Tag: Stephen Twigg

Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, in the House of Commons on 5 November 2019.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones). I will start, if I may, by thanking everyone with whom I have had the honour to work in this place. In particular, I wish to put on record my thanks to my amazing staff both in the constituency and here in Parliament.

I had the privilege to serve for eight years the constituency in which I grew up and where most of my close family still live—Enfield, Southgate. That result in Enfield, Southgate in 1997 was once voted the third greatest television moment ever. This was in a survey in 1998, so it was fresh in people’s minds. In that poll, the greatest television moment ever was the first man on the moon, the second was the release of Nelson Mandela from prison and the third was my defeat of Michael Portillo in that election. I have told this story once or twice over the past two decades, and I should point out that it was a poll of The Observer readers and Channel 4 viewers, so was not necessarily a cross-section of the public as a whole.

When I lost in 2005, I sought refuge in Liverpool, and I am immensely grateful to my local Labour party and to the people of the great constituency of West Derby in the city of Liverpool for electing me three times since 2010. Liverpool is a city with a truly amazing spirit, and that spirit is embodied by the campaign for justice for those who lost their lives at Hillsborough 30 years ago. I pay tribute to the families and campaigners who did so much to ensure that that injustice was properly addressed. It is a city with a very vibrant community and voluntary sector. One of the things I have done is to volunteer at a local food bank at St John’s church in Tuebrook in my constituency. I think there is something profoundly wrong that people in this day and age are relying on food banks, but I pay tribute to those who work in them.

Education has long been my No. 1 passion, and I served for three years as Minister for Schools. In that role, I set up and led the London challenge programme to improve schools here in the capital city. In Liverpool, I have run the Liverpool to Oxbridge Collaborative to encourage more state school students to consider Oxford or Cambridge. I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on global education.

Since 2015, it has been an honour to chair the Select Committee on International Development. I thank its staff and all its Members, past and present—in particular, my friend the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It is so important that the UK remains engaged globally, and one of the ways in which we do that is through our commitment to development and humanitarian relief. We can be proud of our 0.7% commitment and that we have an independent Department—the Department for International Development—that leads in the delivery of those programmes. We face huge challenges of climate change, conflict, poverty and inequality, and we have the tool of the sustainable development goals to address these crises, but we also need to maintain our focus on some appalling humanitarian situations in places such as Yemen and Syria, as well as the Rohingya crisis covering the people of Burma and Bangladesh. I hope that whoever takes over from me as Chair of the Committee will pick up those challenges.​
In 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and I were the first ever Members of Parliament who were openly LGBT at the time of our first election. I pay tribute to our friend Lord Smith of Finsbury, who for a long period was the only openly gay Member of Parliament. I am very proud that there are now 45 Members in this House who are openly LGBT and that we have seen huge legal progress in this country, although we still have a long way to go to achieve full equality across the world. Thanks to civil partnerships, I was able to marry Mark 13 years ago. We always called our civil partnership a marriage, but I was then very proud to vote with others across the House for equal marriage. I really thank Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron, all of whom showed great commitment to the cause of equality for people who are LGBT. As we move forward, I hope that we will address some of the very big challenges that LGBT people face around the world and ensure that part of our soft power and our approach to global human rights is about addressing those injustices, wherever they rear their heads.

I conclude by echoing comments made by a number of Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who talked about the importance of appealing to the best instincts of the British people, and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who spoke very powerfully about how we need to bring people together. We have seen a growth of a particular strand of authoritarian populism across our continent and in the United States, Brazil and other parts of the world. It poses a huge challenge for our politics. Here in the UK, Brexit is in a sense both a consequence and a cause of some very fundamental divisions and inequalities that scar our society.

Against that backdrop, I hope that the new Parliament will be able to do its best to bring people back together. I have never like the adversarialism in this place. I did not like it when I was a Government Member with a majority of almost 200; I certainly do not like it in opposition. I think we do really have a lot in common with each other. We need to be more open about the need to address the evidence that is available on the policy challenges that we face. One of the reasons I have enjoyed chairing a Select Committee is that it is cross-party working and it is based on the best available evidence, not the best available slogan for carrying the headlines that day. I hope that is something that we can all reflect on in the weeks, months and years ahead.

I want to finish by quoting the late Jo Cox. I stand here in front of the shield in Jo’s memory. I only got to know Jo in that very brief period from her election in 2015 to her murder a year later. Jo said that

“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

That message is one that I hope we can all take forward in this election campaign but also into the next Parliament.

Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Labour MP for Liverpool, West Derby, in the House of Commons on 6 December 2018.

The city of Liverpool has been hit hard by austerity since 2010, with massive cuts in central Government funding hitting Liverpool City Council and its services and hitting the police service and the fire service, while benefit changes have hit the poorest hardest. Liverpool has also benefited enormously from membership of the European Union. Merseyside had Objective 1 status, which helped to bring significant investment to our communities. It is an outward-looking city, reflected in the heavy vote across the city two years ago to remain in the European Union—58% to 42%.

However, the divisions that we have discussed today nationally were reflected locally. My constituency saw a much narrower vote—the vote was not conducted by constituency, but my estimate is that it was probably about 52% remain and 48% leave. As we have heard rightly from both sides in this debate, some of the communities that have been hit hardest by poverty and austerity are those that had the highest leave votes. That was certainly the case in my constituency and that reflected many concerns—some about immigration and others about a sense of being left behind.

Those divisions clearly continue. They are reflected in my inbox, as I am sure they are in those of other Members. I have had constituents urging me in the last three weeks to vote for no deal because that would be better than this deal. Some want a people’s vote. Some people are coming to see me to support the deal, but a very clear majority view from my constituents is that we should reject this deal because it is bad for jobs, bad for rights and bad for living standards.

I voted remain and I campaigned hard for remain in my constituency, elsewhere in Liverpool, and in other parts of the north-west, but I accepted the result despite my great personal sense of disappointment. I voted in favour of triggering article 50 and I really wanted to see a serious negotiation to deliver on the referendum. I agree very strongly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who said on the opening day of this debate that

“history will record the Prime Minister’s red lines to have been an absolutely catastrophic mistake”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 800.]

It would have been perfectly feasible to take a pragmatic, inclusive and flexible approach and reach out across the Chamber to all parties. The Government’s failure to do that has resulted in a political declaration which is vague and uncertain, and which, crucially, tells us very little about the key issues of frictionless trade. As a result, it is almost certain not only that this deal will be defeated next Tuesday, but that it will defeated by a substantial margin.​
After that vote, we shall have an historic responsibility and opportunity to forge a new way forward. I have signed both amendment (a), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and amendment (i), in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central. Taken together, they could provide the basis for a way forward: rejecting the disastrous option of no deal, seeking instead a permanent customs union and a strong single market deal, and resolving to pursue every option to prevent no deal from happening.

It seems to me that there are two potential ways forward after the vote next Tuesday. Either we come together in the House, across party divides, and agree a position that can protect jobs, protect the rights of workers and standards in the environment and for consumers, and protect living standards. I believe we could achieve that with the good will of Government and Parliament working together. Otherwise, there will be no alternative but for us to take this back to the people, either in the form of an early general election or in the form of another referendum—a people’s vote.

