Home » Speeches (Page 8)
Category Archives: Speeches
Theresa May: ‘The Shared Society’ – January 2017
The Shared Society speech by UK Prime Minister Theresa May at the Charity Commission’s annual public meeting on January 9, 2017. She set out her vision for the shared society, the government’s role within it and her plans to transform mental health supports in Britain.
“Thank you for inviting me to be here this morning to deliver the prestigious Charity Commission annual lecture.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to express my appreciation for all those who work in our charity sector and for those who freely give their time, money and expertise in the service of others. We are a country built on the bonds of family, community and citizenship and there is no greater example of the strength of those bonds than our great movement of charities and social enterprises.
But the strength of that civil society – which I believe we should treasure deeply – does not just depend on the ingenuity, generosity and commitment of countless volunteers, social entrepreneurs and philanthropists. As with other parts of our economy, it also depends on the practices that our charities and social enterprises adopt; and above all on the public trust they command.
That is why the work that William, Paula and their team at the Charity Commission are doing is so important. Because the reforms they are leading are strengthening the sector – and together with the new Fundraising Regulator – ensuring public confidence in our charities and the contribution they make in helping to meet some of the greatest social challenges of our time.
The challenge of our time
And let’s be clear that some of those challenges are significant and long-standing.
We live in a country where if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others. If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white. If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university. If you’re at a state school, you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately. If you’re a woman, you’re likely to be paid less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s not enough help to hand. If you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home.
There are not easy answers to these problems, but it is vital that we come together to address them. For they are all burning injustices that undermine the solidarity of our society and stunt our capacity to build the stronger, fairer country that we want Britain to be.
But the challenges don’t end there. Governments have traditionally been good at identifying – if not always addressing – such problems. However, the mission I have laid out for the government – to make Britain a country that works for everyone and not just the privileged few – goes further. It means more than fighting these obvious injustices. It means acknowledging and addressing the everyday injustices that too many people feel too.
Because while the obvious injustices receive a lot of attention – with the language of social justice and social mobility a staple of most politicians today – the everyday injustices are too often overlooked.
But if you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise. The injustice you feel may be less obvious, but it burns inside you just the same.
For you have a job but you don’t always have job security. You have your own home, but you worry about paying the mortgage. You can just about manage but you worry about the cost of living and getting your kids into a good school.
You are putting in long hours with little time for yourself – working to live, and living to work. You give work your all, but there is still little left over at the end of the month to spend on the things that really matter to you. Your wages have stagnated for several years in a row, and you feel you are getting by, not necessarily getting on.
And at the same time, over recent years these people have felt locked out of the political and social discourse in Britain. If they voiced their concerns, their views were shut down. Decisions made in faraway places didn’t always seem to be the right decisions for them. They saw their community changing, but didn’t remember being consulted – or agreeing to – that change. They looked at the changing world – the onset of globalisation and the advances in technology – and worried about what the future held for their children and grandchildren.
It is clear to me – and I believe that last year’s vote to leave the European Union partially revealed this to be true – that there are growing numbers of people in every part of our country – in our cities, suburbs, towns, countryside and coastal areas – for whom this is the reality of life.
And the consequence is this: when you see others prospering while you are not; when you try to raise your concerns but they fall on deaf ears; when you feel your very identity – all that you hold dear – is under threat, resentments grow, and the divisions that we see around us – between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation; between the wealth of London and the rest of the country; between the rich, the successful and the powerful, and their fellow citizens – become entrenched.
That’s why I believe that – when we consider both the obvious and the everyday injustices in unison – we see that the central challenge of our times is to overcome division and bring our country together by ensuring everyone has the chance to share in the wealth and opportunity on offer in Britain today. And that starts by building something that I call the shared society.
The shared society
The shared society is one that doesn’t just value our individual rights but focuses rather more on the responsibilities we have to one another.
It’s a society that respects the bonds that we share as a union of people and nations. The bonds of family, community, citizenship and strong institutions.
And it’s a society that recognises the obligations we have as citizens – obligations that make our society work.
A few months ago at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham, I upset some by saying that “if you think you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere”.
But my point was simple. It was that the very word ‘citizen’ implies that we have responsibilities to the people around us. The people in our community, on our streets, in our places of work. And too often today, those responsibilities have been forgotten as the cult of individualism has taken hold, and globalisation and the democratisation of communications has encouraged people to look beyond their own communities and immediate networks in the name of joining a broader global community.
I want to be absolutely clear about what I am saying here. I am not arguing against globalisation – nor the benefits it brings – from modern travel and modern media to new products in our shops and new opportunities for British companies to export their goods to millions of consumers all around the world. Indeed, I have argued that Britain has an historic global opportunity to lead the world in shaping the forces of globalisation so that everyone shares in the benefits of economic growth.
But just as we need to act to address the economic inequalities that have emerged in recent years, so we also need to recognise the way that a more global and individualistic world can sometimes loosen the ties that bind our society together, leaving some people feeling locked out and left behind.
And the central tenet of my belief – the thing that shapes my approach – is that there is more to life than individualism and self-interest.
We form families, communities, towns, cities, counties and nations. And we embrace the responsibilities those institutions imply. And government has a clear role to play to support this conception of society.
It is to act to encourage and nurture those relationships, networks and institutions where it can. And it is to step up to correct injustices and tackle unfairness at every turn – because injustice and unfairness are the things that drive us apart.
This means a government rooted not in the laissez-faire liberalism that leaves people to get by on their own, but rather in a new philosophy that means government stepping up – not just in the traditional way of providing a welfare state to support the most vulnerable, as vital as that will always be. But actually in going further to help those who have been ignored by government for too long because they don’t fall into the income bracket that makes them qualify for welfare support.
