Tag: Speeches

John Roper – 1970 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Roper in the House of Commons on 13 November 1970.

The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) now has behind him the ordeal which I face. He had a much more distinguished career than I as a debater at university and, to judge by his speech this morning, I am sure that he will have a distinguished career here, too. I was surprised by how much of what he said found my agreement.

I speak in the House for the first time mindful of the high standard set by my predecessors. Ernest Thornton, whom I follow, represented the constituency for 18 years and he was as widely liked in the division as, I am sure, he was in the House. His lifetime of experience in the cotton industry, including many years as a trade union official, and his experience in local government were a formidable background for his Parliamentary career. His integrity and kindness ensured that he was universally respected. I, personally, am most grateful to him for all the help and guidance which he has given me in recent years. I have learned greatly from him of the responsibilities and requirements for service in the House.

The Farnworth division of Lancashire is made up of four Lancashire local authorities. Three of them, the borough of Farnworth itself and the urban districts of Kearsley and Little Lever border the River Irwell. That river had a reputation for pollution. Indeed, there was an anonymous couple: ‘I’ stands for Irwell, for Irk and for Ink But none of those liquids is wholesome to drink”. This summed up the position at one time, but I am glad to say that the most recent report of the river authority said: the reputation of the river which was nationally, if not internationally, known for its grossly polluted condition, is now unjustified. The state of the river is still not satisfactory, but it can no longer be described as notorious. The fourth authority in the division, the Urban District of Worsley, in the eighteenth and nineteenth century was the hub of the canal network which James Brindley built for the Duke of Bridgewater. Today, the division is the hub of a motorway network which serves industrial Lancashire and links us to Yorkshire. We are proud to have one of the most complicated motorway junctions in Europe under construction which has gained locally the name “Spaghetti Junction”. One loop of that spaghetti, the M63, stretches from Worsley to the borders of Altrincham and Sale, the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thus it is perhaps not inappropriate that I should make my maiden speech in this debate. I do so with some trepidation, knowing the pitfalls facing Members dabbling in matters of finance.

In my constituency there will no doubt be some who will welcome the Bill, the wealthy, healthy bachelors who will gain substantial advantages from the tax reductions. There will be others who will welcome it in ignorance, ignoring the other part of the Chancellor’s package which will raise the charges for school meals, evening classes, council-house rents, drugs, spectacles and dental treatment. But I am sure the majority of my constituents, while welcoming the extra 4s. or 5s. a week it may bring them, will see that it does not go very far towards dealing with the extra expenditure their families will be involved in as a result of the package announced earlier.

The Measure is openly and avowedly redistributive. The bigger the income then the fewer the responsibilities and the greater the benefits. It compares very unfavourably with the Budget brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on the last occasion the Conservative Party returned to power after a period in opposition. In the 1952 Budget, which was bitterly attacked from the Opposition benches for the cuts in food subsidies, at least when it came to income tax the then Chancellor used such relief as was available to increase personal allowances and to widen the scope of the reduced rate bands. On that occasion the Chancellor concentrated relief, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) suggested, at the bottom of the scale, and this had its effect throughout.

Apart from the social objections to the Bill, I am sceptical as to whether taxpayers will eventually benefit from it. If the economic situation deteriorates over the next four months as it has over the last five months, it will be difficult for the Chancellor to permit the inflationary injection of £300 million into the economy in the year beginning next April. I cannot see how this Measure can be compatible with any Budget strategy he may be planning. There is no evidence that the rate of increase of wage-earnings will decelerate in the next 12 months. It is now running at a rate of 14 per cent. or 15 per cent. a year and there is unfortunately very little evidence of any industrialised country which has reached this sort of level of wage inflation being able to return to more normal rates of wage inflation without a serious economic crisis. Such evidence as one can find is that prices will rise faster over the next 12 months. An estimate of 8 per cent. price inflation does not appear to be exaggerated at present. In those circumstances the additional reflationary measure which the Bill provides could only be harmful. I suggest that either this Measure will never be implemented or that the Government will have to eat their words and introduce an incomes policy. It is most likely that they will have to do both.

If the Chancellor had wanted to honour his election promise he would surely have done better to start with selective employment tax. I must declare that my association with the Co-operative Movement may colour my views in this regard, but the same sum as is being distributed through the reduction in the standard rate of tax could have been used to reduce selective employment tax by 50 per cent. I suggest this would have had a far less inflationary effect. I am certain that such a reduction would have had some effect in moderating the rise of retail prices and could have proved part of a strategy to deal with the problem of inflation.

I should apologise to the House if I have strayed from the convention of non-controversial maiden speeches in what I have said so far. The two final points I should like to make are, I hope, more in keeping with that tradition.

We have heard already a good deal about incentives and disincentives. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln has made considerable reference to them. As he said, the evidence is by no means clear. What is clear, however, is the extent to which people overestimate the rate of tax which they are paying. The pilot study by C. V. Brown reported in the Scottish Journal of Political Economy shows that this is largely due to a misunderstanding of the earned income allowances. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will have had the experience of being assured repeatedly by constituents that they are paying 8s. 3d. in the £ out of every extra £1 they earn.

In spite of the propaganda of the Revenue, as long as people are earning less than £80 a week, the fact that they are paying 6s. 5d. in the pound at the most just has not got across. Now we have a Bill which will make the marginal rate for wage-earners 30.138 recurring new pence in the pound. It is very unfortunate that the Chancellor did not include in the Bill provision to establish an earned income rate of 30 per cent., 6s in the pound, and in place of earned income relief an unearned income surcharge of two-sevenths. I know this would have had consequential problems about allowances and the particular problem of the advantage given to those with incomes beyond the present earned income limits, but those could perhaps have been ignored up to the level of surtax and included in an adjustment to surtax rates above that level. If there is anything in the incentive arguments, such a clear statement as to the rate—6s. in the £—would surely have an effect of stimulating effort. Perhaps the Bill is not the place for such a change, but I hope that the Chancellor will bear it in mind for the future.

The other omission from the Bill is that there is no Clause modifying the claw-back provision. There would have to be such a Clause if the Government had honoured their pledge to raise family allowances. We have heard in other debates a number of reasons why such action was not taken. I believe that one reason is that claw-back is unpopular, and that it has the reputation with the Revenue and Treasury for being unpopular. This is because of the administratively clumsy way it was handled when initially introduced in 1968. People suffered increased claw-back or deductions from tax in July of 1968 in anticipation of getting increased family allowances in September 1968. They had no explanation of what was happening at the time and therefore claw-back became undeservedly unpopular. It was not properly explained to taxpayers. I hope that in any future use of family allowances and claw-back from the better-off this administrative clumsiness will not be repeated.

It is as easy to suggest modifications to income tax law and practice as it is for the Revenue to reply that they are too overworked at the moment to take them into account. I think that there is a vicious circle about tax reforms. There is never time to make a substantial reform to the system, and a succession of modifications is made which result in the situation becoming worse.

The Bill does nothing about improving the structure of the tax system, and as I have suggested, it is socially and economically mistaken. I thank the House for its indulgence.

January 30, 2016
Michael Gove – 2012 Speech to Schools Network

Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State for Education, in Birmingham on 11 January 2012.

Introduction

As this is the SSAT’s first conference under its new name – The Schools Network – I thought it might be apposite to say a bit about networks and learning.

Life in the 21st century – and education in the 21st century – relies on us having systems that are flexible and adaptable. So I want to talk to you today about two of the flexible, adaptable networks we’re working on.

First, a flexible, adaptable education system, where schools have the freedom to innovate and collaborate in order to drive improvement.

And second, flexible, adaptable learning within schools, taking advantage of the way technology is transforming education.

A Schools Network

Underpinning our reforms is the principle – backed by the best international evidence – that autonomy drives improvement. In addition to having rigorous accountability mechanisms and a commitment to creating an outstanding teaching workforce, the highest-performing education systems are those where government knows when to take a step back. Rigorous research from the OECD and others has shown that more autonomy for individual schools helps raise standards. In its most recent international survey of education, the OECD found that ‘in countries where schools have greater autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend to perform better.’ As the OECD points out, two of the most successful countries in PISA – Hong Kong and Singapore – are amongst those with the highest levels of school competition. And from autonomous schools in Alberta, Canada, to the Charter Schools of New York and Chicago, freedom is proving an unstoppable driver of success.

So we’ve been working hard to increase freedom for all our schools.

A big part of this has involved reducing central government prescription for all schools to make heads’ and teachers’ lives easier and give them the space to focus on what really matters.

The reams of FMSIS forms: gone.

The vast Ofsted Self-Evaluation Form: gone.

Fortnightly departmental emails: gone.

Performance Management guidance: cut by three quarters.

Capability procedures: simplified.

Ofsted framework: slimmed down.

Behaviour and bullying guidance: cut from 600 pages to 50.

There’s more to come. In total, departmental guidance will be more than halved. And our Curriculum Review will result in a clearer, slimmer core entitlement, which will free teachers up to get on with teaching.

Beyond these changes – which we’ve implemented for the benefit of all schools – we’ve gone further: we’ve given every school the opportunity to take complete control of its budget, curriculum and staffing by applying to be an academy.

There are now 1463 academies across England. More than 40 per cent of all secondary schools are now either academies already, or in the process of becoming academies. 1144 primary and secondary schools have converted since the general election. 319 are sponsored academies, of which 116 have opened since May 2010. 44 more sponsored academies are expected to open later this academic year.

Over 1.2 million pupils now attend academies – this means around one in seven pupils in maintained state schools are now attending academies and one in three pupils in secondary schools.

This million-strong group will benefit from the changes academy freedom can bring, like longer school days; better paid teachers; more personalised learning; improved discipline; and higher standards all round. Individual academies are using their new freedoms in a variety of different ways.

Like Seaton Academy in Cumbria, which was one of the first to open as a converter academy and to take advantage of academy freedoms. The school has been better able to tailor the curriculum to pupils’ needs. Having previously been bound by the local authority to implement new central strategies – regardless of how suitable such strategies were for the school – Seaton is now able to be more innovative. Greater budget flexibility has allowed Seaton to run more efficiently, and these savings have been ploughed back into the school. For example, they have introduced discretionary award payments for great teaching, which has been hugely motivating for staff. The academy has also started to rebalance the school year – with shorter summer holidays and a lengthened half-term.

Seaton is just one of many schools using their new freedom to do exciting things. The best scientific evidence proves that if you empower those at the frontline, they will exceed your expectations. A few months ago, academics at the London School of Economics published a landmark assessment of the academies programme.

They found three things. First, that ‘Academy conversion generates… a significant improvement in pupil performance.’ Second, that this improvement is not the result of academies scooping up middle-class pupils from nearby schools: the fact that more middle-class parents want to send their children to their local academy is a consequence of the school’s success, not a cause. And thirdly, beyond raising standards for their own pupils, academies also tend to raise pupil performance in neighbouring schools. Like CTCs and the Challenge schemes before them, academies are showing us all what amazing things can be achieved when heads are put in the driving seat.

But even more impressive than what individual academies are doing by themselves is what they’re achieving by working together. Under our plans, networks of schools are collaborating on a scale that has never been witnessed before. The facts on the ground are plain to see: increased autonomy and greater parental choice drive up standards and help tackle ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’ – and freedom does not need to be the enemy of cooperation.