The economic consequences of leaving without a deal could be disastrous. As others have said, they would hit the poorest areas hardest. I look at those areas of Liverpool’s economy, such as the car industry, health and life sciences, universities and the port. Those are the industries that would suffer most if we left without a deal, and regions such as the north-west would be hit hardest by a no deal Brexit. Yes, this deal is not the right deal, but let us come together and deliver the deal that really can protect jobs and rights across our country.

Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, in Westminster Hall on 23 March 2017.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the First Report of the International Development Committee of Session 2015-16, Syrian refugee crisis, HC 463, and the Government response, HC 902.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. In January last year, the International Development Committee released our first report of this Parliament, which focused on the refugee crisis that has arisen from the conflict in Syria. On 15 March, the Syrian conflict marked its sixth anniversary. The scale of the conflict has been well documented: it is enormous, in terms of both the humanitarian challenge and the number of lives lost. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates that since the start of the conflict, 450,000 people have lost their lives. Last year, the United Nations identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, almost half of whom—6 million —are internally displaced in Syria. In January 2017, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that there are 4.8 million registered refugees.

I refer to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: in 2015, I visited Jordan with Oxfam. A third of Jordan’s population are refugees. When I visited the Zaatari refugee camp alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), we heard the same message repeatedly from the refugees: all they want is the opportunity to return home to a peaceful Syria.

We have seen six years of repeated atrocities. Let me highlight two examples. Last September, the Syrian Government bombed a UN aid convoy, killing 14 aid workers. The convoy had been organised by the United Nations and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, and was carrying food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies destined for families in areas of the country controlled by the opposition. A UN report released earlier this month said that the attack was deliberate, meticulously planned and ruthlessly carried out. Then, of course, there was the long siege of Aleppo, which the same United Nations report called a war crime. It was reported that the Syrian Government and their allies were carrying out attacks on areas packed with civilians while the city faced chronic shortages of food, medicine and fuel. We have seen all those events unfold in real time on our television screens. We saw the shocking image of Omran Daqneesh, the five-year-old Syrian boy sitting in the back of an ambulance. We need to work together to bring an end to this conflict as soon as possible.

As with all conflicts, there are many parties acting for good in both Syria and the surrounding region. I want to draw particular attention to and praise the work of the White Helmets—the 3,000 members of the Syria Civil Defence—who work tirelessly to protect civilians ​caught up in the conflict and are often the first on the scene after bombings. We should also praise the work of the various non-governmental organisations and United Nations missions that deliver aid on the ground in some of the most challenging conditions ever seen.

Our Committee’s report made a number of recommendations to the Government, and principally to the Department for International Development, including on increasing the opportunities for cash-based assistance to the region, identifying and developing opportunities for investment and job creation in Jordan, ensuring that vulnerable refugees outside camps receive appropriate levels of support, and pressing the Lebanese Government to resume the registration process for new refugees. We urged the Government to come to a quick decision on Save the Children’s proposal that 3,000 unaccompanied children from Europe be resettled in this country.

DFID has led the way with its efforts to alleviate the suffering and the ongoing humanitarian crisis that still grips Syria and the surrounding region. The UK plays an active role in encouraging other countries to pledge money and resources to the region. A year ago, in February 2016, the Government hosted the “Supporting Syria and the Region” conference, in which nearly $6 billion was pledged to help the UN co-ordinated appeals. An additional $5.4 billion was pledged up until 2020, bringing the total to more than $11 billion. That was followed up with an event this January, co-hosted by Finland and the United Nations, which launched a further appeal for $8 billion to relieve the humanitarian crisis. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what progress was being made towards achieving that, and what the United Kingdom’s contribution is.

In our report, we made it clear that we welcome DFID’s cash-based assistance efforts in the region and want them developed further. Many refugees exhaust their savings just to get out of the country, and many are heavily in debt. That is exacerbated by the fact that they are often not allowed to work in the country in which they have refuge. Cash-based assistance has proven to be a value for money approach to humanitarian assistance. I welcome the fact that DFID has already distributed nearly 1 million vouchers in the region.

Job creation, investment and economic growth are vital factors in ensuring that refugees in the countries around Syria are able to regain a sense of normality when the conflict eventually ends. During the Syria conference in London last year, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon—the main recipient countries of refugees—promised to open up their economies to help generate job growth, for both refugees and, very importantly, their host communities. I want to put on the record that the Jordanian Government and people have responded particularly positively to that. Syrian refugees are now able to apply for work permits in Jordan in sectors of the economy in which Jordanian participation is low— for example, construction, agriculture and other service industries. Those changes have allowed roughly 37,000 Syrian refugees to gain employment in Jordan—up from 4,000 at the time of the London conference. Jordan has also gained preferential access to European Union markets, which will give designated development zones the potential to provide more than 100,000 jobs to both Jordanians and Syrians in the future.

The United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to Syria and the surrounding countries. As a result of the funding that humanitarian organisations ​have received, we are able to keep refugees close to home, so that when the conflict comes to an end they can return to Syria. Providing basic humanitarian assistance is vital, but it is not enough. There needs to be a sense of hope for a better future.

The UK Government, and DFID in particular, have taken some very positive steps to ensure that the humanitarian situation in Syria and the surrounding countries is well managed and well funded, but there are some areas where our Committee feels DFID could and should do more. In our report, we recommended that the Department make use of the Commonwealth Development Corporation’s expertise in that regard. We believe that the Government already have a good story to tell on job creation and investment, particularly in Jordan, but more could be done to provide sustainable job opportunities for both refugees and host communities if CDC’s expertise were engaged. Legislation has now gone through Parliament to increase significantly the amount of capital available to CDC. I urge the Government to look again at the question of whether CDC can invest in at least some economies in that region, particularly in the run-up to the forthcoming publication of the corporation’s five-year strategy.

Other outstanding issues were addressed in our report. The Syrian conflict has disproportionately affected certain minority groups, especially ethnic and religious minorities and disabled people. The best solution for them is often resettlement in other parts of the world, but for reasons of stigma or fear of persecution, many do not register, so they fall through the net. Only 23% of Syrian refugees live in formal camps, and there are no such camps for them in Lebanon or Egypt. There is the tragic situation in the berm, the area between Jordan and Syria, where a large number of refugees live, in often very desperate circumstances, in a state of limbo, unable to get out.

As the conflict has worn on, more people have sought out support from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing with UNHCR and civil society to ensure that support reaches everyone who needs it, whether they are registered or not. Registration is an important step, but more needs to be done to ensure that all those eligible for resettlement, either here in the UK or elsewhere, are granted it.

On 9 February, The Independent reported that the Home Office wanted a “temporary limit” on requests from people with mobility problems and learning disabilities because of a lack of “suitable reception capacity” for them in the UK. Will the Minister include in his response the Government’s position on the temporary limit, and will he say whether they are planning to lift it? I simply make the point that the most vulnerable are those who need our support the most.