It means making a significant shift in the way that government works in Britain. Because government and politicians have for years talked the language of social justice – where we help the very poorest – and social mobility – where we help the brightest among the poor. But to deliver the change we need and build that shared society, we must move beyond this agenda and deliver real social reform across every layer of society so that those who feel that the system is stacked against them – those just above the threshold that attracts the government’s focus today yet who are by no means rich or well off – are also given the help they need.
So we will recalibrate how we approach policy development to ensure that everything we do as government helps to give those who are just getting by a fair chance – while still helping those who are most disadvantaged. Because people who are just managing, just getting by, don’t need a government that will get out of the way, they need a government that will make the system work for them. An active government that will help them share in the growing prosperity of post-Brexit Britain.
That’s why we will shortly launch a new housing white paper to boost supply, tackle the increasing lack of affordability, and so help ordinary working people with the high costs of this most basic of necessities.
It’s why we will shortly publish a green paper to put forward our approach for a modern industrial strategy, setting out our plans to encourage growth, innovation and investment and ensure that as we aim to increase our overall prosperity – that prosperity is shared by people in every corner of our country.
It’s why as part of building a great meritocracy I have already outlined plans to increase the number of good school places so that every child – not just those who are fortunate to have parents who can afford to move to a good catchment area or pay to go private – can enjoy a school place that caters to their individual interests, abilities and needs.
So with all these steps we will deliver this new agenda of social reform. And government will step up to support and – where necessary – enforce the responsibilities we have to each other as citizens, so that we respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work.
This means government supporting free markets as the basis for our prosperity, but stepping in to repair them when they aren’t working as they should.
It means standing up for business as a great driver of prosperity and progress, but taking action when a minority of businesses and business figures tear away at the social contract between business and society by working to a different set of rules from everyone else.
It means creating an environment in which our charities and social enterprises can thrive – but responding when a small minority pursue inappropriate and unacceptable fundraising practices.
And it means not being ambivalent about the efforts of all those who give their time, money and expertise in the service of others; but recognising, supporting and championing those who lead the way in shaping a civil society that can bring the talents of so many in our voluntary sector to bear on some of the great social challenges that we face together.
That is why I have continued the important work that David Cameron began through the Points of Light programme, using the office of Prime Minister every day to recognise an outstanding volunteer in Britain whose service can be an inspiration to us all. It is why we are making National Citizen Service a rite of passage for every young person in Britain and supporting all those brilliant organisations in the Prince of Wales’ #iwill campaign who are encouraging our young people to give their time in the service of others.
And it is why we will continue to lead the way internationally in the development of social finance to harness the full potential of our charities and social enterprises in working with business and government to tackle some of the biggest social challenges in our country.
Our opportunity and responsibility
This is the new approach – the new philosophy – that we need in Britain today. An approach with fairness and solidarity at its heart.
And as we reflect on – and implement – the result of the referendum, we must recognise that we have a unique opportunity and responsibility to deliver the change that people need.
An opportunity because Britain is going through a period of great national change, and as we do so we have a once-in-a-generation chance to step back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be.
A responsibility because a failure to take this opportunity to show the ability of mainstream, centre-ground politics to respond to public concern would further entrench the very divisions we seek to overcome.
For we know what happens when mainstream, centre-ground politics fails. People embrace the fringe – the politics of division and despair. They turn to those who offer easy answers – who claim to understand people’s problems and always know what – and who – to blame.
We see those fringe voices gaining prominence in some countries across Europe today – voices from the hard-left and the far-right stepping forward and sensing that this is their time.
But they stand on the shoulders of mainstream politicians who have allowed unfairness and division to grow by ignoring the legitimate concerns of ordinary people for too long.
Politicians who embraced the twin pillars of liberalism and globalisation as the great forces for good that they are, but failed to understand that for too many people – particularly those on modest to low incomes living in rich countries like our own – those forces are something to be concerned, not thrilled, about.
Politicians who supported and promoted an economic system that works well for a privileged few, but failed to ensure that the prosperity generated by free markets and free trade is shared by everyone, in every corner and community of their land.
Politicians who made the deals and signed the agreements that changed the nature of their country, but failed to listen to the public’s concerns – dismissing them as somehow parochial or illegitimate instead.
The result of this consensus – this way of conducting politics – has been to bring us to a place where all the old certainties are called into question.
People are questioning whether the system of globalisation, free markets and free trade – one that has underpinned so much of our prosperity – is actually working for them.
When they lose their jobs, or their wages stagnate, or their dreams such as owning a home seem out of reach, they feel it is even working against them – serving not their interests or ambitions, but those of a privileged few.
And they are questioning the legitimacy of all the old institutions and systems we have relied on for decades. They have seen a small minority in the banking and business sectors appearing to game the system and play by their own rules. They have watched Parliament dragged into a row about political expenses, the media mired in questions about phone-hacking, a system that allows lawyers to get rich by hounding our brave troops. And they come to a simple conclusion: that there is one rule for the rich and powerful and another for everyone else.
This is dangerous for it sows division and despair as the gap between those who are prospering and those who are not gets ever larger, and resentments grow.
And it emboldens the voices of protectionism and isolation who would tear down all we have achieved and take us back to the past.
So our responsibility is great. It is to show that mainstream, centre-ground politics can deliver the change people need. That mainstream, centre-ground politics can respond to public concern. And that a mainstream, centre-ground government understands what needs to change and has a plan to set things right.
Our plan for a stronger, fairer Britain
And that’s why this government has a plan, not simply to manage our withdrawal from the European Union, but to take this opportunity to fundamentally change Britain for the better.
