services in the wider criminal justice system.

And there are other opportunities too. As Adam Simmonds has argued, I believe the next set of PCCs should bring together the two great reforms of the last Parliament – police reform and school reform – to work with and possibly set up alternative provision free schools to support troubled children and prevent them from falling into a life of crime.

And alongside the expansion of PCC responsibilities, the development of powerful directly elected mayors provides a fantastic opportunity, where there is local agreement and boundaries make sense, to bring together policing with local transport, infrastructure, housing and social care services under a single directly elected mayor. I know many PCCs have engaged with local proposals, and I would encourage them to continue to do so – because I am clear that PCCs’ consent is a prerequisite for the inclusion of policing in any mayoral deal.

But today, as we look forward to the elections in May, and back upon the progress that has been made, I believe we can be pleased with what has been achieved, and the role police and crime commissioners are playing in making policing more accountable and more effective.

They do so as one important element of the reformed policing landscape I have put in place since becoming Home Secretary more than five and a half years ago.

Alongside democratic accountability through PCCs, I gave operational responsibility for policing back to the professionals – to chief constables. I restored professional discretion for police officers by scrapping all national targets, freeing them up from unnecessary bureaucracy and by giving the police a single mission – to cut crime. And I made sure information on police performance and efficiency is now more independent and robust, enabling PCCs to better hold forces to account, and in turn for the public to hold PCCs to account.

This Government is working to improve police standards, training and skills, so I have established the College of Policing as a proper professional body. We are opening up policing and bringing fresh perspectives and expertise through schemes such as Police Now and Direct Entry. And we have established the Police Innovation Fund so that PCCs and forces can bid for funding to improve policing and deliver greater efficiency.

We established the National Crime Agency so that can get to grips with serious and organised crime. And we have published the Strategic Policing Requirement which PCCs must have regard for, establishing a clear principle of local to national coordination, and through a reformed National Police Chiefs’ Council enabled forces to work together effectively on national priorities.

So police and crime commissioners are an invaluable part of the programme of police reform we have introduced since 2010. They have shifted power away from Government to the public, and replaced the bureaucratic accountability of police authorities with democratic accountability.

And in doing so they strengthen the principle that sits at the heart of the British model of policing – policing by consent.

A principle summed up by Sir Robert Peel when he founded the Metropolitan Police, and declared that the police must maintain a relationship with the public “that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police.”

Conclusion

We must not kid ourselves that PCCs are yet universally understood. Nor that their potential has been completely fulfilled. More than 5 million people voted last time, but that turnout was disappointing and needs to improve in May. And as I have said today, there are improvements that can and will be made to policing in England and Wales.

But over the last three and half years, Police and Crime Commissioners have proved that they matter. They have hired and fired chief constables. They have set local priorities and they have overseen budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds. They have helped to ensure that crime continues to be cut and that people in this country continue to be kept safe.

And they are here to stay.

So I want to end by paying tribute to the first generation of police and crime commissioners – and to thank them for their hard work over the past three and a half years. They have been the pioneers in this new policing landscape. They can be proud of what they have achieved, and I look forward to seeing what the next generation of PCCs will do.

Police reform is working. Today policing is more accountable, more transparent and more efficient than it was before 2010. And today, the historic principle of policing by consent is stronger than ever before.

February 4, 2016