There is also long-standing concern about a policy in Lebanon that has inhibited UNHCR’s ability to register new refugees in that country. DFID has allocated £46 million to UNHCR’s efforts in Lebanon, but I am concerned that the policy may prevent people from accessing basic services. The Lebanese Government say that there are more than 500,000 unregistered Syrian refugees in Lebanon, and that more than two thirds of the Syrian children born in Lebanon have not even had their births registered. Will the Minister update us on ​that Lebanese policy? Is it still in place, and if so, what is the United Kingdom doing to work with the Lebanese Government to make progress, so that, ideally, all refugees in Lebanon are registered?

Last December, the UK Government co-sponsored a UN General Assembly motion that sought to establish an independent mechanism to assist in bringing to justice those responsible for the most serious crimes in Syria. The UK has also worked closely with the French and American Governments on a motion to hold Daesh and the Assad regime to account for their use of chemical weapons. Unfortunately, the motion was vetoed by Russia and China. Will the Minister update the House on that, and in particular on the potential for an independent UN mechanism that would enable us to make progress in bringing to justice all those who have used illegal weapons in Syria?

The UK clearly has an important role to play in diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. It is promising to see that the UN-mediated political talks between the Syrian parties resumed in Geneva last month, and the next round is due to take place later this month. There have been calls for the 30 December ceasefire to be strengthened, so will the Minister tell us what role the UK will play in ensuring that the ceasefire holds and that we can make progress through diplomatic means?

The final issue from the report has probably attracted the most attention and public debate, and that is the Save the Children recommendation on 3,000 unaccompanied children. Last year, before the Government had an opportunity to respond to our report, Lord Dubs put forward an amendment to the Immigration Bill that would have legally bound us to resettle 3,000 unaccompanied children from Europe. Ahead of the vote, the Government announced that they would resettle 3,000 vulnerable people from the middle east and north Africa over the course of the Parliament. Those people would not solely be unaccompanied children, but that was nevertheless very welcome.

When the Bill became an Act, it stated that the number of children to be resettled

“shall be determined by the Government”.

By September last year, no child had been brought to the UK as a result of the provision, which is still known as the Dubs amendment. By November, according to what the Home Office’s Minister for Immigration told the International Development Committee, about 140 children had been resettled, including 80 from France. We welcomed the progress. Last month, however, the Government announced that a total of 350 children would be resettled over the course of the Parliament, with 200 already in the UK. The Immigration Minister told the House in a written statement that the 350 number met

“the intention and spirit behind the provision”.

That figure is of course a fraction of the 3,000 proposed by Save the Children, a figure that was based on an estimate of the UK’s fair share of the 30,000 unaccompanied children who had made their way to Europe by 2015—and estimates suggest that the figure has since trebled. The Government can do more to ensure that children who have made the journey to Europe alone are protected. In 2014, an estimated 13,000 unaccompanied children arrived just in Italy, about 4,000 of whom have gone missing. There is real concern that some of those children ​might have become the victims of people traffickers and been forced into prostitution, child labour or the drugs trade. We cannot stand by while that happens on our doorstep.

Meanwhile, in the past two months, President Trump has signed two executive orders that prevent Syrian refugees from claiming refuge in the United States. The US has a positive and progressive track record of resettling refugees from many conflicts around the world; President Trump has broken with that. He said that European countries had made “a tremendous mistake” by admitting millions of refugees from Syria and other middle eastern “trouble spots”. How can giving people refuge from conflicts that are destroying their country be described by the President of the United States as a mistake? President Trump’s executive order does nothing but further complicate the humanitarian situation in the region. It is vital that the United Kingdom does not follow the Trump Administration’s lead.

Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)

Would the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcome clarification of whether the Dubs amendment scheme is in fact closed? There seems to be uncertainty about that. Will the Government welcome any additional contributions offered by local authorities that feel that they may have more capacity in future?

Stephen Twigg

The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new member of the International Development Committee but already an active and committed one. I thank him for his work on it. I absolutely agree with him. If the Minister could respond to that point, I would be delighted. I agree that it is not entirely clear whether the scheme has been completely closed. I hope that it has not, and that there will be further opportunities for unaccompanied children to be resettled, beyond the 350 to which the Government have already committed.

I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for the opportunity to debate our report and the Government response. I thank fellow members of the International Development Committee for their work—a number of members from all parties are present for the debate—and I put on record my appreciation of the fantastic team of staff who support the work of the Committee. I look forward to listening to all contributions to the debate, which—this is my final point—we are holding in the context of great public and media concern about, and scrutiny of, international aid and development. I and other members of the Committee from different parties have argued consistently that those of us who believe in UK aid, and who defend the 0.7% target and DFID as a stand-alone Department, have a particular responsibility to demonstrate that that aid is being delivered and makes a real difference to the most vulnerable—that we truly have value for money.

In her statement to the House last week on the counter-Daesh strategy, the Secretary of State for International Development said that our work in Syria and the region

“shows Britain at its best and exactly why we have UK aid. It shows not only how the British Government lead across the world, but how we influence security and stabilisation”—[Official Report, 15 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 448.]

in many of these areas. I echo her remarks; she is absolutely right. The investment that this country has made in aid to Syria and its neighbouring countries in ​recent years is one of the finest examples of how humanitarian aid can make a real difference in a crisis. Our aid is crucial, but it is equally important that we redouble our efforts to find a diplomatic solution, so that the people of Syria can at last have the peace and justice that they deserve.

Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on a powerful speech. I have reached a different conclusion from him, but he made a powerful case none the less.

May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I visited Jordan in October, with my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. The visit was arranged by Oxfam so that we could meet Syrian refugees in the Zaatari camp and living in host communities.

I welcome the Government motion’s renewed commitment

“to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees”.

Members from all parts of this House can be proud of the role played by our country, particularly the Department for International Development, alongside civil society, in the humanitarian effort. I also pay tribute to the countries in the region that have welcomed very large numbers of refugees from Syria, notably Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. It is vital that we maintain our support for those neighbouring countries, but it is also increasingly important that we focus on the needs of people displaced within Syria itself. It is estimated that just in October about 120,000 Syrians fled their homes in Aleppo, Hama and Idlib. Our support for multilateral organisations such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF is therefore crucial. The International Development Committee is looking at the Syrian refugee crisis and we plan to publish our report in early January. We are examining both the challenges in the region and what more our country can do to help refugees.

The people at the Zaatari refugee camp told us that they wanted to return home to Syria but they live in fear of their own Government and their barrel bombs. That is part of the context of today’s debate. As the Prime Minister said, our debate today is not about whether we want to defeat Daesh—we all want that. The evil actions of that organisation are well documented and have been covered during his debate. The question is: how do we do it? Last year, I supported the decision to join airstrikes against Daesh in Iraq. I agree with those on both sides of today’s argument who have said that our airstrikes have played an important role in helping the Iraqi Government forces and the peshmerga to take territory from Daesh in Iraq. But I also agree with those colleagues on both sides of the House who have said that the situation on the ground in Raqqa is very different from the one in Iraq. I do not necessarily question the 70,000 figure. The issue for me is where those troops are. They are Syrian opposition forces who are typically in other parts of Syria and fighting the Assad regime. It is fanciful to suppose that they will provide a ground force for an operation combined with airstrikes in Raqqa. I am not convinced, therefore, that there is a credible ground force for Raqqa.