A comprehensive, wide-ranging plan for the kind of country we want to be. A plan to build a country where wealth and opportunity are shared; where all of us, no matter what our background, play by the same rules; and where future generations enjoy the same opportunities from which their parents have benefited throughout their lives.
I will say more about this plan in the coming weeks. I will talk more about our plans for economic reform, our plans to build a global Britain and our ambitions to build a more united country.
But at the heart of the plan is a commitment to building a fairer society and tackling the burning injustices that have been allowed to stand for too long.
The burning injustice of mental illness
And I want to turn to one of those burning injustices in particular – the burning injustice of mental health and inadequate treatment that demands a new approach from government and society as a whole.
Let me be clear: mental health problems affect people of all ages and all backgrounds. An estimated 1 in 4 of us has a common mental disorder at any one time. The economic and social cost of mental illness is £105 billion – roughly the same as we spend on the NHS in its entirety.
And for children – 1 in 10 of whom has a diagnosable condition – the long term effects can be crippling: children with behavioural disorders are 4 times more likely to be drug dependent, 6 times more likely to die before the age of 30, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.
We all know someone – a family member, friend or colleague – who is directly affected by mental health problems. But while people talk about ‘parity of esteem’ – and it was a Conservative-led government that legislated for it – there is no escaping the fact that people with mental health problems are still not treated the same as if they have a physical ailment – or the fact that all of us – government, employers, schools, charities – need to do more to support all of our mental wellbeing.
As Home Secretary I was determined to take on the grave injustices concerning mental illness that were within my remit – and I made improving the police response to people with mental health needs a top priority.
And I am delighted that we have taken great strides forward in reducing the number of people suffering a mental health crisis who end up in a police cell, for want of somewhere else to go.
Since 2011 to 2012, there has been an almost 80% reduction of such incidences across England – so more people detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act are rightly being taken to a health-based place of safety, rather than being held in a cell.
And for children and young people the reduction is comparable, and through the Policing and Crime Bill I personally introduced, this practice will be abolished entirely for under 18s from this spring.
This proves that innovative reforms that challenge the established way of doing things can improve the response to mental illness.
Now as Prime Minister I want us to go further. I want us to employ the power of government as a force for good to transform the way we deal with mental health problems right across society, and at every stage of life.
For years the only people who have stood up for those with mental ill health have been civil society groups and charities. Now I want us to build upon your success and the fantastic work that many including those here today are doing.
Organisations such as Mind who have led the way in helping those experiencing mental health problems. The Heads Together campaign – and the fantastic leadership shown by their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry – that aims to break the stigma surrounding mental health problems.
And the tremendous campaigning work by Black Mental Health UK – with whom I worked at the Home Office – to expose injustices in the way black people with mental ill health in particular are treated, and ensure politicians take action to put things right.
So you are leading the way – but today I want us to forge a new approach recognising our responsibility to each other, and make mental illness an everyday concern for all of us and in every one of our institutions.
What I am announcing are the first steps in our plan to transform the way we deal with mental health problems at every stage of a person’s life: not in our hospitals, but in our classrooms, at work and in our communities.
This starts with ensuring that children and teenagers get the help and support they need and deserve – because we know that mental illness too often starts in childhood and that when left untreated, it can blight lives, and become entrenched.
There is, for example, evidence to suggest an increase in self-harm among young people, with the number of 16- to 24-year-old women reporting self-harm increasing threefold – to 1 in 5 – between 2000 and 2014.
And we know that the use of social media brings additional concerns and challenges. In 2014, just over 1 in 10 young people said that they had experienced cyberbullying by phone or over the internet.
First, we will introduce a package of measures to transform the way we respond to mental illness in young people starting in our schools.
We will pilot new approaches such as offering mental health first aid training for teachers and staff to help them identify and assist children experiencing mental health problems. And we will trial approaches to ensure schools and colleges work closer together with local NHS services to provide dedicated children and young people’s mental health services.
These steps will accompany a major thematic review – led by the Care Quality Commission with input from Ofsted – looking at services for children and teenagers across the country to find out what is working, and what is not.
Following this, CQC and Ofsted will consider how their future joint programme of inspections can ensure child and adolescent mental health services are properly held to account for performance.
And alongside these reviews, later this year we will bring forward a new green paper on children and young people’s mental health to transform services in education and for families.
These measures will build on the work we are already doing to put a stop to the untold misery of hundreds of children being sent halfway across the country to access mental health services.
By 2021, no child will be sent away from their local area to be treated for a general mental health condition.
But treatment is only part of the answer. We must look at what more can be done to prevent mental health problems, and work with you to capitalise on the crucial role civil society has to play in helping young people – and indeed people of all ages – build resilience.
Second, I want us to do more to support mental wellbeing in the workplace. So I have asked Lord Stevenson, who has campaigned on these issues for many years, and Paul Farmer, CEO of Mind and Chair of the NHS Mental Health Taskforce, to work with leading employers and mental health groups to create a new partnership with industry, and make prevention and breaking the stigma top priorities for employers. Because mental wellbeing doesn’t just improve the health of employees, it improves their motivation, reduces their absence and drives better productivity too.
We will also review employment discrimination laws for employees with mental health problems to ensure they are properly supported.
And we will do everything we can to get the right support to those with mental health problems who are out of work. For example, through our global leadership on social impact bonds – which drive investment in social outcomes – we are already providing up to £50 million to support those with mental health issues back into work and to help local areas tackle the link between drug and alcohol dependency and co-existing mental health problems.