Sponsors

Some of these networks are small – often just two schools, with one sponsoring the other. Yet while small, they’re driving real change. Tudor Grange Academy, Solihull (a converter academy) has sponsored Tudor Grange Academy, Worcester. Since becoming the sponsor, the Solihull school has provided intensive support to its Worcester partner. Improvements have been made in discipline, behaviour, attendance and attainment, with Tudor Grange, Worcester being oversubscribed on first choice applications for the first time. The benefits haven’t all been one-way. Tudor Grange, Solihull has been able to increase staffing and improve the pupil-teacher ratio. School leaders have reported feeling a greater sense of responsibility and accountability to the communities that they serve.

Partners

Other networks are slightly larger, with one academy partnering with several other local schools. Altrincham Grammar School for Boys in Trafford became an academy in February 2011 and is now working with three underperforming schools in the area. The school has been working particularly closely with Broomwood Primary, with specialist French and Spanish teachers from the secondary school helping teach primary pupils. This has helped Broomwood set up its own provision for language lessons. Similarly, having achieved a science specialism, Altrincham Grammar shared its expertise by giving its partners access to its labs; assisting partner schools in rewriting the science schemes of work for Years 5 and 6; and supporting teachers in delivering these schemes. Gifted and Talented students from Broomwood and other local schools are also offered the opportunity to attend after-school science sessions at Altrincham Grammar.

Chains

Many academies are also forming chains – formal networks of schools federated together, usually as part of the same Trust. There are 111 chains of converter academies with a total of 337 schools. The Coopers’ Company, a good with outstanding features school, chose to convert in a chain with a local school at the other side of the borough, The Brittons Academy, rated satisfactory. Prior to conversion, the heads developed an action plan of how they would support each other in future. Both schools converted on 1st April 2011. Coopers are working closely with Brittons on combined CPD days and have arranged paired support of weaker departments. They have also set up a management link between the two senior leadership teams, and the head teacher from Coopers has become the School Improvement Partner for Brittons.

All these changes have been possible because we have been resolute in our commitment to spreading autonomy – from the introduction of the Academies Bill within our first few days in office, to the way we’re continually reducing constraints and burdens on schools. We’re doing all this because we believe – and the evidence confirms – that the best way to create a school system capable of adapting and responding to the challenges of the 21st century is by giving great teachers and heads real power.

That principle extends to the way we’re going about securing the next generation of teachers and school leaders. We’re putting our best schools in charge of training and professional development. We’re expanding programmes like Teach First and Future Leaders, so that the most promising are trained by the most inspirational. And we’re working with the National College on programmes like the SLE and NLE, to ensure that the school leaders of the future are mentored by the best leaders of today.

Overall, our vision for the future is of a self-improving network of schools, innovating and engaging, competing and collaborating, teaching and training, for the benefit of all our children.

Digital networks

I want to turn now from networks between schools to an altogether different sort of network: networks of the digital kind.

It’s an understatement to say our world has been transformed by technology. There was a particularly poignant and wonderful illustration of this in a recent New Scientist editorial, written to mark Steve Jobs’ death. “Nothing dates the 1987 movie Wall Street”, the piece argues, “like the $4000 cellphone clutched by financier Gordon Gekko. It was the size of a brick and he could only talk for 30 minutes before having to recharge it.” In the 1980s, the capabilities of today’s smartphones would have been unfathomable to consumers and engineers alike. They’d have thought it impossible that so much powerful technology could be packed into such a tiny case. If you were trying to build an iPhone using equivalent components from the 1980s, asks the author, just how big would that phone be? Running through all the parts – from the antennas to the batteries to the GPS to the gyroscope to the accelerometer to the cameras to the mobile computing capability and more – New Scientist concludes you would need a truck to haul around an iPhone built of 1985 parts. We’ve gone from an 18-wheeler to a pocket in just 26 years.

It’s not just the hardware. Entire sectors employing millions of people didn’t even exist a quarter century ago. And many of those that were around in the ’80s operate today in ways that are unrecognisable to those of the past. Given the extent of the transformation – and the pace at which it’s happening – it is imperative we have a school system capable of adapting to and preparing for the challenges ahead. If we don’t, we will betray a generation.

And yet there is a perception by some that my department isn’t especially concerned about such things. That we care more about Tennyson than technology. That our interest is in Ibsen, not iTunes. That we’re more Kubla Khan than Khan Academy.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that our school system not only prepares pupils for this changing world, but also embraces the technological advances which are transforming education. My department is thinking hard about this and we’ll be saying more in the new year. But I’d like to talk briefly today about some of the critical developments that have been shaping our thinking.

One of the greatest changes can be seen in the lives of children and young people, who are at ease with the world of technology and who communicate, socialise and participate online effortlessly. Two-thirds of five- to seven-year-olds use the internet at home, rising to 82 per cent for 8- to 11-year-olds and 90 per cent for 12- to 15-year-olds. Over a third of 12- to 15-year-olds own a smartphone, and typically use the internet for 15.6 hours every week. Children are increasingly embracing technology at a younger age: for example, 23 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds now use social networking sites.

Yet the classrooms of today don’t reflect these changes. Indeed, many of our classrooms would be very recognisable to someone from a century ago. While there has been significant investment in technology in education, it has certainly not transformed the way that education is delivered.

Part of the problem has been that investment has focused on hardware. My fear is that, in the past, too much emphasis has been placed on machines that quickly become obsolete, rather than on training individuals to be technologically as literate and adept as they need to be. What’s more, fixating on expensive, soon-to-be out-of-date kit represents a failure to understand the fundamental changes taking place.

One major change concerns content. Technology is having a huge impact on the way educational material can be delivered. iTunesU now gives everybody access to the world’s best lectures. The Khan Academy provides 2700 high-quality micro tutorials on the web, so that anyone, anywhere can access them for free. Brilliant scientific publications like Science are building their own ecosystems of educational content. And by definition, as we move to a world where we expect every child will have a tablet, the nature and range and type of content that can be delivered will be all the greater.

Educational gaming, for example, is a booming area – and ripe for even further development. Games developed by Marcus Du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, are helping children engage with complex maths problems that would hitherto have been thought too advanced. And the Department for Education is currently working with the Li Ka Shing Foundation and the highly respected Stanford Research Institute on a pilot programme to use computer programmes to teach maths. We have not developed the programme – we are just helping them run a pilot. Stanford say it is one of the most successful educational projects they have seen.

These exciting advances are the sort of thing that a central government department could never hope to produce and maintain. And nor should it seek to: Whitehall must enable these innovations but not attempt to micromanage them. Such content is being created daily, and the vast majority is free to anyone with an internet connection. Our role is to help bring schools and these developments together.

To be absolutely clear: this isn’t about replacing teachers with YouTube videos – of course it isn’t. But it would be negligent of us not to look at how we can harness these developments for the benefit of all pupils. In Singapore, for example, I was lucky enough to witness how a superb lesson can be delivered through a mixture of online and teacher-led instruction. We can do it here too – and in the coming months we’ll be setting out how.

Another way in which technology is changing education is through its potential to create sharper assessment systems. Computer lab management software is now so sophisticated that an individual teacher can monitor how each student is doing simultaneously and then – without singling out that child in front of others – provide them with the direct amount of support that they need, accelerating the rate at which some children can learn and providing additional help for others. Problems can be picked up earlier. Students can be stretched when they’re ready. It’s the next step towards truly personalised learning – and it will also enable parents to have a better understanding of the level at which their children are operating.

Thirdly, technological advances can have a huge impact on teacher training. Teachers can more easily observe other teachers and learn more about the craft. Professional development content can be delivered in more accessible, engaging, and cost effective ways. Individual teachers can use the latest developments to refine their lessons to precision. As Michael Nielsen points out in his excellent new book, ‘Reinventing Discovery’, new developments allow teachers to get better feedback about how their lessons are being received. So not only does the spread of innovations like the Khan Academy mean there is more great teaching material on the web, but new tools like Google Analytics allow anyone to analyse video for attention, second-by-second, in a way that used to be very expensive and complex. All these are welcome developments.

Of course, in stressing the importance of digital content, I’m not saying we should neglect hardware altogether – far from it. But hardware means more than just the latest desktop – especially when many pupils are increasingly likely to have access to superior technology at home – or even in their pockets – than in their school’s computer lab. That’s why we need to think about how to give more children the chance to engage with truly cutting edge hardware, like 3D printers, or learn the fundamentals of programming with their own single-board computers, like the Raspberry Pi.

The challenge for us is this: how we can harness the many exciting technological leaps that are constantly being made? We will be saying much more early in the new year. Make no mistake: this is a priority for me. I believe we need to take a serious, intelligent approach to educational technology if our children are not to be left behind. As John Chubb and Terry Moe put it in their excellent book on the subject, a genuine engagement with the wondrous world of technological innovation will see children’s learning ‘liberated from the dead hand of the past.’ We owe it to pupils across the country to take this issue seriously.

January 30, 2016
David Cameron – 2012 Interview in Saudi Arabia

Below is the text of the speech of David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 13 January 2012.

Interviewer (Arabic) – translator

Why are you here in Saudi Arabia and what are the main issues that you’ve discussed with King Abdullah today?

Prime Minister

Well, the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have always had a good and strong relationship, and I want to build on that relationship and that’s what my talks with His Majesty the King were about today. We’re both members of the G20. We’re both strong economic powers. We both have interests in seeing peace and progress and stability in this region. We both want to be successful in the fight against al-Qaeda terrorism, so there were many subjects for us to discuss. We’ve talked about what’s happening in Iran, what’s happening in Syria, Yemen, in Somalia and the importance of progress in all of those areas, and also the very strong trading and people-to-people relationship there is between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Interviewer (Arabic) – translator

How do you assess the Iranian regional threat, and do you think that Iran is militarily capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz?

Prime Minister

Well, first of all, I think there is a clear threat from Iran in terms of that country’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. I think that would be very bad for the region, very bad for the world and I think it’s right that all countries across the world step up the pressure on Iran to take a different path. And Britain has been leading the way in that regard within the European Union, arguing for sanctions, for travel bans, for asset freezes and we are now looking at this whole issue of having an embargo on Iranian oil to get that regime to think again; it can take a different path and stop destabilising the region and stop the march towards a nuclear weapon. But it needs to change direction. In terms of the Straits of Hormuz, it is in the interests of the whole world that those straits are open and I’m sure if there was any threat to close them the whole world would come together and make sure they stayed open.

Interview (Arabic) – translator

What’s your reaction to the speech which President Assad gave recently and what impact did you think his speech has had on the whole issue?

Prime Minister

Well, my view – our view in the United Kingdom – is that President Assad has lost the consent of his people, and that is not surprising when you see the appalling brutality that has been meted out by elements of the armed forces in Syria against ordinary civilians and people who are protesting. I think it is appalling what’s happened. To me one of the key points of what is happening in what I call the Arab Spring is that leaders have to show they have the consent of the people, that they’re offering people a job and a voice, that they’re in tune with what their countries want, and President Assad is not doing that. Again, I think that Britain has played quite a leading role. I pay huge tribute to the Arab League which has played the leading role in bringing this issue to the world’s attention. The Arab League is leading the way. The Arab League is showing the United Nations – in my view – what needs to be done and we stand ready as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to take fresh resolutions to that council based on what the Arab League is doing, or the Arab League is saying and daring others, if they want to veto those resolutions, to try and explain why they’re willing to stand by and watch such appalling bloodshed by someone who has turned into such an appalling dictator.

Interviewer (Arabic) – translator

It’s been a year into the Syrian crisis, what’s keeping the issue from reaching the United Nations and who’s got the authority to bring this to the United Nations Security Council?