After the Prime Minister’s statement last Thursday, I went back to Liverpool, where I met a Syrian doctor who lives there. He expressed the view of many Syrians living in exile when he said that for them the biggest threat comes from Assad. Indeed, the moderate forces that we seem to be relying on are currently bombed by Assad and by Russia. I fear that the lack of ground forces will limit the effectiveness of airstrikes and that the strategy the Prime Minister set out last week of ISIL-first—in other words, Daesh-first—will have the unintended consequence of strengthening the brutal and murderous Assad regime. For those reasons, I will vote against the Government tonight.

Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Shadow Education Secretary, to the Policy Exchange Conference on 23rd January 2013.

I am delighted to have the opportunity this morning to set out my thinking on the future of vocational education in this country.

I want to thank David and Policy Exchange for providing me with this platform and for the important contribution that you are making to this debate.

The report that you published earlier this week reveals both the challenges and opportunities we face in delivering a vocational education system that will strengthen our country’s standing in the world.

We can only achieve lasting and sustainable reform if there is a coalition of support across politics, business and of course amongst parents, teachers and students themselves. Policy Exchange is playing an important role in building a coalition that is both in the best interests of young people and future economic growth.

It is great to see that Labour’s plans to improve the status and quality of practical and technical skills in this country, which Ed Miliband announced last September, are now gaining cross-party support. Our plans for a gold standard Technical Baccalaureate qualification are supported not just by this leading right of centre think tank, but also by the Conservative former Education Secretary Lord Baker, and albeit belatedly, by the Minister for Skills.

It’s this kind of consensus that can create long term education reform. It’s the kind of consensus that is totally lacking in Michael Gove’s plans to introduce EBacc Certificates. Or I should say there is a consensus, just not in favour. It spans the CBI, the designer of the iPhone, the head of the Tate gallery, the leading private schools, the head of Ofqual and many teachers and their associations. It’s not often they can all agree. Their opposition to EBacc Certificates reflects Labour’s concerns – that the plans are narrow, risk creating a two tier system and are not fit for the 21st Century.

As the former Education Secretary Lord Baker put it “The EBacc is exactly the same to the exam I sat in 1951 when I was 16, the School Certificate. And that was changed, even in 1951, because it simply wasn’t broad enough for a large number of children. And only seven per cent of young people went on to post-16 education, I was part of a privileged elite. And the EBacc is a throwback to that.”

Instead of seeking to recreate the past, the central question we need to address is: how do we reform our education system so that it equips young people with the skills, knowledge, resilience and character that they need to play their part both as active citizens and as future business leaders and entrepreneurs?

Tim Oates, who has been advising the Government on the national curriculum, has talked to me about Britain’s strength in skills, innovation and creativity. We need to ensure we play to our strengths, rather than undermine them.

For me, strengthening the skills of young people in Britain is a great patriotic cause. It should be seen as part of our economic mission – at the heart of our drive to maintain our competitive edge in the world.

The problem, as Tim has noted, is that our vocational education system was designed in this country after the Second World War only to be exported to Germany, where today, it continues to prosper.

Today, Britain risks losing the global race on skills. We need to be as strong as Germany and Switzerland on vocational education, and as competitive as Singapore and Japan on Maths. Our future national competitiveness is at stake.

Rab Butler’s 1944 Education Act sought to make progress. The introduction of technical schools – known as County Colleges was set to offer 15 to 18 year olds technical education to supplement their apprenticeships. But this ambition was never realised.

Ever since we packaged up and sent off our post-war blueprint for technical and practical education, successive governments have failed to deliver the step change that our education system and economy need.

While Britain was once the workshop of the world, we have seen a de-industrial revolution in recent decades. When Margaret Thatcher came to power, manufacturing accounted for almost 30 per cent of Britain’s national income and employed 6.8 million people. By 2010, it was down to just over 11 per cent of the economy, with a workforce of only 2.5 million.

Since the 1980s, there has been a focus on school standards and expanding Higher Education. However, successive Governments have not done enough to help the 50% of young people who don’t go to university. We would now focus our reformist zeal on the skills agenda – driving up the standards of vocational and technical courses by getting employers to accredit them.

That is why Labour has placed vocational education front and centre in our plans for One Nation Education.

My fear is that without a clear drive and focus on raising the standards of practical and technical skills in this country, we will condemn ourselves to a decade of economic decline.

If we look at the leading countries for vocational education, it becomes clear the sort of step change that we need in this country.

In Switzerland, which I plan to visit later this year, nearly two-thirds of Swiss upper-secondary students enrol in vocational education and training. In a study of the 2000 cohort of Swiss youth, vocational study was the choice of 42 per cent of the highest academic achievers.

In Germany, around half of all young people under the age of 22 have successfully completed an apprenticeship, and they are offered by around one in three companies.

According to the OECD, the dual system in Germany “offers qualifications in a broad spectrum of professions and flexibly adapts to the changing needs of the labour market” with a “high degree of engagement and ownership on the part of employers and other social partners.”

If we are to match countries like Germany and Switzerland we need a major reform programme of vocational courses and qualifications.

The CBI has argued that improving the quality of vocational courses could add as much as a percentage point to economic growth.

Instead of having courses designed by politicians, Labour would involve businesses in accrediting the quality of vocational courses as part of a new gold standard qualification at 18, a Tech Bacc.

One gold standard qualification that exists today is the Engineering Diploma. In fact you could say it was a Rolls Royce qualification – having been designed by the company along with the Royal Academy of Engineering, BAE Systems and JCB. Sadly, the Government decided to downgrade the qualification from being worth 5 GCSEs to only 1.

Bizarrely, the Chancellor now says they intend to reinstate a diploma worth 4 GCSEs, but only from 2016. This u-turn illustrates the incoherent and shambolic approach to vocational education from the Government. To secure Britain’s economic future, we must do better.

We need to give students a clear route so they can progress. There are too many young people who go through a revolving door of low qualifications, suppressing their potential.

Alison Wolf noted in her report that 350,000 young people gain little or no value from the education system. Simply getting a few level 1 or level 2 qualifications often leaves students at risk of ending up not in employment, education or training or finding that there is little return from the labour market for such a low level set of qualifications.

Incredibly, the system can actually reduce their potential. Young males with Level 2 NVQs actually earn less than their contemporaries with fewer qualifications. That is staggering if you think about it for a moment – their courses have made them worse off.

There are complicated factors behind this revolving door of low qualifications. Prior attainment and engagement in the early years plays its part, as do wider social and economic issues. But getting rid of careers advice, and the EMA have played their part.

We need to get the incentives right. We must give young people a clear route and a gold standard to aim for at 18. One that is respected by employers, universities and parents.

So Labour’s Tech Bacc will provide a rigorous set of qualifications to motivate young people to progress well beyond Level 2.

We also need to provide more quality, high level apprenticeships from which school and college leavers can progress into. I was interested to note the recommendation of 3 year apprenticeships in Policy Exchange’s report this week.

On the Government’s watch, while the number of apprenticeships has increased, not enough have been of high enough quality, and too few have gone to young people.