Third, I want to ensure more people get the support they need, when they need it, in their communities. So we will make up to £15 million of extra funding available for community clinics, crisis cafes, and alternative places of safety to support a wider range of preventative services in the community, and ensure that charities, churches and community organisations can access funding to run them too.
And we are already investing over £10 million to support the fast track Think Ahead programme – which aims to increase the number of high-calibre mental health social workers – by at least 300.
Fourth, we will rapidly expand the treatment available by investing £67.7 million in digital mental health services. Online therapy has the potential to transform the way mental health services are delivered by allowing people to check their symptoms, be triaged online and receive clinically-assisted therapy over the internet much more quickly and easily, assuming it is clinically appropriate. These treatments have been tested in other countries and they work. In the right cases, they can offer access to treatment far quicker than traditional services.
Fifth, we will right the everyday injustices that those with mental illness encounter – starting by examining GP forms relating to mental health and debt. Because sometimes those whose illness has resulted in debt, or means they are struggling to pay their debt, have to prove their mental ill-health to debt collectors and pay their GP to fill in a form to do so. Such a process can worsen both mental illness and financial difficulties, so we will work with the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute to consult on these forms, with a view to ending the practice.
And finally, today we are publishing a strengthened cross-government suicide prevention strategy, which sets out a comprehensive plan to reduce the suicide rate in this Parliament, and targets those most at risk such as young and middle-aged men, those in contact with the criminal justice system and those in the care of mental health services. Because, on average, 13 people kill themselves every day in England, and if we want to improve the life chances of current and future generations, we need to address this shocking reality.
And in addition to all this we will ensure that the NHS itself takes the steps it needs to ensure that parity means just that: parity. We will hold the NHS leadership to account for the extra £1 billion we invested in mental health last year. We will make sure that mental illness gets the attention it deserves, in funding, research and technology investment. And we will be clear that when NHS leaders are redesigning services and developing new local solutions, mental health should get its full weighting.
As I have said these are just the first steps in our plan to transform our approach to mental health in this country. Meeting this challenge will take years and require more than government action alone – it will need a sustained effort on the part of everyone in this room and everyone across society.
But this is a historic opportunity to right a wrong, and give people deserving of compassion and support the attention and treatment they deserve. And for all of us to change the way we view mental illness so that striving to improve mental wellbeing is seen as just as natural, positive and good as striving to improve our physical wellbeing.
For too long, mental illness has been something of a hidden injustice in our country, shrouded in a completely unacceptable stigma and dangerously disregarded as a secondary issue to physical health. Yet left unaddressed, it destroys lives, separates people from each other and deepens the divisions within our society. Changing this goes right to the heart of our humanity; to the heart of the kind of country we are, the attitudes we hold and the values we share.
I remember the reaction when, back in 2012, Charles Walker and Kevan Jones spoke in Parliament about their own personal challenges with mental illness. The courage of these 2 MPs – Conservative and Labour – to speak out in this way, encouraged us all to put aside party differences and come together in solidarity.
That sense of solidarity will be essential in helping us to transform the support we offer those with mental health conditions and to defeat the stigma that makes addressing this issue so much harder than it should be. But I also believe that in a wider sense, that commitment to strengthening the bonds we share as a union of people, can be a defining part of how we meet the great challenge of our time and bring our whole country together.
It is by tackling the injustice and unfairness that drives us apart and by nurturing the responsibilities of citizenship that we can build that shared society – and make it the bedrock of a stronger and fairer Britain that truly does work for everyone
Theresa May: ‘The Great Meritocracy’ – September 2016
Transcript and video of Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘The Great Meritocracy’ speech delivered September 9, 2016 at the British Academy, London, on the topic of the British education system
“When I stood in Downing Street as Prime Minister for the first time this summer, I set out my mission to build a country that works for everyone. Today I want to talk a little more about what that means and lay out my vision for a truly meritocratic Britain that puts the interests of ordinary, working class people first.
We are facing a moment of great change as a nation. As we leave the European Union, we must define an ambitious new role for ourselves in the world. That involves asking ourselves what kind of country we want to be: a confident, global trading nation that continues to play its full part on the world stage.
But at the same time, I believe we have a precious opportunity to step back and ask some searching questions about what kind of country we want to be here at home too.
In fact, it’s not just an opportunity, but a duty. Because one thing is clear. When the British people voted in the referendum, they did not just choose to leave the European Union. They were also expressing a far more profound sense of frustration about aspects of life in Britain and the way in which politics and politicians have failed to respond to their concerns.
Some voted for the first time in more than 30 years. Some for the first time ever. And they were inspired to do so because they saw a chance to reject the politics of ‘business as usual’ and to demand real, profound change.
Fed up with being ignored or told that their priorities were somehow invalid, based on ignorance and misunderstanding, or even on occasion that they were simply wrong to voice the concerns that they did, they took their opportunity to send a very clear message: they will not be ignored anymore.
They want to take back control of the things that matter in their lives. They want a government that listens, understands and is on their side. They want change. And this government is going to deliver it.
Everything we do will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few. Not by those with the loudest voices, the special interests, the greatest wealth or the access to influence. This government’s priorities are those of ordinary, working class people. People for whom life sometimes can be a struggle, but who get on with things without complaint.
They get on with their jobs – sometimes 2 or even 3 of them – because they have families to feed and support, bills to pay and because to work for a fair reward is the right thing to do.
They get on with their lives quietly, going about their business, going out to work, raising families, helping neighbours, making their communities what they are.
They don’t ask for much, but they want to know that the people that make the big decisions are on their side, working for them. They want to believe that everyone plays by the same rules and things are fair.
And above all they want to believe that if they uphold their end of the deal – they do the right thing, they work hard, they pay their taxes – then tomorrow will be better than today and their children will have a fair chance in life, the chance to go as far as their talents will take them.