Prime Minister

Well, clearly it’s been discussed at the United Nations Security Council, but we’ve been unable to make progress frankly because there have been some countries on the Security Council that have vetoed, or threatened to veto, proper resolutions on Syria. It’s the particular case with Russia, and I would urge Russians – the Russian government – even at this late stage to look really carefully at why it is proposing to do what it keeps doing with respect to Syria. This is appalling bloodshed, appalling murder on the streets of Syria. I think the whole Arab League has come together and said that what is happening is unacceptable, and I think other countries need to listen to that and act on that, including at the United Nations. Britain stands ready to do that; France stands ready to do that. I’m sure America does too, but the other permanent members need to do the same.

Interviewer (Arabic) – translator

Who’s got the authority to bring the issue to the Security Council? Is it the Assad opposition or the Arab League or the Security Council itself?

Prime Minister

I think the greatest authority would come from the Arab League itself. If we think of what happened in Libya – and of course Syria is a very different case to Libya, I’m not arguing that the same should happen there – but the Arab League provided such leadership over the issue of Libya that the world was able to come together and condemn what Colonel Gaddafi was doing through those Resolutions 1970 and 1973. And I think the more the Arab League can push the world through the United Nations to say ‘you must make clear the world’s revulsion about what is happening in Syria’ the better. As I say, Britain stands ready to help promote resolutions like that. We’ve done so in the past; we’ll do so in the future and I pay tribute to the members of the Arab League who’ve shown such unity and steadfastness in actually saying that what is happening in Syria is wrong.

Interviewer (Arabic) – translator

How do you assess the work of the Arab League mission so far in Syria – and do you think the Arab League is part of the solution?

Prime Minister

I think they can be part of the solution. To me what the Arab League has done is set out a series of things that need to happen in Syria. A series of things that I think with their own eyes they can see are not happening in Syria and so I think we have to wait for the next stage but it seems clear to me that what will need to happen is for the Arab League to say that what’s happening in Syria is not acceptable, cannot go on and therefore the world needs to make a clearer statement through the United Nations. I think that is the right sequence but again, I pay tribute to what the Arab League is doing because I think the rest of the world will stand up and listen even more if it is Arab countries themselves that are saying what is happening is not right.

January 30, 2016
Michael Gove – 2012 Speech at BETT Show

Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State for Education, at the BETT Show on 11 January 2016.

Thank you very much, Dominic, for that kind introduction. I’m delighted to be here at BETT today.

And I have to start by congratulating all the companies in this Hall.

British companies are world-leaders in the field of educational technology, and going from strength to strength – the members of Besa, for example, increased exports by 12% in 2010. Crick Software, which has worked in the USA, Chile and Qatar and which already supplies 90% of UK primary schools, recently secured their biggest single order ever, supplying half of all schools in Moscow with Clicker 5 literacy software, fully translated into Russian.

Promethean, which makes interactive whiteboards and educational software, signed a memorandum of collaboration with the Mexican Ministry of Education last June to work in primary and secondary education throughout Mexico.

These are just a few of the hugely impressive achievements of British companies – and there are many more all around us. I’d also like to mention particularly all those shortlisted for the BETT awards tonight. Good luck to all nominees, and congratulations, in advance, to the winners…

How technology has changed the world, and the workplace
All around us, the world has changed in previously unimaginable and impossible ways. Most of us carry more advanced technology in the smartphone in our pocket than Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin used to reach the Moon.

Every day we work in environments which are completely different to those of twenty-five or a hundred years ago.

Where once clerks scribbled on card indexes and lived by the Dewey Decimal system, now thousands of office workers roam the world from their desktop.

Where once car manufacturing plants housed lines of workers hammering and soldering and drilling, now a technician controls the delicate operations of a whole series of robots.

When I started out as a journalist in the 1980s, it was a case of typewriters and telexes in smoky newsrooms, surrounded by the distant clatter of hot metal.

Now newsrooms – and journalists – are almost unrecognisable, as are the daily tools of the trade. The telex machine became a fax, then a pager, then email. A desktop computer became a laptop computer. My pockets were filled with huge mobile phones, then smaller mobile phones, a Blackberry, and now an e-reader and iPad.

And with each new gadget, each huge leap forward, technology has expanded into new intellectual and commercial fields.

Twenty years ago, medicine was not an information technology. Now, genomes have been decoded and the technologies of biological engineering and synthetic biology are transforming medicine. The boundary between biology and IT is already blurring into whole new fields, like bio-informatics.

Twenty years ago, science journals were full of articles about the ‘AI Winter’ – the fear that post-war hopes for Artificial Intelligence had stalled. Now, detailed computer models show us more than we ever imagined about the geography of our minds. Amazing brain-computer-interfaces allow us to control our physical environment by the power of thought – truly an example of Arthur C. Clarke’s comment that any sufficiently advanced technology can seem like magic.

Twenty years ago, only a tiny number of specialists knew what the internet was and what it might shortly become. Now, billions of people and trillions of cheap sensors are connecting to each other, all over the world – and more come online every minute of every day.

Almost every field of employment now depends on technology. From radio, to television, computers and the internet, each new technological advance has changed our world and changed us too.

But there is one notable exception.

Education has barely changed

The fundamental model of school education is still a teacher talking to a group of pupils. It has barely changed over the centuries, even since Plato established the earliest “akademia” in a shady olive grove in ancient Athens.

A Victorian schoolteacher could enter a 21st century classroom and feel completely at home. Whiteboards may have eliminated chalk dust, chairs may have migrated from rows to groups, but a teacher still stands in front of the class, talking, testing and questioning.

But that model won’t be the same in twenty years’ time. It may well be extinct in ten.

Technology is already bringing about a profound transformation in education, in ways that we can see before our very eyes and in others that we haven’t even dreamt of yet.

Now, as we all know, confident predictions of the technological future have a habit of embarrassing the predictor.

As early as 1899, the director of the U.S. Patent Office, Charles H. Duell, blithely asserted that “everything that can be invented has already been invented.”

In 1943, the chairman of IBM guessed that “there is a world market for maybe five computers”. The editor of the Radio Times said in 1936, “television won’t matter in your lifetime or mine”.

Most impressively of all, Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, scored a hat-trick of embarrassing predictions between 1897-9, declaring, “radio has no future”, “X-rays are clearly a hoax” and “the aeroplane is scientifically impossible”.

A new approach to technology policy

I don’t aspire to join that illustrious company by stating on record that this technology or that gadget is going to change the world. Nothing has a shorter shelf-life than the cutting edge.

But we in Britain should never forget that one of our great heroes, Alan Turing, laid the foundation stones on which all modern computing rests. His pioneering work on theoretical computation in the 1930s laid the way for Turing himself, von Neumann and others to create the computer industry as we know it.

Another generation’s pioneer, Bill Gates, warned that the need for children to understand computer programming is much more acute now than when he was growing up. Yet as the chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, recently lamented, we in England have allowed our education system to ignore our great heritage and we are paying the price for it.

Our school system has not prepared children for this new world. Millions have left school over the past decade without even the basics they need for a decent job. And the current curriculum cannot prepare British students to work at the very forefront of technological change.

Last year’s superb Livingstone -Hope Review – for which I would like to thank both authors – said that the slump in UK’s video games development sector is partly the result of a lack of suitably-qualified graduates. The review, commissioned by Ed Vaizey who has championed the Computer Science cause in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, found that the UK had been let down by an ICT curriculum that neglects the rigorous computer science and programming skills which high-tech industries need.

It’s clear that technology is going to bring profound changes to how and what we teach. But it’s equally clear that we have not yet managed to make the most of it.

Governments are notoriously flat-footed when it comes to anticipating and facilitating technical change. Too often, in the past, administrations have been seduced into spending huge sums on hardware which is obsolete before the ink is dry on the contract. Or invested vast amounts of time and money in drawing up new curricula, painstakingly detailing specific skills and techniques which are superseded almost immediately.

I believe that we need to take a step back.

Already, technology is helping us to understand the process of learning. Brain scans and scientific studies are now showing us how we understand the structure of language, how we remember and forget, the benefits of properly designed and delivered testing and the importance of working memory.

As science advances, our understanding of the brain will grow – and as it grows, it will teach us more about the process of education.

What can technology do for learning?

Rather than rushing pell-mell after any particular technology, filling school cupboards with today’s answer to Betamaxes and floppy discs, we need to ask ourselves a fundamental question.

What can technology do for learning?

Three points immediately:

First, technology has the potential to disseminate learning much more widely than ever before. Subjects, classes and concepts that were previously limited to a privileged few are now freely available to any child or adult with an internet connection, all over the world.
Look at 02 learn, a free online library of lesson videos developed and uploaded by teachers. It has already delivered around 25,000 hours of teaching via 1000 lessons from every type of school and college, right across the country: science lessons from The Bishop Wand Church of England Comprehensive School, music lessons from Eton. What about iTunes U, where lectures from the world’s top universities are available at the touch of a button, and where the Independent Schools Council, Teaching Leaders and some of the best Academy Chains are working to put materials and lesson videos online? Or the hugely successful Khan Academy: more than 3.5 million students watch its educational videos every month and Google has donated $2 million for its materials to be translated into 10 languages.

I’ve been lucky enough to see first hand in Singapore how brilliant lessons can be delivered through a mixture of online and teacher-led instruction. And in areas of specialist teacher shortage, specialist teaching could be provided for groups of schools online, giving more children the opportunity to learn subjects that were previously closed to them. The Further Maths Support Programme, for example, is using the internet to give poorer families access to specialist help for the STEP papers, which dominate the best universities’ selection process for Maths degree courses.

As online materials grow and flourish, we all need to think about how we can guide students through the wealth of information and techniques freely available and accessible online.

And, of course, I’m not just talking about opportunities for pupils to learn. The Royal Shakespeare Company is working with the University of Warwick on an online professional development learning platform to transform the teaching of Shakespeare in schools. Launching next month, the “rehearsal room” teaching resources will give teachers all over the world access to the insights and working practices of internationally-renowned actors, artists and directors, as well as specialist academics and teachers. The programme will even offer the chance to study for a Post Graduate qualification in the Teaching of Shakespeare.

The Knowledge is Power Programme, one of the most successful and widely-studied charter school chains in America, is already using ubiquitous, cheap digital technology to share lessons from its most proficient teachers. Even the best teachers can hone their skills by watching their peers in action.

Second, just as technology raises profound questions about how we learn, it also prompts us to think about how we teach.

Games and interactive software can help pupils acquire complicated skills and rigorous knowledge in an engaging and enjoyable way. Adaptive software has the ability to recognise and respond to different abilities, personalising teaching for every pupil. With the expert help of a teacher, students can progress at different rates through lessons calibrated to stretch them just the right amount.

Britain has an incredibly strong games industry, with vast potential to engage with education both in this country and all over the world. We’re already seeing these technologies being used in imaginative ways. Games developed by Marcus Du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, are introducing children to advanced, complicated maths problems – and are producing great results.

Before Christmas I visited Kingsford School in Newham, where the Department for Education is working with the Li Ka Shing Foundation and the highly respected Stanford Research Institute. Their pilot scheme uses computer programmes to teach maths interactively – for example, showing a race between two people on screen and inviting pupils to plot their time and distance on a graph, then adjust it for variables.

Again, this pilot hasn’t been dictated by central government, and we haven’t developed the programme. But Stanford already says it is one of the most successful educational projects they have seen and I am looking forward to seeing the results.

Third, technology brings unprecedented opportunities for assessment. Teachers can now support pupils’ learning by assessing their progress in a much more sophisticated way, and sharing assessments with pupils and parents.

Each pupil’s strengths and weaknesses can be closely monitored without stigmatising those who are struggling or embarrassing those are streaking ahead. Teachers can adjust lesson plans to target areas where pupils are weakest, and identify gaps in knowledge quickly and reliably.