Often apprenticeship starts have been about re-badging training courses for existing older workers, rather than giving young people a foot on the employment ladder.

So Labour would engage employers in designing high quality apprenticeships, giving them a greater say in spending £1 billion worth of funding to target apprenticeships at young people.

We would ensure that groups of employers, coming together in regions, sectors and supply chains, have the resources and powers they need to improve training. These would be powerful, employer-led partnerships working with our FE colleges and bringing together industry stakeholders, building on our landscape of employer associations, professional bodies, Sector Skills Councils, Local Enterprise Partnerships and local chambers of commerce.

Nearly half of employers say that the prospect of trained staff being poached by rival firms deters them from training employees. So Labour will ask business what incentives they need to ensure they can deliver the expansion in apprenticeships we need to rebuild the economy. It would then be up to groups of businesses themselves to decide which of these powers they will use.

We want to see a new ‘Fast Track’ for apprentices into the civil service, matching the Fast Stream for graduates. And Labour would make it a requirement for all large firms with government contracts to provide apprenticeships.

We also have to raise the status and profile of apprenticeships. Too many young people go through school without anyone providing quality advice to them on an apprenticeship. Given the reduction in funding for information and guidance, it is no wonder.

Policy Exchange has brought the challenges to light by illustrating that nearly one in three young people drop out of their A Level courses, reflecting the fact they may not have had the best advice to begin with.

Labour are looking at how we can improve the quality of advice to young people, including better awareness of apprenticeships.

I want to see schools and colleges providing Apprenticeship Taster Days to teenagers. If pupils are able to take a few days out of the classroom to visit universities, then I don’t see why the same principle shouldn’t apply to apprenticeships.

Young people from age 14 should be able to get the opportunity to visit companies who have apprenticeships to see what is involved in the programme, and understand the training and career opportunities open to them.

I want children to aspire to a high quality apprenticeship, just as much as they might aspire to go to Oxbridge. It might surprise you, but in fact a high quality apprenticeship can be more competitive. In 2010, BT had nearly received nearly 24,000 applications for 221 apprenticeship places, more than the 17,000 applications to Oxford University, which has around 3,000 undergraduate places.

I also want to strengthen the relationship between employers and schools and colleges.

This includes businesses being involved in the design of the curriculum to ensure young people are work-ready, and more local employers sitting on school and college governing bodies.

I am also delighted to announce today that Labour is looking to reform the provision of work experience in schools and colleges.

The Government have sidelined work experience, ending the statutory duty for schools to provide work experience for 14 to 16 year olds.

Instead, I want all schools to develop partnerships with local employers. At secondary school that means offering a quality work experience placement linked to the curriculum. The work experience placement must be more than just two weeks of photocopying and tea making. It must be a rigorous programme providing experience of workplace skills and followed up with teaching and learning in the classroom.

And Labour would go further. We are looking at how businesses can provide ‘work discovery’ programmes to inspire primary school children about the world of work. This would involve businesses conducting visits to primary schools to talk about their sector, and organising factory and office trips for pupils.

There are already innovative programmes happening to inspire primary school pupils about the world of work. The YES Programme is a work-related teaching resource that provides bespoke films and lesson materials to primary schools. It provides primary pupils with a window into the world of work, directly linked to the curriculum.

And there is Primary Engineer, a non profit programme which encourages primary pupils to consider careers in STEM related professions, by providing teacher training, interactive resources, and competitions for school children.

It is clear if we are to develop a generation of entrepreneurs and innovators we need to capture their imagination early.

Creating a symbiotic relationship between schools and businesses is one of the tasks of Labour’s One Nation Skills Taskforce.

Led by Professor Chris Husbands from the Institute of Education, we are taking advice from distinguished figures from business and skills. The Taskforce’s remit spans 14 – 19 education and will flesh out rigorous academic and vocational routes in order to improve the confidence of young people, parents, education providers and universities.

One of the areas we need to consider is how to improve the quality of careers advice and guidance to young people.

Since the Government decided to give responsibility to schools for careers advice, we have seen 8 in 10 schools dramatically cut the careers advice they provide, according to a survey by Careers England.

Today, the Education Select Committee has produced a withering assessment of the Government’s record on careers advice. They say that both the quality and quantity of careers advice and guidance has deteriorated, at a time when it is most needed.

The removal of face to face careers advice by the Government could be hugely damaging in the long term. I’m interested to note the recommendations by the committee to restore face to face provision and for schools to provide an annual careers plan so they can be held accountable to parents for the advice they provide. As the committee notes, young people deserve far better than what is currently on offer.

To get young people ready for the modern world of work we have to overcome the crude divides which set young people irreversibly down either the vocational route or the academic route.

Vocational versus academic is one of the many false choices in education. Overcoming the divide is critical to building a One Nation Education System.

Michael Barber, in his recently published essay Oceans of Innovation challenged educationalists and policy makers to reject the sort of ‘either or’ thinking that has held this country back.

Labour would provide more flexibility for young people to do both traditional and practical courses.

As part of our reforms to exams and the curriculum I want to ensure that there are more opportunities for young people to switch between different courses, to ensure they play to their strengths and get a broad and balanced education.

That means schools developing partnerships with FE colleges and employers to ensure young people doing GCSEs and A Levels get access to equipment, expertise and training in vocational subjects. I have seen this first-hand in schools like the City Academy Norwich which has a partnership with their local FE college.

It also means ensuring that those who get our new Tech Bacc at 18 see university as a possible option for their future as much as employment or a high quality apprenticeship.

I want to ensure there is rigour in the core subjects such as Maths and English, but not confined to them. Rigour must be applied right across the curriculum, so we will drive up the standard of vocational courses and academic ones.

As well as matching countries like Germany and Switzerland on skills, we need to ensure we are competing with the East Asian nations like Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong on the core subjects.

That means improving the quality of teaching and learning in English and Maths. We did much in Government to improve standards in literacy and numeracy.

At the end of primary school, eight in ten pupils achieved the required level 4 in English and a similar number in Maths in 2010, compared to only six in ten pupils in 1997.

And at the end of secondary school, the proportion of students getting a C grade or higher in A Level English went from just over half in 1997 to nearly eight in ten. And at Maths the proportion of students getting a C grade or higher went from six in ten, to eight in ten.

Ah – that’s just grade inflation I hear you cry. Well, not according to the TIMSS independent international survey conducted by Boston College. This shows that England was ranked 25th in the world for Maths in 1995, but in the most recent study in 2011 we were ranked 9th, the second highest in Europe.

There’s some way to go still, but one of the programmes I am most proud of were the ones that allowed one to one tuition in English and Maths for primary school pupils – known as ‘Every Child a Reader’ and ‘Every Child Counts’.

These were innovative programmes, backed by solid research evidence and supported by businesses like KPMG.

Unfortunately they have been cut by the Government, despite the fact they got a return on investment of 17 to 1. Already we are seeing 9,000 fewer primary school pupils – a 40% drop – get access to specialist reading tuition.

As well as focussing on the early years, I want to see all young people continuing to study English and Maths to 18. We know, as Professor Alison Wolf observed, that almost half of young people are leaving formal education at 16 without reaching the expected level of reading, writing and arithmetic. Of those who stay on after 16, only 3% go on to reach that level.