These are not outrageous demands or ridiculous desires, but for too many of these people today life does not seem fair. They are the people who made real sacrifices after the financial crash in 2008, though they were in no way responsible.
They wonder if others – some of whom really do bear responsibility for the crash – did the same.
More than anything else, they worry – truly worry – that the changing world around them means that their children and grandchildren won’t have the same opportunities they have enjoyed in life.
They deserve a better deal.
And to give them that, we should take this opportunity to step back and pose a fundamental question: what kind of country – what kind of society – do we want to be?
I am clear about the answer.
I want Britain to be the world’s great meritocracy – a country where everyone has a fair chance to go as far as their talent and their hard work will allow.
I want us to be a country where everyone plays by the same rules; where ordinary, working class people have more control over their lives and the chance to share fairly in the prosperity of the nation.
And I want Britain to be a place where advantage is based on merit not privilege; where it’s your talent and hard work that matter, not where you were born, who your parents are or what your accent sounds like.
Let us not underestimate what it will take to create that great meritocracy. It means taking on some big challenges, tackling some vested interests. Overcoming barriers that have been constructed over many years.
It means not being afraid to think differently about what disadvantage means, who we want to help and how we can help them. Because where once we reached for simple ways of labelling people disadvantaged and were quick to pose simple – and often fairly blunt – solutions, in these modern times disadvantage is much more complex.
It’s often hidden and less easy to identify. It’s caused by factors that are more indirect and tougher to tackle than ever before.
But tackle it we must if we are to give ordinary, working class people the better deal they deserve.
It means marking a significant shift in the way that government works in Britain too. Because government and politicians have for years talked the language of social justice – where we help the very poorest – and social mobility – where we help the brightest among the poor.
But to make Britain a great meritocracy, we must move beyond this agenda and deliver real social reform across every layer of society so that those whom the system would currently miss – those just above the threshold for help today yet those who are by no means rich or well off – are given the help they need.
It means putting government firmly on the side of not only the poorest in our society, important though that is and will remain, but also of those in Britain who are working hard but just about managing. It means helping to make their lives a little easier; giving them greater control over the issues they care about the most.
This is the change we need. It will mean changing some of the philosophy underpinning how government thinks and acts. It will mean recalibrating how we approach policy development to ensure that everything we do as government helps to give a fair chance to those who are just getting by – while still helping those who are even more disadvantaged.
I don’t pretend this change will be easy – change rarely is – but this is the change we need if we are to make Britain the great meritocracy I want it to be.
Over the coming weeks and months the government will set out an ambitious programme of economic and social reform that will help us make this change and build a true meritocracy in our country.
But there is no more important place to start than education. Because if the central concern ordinary working class people have is that their children will not enjoy the same opportunities they have had in life, we need to ensure that there is a good school place for every child, and education provision that caters to the individual needs and abilities of every pupil.
Schools that work for everyone
We start from a position of strength. This government has a proud record of school reform. We have opened up the system, introducing a real diversity of provision. We have schools where teachers and headteachers are free to make the decisions that are best for them.
And through successful policies such as a renewed focus on learning the basics of reading in primary schools, and initiatives to help young people pursue a strong academic core of subjects at secondary level, we are ensuring that every child has the opportunity to develop the core knowledge that underpins everything else.
We have put control in the hands of parents and headteachers, and encouraged people from all walks of life who are passionate about education to bring their best ideas and innovations to our school system.
The Academies and Free Schools movement overseen by pioneers such as Andrew Adonis and Michael Gove has been a huge success and begun to build an education system fit for the future.
As a result, there are more good or outstanding schools today than ever before in our country. And there are now more than 1.4 million more pupils in schools rated good or outstanding than in 2010.
Our curriculum reforms mean that the proportion of pupils taking core academic subjects at GCSE is up by almost 4-fifths. We are driving up school standards to match the best international comparisons, with a record number of pupils securing a place at one of our world-class universities this summer. We can be proud of these achievements but there is still a long way to go.
Because for too many children, a good school remains out of reach. There are still 1.25 million attending primary and secondary schools in England which are rated by Ofsted as requiring improvement or inadequate. If schools across the north and Midlands had the same average standards as those in the south, nearly 200,000 more children would be attending good schools.
Let’s be honest about what these statistics mean.
They mean that for far too many children in Britain, the chance they have in life is determined by where they live or how much money their parents have.
And they mean that for far too many ordinary working class people, no matter how hard they work, how many hours they put in or how many sacrifices they make, they cannot be confident that their children will get the chances they deserve.
For when you are working 2 jobs and struggling to make ends meet, it is no good being told that you can choose a better school for your children if you move to a different area or pay to go private. Those aren’t choices that you can make. And they are not choices that you should have to make.
So we need to go further, building on and extending our reforms so that we can truly say that there will be a good school place for every child, and one that caters to their individual needs.
But as we do it, we also need to change our philosophy and approach, because at the moment the school system works if you’re well off and can buy your way into the school you want, and it provides extra help and support if you’re from a disadvantaged family.
If you’re eligible for free school meals, and your parents earn less than £16,000 a year, then there is extra help on offer. That is good and right – and as long as I am Prime Minister, the pupil premium for the poorest children will remain.
But the free school meals measure only captures a relatively small number of pupils, whose parents are on income-related benefits.
If we are going to make the change we need and build a great meritocracy in Britain, we need to broaden our perspective and do more for the hidden disadvantaged: children whose parents are on modest incomes, who do not qualify for such benefits but who are, nevertheless, still only just getting by.
If you’re earning 19, 20, 21 thousand pounds a year, you’re not rich. You’re not well off. And you should know you have our support too.