Sophisticated assessment like this is already being used in schools around the country. Brailes Primary School, for example, a small rural school on the border of Warwickshire and Oxfordshire, uses online tools enabling teachers to use pre-assembled tests, or design tests of their own. One of the teachers, Deborah Smith, has praised the system, saying, “it has enabled me to differentiate my teaching to meet the needs of different groups. The assessments are quick and simple to prepare…leaving more time for planning and teaching.”

In Chichester School for Boys, electronic voting pads provide students with instant feedback during classes. Teachers get real-time feedback on how well their material is being understood – even on a question by question basis.

These are just three ways in which technology is profoundly changing education today – and I am sure that there will be more.

We’re not going to tell you what to do

While things are changing so rapidly, while the technology is unpredictable and the future is unknowable, Government must not wade in from the centre to prescribe to schools exactly what they should be doing and how they should be doing it.

We must work with these developments as they arise: supporting, facilitating and encouraging change, rather than dictating it.

By its very nature, new technology is a disruptive force. It innovates, and invents; it flattens hierarchies, and encourages creativity and fresh thinking.

I could say the same of our whole school reform programme. In fact, I’m fairly sure I have said the same.

Just as we’ve devolved greater autonomy to schools, and put our trust in the professionalism of teachers; just as we’ve lifted the burden of central prescription, and given heads and schools power over their own destiny; just as the internet has made information more democratic, and given every single user the chance to talk to the world; so technology will bring more autonomy to each of us here in this room.

This is a huge opportunity. But it’s also a responsibility.

We want to focus on training teachers

That’s why, rather than focusing on hardware or procurement, we are investing in training individuals. We need to improve the training of teachers so that they have the skills and knowledge they need to make the most of the opportunities ahead.

It is vital that teachers can feel confident using technological tools and resources for their own and their pupils’ benefit, both within and beyond the classroom, and can adapt to new technologies as they emerge. That means ensuring that teachers receive the best possible ITT and CPD in the use of educational technology.

Working with the TDA, we will be looking at initial teacher training courses carefully in the coming year so that teachers get the skills and experience they need to use technology confidently. And we’re working with Nesta who, supported by Nominet Trust and others, are today announcing a £2m programme to fund and research innovative technology projects in schools.

We must also encourage teachers to learn from other schools which are doing this particularly well.

Some ICT teaching in schools is already excellent – as reported in the most recent Ofsted report on ICT education and last year’s Naace report, “The Importance of Technology”.

Sharing that excellence will help all schools to drive up standards. We are already working with the Open University on Vital, a programme encouraging teachers to share ICT expertise between schools. High-performing academy chains will also play a huge role in spreading existing best practice and innovation between schools.

And Teaching Schools across the country are already forming networks to help other schools develop and improve their use of technology. The Department for Education is going to provide dedicated funding to Teaching Schools to support this work.

The current, flawed ICT curriculum

The disruptive, innovative, creative force of new technology also pushes us to think about the curriculum.

And one area exemplifies, more than any other, the perils of the centre seeking to capture in leaden prose the restless spirit of technological innovation.

I refer, of course, to the current ICT curriculum.

The best degrees in computer science are among the most rigorous and respected qualifications in the world. They’re based on one of the most formidable intellectual fields – logic and set theory – and prepare students for immensely rewarding careers and world-changing innovations.

But you’d never know that from the current ICT curriculum.

Schools, teachers and industry leaders have all told us that the current curriculum is too off-putting, too demotivating, too dull.

Submissions to the National Curriculum Review Call for Evidence from organisations including the British Computer Society, Computing at School, eSkills UK, Naace and the Royal Society, all called the current National Curriculum for ICT unsatisfactory.

They’re worried that it doesn’t stretch pupils enough or allow enough opportunities for innovation and experimentation – and they’re telling me the curriculum has to change radically.

Some respondents in a 2009 research study by e-Skills said that ICT GCSE was “so harmful, boring and / or irrelevant it should simply be scrapped”. The Royal Society is so concerned that it has spent two years researching the problem with universities, employers, teachers and professional bodies – so I’m looking forward to its report, due to be published on Friday. And while ICT is so unpopular, there are grave doubts about existing Computer Science 16-18 courses.

In short, just at the time when technology is bursting with potential, teachers, professionals, employers, universities, parents and pupils are all telling us the same thing. ICT in schools is a mess.

Disapplying the Programme of Study

That’s why I am announcing today that the Department for Education is opening a consultation on withdrawing the existing National Curriculum Programme of Study for ICT from September this year.

The traditional approach would have been to keep the Programme of Study in place for the next four years while we assembled a panel of experts, wrote a new ICT curriculum, spent a fortune on new teacher training, and engaged with exam boards for new ICT GCSES that would become obsolete almost immediately.

We will not be doing that.

Technology in schools will no longer be micromanaged by Whitehall. By withdrawing the Programme of Study, we’re giving schools and teachers freedom over what and how to teach; revolutionising ICT as we know it.

Let me stress – ICT will remain compulsory at all key stages, and will still be taught at every stage of the curriculum. The existing Programme of Study will remain on the web for reference.

But no English school will be forced to follow it any more. From this September, all schools will be free to use the amazing resources that already exist on the web.

Universities, businesses and others will have the opportunity to devise new courses and exams. In particular, we want to see universities and businesses create new high quality Computer Science GCSEs, and develop curricula encouraging schools to make use of the brilliant Computer Science content available on the web.

I am pleased that OCR is pioneering work in this field, and that IBM and others are already working on a pilot. Facebook has teamed up with UK-based organisation Apps for Good to offer young people the chance to learn how to design, code and build social applications for use on social networks, via a unique new training course which they aim to make freely available online this year to potential users all over the world.

And other specialist groups have published or are about to publish detailed ICT curricula and programmes of study, including Computing At School (led by the British Computer Society and the Institute of IT), Behind the Screens (led by eSkills UK), Naace and others, with considerable support from industry leaders.

Imagine the dramatic change which could be possible in just a few years, once we remove the roadblock of the existing ICT curriculum. Instead of children bored out of their minds being taught how to use Word and Excel by bored teachers, we could have 11 year-olds able to write simple 2D computer animations using an MIT tool called Scratch. By 16, they could have an understanding of formal logic previously covered only in University courses and be writing their own Apps for smartphones.

This is not an airy promise from an MP – this is the prediction of people like Ian Livingstone who have built world-class companies from computer science.

And we’re encouraging rigorous Computer Science courses
The new Computer Science courses will reflect what you all know: that Computer Science is a rigorous, fascinating and intellectually challenging subject.

After all, the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, is one of the most innovative and successful proponents of Computer Science today. But his computing skills are just as rigorous as the rest of his talents – which include Maths, Science, French, Hebrew, Latin and Ancient Greek.

Computer Science requires a thorough grounding in logic and set theory, and is merging with other scientific fields into new hybrid research subjects like computational biology.

So I am also announcing today that, if new Computer Science GCSEs are developed that meet high standards of intellectual depth and practical value, we will certainly consider including Computer Science as an option in the English Baccalaureate.

Although individual technologies change day by day, they are underpinned by foundational concepts and principles that have endured for decades. Long after today’s pupils leave school and enter the workplace – long after the technologies they used at school are obsolete – the principles learnt in Computer Science will still hold true.

An open-source curriculum

Advances in technology should also make us think about the broader school curriculum in a new way.

In an open-source world, why should we accept that a curriculum is a single, static document? A statement of priorities frozen in time; a blunt instrument landing with a thunk on teachers’ desks and updated only centrally and only infrequently?

In ICT, for example, schools are already leading the way when it comes to using educational technology in new and exciting ways – and they’re doing it in spite of the existing ICT curriculum, not because of it.

The essential requirements of the National Curriculum need to be specified in law, but perhaps we could use technology creatively to help us develop that content. And beyond the new, slimmed down National Curriculum, we need to consider how we can take a wiki, collaborative approach to developing new curriculum materials; using technological platforms to their full advantage in creating something far more sophisticated than anything previously available.

This means freedom and autonomy

Disapplying the ICT programme of study is about freedom. It will mean that, for the first time, teachers will be allowed to cover truly innovative, specialist and challenging topics.

And whether they choose a premade curriculum, or whether they design their own programme of study specifically for their school, they will have the freedom and flexibility to decide what is best for their pupils.

Teachers will now be allowed to focus more sharply on the subjects they think matter – for example, teaching exactly how computers work, studying the basics of programming and coding and encouraging pupils to have a go themselves.

Initiatives like the Raspberry Pi scheme will give children the opportunity to learn the fundamentals of programming with their own credit card sized, single-board computers. With minimal memory and no disk drives, the Raspberry Pi computer can operate basic programming languages, handle tasks like spread sheets, word-processing and games, and connect to wifi via a dongle – all for between £16 and £22. This is a great example of the cutting edge of education technology happening right here in the UK. It could bring the same excitement as the BBC Micro did in the 1980s, and I know that it’s being carefully watched by education and technology experts all over the world.

As well as choosing what to study, schools can also choose how.

Technology can be integrated and embedded across the whole curriculum.

In geography lessons, for example, pupils could access the specialised software and tools used by professional geographers, allowing them to tackle more challenging and interesting work. Molecular modelling software could bring huge advantages for science students.

The Abbey School in Reading has already been piloting 3D technologies for teaching Biology, showing 3D images of the heart pumping blood through valves, and manipulating, rotating and tilting the heart in real time. As Abbey School Biology teacher Ros Johnson said, the 3D technology “has made me realise what they weren’t understanding…what I can’t believe is how much difference it has made to the girls’ understanding”.

This isn’t a finished strategy – but it shows our ambition
The use of technology in schools is a subject that will keep growing and changing, just as technology keeps growing and changing.

But we can be confident about one thing. Demand for high-level skills will only grow in the years ahead. In work, academia and their personal lives, young people will depend upon their technological literacy and knowledge.

And this doesn’t just affect our country. Every nation in the world will be changed by the growth of technology and we in Britain must ensure that we can make the most of our incredible assets to become world-leaders in educational technology.

Today has seen the conclusion of the Education World Forum here in London. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is for me, personally, that we learn from the highest performing education systems – some of whom I am delighted to see represented here – and I am very grateful to everyone who has taken the time and trouble to come to London for this event.

I’m not here today to announce our final, inflexible, immutable technology strategy. There’s no blueprint to follow – and we don’t know what our destination will look like.

I’m setting out our direction of travel, and taking the first few steps. There is lots more to come, and we will have more to say over the course of the year.

I’d also like to welcome the online discussion launched today at schoolstech.org.uk and using the twitter hashtag #schoolstech. We need a serious, intelligent conversation about how technology will transform education – and I look forward to finding out what everyone has to say.

We want a modern education system which exploits the best that technology can offer to schools, teachers and pupils. Where schools use technology in imaginative and effective ways to build the knowledge, understanding and skills that young people need for the future. And where we can adapt to and welcome every new technological advance that comes along to change everything, all over again, in ways we never expected.

Events like the BETT show are crucial in showcasing the best and brightest of the technology industry, showing what can be done – and what is already being achieved. We will depend upon your insight and ideas, your expertise and experience, as you take these technologies into your schools and try them with your students.

Thank you again to BETT for inviting me, and I wish you all good exploring today.

January 30, 2016
Eric Pickles – 2012 Speech at Local Government Summit

Below is the text of the speech made by Eric Pickles, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London on 16 January 2012.

There is no greater responsibility, no higher priority for this Government than to get the nation back on track towards renewed, long-term, sustainable growth.

Growth puts people in jobs, keeps families in homes, makes our towns and cities great places to live.