The Government claims it is addressing the Wolf report, but in fact it only provides re-sits for those who don’t get a C grade at GCSE. I want to go much further and create new courses and qualifications so all pupils, whatever route they take continue studying English and Maths to 18.

There are a lot of pupils the Government is overlooking. Of those pupils who get a B or a C grade in GCSE Maths, only 16% will go on to study AS-Level Maths. Put another way, every year there are more than a quarter of a million students who achieve a grade B or C at GCSE, but who do not, or cannot, continue studying the subject.

Labour is examining how we could create new courses and qualifications for those who want to continue studying English and Maths, but don’t feel a whole A-Level is the right option for them.

We are one of the only countries in the developed world that doesn’t require pupils to study Maths and their own language until they leave school. Only one in five students in England studies Maths to the age of 18, whereas the figure in the US, New Zealand and Singapore is over six in ten, and in Germany and Hong Kong it is over nine in ten.

The raising of the education participation age, which will increase to 17 this year and to 18 in 2015 provides us with an opportunity to fix this once and for all.

The University Technical Colleges, which started under Labour, prove that it can be done. They require Maths and English to age 18, and are proving popular and successful.

If you want to succeed in life, you have to be confident and secure in the foundations.

But you also have to play to your strengths.

Our strength as a nation is when we combine a drive for academic rigour with the creativity and innovation that powered our success through history.

It is a strength that will only continue if we have schools, colleges, a curriculum and exams that are forward looking and not regressive.

If we end that false divide between the academic and the vocational. Ensuring young people are inspired about the world of work from an early age.

With a relentless drive for reform, across the whole education system.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg, the Shadow Education Secretary, to the ATL Conference on 3rd April 2012.

Good afternoon and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.

It’s great to be here with Mary and the rest of the team. The ATL has a proud history in standing up for the rights of female teachers in particular, ever since a small group of women teachers stood together in the late 19th Century. You have been and will continue to be a voice of authority; a hand of support; and a champion for excellent teaching. So I thank you for the hard work that you are all doing in schools and colleges across the country.

I can well remember my last visit to ATL Conference.

It was in Bournemouth in 2004 when I was the Schools Minister. Some of the veterans among you might recall an encounter I had.

At the press conference after my speech, I was approached by a teacher about a national pay scale for support staff in schools – an issue I will come back to later in my remarks. The teacher – Mr Bevan – was fairly forcefully putting forward the case of his wife, a teaching assistant called Marion. As you might imagine, the press had a field day. ‘Minister berated after bathing in the warm applause from conference floor’ ran the story. ‘As he was about to make it to the door’, reports ran, ‘he came face-to-face with an unlikely political assassin.’

In a twist to the tale, it turned out that the Mr Bevan was in fact married to the same Marion who polled ahead of me in the 1983 mock General Election at Southgate Comprehensive School.

Standing as the Conservative candidate, Marion polled two places above me, as I experienced my first taste of electoral defeat as a Labour candidate.

It wouldn’t be the last time I would have to suffer embarrassment at the hands of the Conservatives in Southgate.

But things have moved on.

Since my appointment last October, I have spent a great deal of time in schools across the country, learning about the innovative practices that are being employed by education leaders, at all levels of school and in all types of schools.

If you listen to the Government, you would sometimes think that good practice only exists in free schools and academies. Now, I am unapologetic about the success that the academies Labour set up have enjoyed. Raising standards in some of the poorest neighbourhoods. But if we cherry pick certain schools, we will never raise standards for all.

We all have a duty to celebrate success in education – as well as challenging under-performance where it exists and being uncompromising on standards.

It is a widely shared view that we currently have the best ever generation of teachers. But we cannot rest. Building on these foundations, we have to ensure the next generation of teachers is even stronger if we are to maintain our international competitiveness.

Yet too much of the debate is weighted towards doing down the teaching profession.

There is a paradox at the heart of the education debate. Ministers criticise teachers for not raising standards.

Yet their answer is to change the governance structures of school.

Why not address the real challenge – how to raise the status and quality of teaching in this country?

I have said this before – it matters far more what classroom you are in, than what school you are in.

There is fantastic practice happening up and down the country. The challenge is to spread this best practice, while giving teachers the freedom to innovate and inspire.

So today, I want to address this challenge head on.

Unfortunately, being in opposition does not afford me the luxury of setting government policy. But it does provide the space in which to reflect on Labour’s record, on the challenges ahead and to hold the government to account on the decisions that it makes. With my colleagues in the Shadow Education Team we are conducting a wide ranging review into our policies to ensure they are fit for future challenges.

I have asked each of our shadow ministers in the Commons to look at a specific area.

So Kevin Brennan is looking at the National Curriculum;

Sharon Hodgson at Special Educational Needs;

Karen Buck at Youth Services; and Catherine McKinnell at adoption and looked after children.

Along with Bev Hughes and Maggie Jones in the Lords – we are taking on the mantle of renewing our offer.

And I hope many ATL members will contribute to these reviews with your ideas on how we can collectively raise our game.

When I was appointed I said that I wanted to put the classroom front and centre in the debate on education. Too many, on both the Left and the Right, are obsessed with overhauling structures. And as important as structures are, we know that what makes the most difference to the education outcomes for our children is the quality of teaching.

This is what the evidence says and it is evidence that should guide education policy, not ideology and the myths of a golden past. All too often in debates on education, we hear opinions formed by a rose tinted view of the past. There is a tendency for living mythically.

We saw it last week on grammar schools.

And we see it today in the attitude – on both sides – to free schools.

We cannot meet the challenges of an advanced industrialised nation, develop high tech manufacturing skills, pupils adapted to the dissemination of information via social networks with an education approach that is rooted in 19th Century industrialism, 1960s idealism or 1980s marketisation.

I have argued and will continue to argue for an evidence-based approach to education.

We also have to ensure that the evidence keeps pace with an era of constant upheaval. I know the pace of change can be overwhelming, but if we fail to keep up it will be to fail the next generation.

While our economic future is uncertain, while we face unparalleled competition from abroad, and a public that expects far more, our schools have to keep pace.

While we must invest in buildings, equipment and books – the most important thing is to invest in quality teaching.

We know that high quality teaching makes the biggest difference, in terms of education outcomes for all young people.

Especially significant is the impact of teaching on pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.

We know that the poorest children are concentrated in schools with the highest levels of underperformance. Research from the Royal Society of Arts identified this ‘double disadvantage’ in which the most deprived young people are likely to receive a below par education.

The data from their report shows that more affluent pupils tend to attend better schools. By contrast, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are over-represented in ‘Satisfactory’ and ‘Inadequate’ schools.

Young people from poorer backgrounds consistently make the least progress in school: the findings from this report demonstrate that the quality of disadvantaged pupils’ schooling contributes to the poor educational outcomes of these (particularly vulnerable) young people.

Research from the Sutton Trust has shown that over a school year, these pupils gain one and a half years’ worth of learning with very effective teachers, compared with half a years’ with poorly performing teachers.