At the moment there is no way to differentiate between the school experience of children from these families and those from the wealthiest 10%.
Policy has been skewed by the focus only on those in receipt of free school meals, when the reality is that there are thousands of children from ordinary working class families who are being let down by the lack of available good school places.
Putting this right means finding a way to identify these children and measuring their attainment and progress within the school system. That work is underway and is central to my vision of a school system that truly works for everyone.
But we must also deliver a radical increase in the capacity of the school system so that these families can be sure of their children getting good school places.
And this is really important. Because I don’t just want to see more school places but more good school places. And I don’t just want to see more new schools, but more good new schools that each in their way contribute to a diversity of provision that caters to the needs and abilities of each individual child, whoever they are and wherever they are from.
Every child should be given the opportunity to develop the crucial academic core. And thanks to our reforms that is increasingly the case. But people understand that every child is different too, with different talents, different interests, different dreams. To help them realise their potential and achieve those dreams we need a school system with the capacity and capability to respond to what they need.
School Capacity
So as we radically expand the number of good school places available to all families – not just those who can afford to buy an expensive house, pay for an expensive private school, or fund the extra tuition their child needs to succeed – I want to encourage more people, schools and institutions with something to offer to come forward and help.
In the last 6 years, we have seen individuals and communities put staggering amounts of time and effort into setting up good new schools. Some of the best state schools, charities, universities, private schools, and businesses have stepped forward to get involved.
And, increasingly, the best state schools are sponsoring the least good. This has been a revolution in our schools system.
But with 1.25 million children still attending schools that are struggling, we need to do much more to increase the capacity of the system so every child can get the education they deserve.
So let’s now build on the success of school reform, let’s encourage others to play their part, and let’s remove the barriers they face so we can do more.
Let’s sweep away those barriers and encourage more people to join us in the task of delivering a good school place for every child.
Let’s build a truly dynamic school system where schools and institutions learn from one another, support one another and help one another.
Let’s offer a diverse range of good schools that ensure the individual talents and abilities of every child are catered for.
That is my ambition.
And there are 4 specific proposals I want to talk about today that I believe will help.
Universities
Firstly, I want to build on the success we have already experienced when some of our great universities have stepped in to help by sponsoring or supporting a local school.
Universities have a huge amount to offer England’s schools. They have been part of the fabric of our education system since the 13th century and have had a profound impact on our schools over generations.
Recently we have seen The University of Cambridge establish The University of Cambridge Primary School and The University of Birmingham open an impressive new free school for secondary school pupils and sixth formers.
The new specialist Sixth Form, King’s College London Mathematics School, is already performing impressively and the University of Brighton is involved in sponsoring more than a dozen different primary and secondary schools.
These are the kinds of innovation I want to encourage. This kind of active engagement in building the capacity of our school system is in my view far more effective than spending huge sums on bursaries and other financial support that tackle the symptoms but not the cause.
The right for a university to charge the higher level of tuition fee has always been dependent on their ability to fulfil specified access requirements. And this year, in fulfilling these requirements, they are expected to spend over £400 million on bursaries and other forms of financial support for students.
Yet the evidence is clear: it is the attainment of pupils at school that is the over-riding factor in predicting access to university.
I am not saying there is no place for bursaries. But overall, I do think the balance has tilted too far. We need to go to the root of the problem, which is that there are not enough students from disadvantaged backgrounds and from ordinary families fulfilling their potential with the grades to get into the best universities.
So I want our universities to do more to help us to improve the quality of schools so that more students of all backgrounds have the grades, the subjects, and the confidence, to apply to top universities and to be successful in their exams in the first place.
So the government will reform university fair access requirements and say that universities should actively strengthen state school attainment – by sponsoring a state school or setting up a new free school. And over time we will extend this to the sponsorship or establishment of more than one school, so that in the future we see our universities sponsoring thriving school chains in every town and city in the country.
Faith Schools
Second, I want to remove the obstacles that stop more good faith schools from opening.
Britain has a long history of faith schools delivering outstanding education. They already account for around a third of all mainstream schools in England. They are popular with parents and significantly more likely than other schools to be rated by Ofsted as good or outstanding.
I believe we should confidently promote them and the role they play in a diverse school system.
Yet for Catholic schools in particular there are barriers in their way. When a faith-designated free school is oversubscribed, it must limit the number of pupils it selects on the basis of faith to 50%.
The intention is to improve the diversity of the school’s intake but in practice it has little impact on many Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu schools because they tend not to appeal to parents of other faiths.
So despite the best intentions, the rule is failing in its objective to promote integration. But it does prevent new Catholic schools opening, because the Catholic Church believes it contravenes its own rules for a Catholic bishop not to prioritise the admission of Catholic pupils.
This is especially frustrating because existing Catholic schools are more ethnically diverse than other faith schools, more likely to be located in deprived communities, more likely to be rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, and there is growing demand for them.
So we will remove this 50% rule to allow the growth in capacity that Catholic schools can offer. Instead we will consult on a new set of much more effective requirements to ensure that faith schools are properly inclusive and make sure their pupils mix with children of other faiths and backgrounds.
Of course, there must be strict and properly enforced rules to ensure that every new faith school operates in a way that supports British values. And we should explore new ways of using the school system to promote greater integration within our society generally.
We will encourage the grouping together of mono-racial and mono-religious schools within wider multi-racial and multi-religious trusts. This will make it easier for children from different backgrounds in more divided communities to mix between schools, while respecting religious differences.
We will explore ways in which schools can enter into twinning arrangements with other schools not of their faith, through sharing lessons or joint extra-curricular activities to bring young people from different schools together.