Getting public spending under control has been vital and non-negotiable.

We’ve strained every sinew to do it in a way that protects the most vulnerable.

Today is Blue Monday – officially the most depressing day of the year, as people look ahead to months of chilly weather and paying back their Christmas bills.

This year, it will be tough for many people – facing pay freezes at work, be it in the public or private sector, as well as a rising cost of living.

This is why it’s essential in February and March, as town hall budgets are set, that councils sign up to the council tax freeze.

It’s practical help every councillor can offer to their ward constituents. A vote against the council tax freeze is a vote for punishing tax-rises. Local taxpayers will remember that decision next time they cast their vote at the ballot box.

Councillors have a moral duty to sign up to keep down the cost of living – anything less is a kick in the teeth to hard-working, decent taxpayers.

But cutting the deficit is only the first step.

We want to give investors confidence to invest.

Make it easy for entrepreneurs to bring their ideas to market.

Make Britain one of the best places in Europe, if not the world, to start and grow and business.

Now in the past, supporting growth might have been seen as a job for the Treasury and Business Department.

But we simply don’t have that luxury today.

This is a job for every part of Government.

Including my Department.

I am determined that the Department for Communities and Local Government should be at the forefront of creating the right conditions for local economies to thrive.

Not least because localism and growth are two sides of the same coin.

Localism and Growth

You can’t engineer, can’t manufacture growth through nationally-dictated plans and blueprints.

However well-meaning, however expertly devised, Regional Development Agencies simply didn’t deliver.

Even in the five years to 2008, before the crunch really bit, the number of private sector jobs fell in Birmingham, in Nottingham, in Sheffield, Bradford, Croydon and Leicester.

Instead of trying to impose growth from Whitehall, we want to encourage and celebrate local leadership, ingenuity, and enterprise.

Instead of the public sector going solo, we want to get councils and entrepreneurs working together.

So we’re creating the conditions for local leadership.

Local Enterprise Partnerships put civic leaders and local entrepreneurs in the driving seat as never before.

Partnerships now host two dozen Enterprise Zones – with tax breaks and simple planning rules to attract new firms.

Partnerships have advised firms bidding for the two point four billion pounds available under Regional Growth Fund – helping safeguard jobs everywhere from steelyards in Redcar, to biotechnology start-ups in Plymouth.

And now we’re reforming business rates, so that councils see a direct benefit to their own finances from boosting the local economy…

…and this will give every council every possible reason to work with businesses and entrepreneurs.

But perhaps the policy that best encapsulates the new approach is the Growing Places Fund.

Half a billion quid is up for grabs for local leaders to support enterprise, encourage businesses, create the conditions for local growth.

What have we asked Local Enterprise Partnerships to do to get their hands on it?

Not complete a form the size of a telephone directory…

Not report every five minutes on every step along the way…

But set out they want to do with the cash, and what they aim to deliver, in terms as simple as we could possibly make them.

It’s a process that is based on our trust in local leaders to deliver.

This means making tough decisions and putting the cash where it can make the biggest difference – not where it’s most expedient, or will appease the most people.

Get this right, vindicate our trust, and this could be the shape of things to come.

Get it wrong, and well – we’re back to the strings and guidelines, the gentle breath of the overseer tickling the hairs on the back of your neck.

Over to You

So the spotlight falls on you.

To a great extent, what happens in your area next is in your hands.

We’ve binned the guidance, the strictures, the blueprints.

As local leaders – whether in business or the Town Hall – for the first time in decades – you’ve got a clear run.

Your communities are looking to you to lead. To shape the future of your local economies.

Now after a little over a year of Local Enterprise Partnerships, there has been good progress.

Coventry and Warwickshire have worked with local banks to unlock finance for start-ups.

Tees Valley Unlimited are working with the UK’s Trade and Investment service to draw in foreign investment.

Places with Enterprise Zones, from Harlow to Hull, are getting on with the necessary to make them a success.

Manchester, for example, have unveiled their detailed plans for Airport City, with the potential to create twenty thousand new jobs, and dozens of firms are already keen to move in.

So on the one hand there’s a huge amount going on.

But on the other there’s absolutely no room for complacency – especially when we can all feel the chill winds blowing from the Continent.

So use today to galvanise your approach.

Some people have said, “we’d love to do our bit but we’d really like some more instruction.”

It’s a play: Waiting for Guidance.

But the best aren’t hanging around.

Look at the West of England.

They’ve not only secured an Enterprise Zone…

They’re also setting up “Enterprise Areas” too, with similar, straightforward planning rules, the better to attract new firms.

They didn’t wait to be told. They thought, “what can we do?” and they did it.

Some have said, “there’s money coming in but it’s going to our neighbours, or the upper tier, or the lower tier.”

Well then – cut a deal.

If you’re going to make the most of localism, you can’t waste time bickering.

The best will join forces.

Some will consider pooling their business rate incomes under the new system…

…sharing the risks and rewards, and helping everyone plan ahead.

If you’re not quite there yet – if you know in your heart of hearts that’s more you could be doing…

Really use today.

Look at your contemporaries in the room.

Learn from each other.

Challenge each other.

If there are people here you don’t know yet – get stuck in.

Who knows if that stranger isn’t the person who can make the links between your universities and business, between your exporters and new markets, between your entrepreneurs and lenders.

Above all, there is no point clinging to the old levers and approaches.

The world has changed.

Nobody’s going to try and force a solution on you.

Nobody’s going to stop you pursuing your own.

Be creative, be ambitious. Do what it takes to create the conditions for your economy to grow.

What it Means

I want to end by thinking about what’s at stake here.

Not too far from my constituency is the Ford plant at Dagenham.

As British engineering faltered towards the end of the last century, it became a symbol of decline.

Of glories past.

The kind of place that motorists snatch in glimpses as they hurtle past on the A13.

Now of course there are still challenges for British automotive industry.

But believe me, it’s on the way back.

In the year to last October…despite the tough conditions…despite the uncertainty in the markets…this country increased exports of vehicles by nearly twenty per cent.

Who’d have dreamt that ten years ago.

Dagenham, meanwhile, now produces a million engines each year, and employs four thousand people.

Creating the conditions for growth is about turning places like Dagenham from symbols of decline, to symbols of hope.

It’s about making space for new industries that give places a sense of purpose.

And about giving the people who look to you a reason to feel proud.

It goes back to why you’re here today.

I doubt very much that anyone gets into public affairs purely for the love of a beautiful spreadsheet, a snappy minute or a well-chaired committee.

We do it because we want to make change happen.

Today, you’ve got a golden opportunity to be the people who create growth, support jobs, underpin the prosperity and quality of life of the communities you work in.

It’s up to you to make the most of it.

January 30, 2016
George Osborne – 2012 Speech to Asia Financial Forum

Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Hong Kong on 16 January 2012.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to address this Forum, to speak with such a distinguished audience and to do so here in Hong Kong.

I had a very useful discussion earlier today with Chief Executive Donald Tsang. He deserves our thanks for the excellent job he has done in his years as Chief Executive.

Later today I will fly to Beijing and then Tokyo.

It is no surprise or coincidence that my first trip abroad in 2012 should be to Asia.

It reflects instead the deliberate, conscious effort that the British Government places on deepening Britain’s partnership with Asia.

This Asian partnership is not a substitute for our close working relationship with our neighbours in the European Union, our strong links with North America. It is an essential complement to those friendships.

For Asia will be the engine of world growth in this year and the years ahead.

I have spent much of my time in Office in talks about the eurozone.

The eurozone has made progress in recent months, in particular the provision of liquidity to banks by the ECB.

But of course there remains more to do, as the euro area itself acknowledges.

No one likes to see credit ratings downgraded, but what matters much more are the actions western countries take to restore their own fiscal sustainability and take the structural reforms necessary to ensure productive, competitive economies.

All European economies need to tackle the structural obstacles to growth that we’ve simply not had the political will to address in recent years.

It is good news that these issues of growth and competitiveness will be the focus of European leaders’ discussions later this month.

Britain is taking all these problems head on.

Yes, we’re reducing our deficit with a strong, credible and comprehensive deficit-reduction plan.

But we’re also reforming welfare entitlements, removing regulation, making it easier to employ people and create businesses, overhauling education, reducing our corporate taxes to some of the lowest in the world, and championing within the EU a deepening of the single market and leading across the world the cause of greater free trade.

That’s why, as we look to this difficult year ahead, I want to focus today on three reasons to be optimistic for the future.

Three reasons for Britain to be bold.

The first reason is this:

A richer, stronger Asia is an opportunity for the world, not a threat – we should be bold enough to say it and to explain it to our own populations.

Second, we in Britain can build on our position as the home of Asian investment and Asian finance in Europe – provided we’re bold enough to do what it takes to make that happen, and we will.

And third, with a new alliance between Britain and our friends in Asia, we can be bold in defeating the forces of protectionism and make global finance a force for good, not instability.

First, a richer, stronger Asia.

There is no doubt that this is one of the most remarkable achievements in our modern history, and you’ll know the story far better than I do. The Chinese economy is 15 times larger than it was when I first visited China as a student two decades ago. In 1960, South Korea had the same income per head as those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Today, South Koreans enjoy an average income of $23,000.

What is the human story behind all these statistics? The desire of people to have a better life and to leave to their children more than they were born with.

It is the most powerful force for progress we have ever known – and here in Asia it has driven an economic transformation.

That hasn’t always been easy for those in the west.

I do not believe, as some argue, that the rise of the east is a threat to the west.

It is the strength of Asian economies which mean world growth in this decade and the next will be higher than the past 30 years.

Of course there are challenges as we adjust to sharp shifts in economic growth and power.

These adjustments can be painful when unemployment is a challenge in many countries across the world, and where competition for scarce resources affects the prices of key commodities.

In the past, when developed economies were weak, oil prices were self-correcting forces.

In the current crisis, demand from Emerging Economies has kept prices high.

But these problems are the problems of success – the problems of a stronger world economy.

Globalisation is a force for good.

Not only has it been a force for poverty reduction far greater than all the aid programmes across the world put together.

Not only has it allowed people here to have aspirations and ambitions beyond the dreams of their parents and grandparents.

But it also provides huge opportunities to trade and invest for countries who seize them, and I believe that we can make Britain the home of Asian investment and Asian finance in Europe.

This is my second reason for optimism.

If we take the right steps, if we’re bold, then growth in Asia means growth in Britain.

It is precisely as Asian economies become richer and become nations of consumers that hundreds of millions of people will want to buy the things that British companies can sell them.

They will want to buy modern medicines for the first time – and when they do so, I want to make sure it is from pharmaceutical firms like Glaxo SmithKline and Astra Zeneca, the largest employer in the constituency I represent.

They will need modern insurance, banking, and accountancy services, and when they seek those services I want them to do so from companies like HSBC, Prudential, Barclays and Standard Chartered.

The wealthiest will become consumers of Rolls-Royces made in Sussex, and Bentleys made in Crewe, dressed in Burberry clothes manufactured in Yorkshire.

And – like a generation of Japanese tourists before them – they will want to travel.

And when they do, I want them to go on holiday to Britain. I want them to go this year, the year of the spectacular London Olympics and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

And when they go I want them to fly here on the wings of Airbus planes made in North Wales, powered by Rolls Royce engines assembled in Derby. For Britain is one of the top ten manufacturers in the world as well as a global financial centre.

If we are going to make the most of what the growing economies of Asia have to offer Britain, then we need make sure we have dealt with the problems in Britain’s economy.

And we are.

For one of the illusions of globalisation has been that the countries of the west could live indefinitely on the cheap credit and low inflation that the emerging economies of the East provided for us – that we could go on forever borrowing money from hard-working Chinese savers to buy the things those Chinese workers were making for us.