In other words, being a poor pupil in a poor classroom, is the equivalent of being left a year behind.

This is a national scandal.

I know there are inequalities in our health system, but if poorer patients were left to linger on waiting lists for an extra year there would be a huge outcry.

But too often in education, we accept inequality – condemning certain children to mediocrity because we assume that they cannot achieve success.

This is one of the biggest barriers to social mobility today.

So one of the top priorities of a future Labour Government will be to address these areas of ‘double disadvantage’.

The double whammy of a poor background and a poor school – creating a cycle of poverty that can exclude generation after generation.

We started to address this in government. Our academies had an average intake of 30% of pupils on free school meals – well above the national average of 18%, and six times the average intake in academies set up by the Tory-led Government.

The research conducted by ATL into increased numbers of pupils on free school meals highlights the increase in poverty, as families across the country are feeling the squeeze.

So double disadvantage is a growing problem.

It is important we don’t lose focus on healthy school meals, including breakfast clubs as routes to increasing attainment.

And it is important we understand why free school meals have a low take up in some areas – if there is more to do to address issues around stigma.

We need innovative solutions to tackle cyclical poverty – the priority should be to develop educational best practice and target at these areas of double disadvantage.

Too often the Government focuses its energy on pet projects which don’t raise standards in areas of real disadvantage.

While Labour’s academies focussed on some of the poorest communities, by contrast, the Free Schools and Academies being set up under the Tory-led Government are often in areas with already outstanding schools, and higher levels of wealth.

The priority for new schools should be areas with a shortage of places. In particular, more primary schools to address the growing crisis in primary places.

The Government is failing to deal with this urgent shortage. Across England we need nearly half a million more primary places – the equivalent of building an extra 2,000 primary schools between now and the General Election.

All the Government has done so far is promise an extra 100 new Free Schools, many of which will be secondaries and many not in areas with the greatest need for places.

This shortfall is being felt on the ground. In Barking and Dagenham, the council are proposing to rent out an empty Woolworth’s store and a warehouse from MFI to house temporary classes.

Brighton Council is looking at pupils being taught at a football stadium, in a bingo hall or in redundant churches.

And at Ladybarn Primary School here in Manchester a surge in pupil numbers means that pupils have to eat their lunch in shifts, with the first wave sitting down to their lunch at 11.15am. Many then have to have a second meal in the afternoon because they get hungry again.

It is irresponsible that while pushing through the biggest cuts to education spending since the 1950s, the Government decided to spend half its capital allocation in the Autumn Statement on Free Schools. We believe all the capital should be spent on meeting basic need on the ground.

Even more importantly, if we are to address this double disadvantage, we have to encourage more teachers to teach in tough schools in poor neighbourhoods. The exact opposite of what will happen under the Government’s regional pay plans.

If regional pay means pay cuts for teachers in the poorest parts of England how does that help tackle disadvantage? I urge the Government to think again.

Part of the answer to addressing the double disadvantage is to develop stronger progress measures – so parents and communities better understand how schools develop children, not just churn out results.

A school that is progressing is more likely to attract quality teachers and quality leaders.

And we need to challenge teachers and schools to continually improve.

For poor performing schools, the focus must be on improving attainment and raising basic standards. For satisfactory schools, the focus must be on developing innovative approaches which go the extra mile. And for good or outstanding schools, the challenge is for them to take on extra responsibility to raise standards amongst other schools in their community.

By the same token, a teacher should be able to demonstrate how they have improved their practice every year – year after year. And the Government’s teaching standards should reflect that – so a newly qualified teacher is not treated in the same way as a professional of many years standing.

My education mission is to improve the quality of teaching and learning. That is the key to unlocking systematic improvements in our school system.

And that is my aim – system wide improvement. Not a policy that works for a few children in a few schools but systemic reform that delivers better outcomes for all children in all schools.

I know part of the answer is to foster a culture of good behaviour, where teachers and other pupils are respected, bullying is not tolerated and an ethos of learning is celebrated.

I want to pay tribute to the pupils from the Magna Carta School who spoke to you yesterday on the issue of homophobic bullying in schools.

Schools should be safe and secure environments in which all young people embark on their journey of personal development and fulfilment, in becoming people who think for themselves and act for others.

Schools should give children and young people the space in which they are educated of the dangers of discrimination and in which diversity is celebrated.

Yet for too many young people, going to school is an all too different experience.

While there has been some great progress since I was at school, homophobic bullying still blights the lives of too many young people.

Where homophobic bullying goes on, discrimination and harassment prevail. Learning and development are stifled.

As a young man at school, I was unable to share the truth about my sexual orientation openly. In fact I only shared it with a single friend.

I would have hoped that by today, other young people in my situation would not have had to share the reservations that I had.

That they would not have to face discrimination and stigma for their sexual orientation.

Sadly, despite progress in overcoming discrimination of this kind, we must all redouble our efforts to tackle homophobic bullying in schools and across society as different forms of homophobia – verbal, emotional and physical – continue.

I want to commend the excellent work of Stonewall through their ‘Education For All’ campaign. Working with trade union partners, they play a crucial role in supporting teachers and schools to confront the homophobic bullying in schools.

But even today, there are still very few “out” teachers, especially heads. I want to pay tribute to the courage of those who are out and the positive role ATL and the other teacher unions have played on LGBT equality.

We have made great progress in institutions like Parliament, with far more MPs and Peers open today about their sexuality. While I respect people’s right to privacy, it is a mark on our society if teachers feel unable to be open.

The tragic story of Dominic and Roger Crouch brings home the loss that can occur when discrimination prevails in our schools.

Dominic Crouch committed suicide following reports of homophobic bullying at school. Responding to the death of a child, a father’s worst nightmare, Roger campaigned to highlight the issue of homophobic bullying in schools. Roger was recognised as the Hero of 2011 by the gay rights charity Stonewall. However, the consequences of Dominic’s bullying did not stop at his own death. In November of last year Roger, unable to cope, took his own life.

I highlight the experience of the Crouch family to illustrate the consequences of the forces of ignorance. We must all take forward the powerful message of the pupils from the Magna Carta school to confront homophobia, in all its forms.

So I want to pay tribute to Charlotte Hewitt, Molly Russell, Hannah Wells, Cara Houghton and Duncan Lewry for their fantastic work to address homophobic bullying in schools. Their video carries a powerful message and warrants the commendation that they received from the Prime Minister. In taking on this project, these young people have shown excellent examples of leadership and we should all commend their efforts. We have to do far more to address bullying in schools of all kinds.

First, teachers should have specific training on anti-bullying skills as part of their initial teacher training.

Second, schools must adopt a zero tolerance approach, with a particular focus on discrimination.

Third, every school should have a charter – posted visibly in classrooms and corridors which explains what kind of behaviour is unacceptable.

All of us have a responsibility to challenge bullying, and we have to ensure a culture that supports those teachers and pupils who stand up to bullies.

I know too that violence and bullying isn’t something that just affects pupils.

I was shocked to see the research which ATL produced showing that a third of teachers had experienced some kind of physical violence.

While there is a responsibility on school leaders to address this problem, there is a clearly a wider issue here.