And we will consult on the idea of placing an independent member or director who is of a different faith or no faith at all on the governing body of new faith schools.
We will also explore new requirements for new faith schools to prove that parents of other faiths would be happy to send their children to the school through a proper process of consultation.
But fundamentally I believe it is wrong to deny families the opportunity to send their children to a school that reflects their religious values if that’s what they choose. And it’s right to encourage faith communities – especially those with a proven record of success, like the Catholics – to play their full part in building the capacity of our schools.
Independent Schools
Third, I want to encourage some of our biggest independent schools to bring their knowledge, expertise and resources to bear to help improve the quality and capacity of schools for those who cannot afford to pay.
This is entirely in keeping with the ethos that lies at the heart of many of these institutions. Most of the major public schools started out as the route by which poor boys could reach the professions. The nature of their intake may have changed today – indeed these schools have become more and more divorced from normal life.
Between 2010 and 2015 their fees rose 4 times faster than average earnings growth, while the percentage of their pupils who come from overseas has gone up by 33% since 2008. But I know that their commitment to giving something back to the wider community remains.
These are great schools with a lot to offer and I certainly don’t believe you solve the divide between the rich and the rest by abolishing or demolishing them. You do it by extending their reach and asking them to do more as a condition of their privileged position to help all children.
Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent schools to enact a tougher test on the amount of public benefit required to maintain charitable status.
It’s important to state that this will be proportionate to the size and scale of the school in question. Not every school is an Eton or a Harrow. Many public schools are nowhere near that size.
Smaller independent schools who do not have the capacity to take on full sponsorship of a local state school will be asked to provide more limited help such as direct school-to-school support where appropriate. This could include supporting teaching in minority subjects such as further maths or classics, which state schools often struggle to make viable. It could include ensuring their senior leaders become directors of multi-academy trusts; providing greater access to their facilities and providing sixth-form scholarships to a proportion of pupils in year 11 at each local school.
But for those with the capacity and capability, we will ask them to go further and actually sponsor or set up a new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.
Alternatively, we will ask them to fund a number of places at their own school themselves for those from modest backgrounds who cannot afford to pay the fees.
We know this can work. For example, Westminster School is the key partner in sponsoring Harris Westminster Sixth Form, where students at the free school share the facilities and teaching expertise of Westminster School.
In my own constituency, Eton College sponsors Holyport College, offering Holyport pupils access to its sports facilities and the chance to join its educational activities.
And before it became a state-funded academy, Belvedere School in Liverpool worked with the Sutton Trust to create an Open Access Scheme where places were awarded purely on the basis of academic merit, and parents were then asked to pay on a sliding scale of fees fairly tailored according to their means.
I want all independent schools with the appropriate capacity and capability to take these kinds of steps.
I want them to play a major role in creating more good school places for children from ordinary working families; because this government is about a Britain that works for everyone – not just a privileged few.
Selective schools
There is one final area where we have placed obstacles in the way of good new schools – obstacles that I believe we need to take away.
The debate over selective schools has raged for years. But the only place it has got us to is a place where selection exists if you’re wealthy – if you can afford to go private – but doesn’t exist if you’re not. We are effectively saying to poorer and some of the most disadvantaged children in our country that they can’t have the kind of education their richer counterparts can enjoy.
What is ‘just’ about that? Where is the meritocracy in a system that advantages the privileged few over the many? How can a meritocratic Britain let this situation stand?
Politicians – many of whom benefited from the very kind of education they now seek to deny to others – have for years put their own dogma and ideology before the interests and concerns of ordinary people. For we know that grammar schools are hugely popular with parents. We know they are good for the pupils that attend them. Indeed, the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils is reduced to almost zero for children in selective schools. And we know that they want to expand.
They provide a stretching education for the most academically able, regardless of their background, and they deliver outstanding results.
In fact, 99% of existing selective schools are rated good or outstanding – and 80% are outstanding, compared with just 20% of state schools overall.
So we help no one – not least those who can’t afford to move house or pay for a private education – by saying to parents who want a selective education for their child that we won’t let them have it.
There is nothing meritocratic about standing in the way of giving our most academically gifted children the specialist and tailored support that can enable them to fulfil their potential. In a true meritocracy, we should not be apologetic about stretching the most academically able to the very highest standards of excellence.
We already have selection to help achieve this in specialist disciplines like music and sport, giving exceptionally talented young people access to the facilities and training that can help them become world class. I think we should have more of this. But we should also take the same approach to support the most academically gifted too.
Frankly, it is completely illogical to make it illegal to open good new schools. So I want to relax the restrictions that stop selective schools from expanding, that deny parents the right to have a new selective school opened where they want one, and that stop existing non-selective schools to become selective in the right circumstances and where there is demand.
In return, we will ensure that these schools contribute meaningfully to raising outcomes for all pupils in every part of the system.
In practice this could mean taking a proportion of pupils from lower income households, so that selective education is not reserved for those with the means to move into a catchment area or pay for tuition to pass the test.
They could, as a condition of opening a new selective school, be asked to establish a good, new non-selective school. Others may be asked to establish a primary feeder school in an area with a high density of lower income households to widen access. They might even partner with an existing non-selective school within a multi-academy trust or sponsor a currently underperforming non-selective academy.
But the principle is clear: selective schools have a part to play in helping to expand the capacity of our school system and they have the ability to cater to the individual needs of every child. So the government will make up to £50 million a year available to support the expansion of good or outstanding existing grammars.
Now I know this will be the source of much debate in the consultation over the coming months, so I want to address very directly some of the key arguments made by those who oppose the expansion of grammar schools.