The financial crisis and the deep recessions has been the toughest of reminders of the simple truth that you have to earn your living in this world.

And the lesson of the past year has been that global confidence in a country depends on its determination to deal decisively with the challenges it faces – and by getting to grip with our debts, Britain has shown it is determined to do that.

As I’ve said, we are undertaking major reforms to increase Britain’s competitiveness.

Cutting business tax rates to among the lowest in the developed world, scrapping regulation on small firms, reforming welfare and education, and creating the most flexible workforce in Europe.

The UK is already one of the most open economies in the world – with a stable political system, a commitment to the rule of law and free trade.

Even more than it already is, we want Britain to become one of the easiest places to invest, to raise capital, to start a business, to expand and to export from.

And our links with Asia grow stronger and stronger.

The UK is now the largest source of foreign direct investment to China from within the whole EU and UK goods exports to China rose by 20% last year, and 40% the year before that.

UK goods exports to Hong Kong rose by 19%.

This is largely driven by the ingenuity and innovation of the Asian and British private sectors.

But we have got to do more if we are to be the home of Asian investment in Europe.

The British Government needs to roll up its sleeves and make it happen.

Let me tell you how.

Last year, my colleague William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, spoke at this very Forum and said he wanted to refocus Britain’s diplomatic efforts on the East.

He has been good to his promises. Our embassy in China has expanded significantly and the work of our trade promotion agency, UKTI, has increased its presence across China.

As well promoting British investment in Asia, we are actively seeking Asian investment in Britain and its infrastructure.

We are investing in a new generation of transport, energy and communication networks for our country. Last week alone, we committed to a new high speed rail link to connect our largest cities. The Olympic Park is the largest urban regeneration scheme in Western Europe.

Here and in Beijing I will be promoting infrastructure as just one of the opportunities the UK brings for Chinese investors, following the lead taken by Hong Kong’s own Cheung Kong Group, the largest overseas owner of UK infrastructure.

And there is the potential for a new and fruitful partnership that would bring benefits to the people of China, Hong Kong and Britain.

Last September, at the UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue, I agreed with Vice Premier Wang that “both sides welcomed the private sector interest in developing the offshore RMB market in London” and we agreed to “engaging in bilateral dialogue and dialogue with other authorities, as necessary, to support the market’s future development”.

My visit furthers that dialogue with the Chinese authorities, together with Chinese and British banks, on establishing London as a new hub for the RMB market, as a complement to Hong Kong and other financial centres.

The recent history of the growth of the RMB market is well known to all of you.

It is clear that there is scope for substantial expansion of the RMB market in the coming years.

In June last year, RMB had a world foreign exchange market share of 0.9 per cent.

This compares to China’s share in world trade in 2010 at 11 per cent.

London is perfectly placed to act as a gateway for Asian banking and investment in Europe, and a bridge to the US.

This is not just an accident of time-zone, or our language, although both are important.

It reflects London’s strength in product development, its regulatory structure and the depth, breadth and international reach of its financial markets. We are by some distance the world’s largest foreign exchange market; and the growing use of RMB in those global markets will bring substantial benefit to Chinese economic development and the wider world economy.

It is a reflection of China’s increase in influence and share of global GDP, and is a step towards greater capital convertibility.

I welcome the Donald Tsang’s comments on the importance of the joint private sector forum announced today, facilitated by the Treasury and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, to promote closer cooperation between the London and Hong Kong on the development of global RMB business.

I also welcome Hong Kong’s decision to extend the operating hours of its RMB settlement system, which London is the key beneficiary of.

Our objective is simple: we want to expand the amount of business and trade we do with each other, so that the citizens of China, Hong Kong and Britain all benefit from the prosperity and jobs that will bring.

And it leads me to my third and final point today.

I believe we can be bold in forging a new alliance between Britain and our Asia partners to defeat the forces of protectionism and make global finance a force for good.

I have been doing this job for just short of two years now.

One of the things that have struck me in the thirteen IMF and G20 meetings I’ve attended is how often the British and Chinese agendas are very similar.

You might not expect it, given our different history, cultures and traditions.

But very often, around the table, China and the UK are some of the most forthright advocates of free global and open markets.

China is the world’s second largest manufacturing exporter in the world, while the UK is the world’s second largest services exporter.

I would like to set out what I think should be our shared agenda in 2012.

First, we need to resist a return to protectionism.

The December World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting highlighted that Doha is at a significant impasse.

We need to look at new and innovative alternative approaches to taking forward trade liberalisation, consistent with WTO rules.

That means continuing to push ahead with ambitious free trade agreements with key partners.

Britain is pushing hard to complete EU free trade deals with India and Singapore this year, as well as maintaining momentum towards an ambitious agreement with Japan.

Second, we need must ensure a reformed and more representative IMF has the tools and resources to do its job.

The reforms agreed at the Seoul G20 summit in 2010, which the UK was one of the first countries to ratify, will ensure the IMF is more representative of its whole membership.

The IMF does not belong to any one region of the world.

Its role is to support countries which get into difficulty, not currencies.

Its resources should be drawn from its members and available on an equal basis to all.

But its members also have a responsibility to ensure the IMF has the resources it needs to promote the global economic stability from which we all benefit.

The risks faced by the global economy have increased significantly over the past year.

The capacity of the IMF may also need to rise to ensure those risks can be addressed, but this cannot be a substitute for action by the eurozone.

Britain stands ready to play its part.

Third, we must also ensure global capital markets are underpinned by global rules for financial regulation enforced by strong global institutions.

As home to two of the world’s major financial centres, Hong Kong and Britain share an interest in a truly global approach to financial regulation that maximises the benefits, while reducing the risks, of open financial markets.

It is because we favour a global approach that we oppose an EU-only FTT.

At the heart of these new global rules are the Basel III prudential requirements for banks, which must now be rigorously implemented around the globe.

We must also push ahead with the agreed G20 reforms of derivatives, remuneration and systemic financial institutions and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge what Michel Barnier – who will speak at this Forum after me – is doing to help advance issues in Europe.

These new global rules – high standards, globally applied – must be overseen and enforced by a stronger Financial Stability Board as the global financial watchdog, building on the reforms made at the Cannes G20 summit.

These are all long-lasting reforms that will make global finance a force for good rather than a source of instability, intermediating to put to work the savings of millions to create new jobs and new investments for millions more.

And working with partners in Asia we can do just that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these are challenging times for the world.

But there are also opportunities to build a more balanced, sustainable global economy if we take them.

A strong Asia.

A strong British-Asian relationship.

And strong multi-lateral organizations that support open markets and global stability.

In a challenging and difficult year, these are three reasons to be positive about our future.

Together, let’s build a more prosperous economy for everyone.

Thank you.

January 30, 2016
Nick Clegg – 2012 Speech at Mansion House

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the then Deputy Prime Minister, at the Mansion House in London on 16 January 2012.

Another week, another speech about the evils of capitalism. Let me start by asking: who here is in favour of irresponsible capitalism? Because you won’t find many people arguing for more recklessness, more short-termism or greater rewards at the top. On the contrary – the growing consensus is that we need the opposite: a more sustainable economy; a more balanced economy, where rewards are proportionate and relate to real success.

That consensus, emerging among the political parties, has attracted a little cynicism.

I can understand that. It is, after all, bonus season in our banks. But there is a more generous interpretation of the shifting political mood. One that says: perhaps the penny has finally dropped.

As this debate moves forward, we need to be clear about what we mean. Because, whether you call it a new economy, an ethical economy, moral markets, responsible capitalism, there is a big difference between having strong views on bonus culture or excessive top pay and wanting real change in the practices and principles that guide corporate life. A bit of wrist slapping or moralising at the worst offenders will not be enough. This should not be a war of words but a real contest of ideas about how to reform our economy.

So this morning I want to offer a liberal diagnosis of what’s wrong; and then a liberal remedy.

First, diagnosis. Why is our capitalism in crisis? I will argue that this is, at root, a crisis of power.

That we now have an economy driven by immensely powerful vested interests. Interests that politicians have abjectly failed to stand up to.

The remedy, put most simply, is a redistribution of power. Last month I set out my vision for an Open Society and I talked about the need to disperse political power to create strong citizens. Today I want to talk about dispersing economic power to that same end.

Before I say any more, I want to make one thing clear: Capitalism may be today’s political punchbag, but let’s take a long view: it’s one of history’s great success stories. No other human innovation has driven progress – and raised living standards – so consistently. Markets catalyse ideas, invention and experimentation. When they work well, they are meritocratic and liberating.
And they generate the wealth to support the most vulnerable and needy in society.

Liberals believe strongly in the virtues of the market. But only if it is a market for the many, not a market for the few. Our economy is in danger of becoming the latter, monopolised by a minority, serving narrow and sectional interests.

I am not here to take a cheap shot at big business – this would hardly be the right crowd.

Big British firms are the backbone of our economy: our employers, our wealth generators, leaders in our society. And I am grateful to many of our major firms, particularly, for the commitment they are showing to greater corporate and social responsibility.

Just last week over 100 large companies signed up to the Coalition’s Business Compact, opening their doors to young people from all backgrounds in order to improve social mobility. I’m delighted to see some of them represented here today.

And I know many people in this room will agree: our economy is now seriously out of whack. It simply cannot be right that, right now, because of the crash and the recession, millions of ordinary people are struggling to get by. Yet relatively little has changed for those at the top.

It cannot be right that for most people, on average, wages are falling by around 3% a year, yet executive pay is rising – on average by 13%. Over the last 25 years, top chief exec pay has shot up by 1200%.

That is a gross imbalance, with wealth and influence hoarded among the few. It’s socially destabilising. Morally, it cannot be justified. And it’s bad for the economy too.

Our problem is what Jesse Norman has called crony capitalism. It’s easy to throw rhetorical rocks at directors, bankers and businesses. But, if we are honest, this is as much a failure of politicians and regulators, the authorities too often cowed by corporate power. Whether that is political parties of all stripes in hock to vested interests or regulators struggling to stop supermarkets from putting the squeeze on small suppliers, whether it’s politicians kow-towing to media barons, the problem is endemic.

There’s nothing new about it. Kings have always bestowed privileges on their favourite merchants. Corporations will naturally seek a dominant market position. It’s one of the reasons liberals from John Bright to the present day have been such fierce advocates of free trade. The agricultural landlords of the 19th century and early 20th century were happy for working people to pay more for their food because of protective tariffs. What Lloyd George in 1906 memorably called ‘stomach taxes’. So long as their own profits were protected.

This has always been capitalism’s greatest danger: a tendency for the rule makers and the money makers to get too close. And we saw the consequences of that closeness play out in the most dramatic fashion right here, in the City, just three years ago. It was a political failure; a regulatory failure; and a market failure too.

Political failure, because Whitehall became so dependent on City revenues. That politicians would not see the problems that were brewing. Instead, they hoped the goose would keep laying golden eggs.

Regulatory failure, because the Financial Services Authority failed spectacularly in its duties. Regulators are meant to guard vigilantly against industry excesses. But they turned soft – either captured by or intimidated by those they were supposed to keep in check. And, just like the politicians, just like the industry, the FSA ignored the alarm bells ringing. And market failure, as short-termism and recklessness eventually consumed our banks, taking the whole economy to the edge of a cliff.

Politicians in the pockets of vested interests, regulators asleep at the wheel, an unrestrained economic elite. The primary symptoms of crony capitalism.