Schools can often be the only ‘safe haven’ for young people.

Parents can be a huge influence on their children. They are the ultimate force for change.

When parents take a strong interest in their child’s development, it can be the difference between good and bad behaviour, the difference between good and bad attainment, and the difference between a life of success, or a chaotic and troubled future.

So Labour will look at the whole issue of parenting and childcare as we conduct our policy review process.

Tackling intergenerational failure – poverty, illiteracy, worklessness, substance abuse and criminality will be the key marker of our success as a society.

I am privileged to have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time visiting schools and meeting with teachers, seeing the fantastic work that goes on in many class rooms. One of the things that has struck me from talking to teachers is the need to look again at how teachers are supported in strengthening and developing themselves to improve the educational outcomes in their classrooms.

Raising performance does not come about by talking down the teaching profession.

Michael Gove has got it wrong by focusing on a minority of poorly performing teachers. Of course, not everyone has what it takes to be a teacher. And I have said that I will always support head teachers in getting rid of those who do not make the mark. But in weighting the debate so heavily towards the minority, the Education Secretary risks undermining the profession.

Improvement and change come about by fostering learning within the teaching profession and by taking the profession with you, not by pitching yourself against it. When I was a minister, the London Challenge showed what can be achieved through effective partnership work and working with the profession. Ofsted reported in 2010 that the London Challenge has continued to improve outcomes for pupils in London’s primary and secondary schools at a faster rate than England overall.

And whilst we should be cautious about applying an approach across the country that has worked in London, there are lessons we can learn.

The Sutton Trust has found that English schools could improve their low position in international league tables in Reading and Mathematics and become one of the top five education performers in the world within 10 years if the performance of the country’s least effective teachers was brought up to the national average.

In schools across England, there are leaders in all levels of schools and in all types of schools who are using the creative space afforded to them to be innovative in collaborating with colleagues within their school and across schools. These ‘energy creators’ are pioneering innovation and leading the charge for system improvement.

I am interested in seeing how we can learn more from collaborative models, such as those at North Liverpool Academy, where large classes are taught by three teachers, promoting peer-to-peer planning, delivery and evaluation. I am frequently told by teachers that there needs to be a greater emphasis on peer-to-peer learning, both within and between schools. I will be interested in hearing from you today on your thoughts on the best ways for taking forward this agenda.

I want to recognise the excellent work of Teach First, celebrating its 10th anniversary this year, and the impact that it has had on both raising performance and the status of the teaching profession. What makes their initiative so impressive is not just the excellent graduates coming through over the past 10 years but the emphasis that Teach First places on producing graduates who share in the responsibility of raising outcomes across their own schools and their community of schools in which they work. I met recently with Teaching Leaders who similarly share this outlook and who are doing fantastic work with middle leaders in schools.

Both individual teachers and schools can and must play a role in driving system wide improvement.

It’s useful here to look at the criteria, set out by education expert Judith Little, in identifying what makes a good school. She argues that we can tell a good school- one that delivers educational progress and improved outcomes for all children- where the following criteria are evident:

– where teachers talk about teaching;

– where teachers observe each other’s practice;

– where teachers plan, monitor and evaluate their work together;

– and where teachers teach each other.

Collaboration amongst teachers – within and between schools – is the key to achieving this. And whilst there are examples of this occurring organically, there is a need to systematically address how the education system promotes collaboration and innovation here.

As Mary highlighted in her speech yesterday, we know that the highest performing countries place far greater emphasis on peer-to-peer learning in the Continued Professional Development of teachers. So as well as learning from good practice at home, there are valuable lessons from abroad.

For example in Japan, the following components shape their pedagogy:

– a very sharp focus on lesson planning (minute by minute);

– joint planning between teachers across schools;

– joint reflection and refinement;

– repeat ‘performance of lessons’; and

– public demonstration of successful lessons

So we need to look at how high performing jurisdictions like Japan have achieved success and ask what we can do to improve the Continuing Professional Development of our teachers.

And that I why I have asked Sir Tim Brighouse – who many of you will know – to review CPD for teachers in the country. Tim is a distinguished educationalist who has championed the voice of teachers. I know that Tim is very well placed to provide evidence-based recommendations on the best way forward for system wide improvement.

And as it is right that we must continue to strive for improvements in teaching, it is also right that we continue to work to raise the status of support staff in our schools.

I recently shared a platform with Mary, when I launched the idea of establishing an ‘Office for Educational Improvement’. The idea is to create an educational equivalent of the Office for Budgetary Responsibility to act as an independent clearing house for evidence-based education policy. Chairing the event, the Editor of the Times Education Supplement, Gerard Kelly, challenged Mary and I to be guided by evidence on support staff. I want to take on this challenge here today.

I have to say, support staff can play a vitally important role in school improvement but this is dependent on the role and function that they fulfil.

Recent research from the Institute of Education reports that an under-performing child who spends more time with a Teaching Assistant and thus receives less attention from teachers will not progress as well as they should. Teaching Assistants can and should play an important role in the classroom but they must not become the primary educators for SEN children or those who are falling behind.

In Government, Labour delivered a step change in our education system, through a programme of investment and reform. We invested in huge numbers of Teaching Assistants and in support staff in schools. And we were right to do so. It is right too that we consider the evidence to look at how support staff, as we do with teachers, can be most effective in raising the educational outcomes of all children.

We should recognise the hard work and achievements of support staff. As Education Secretary, Ed Balls made strides towards a better deal for support staff in their terms and conditions. And whilst we didn’t achieve all that we might, progress was made. I know that many ATL members will be keen for the Government to set out its vision for support staff, an area that as yet, we have heard very little on.

Finally, I want to turn now to touch on something your President Alice Robinson has written about in her welcome message to conference delegates.

Accessing high quality learning opportunities should be open to all of our children. Unfortunately, this is not the reality.

Opportunities for self-fulfilment for all our children, whatever their background

Raising aspiration in children so that they know that they can realise their true potential through hard work.

That is why I am in education.

Under Labour, whilst we didn’t get everything right, we made huge strides.

In narrowing the attainment gap between the rich and the poor

In raising the status and quality of the teaching profession

And through investment in Early Years which pays dividends down the road

A Sure Start Centre in every community

Nursery places for 3 and 4 year olds

A guarantee of 15 hours a week childcare for the most deprived 2 year olds

In introducing these radical policies, Labour set the terms for what became the accepted narrative. Investment in early years is better for children and better for the economy.

Yet, despite the Prime Minister’s promises on Sure Start, he has not remained true to his word.

Hundreds of children’s centres closing. The ring fence on funding removed. And many centres unable to employ a qualified teacher any more.

We also see in the crisis in primary school places, a Government that is failing to respond. Favouring to concentrate on pet projects, Michael Gove is ignoring the half a million new places we will need by the next election.

So as Labour moves forward in renewing our offer on education, we will be guided by evidence and we will focus on:

– system wide improvement, that will improve learning outcomes for all children in all schools;

– tackling double disadvantage to narrow the gap between the richest and poorest pupils;

– and reforms that builds on the foundations of the best generation of teachers

I look forward to having that debate with everyone here at ATL and with others in the education world.

Thank you.