First, there are those who fear this could lead to the return of a binary system, as we had in the past with secondary moderns. But this fear is unfounded: there will be no return to secondary moderns.
As I have set out today, far from a binary system we are supporting the most diverse school system we have ever had in our country.
From free schools sponsored by universities and independent schools, to faith schools and selective schools, the diversity of high quality school provision means we will be able to cater properly for the different needs of all pupils and give parents real control over the kind of school they want for their children.
We do not want to see whole new parts of the country where the choice of schools is binary. So we will use the approvals process to prevent that from happening.
Second, there are those who argue that selective schools tend to recruit children from more affluent backgrounds. The problem here is not selective schools per se but rather the way that wealthier families can already dominate access to the schools of their choice through selection by house price. I want to stop that and new grammars can help.
We are going to ask new grammars to demonstrate that they will attract pupils from different backgrounds, for example as I said, by taking a proportion of children from lower income households. And existing grammars will be expected to do more too – by working with local primary schools to help children from more disadvantaged backgrounds to apply.
Third, there are those who argue that grammars don’t actually select on ability because wealthy families can pay tutors to help their children get through the tests. This might have been the case in the past with the old 11-plus. But it does not have to be the case today.
While there is no such thing as a tutor-proof test, many selective schools are already employing much smarter tests that assess the true potential of every child. So new grammars will be able to select in a fair and meritocratic way, not on the ability of parents to pay.
Fourth, there are those who worry about the cliff-edge of selection at 11. Some fear it is too early, some fear it is too late. The truth is that it doesn’t have to be a cliff-edge at all. This is back in the old mindset of the grammar schools of the past. A modern, meritocratic education system needs to be much more flexible and agile to respond to the needs of every child. So we will demand that new grammars make the most of their freedom to be flexible over how students move between schools, encouraging this to happen at different ages such as 14 and 16 as well as 11.
This means that children who are at a non-selective school sponsored by a grammar might join the grammar for specific subjects or specialisms where they themselves are outstanding – or they might move to the grammar full-time later than aged 11, based on their performance at their current school.
Finally, people get lost in the argument about whether the grammars schools of the 1950s and 60s improved social mobility or not. But I want to focus on the new grammars of the future: those that will be just one element of a truly diverse system which taken as a whole can give every child the support they need to go as far as their talents can take them. And give every parent access to a good school place for their child.
This is the true test of schools that work for everyone. And the true test of a meritocratic society.
The Great Meritocracy
There has been a lot of speculation in the last few weeks, but as you now know this is not a proposal to go back to a binary model of grammars and secondary moderns but to build on our increasingly diverse schools system. It is not a proposal to go back to the 1950s but to look to the future, and that future I believe is an exciting one.
It is a future in which every child should have access to a good school place. And a future in which Britain’s education system shifts decisively to support ordinary working class families.
These families are not asking for the world. They just want to know that their children and grandchildren will enjoy the opportunities they have enjoyed and be given the chance to go as far as their talents will take them. Unhindered by background or circumstance. And by the artificial barriers some want to put in their way.
In a country that works for everyone it doesn’t matter where you were born, or how much your parents earn. If you work hard and do the right thing, you will be able to go as far as you can.
I want this country to be a great meritocracy. I want to see more houses built, better productivity so we can have more well-paid jobs, more economic growth not just in the south-east of England but across the whole country to help more people get on.
But more than anything else, I want to see children from ordinary, working class families given the chances their richer contemporaries take for granted. That means we need more great schools.
This is the plan to deliver them and to set Britain on the path to being the great meritocracy of the world.” — UK Prime Minister Theresa May September 9, 2016
Theresa May: ‘Build a Better Britain’ – July 2016
Transcript and video of Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘Build a Better Britain’ speech delivered on July 13, 2016 at the Prime Minister’s residence, London, on the topic of building a better United Kingdom
“I have just been to Buckingham Palace, where Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to form a new government, and I accepted.
In David Cameron, I follow in the footsteps of a great, modern Prime Minister. Under David’s leadership, the Government stabilised the economy, reduced the budget deficit, and helped more people into work than ever before.
But David’s true legacy is not about the economy, but about social justice. From the introduction of same-sex marriage, to taking people on low wages out of income tax altogether, David Cameron has led a ‘one nation’ government, and it is in that spirit that I also plan to lead.
Because not everybody knows this, but the full title of my party is the Conservative and Unionist Party. And that word unionist is very important to me.
It means we believe in the union, the precious, precious bond between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it means something else that is just as important, it means we believe in a union not just between the nations of the United Kingdom, but between all of our citizens, every one of us, whoever we are and wherever we are from.
That means fighting against the burning injustice that if you’re born poor you will die on average nine years earlier than others. If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white. If you’re a white working class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university. If you’re at a state school, you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately. If you’re a woman, you will earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s not enough help to hand. If you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home.
But the mission to make Britain a country that works for everyone means more than fighting these injustices. If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise.
You have a job but you don’t always have job security. You have your own home but you worry about paying the mortgage. You can just about manage, but you worry about the cost of living and getting your kids into a good school. If you’re one of those families, if you’re just managing, I want to address you directly.
I know you’re working around the clock, I know you’re doing your best and I know that sometimes life can be a struggle. The Government I lead will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours. We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives.
When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty, but to you. When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.
We are living through an important moment in our country’s history. Following the referendum, we face a time of great national change. And I know because we’re Great Britain that we will rise to the challenge. As we leave the European Union, we will forge a bold, new, positive role for ourselves in the world, and we will make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.
That will be the mission of the Government I lead. And together, we will build a better Britain. — UK Prime Minister Theresa May July 13, 2016
Letter to Britain 