For liberals – from Gladstone to Grimond – the role of the state has always been to break up unaccountable, opaque concentrations of power, to protect the national interest from those vested interests. That is why, as well as the moves the Coalition Government is making to bring greater transparency to government contracting and lobbying, we need real reform of party funding to reduce the influence of those interests in politics. We need tougher border controls between the political class and the corporate world, and we need a better distribution of power within our economy.

That’s why, for example we want new rules to stop an executive serving in one company from sitting on the pay board at another, so that directors’ salaries are no longer, effectively, decided by their mates. And we see an extremely important role for the state in redistributing wealth through income tax. In fact, one of the Coalition’s most significant reforms is our changes to income tax. Making it more progressive – so that lower earners keep more of what they earn.

But liberals also recognise that narrowing wage inequality is not solely a task for the state. We also need to put much more power in the hands of other stakeholders in the economy – shareholders and employees – when it comes to setting top pay. Trusting not the unfettered market, nor the interventionist state, but trusting people.

That is the core of a more responsible capitalism: power in the hands of people. Strong economic citizens able to keep vested interests in check. So let me say a word on the Coalition’s approach to empowering two groups in particular: shareholders and employees.

First, shareholders. Part of the challenge is getting more of them to behave like business owners rather than absentee landlords. If they are unhappy, we don’t want them just to sell up and move on, we want them to throw their weight around so that the company improves: but we need to make sure they have the right tools at their disposal and they know how to use them.

The Coalition has said we will introduce binding shareholder votes to curb executive pay as part of a package of measures to moderate boardroom behaviour. Vince Cable will set out that package next week but I can tell you today that we are going to overhaul the way shareholders – and others – can access information.

Often, the reason investors are passive is because they can’t see the reasons to act. Take annual and pay reports. Shareholders should be able to use them as a kind of report card so they can see how well their money is being spent. But, you’ve read them, many – not all, but many – are impenetrable texts: obscuring rather than illuminating. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of facts, figures, charts and graphs. Plenty of information but nowhere – nowhere – a simple, clear single figure showing who gets paid what; Or a simple summary of where the money goes – how much is spent on directors, how much on dividends, or re-invested into the business.

That information is absolutely essential for any investor trying to calculate value for money. Some companies do much better on making it transparent and easy to understand, but not enough. And where companies bury it – that is deeply cynical.

So the Coalition will force companies to open up their books, so that investors don’t need an accountancy degree to decipher them. We are looking at a range of ways of increasing transparency, but here are two very simple changes:

One: shareholders will only need to look at one number, not a dozen, to see how generously top executives are being paid, and they will need a clear policy in place for departing CEOs so that, if they deviate from that policy, and if a hefty payment is made for failure, that decision is up in lights.

Two: the way money is spent will need to be crystal clear. So if a company is spending too much on boardroom pay compared to the amount being reinvested in the business, they will have to explain why: show investors where their money is going. That’s how to unlock shareholder power.

But it’s not just shareholder power that matters. Ultimately investors seek profits, just like executives expect high pay. Some enlightened shareholders might see the benefits of a well-rewarded workforce, but the people best placed to look after the interests of staff are staff. And that is what, so far, has been missing from this debate: ordinary people.

In an open society, a liberal society, people don’t just hold more power in politics, but in the economy too. And, over time, empowering workers can have a hugely transformative effect over corporate culture. People want to work in companies which are dynamic, but they also value stability. They want firms that secure big profits, but not at any cost. They believe that effort and achievement should be rewarded above all else.

Aren’t those precisely the values everyone is now clamouring for businesses to hold?

There are, of course, a range of ways employees can be given a louder voice.

More rights, for example: like the new right to request flexible working and more flexible parental leave – to name just two.

But today I want to focus specifically on employee ownership, a touchstone of liberal economic thought for a century and a half.

John Stuart Mill hoped that employee-owned firms could end what he called the ‘standing feud between capital and labour’, and liberals have been championing it ever since. Because we don’t believe our problem is too much capitalism: we think it’s that too few people have capital. We need more individuals to have a real stake in their firms.

More of a John Lewis economy, if you like.

And, what many people don’t realise about employee ownership is that it is a hugely underused tool in unlocking growth.

I don’t value employee ownership because I believe it is somehow “nicer” – a more pleasant alternative to the rest of the corporate world. Those are lazy stereotypes. Firms that have engaged employees, who own a chunk of their company, are just as dynamic, just as savvy, as their competitors. In fact, they often perform better: lower absenteeism, less staff turnover, lower production costs. In general, higher productivity and higher wages. They weathered the economic downturn better than other companies.

Is employee ownership a panacea? No. Does it guarantee a company will thrive? Of course not. But the evidence and success stories cannot be ignored, and we have to tap this well if we are serious about growth. The 80s was the decade of share ownership. I want this to be the decade of employee share ownership.

Now that’s a big ambition, I know. And it won’t happen overnight. But it won’t happen at all without Government taking a lead, so I am kickstarting a drive in Government to get employee ownership into the bloodstream of the British economy.

We’re already doing this in the public sector, though the work of the Mutuals Taskforce, under Julian le Grand, and work being led by Francis Maude. And, of course, the radical reform of the Royal Mail – on that, I’d like to pay special tribute to Ed Davey. Governments have been grappling with the future of the Royal Mail for decades. Under Ed’s stewardship it will finally be transformed into an organisation in which staff have a meaningful stake. And now I’ve asked Ed to turn his hand to employee ownership in the private sector too.

Working with professional bodies and businesses, the Coalition is going to find out where the barriers are, so that we can knock them down. Do staff and business owners know enough about employee ownership? Are the accountants and lawyers who advise them taught enough about it? Is there red tape we can cut? Does the tax system treat these firms fairly? Do we need an off-the-peg model so that more ordinary people take this up?

We’ll appoint an independent adviser – an expert in the field – to help us find the answers and solutions to these kinds of questions, which will be brought together at a Summit I will chair in the summer.

Crucial to all of this, of course, will be encouraging take up. One option, to give you an idea, could be giving employees a new, universal “Right to Request” shares.

Imagine: an automatic opportunity for every employee to seek to enter into a share scheme, enjoying the tax benefits that come with it, taking what for many people might seem out of their reach, and turning it into a routine decision. Clearly the details of that kind of policy need to be properly thought through. We need to establish which companies would and wouldn’t benefit – it might not be feasible for microbusiness, for example.

But we need to start by thinking big: not asking ‘why?’, but asking ‘why not?’ Looking across the board – tax, regulation, simplicity, awareness – to help more of these companies flourish, in order to put more employees at the helm.

And that brings me to the thought I want to end on today: economic power in more hands.

As the debate on a more responsible capitalism moves forward, Liberals will remain set on that goal:

An end to crony capitalism, where vested interests trump the national interest. A better balance of power, in the economy – and between politics and business. That is the route to a safer, more stable, more prosperous economic future. This is how we will spread wealth and share rewards.

A more responsible capitalism. A more liberal capitalism.

Thank you.

January 30, 2016
Alun Cairns – 2016 Speech on Welsh Devolution

Below is the text of the speech made by Alun Cairns, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Wales, at the Capita Devolution Conference in Cardiff on 28 January 2016.

Introduction

Thank you Sir Paul for that introduction and indeed for chairing this event today. I am very pleased to be here to set out how the Government is meeting its commitments to devolve more powers to the Welsh Government and the Assembly.

This is an exciting time for devolution in Wales and across the UK though it is fair to say that my party were not natural devolutionists at the outset.

But, once the Welsh people had given their view in the 1997 referendum, we embraced it with a determination to make devolved government succeed. As William Hague remarked, good generals don’t fight yesterday’s battles.

And since then, my party has become a party of committed devolutionists. In Wales and elsewhere in the UK we are making historic changes to how the country is governed; devolving decision making closer to the communities affected by those decisions.

But before I talk about the future, I want first to reflect on how we have got to where we are today.

The Story So Far

The Assembly of 1999 was of course a very different place to the legislature we have today, with very different powers.

Having been an Assembly Member for 12 years I am more than familiar with the limitations and the challenges of working in an Assembly under the various Government of Wales Acts. I hope to be able to use my experience as an AM with an understanding of its culture and expectations in a positive and constructive way in developing the new settlement.

It was not until the Government of Wales Act 2006 that the Assembly truly became a legislature.

Even then, despite the Richard Commission recommending full law-making powers two years before, devolving competence was subject to the convoluted and complicated Legislative Competence Order process that I think we all would sooner forget.

When the Conservative-led Coalition Government was elected in 2010, we stepped up the pace of Wales’ devolution journey. We took forward the 2011 referendum which saw full law-making powers devolved to the Assembly for the first time. We established the Silk Commission to engage with the public, businesses, and others in Wales, on the future of Welsh devolution.

The Wales Act 2014 saw the coalition government implement almost all the recommendations the Silk Commission made in its first report on fiscal devolution. We are devolving stamp duty land tax and landfill tax, proving the Welsh Government with new capital borrowing powers and taking forward the devolution of a portion of income tax.

Sir Paul’s commission turned next to looking at the Assembly’s powers and published its second report in 2014.

By then it had become clear to us all that the current Welsh devolution settlement was not fit for purpose. It does not do the job of providing a clear devolution boundary because it is silent in many areas and unclear in others.

The Silk Commission’s headline recommendation that Wales should move to a reserved powers model reflected the broad consensus of opinion across Wales.

But although the Silk Commission included representatives of the four main parties in Wales, those representatives had no mandate to bind their parties to the recommendations it made.

The St David’s Day process, which the Secretary of State led a year ago, identified which of the Silk Commission’s recommendations commanded the support of the four main political parties in Wales.

It is fair to say that the process was not easy but the Secretary of State was determined that Welsh devolution progressed on the basis of cross-party agreement

And whilst the views of the parties here in Cardiff are often widely publicised I think all involved in the process were surprised by the less publicised divergence between those views and the views of the same parties in Westminster.

This complicates the matter still further.

The outcome of this process became what is now called the St David’s Day Agreement and the Conservative manifesto for last year’s general election committed to implement that agreement in full.

We’ve wasted no time in getting on with that job.

We have already put in place a funding floor. This was something that had been shied away from in the 13 years leading up to 2010.

The significance of this should not be understated. When I was an AM, it took years for the Assembly to recognise the case of underfunding. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Welsh Government agreed to commission Gerry Holtham to conduct an investigation. Even then, the-then Chief Secretary, Andy Burnham, simply acknowledged the contents without any direction.

This government recognised that devolution could not operate effectively while the issue of relative levels of funding loomed large in the minds of public and politicians alike.

The funding floor will ensure that relative levels of funding for Wales will not fall below 115% of comparable funding in England. That is a real commitment and it is in place now.

We are also taking forward income tax devolution and in November the Chancellor committed to implementing the Welsh Rates of Income Tax without a referendum.

The draft Wales Bill, which was published in October for pre-legislative scrutiny, further delivers on the St David’s Day Agreement.

It provides a reserved powers model for Wales and it will devolve new powers over energy, transport, the Assembly, local government elections and many other areas.

The Changing Context: Further Devolution in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland

But all of this is not happening in isolation.

We are taking forward the Smith Commission recommendations for Scotland through the Scotland Bill, which is at Committee stage in the House of Lords.

We will implement the Fresh Start commitments for Northern Ireland.

And we are devolving powers to our great cities reflecting the need for responsive decision making at a local level on some key issues to reflect local needs. Manchester will soon have an elected mayor and we are agreeing City Deals for cities as far apart as Bristol and Glasgow.

The Chancellor also confirmed earlier this month his commitment to delivering a Cardiff City Deal. The £50 million we have committed to establish a UK national centre to develop semiconductors is a down payment on a City Deal we want to see agreed in time for the Budget.

But there needs to be wider recognition in Wales of the need to devolve decision making from Cardiff Bay. The case for Wales having different needs to other parts of the UK rightly generated the calls for devolution. The same logic also applies to the needs in different parts of Wales.

Where we Have Got to and Why

Since its publication, the draft Wales Bill has generated intense debate. And it has exposed some oft-repeated misconceptions about devolution.

Through the Wales Bill, we want to devolve more powers to Wales. But in establishing a new reserved powers model we want to see a clear boundary between what is devolved and what is reserved.

Clear boundaries so that policy makers and law makers who need to navigate the settlement every day understand who is responsible for what.

More importantly, clear boundaries so that people know who to hold to account for decisions on the services they use every day, be it the UK Government or the Welsh Government, the Assembly or Parliament.

It can’t be right that we have to go to the Supreme Court to get clarity on what is devolved or not devolved.

And it can’t be right that the focus of debate stagnates around the extent of Assembly powers not on what they want to achieve.

Much has been made of the consent requirements in the draft Wales Bill but to my mind, they provide flexibility for the Assembly to legislate but with a demarcation of responsibility between the Assembly and the UK Government.

It is absolutely right that the UK Government seeks the consent of the Assembly to make changes to the law in devolved areas. This happens regularly through Legislative Consent Motions.

Then surely it is equally right that the consent of a UK Minister should be gained to amend the functions of bodies which are accountable to the UK Parliament.

The UK Government has sought over 50 Legislative Consent Motions in the Assembly for UK Parliament Bills since the Assembly gained full law making powers in 2011. This is quite a regular and mature part of governance.

My logic is that it is only right that there should be a similar process when the Assembly seeks to change functions of reserved bodies.

But, that said, we understand the doubts and concerns about the Bill that remain and we are looking positively at the issues that have been raised.

And we are looking at the list of reservations. A reserved powers model for Wales was never going to be simple and the list of reservations was never going to be short – it isn’t for Scotland where more powers are devolved.

We are looking to reduce the number of reservations and to include only those where there is a good reason to do so. But the focus here should not be on the number of reservations, the focus needs to be on getting the devolution settlement right.

Finally, most of the debate around the draft Bill has been about the so called “necessity test”.

I recognise the concerns that have been raised about this issue..

I respect the views that have been expressed but let me make clear that this is not, as some would have us believe, a part of some Machiavellian plot to prevent the Assembly being able to enforce its legislation.

Rather it is simply to ensure that the fundamental principles that underpin the legal jurisdiction in England and Wales are not modified any more than they need to be for that enforcement to be effective in Wales.

We are looking at whether this aim can be achieved in a different way but the answer is not a separate jurisdiction.

The single jurisdiction works and has served Wales well for centuries.

A separate jurisdiction would be expensive with more complicated structures.

It is not what the legal profession in Wales wants – a profession that currently punches above its weight across England and Wales.

Be it from law schools based in London, Cardiff or Llandudno, there could be a risk that legal talent would desert law firms in Wales for better opportunities in London, Manchester or Birmingham.

And we do not want potential inward investors having to factor in a separate jurisdiction into their decision making when they are choosing between Flint and Farnborough or Llanelli and Lincoln.

We do not need a separate jurisdiction to make a reserved powers model work, nor do we need one just for the sake of being different.

We do not need a separate jurisdiction to make a reserved powers model work, nor do we need one just for the sake of being different.

I absolutely agree that Welsh legislation will continue to diverge and that the legal system must account for that.

There are well established systems in place to ensure that the justice system in Wales can react to changes in the law in Wales but we believe that these arrangements can be made more robust to reflect the distinct arrangements needed in Wales to take account of the laws made by the Assembly.

There are also some who call for a separate or distinct jurisdiction simply for Wales to be different; as if it is somehow an important assertion of Welsh identity to rebrand our courts.

They argue for an outcome without ever explaining why that outcome should be where we want to get to.

That is not how good policy is made and it would not deliver a clearer, stronger and fairer settlement as we are aiming to do.

It is the very opposite of devolving powers for a purpose and that is why I would argue for a different outcome; on the issue of the jurisdiction and for Welsh devolution more generally.

The Goal: More Accountable Government and More Mature Debate
We need to move the debate in Wales onto a more mature footing.

When the Wales Bill is settled, I want the focus of political engagement in Wales to be on policies, not on powers.

In the early days of the Assembly, policies were routinely implemented on an England and Wales basis, not so that Westminster kept control, but so that the best policy was delivered in the most efficient and effective way.

Sadly, that has happened less and less in recent years.

The boiler scrappage scheme is an example I remember from my time in the Assembly. Rather than agree to the scheme being implemented on an England and Wales basis, the Welsh Government asserted that it could implement its own scheme. By the time that it did, much of the momentum had been lost and the Welsh scheme was far less effective than the scheme in England.

The Help to Buy Scheme in Wales is another more recent example where a people in Wales had to wait several months for a rebranded Welsh version.

Are these policies different for the sake of being different?

On the other hand, there have been innovative policies in Wales in recent years..

Organ donation and carrier bag charges are just two examples.

I want to see a position where other parts of the UK are demanding the same changes in legislation where Wales has led the way.

The tax powers we are devolving offer a great opportunity for just this sort of innovation.

They offer the opportunity to make Wales a low-tax nation or even a high spending country if that is what the Government of the day would want to justify.

Sir Paul’s report highlighted that a penny cut in the higher rate would cost the Welsh Government around £12 million, less than 0.1% of their budget.

But it would set Wales apart as a nation that is prepared to be bold and innovative in its tax policies.

Alongside this, the devolution of tax powers offers a chance to cost the value of everything, rather than just measuring inputs.

Tax powers alongside the Wales Bill will deliver a more mature debate about tax and spend and about policies and service delivery.

So how do we get to this outcome?

How We Get There – The Next Steps

Firstly, we will deliver the Wales Bill this year as we have promised to do.

The Bill will reflect issues that have been raised in the debate that has gone on since the Bill was published in October and it will take account of the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations made by the Welsh Affairs Committee and by the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee.

The Bill will deliver a new devolution settlement and significant new powers over energy, transport and elections.

It will also give the Assembly significant new powers over its own institutional arrangements.

But then there needs to be a response to these new powers from whoever forms the Welsh Government after the Assembly elections in May.

I want the Welsh Government to be ambitious about these new powers.

I want it to be innovative with these new opportunities.

And to show that it can develop policies that make a real difference.

We have had far too many policies that are different for the sake of being different.

Wales may need different policies to the UK but different parts of Wales may also need tailored approaches.

Only then can the debate move on from squabbles about powers to mature debate about services, taxation and spending.

And that is the goal of the UK Government, the Assembly and I hope the UK Government.

Conclusion

As I said at the beginning, this is an exciting time for devolution in Wales, and across the UK.

And in Wales this is not just an exciting time but a time of opportunity.

We have a chance to move the political debate forward in Wales so we are talking about the issues that really matter to people on the doorstep.

A chance to move on from complaints about Westminster funding to real debate about taxation and spending.

A chance to develop ambitious and innovative policies for Wales not for the sake of being different but to address the health challenges, the social care challenges and the education challenges we face.

That is my ambition for Wales. I hope very much that you share it.

Thank you.

January 30, 2016
David Cameron – 2012 Speech with President Mahmoud Abbas

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 16 January 2012.

Well, it’s a great pleasure to welcome President Abbas back to Number 10 Downing Street. Britain and the Palestinian Authority have very good and strong relations and last year we upgraded our diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority.

Britain wants to see a two-state solution come about. We are passionate about this; we do everything we can to push and promote this agenda at every available opportunity. I spoke to the Israeli Prime Minister after the New Year and I am delighted to have the Palestinian President here today.

We believe the peace talks that have begun in Jordan do provide an opportunity – an opportunity we hope that both sides will pursue. We think this is absolutely vital.

Obviously, as a friend of Israel and a friend of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people, we want to see a strong, democratic, peaceful Israel alongside a strong, democratic and peaceful Palestine. We believe that is achievable, but we can’t achieve it without the two parties coming together and talking and discussing. In the end, this two-state solution can only come about from the two parties talking to each other. We cannot want it more than you want it.

So, we wish you well. We will do everything we can to help promote these discussions. We think that time, in some ways, is running out for the two‑state solution unless we can push forward now, because otherwise the facts on the ground will make it more and more difficult, which is why the settlement issue remains so important.

But we wish you well; we hope the talks can continue and we hope that the two-state solution that we strongly support can be achieved and we say that as a friend of Israel but also a very strong friend of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority, and indeed as major donors to the Palestinian Authority and the institutions that you are so successfully building up. But President Abbas, you are very welcome here again.”

President Mahmoud Abbas (via interpreter):

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Prime Minister. We are indeed very happy to be here and I would like to thank you for the invitation. And I would like to thank you also on behalf of the populace, on your stance vis-a-vis Palestine, on your support for the solution which we also – the two-state solution.

You have indeed played a very, very important role in building our Palestinian institutions and this we can witness through the assistance that you have been offering us.

Of course, nothing can be achieved without negotiations. As you know, there are negotiations going on right now because of the initiative that King Abdullah II of Jordan has taken. We are optimistic about those negotiations and at the same time we hope that there will be something tangible as a result of these negotiations.

Of course, time is of the essence; there must be speed, we must be fast in achieving those things because the settlements and the whole thing will go on – seeing the settlements going on, is going to help everything; it’s what stands in the face of everything at the same time. So, settlements have to stop. Settlements have to stop in order for us to be able to continue our negotiations; to come to some sort of solution and a solution which will encompass the vision of the Palestinian state to come in the future.

I personally know very well that you have a very balanced relationship, be that towards Israel or the Palestinian Authority. This at the same time is of great importance because you could play a political role, so to speak, so that we can find the balance that we all want to seek. We always need your help, sir. As we need your help and I am indeed very happy to be here with you.

January 29, 2016
Francis Maude – 2012 Speech on the Big Society

Francis Maude

Below is the text of the speech made by Francis Maude, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, on 17 January 2012.

Everyone is a localist now. But Localism is not just letting go of power, as if all you would have to do is open your hands and it will flow away. You have to push it away. With localism you really have to mean it.

We need a culture change, that’s not just about how politicians and Ministers behave. We have done a great deal – we are giving more freedom to local government. There is less money but you get more freedom in what you do with it. But we’re always pushing power beyond local government and right down to communities. This doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a long term movement. We need to encourage and support people.

We have one of the most centralised Western democracies in the world.

I don’t need convincing that people care about what their neighbourhood looks like; the quality of their local services; and the future of their high streets. That’s why we have Neighbourhood Watches, local campaigns, residents’ associations.

But Whitehall has stifled local enterprise over the years. And people are frustrated about not being able to make a difference in communities in which they live – especially in deprived areas.

Our role in central government is to free and empower individuals, communities and councils to find local solutions to local problems, instead of trying to impose uniform solutions on different communities with no understanding of their unique issues.

We have recruited the first of 5000 people to be trained as Community Organisers to tackle problems on the ground.

They are being trained to learn the skills they need to identify local leaders and bring people together to act on what matters to them.

And this summer 12 National Citizen Service pilots gave over 8000 16-year-olds across the country the opportunity to engage deliver social action projects which they were most passionate about.

NCS empowers young people to take ownership and make a genuine difference within their local communities, whilst arming them with essential life skills.

This year up to 30,000 young people will have the chance to get involved and by 2014 – 90,000 places will be available.

We have also set up an £80million Community First fund to provide small grants to community groups and local social action projects.

January 29, 2016