Author: admin

  • Alan Milburn – 2002 Speech on Diversity and Choice within the NHS

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Milburn, the then Secretary of State for Health, to the NHS Confederation on 24 May 2002.

    It’s a year since I last spoke to you. Those twelve months have been a time of great change and major challenge for the NHS and the people who work in it, lead it and manage it.

    The old health authorities and regional offices have gone. The new primary care trusts are up and running and the new strategic health authorities are on their way. When these changes were first proposed some said they were too risky. It is certainly true that at a time when the NHS is focussed on delivering a major programme of improvement there were risks associated with making these changes.

    But the transition has gone better than many feared. And that is thanks to you. Non-executive directors, managers, clinicians and chief executives. Without you these changes would not have been as well-managed as they have been. At a time when NHS management continues to face enormous criticism from some quarters – and even the occasional critical comment from me – I want to place on record my thanks for the job you have done. Good management is needed now more than ever in the NHS.

    I also want to thank the NHS Confederation for the role you have played in taking the agenda of change forward in the NHS. First in Stephen Thornton and now in Gill Morgan you have strong advocates both for the NHS and for NHS reform. I am pleased that we are able to work so closely with you.

    Last year I said at your conference that I wanted you to lead the negotiations for a new GPs contract. Those negotiations have gone well and thanks to the hard work both of yourselves and the BMA there is now the very real prospect of a new contract that is not only good for Britain’s family doctors but is good for NHS patients.

    I hope we can build on what you have achieved in these negotiations. I want to move to a position where national negotiations over new contracts of employment are undertaken, not by the Department of Health, but by NHS employers acting collectively. Such a change would symbolise what I believe should be a new, more modern relationship between government and the health service – where devolution takes hold, where there is more power in the NHS and less in Whitehall. So that local health services can be more responsive to the needs and choices of patients.

    I want to set out today the challenges facing the health service. And how I believe the NHS can rise to meet them. No-one should be in any doubt about the significance of the next few years for the NHS. It is make or break time. Either we prove that the NHS can change to become a service where the interests and choices of patients always come first or we reconcile ourselves to the fact that the NHS – great in principle – simply could not cut the mustard in practice in today’s world. I want to say unequivocally today that I have no doubt the NHS – with your help and leadership – will meet that challenge and can look to the future with confidence.

    I say that in part because of the improvements already taking hold. I know too many of the stories in the newspapers are still focussed on what goes wrong rather than what is going right. Nobody in the NHS pretends there aren’t problems – there are – or that staff are not working under real pressure – they are. But the story the NHS should be telling in every community in the land is what it has been doing to put the problems right.

    I want to pay tribute today to the staff of the NHS – not just the doctors and the nurses – but all the staff. The porters, the cooks, the cleaners, the scientists, the therapists, the secretaries, the managers and the administrators. They represent the very best of British public service and I believe that it is time we as a nation stood up and said that we are proud of the work you do.

    There is good progress to report for which the NHS can justifiably be pleased. And the whole of the NHS can share in the achievements made.

    In primary care, where waiting times are coming down. Where 10 million people can get out of hours care through a single phone call to NHS Direct. Where the prescribing of cholesterol-lowering drugs is up by one third. Tens of thousands of patients are receiving the latest drugs to combat cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and arthritis. In the past year alone, death rates from cancer have fallen by 2 per cent., and from heart disease by 5 per cent.

    In mental health services where in hundreds of communities new crisis and assertive outreach teams are in place providing services to thousands of vulnerable patients. In older people’s services where delayed discharges from hospitals are down, where more home based care is in place and where free nursing care is now the norm.

    In ambulance services where today all but a handful are achieving the emergency response call time when just two years agor only a handful were achieving that.

    In hospital services where a year ago people were having to wait up to 18 months for their hospital operation. Today the maximum wait at 15 months is moving towards the NHS Plan guarantee of a maximum 3 month wait. The number of people waiting more than 12 months for a hospital operation has fallen by one third in only one year. The number of people experiencing long waits for an out-patient appointment is the lowest on record. And for those with the most serious clinical conditions-cancer and heart disease-waiting times are lower still.

    Yes, of course, there is a long way to go but the NHS is now beyond first base in delivering the NHS Plan. Each of these achievements has been hard won. There are many more challenges to come. Anyone who says there are no problems has clearly got it wrong. But those who say there has been no progress have got it totally wrong.

    While they accuse the NHS of being a black hole which simply absorbs public money without return these critics should instead be pointing at dozens more hospitals, hundreds more beds, thousands more doctors, tens of thousands more nurses – and an NHS that is now on the up. They should go and see what I see in every hospital, health centre and surgery I visit. Not just the investment coming through but the reforms too – in how staff work and how services are organised.

    The 10 year journey we mapped out in the NHS Plan is now firmly underway. And now we can move up a gear.

    The Budget on April 17th marked a watershed for the NHS. And I don’t just mean the scale of the resources or the length of time for which they have been committed. Yes, against any historic benchmark they are generous. Five years of real terms growth averaging 7.5% will take health spending in our country beyond the EU average – an average which the cynics said we couldn’t even meet. It is worth remembering that just six years ago spending on the NHS was falling in real terms. By 2008 it will have doubled in real terms.

    What is more, social services – for too long the poor relation – are to enjoy big rises in investment as well. Six years ago spending on social services was falling. Today it is rising by over 3% in real terms. We know that more is needed. We have listened to what local government, private sector care homes and local health services have all had to say. So now, spending on social services will double to 6% a year over and above inflation for the next three years.

    I know there are many pressures and many demands. As we expand services after so many years of under-investment there will be growing pains along the way. But that is precisely what they are. The pains that come from growth. So no one should fall into the trap of saying that these unprecedented resources somehow bring problems when in fact they present the NHS with a huge opportunity.

    The significance of what we have done should not be under-estimated by anyone in the NHS or outside. The Budget laid to rest a decades old fallacy – that we in Britain could have world class health care on the cheap. We can’t. The evidence is there for all to see. The run down buildings. The outdated equipment. The failure to invest in modern IT. The shortages of trained staff. The long waits that we inflict on patients.

    We are bringing the decades of NHS neglect to an end. With the economy on a stable footing we can now put the NHS on a sustainable footing for the long term. We believe the time is now right to ask the British people to pay a bit more in tax to make the NHS a lot better for patients.

    Make no mistake – when people are putting more in to the NHS they will expect to get more out. And rightly so. None of us can assume public confidence. Now more than ever we have got to earn it. As the reaction to the Budget has shown, there is overwhelming public support for the extra investment. But there is considerable public scepticism about the ability of the NHS to turn those resources into results for patients. A failure to deliver improvements will prompt only one response: not more money in the future for the NHS but less. Not collective provision of health care but more individual provision. Not the public sticking with the NHS but the public walking away.

    You only have to read some of our newspapers to hear the voices of scepticism. Sometimes it is not just scepticism about the NHS. It is downright hostility. You can hear other voices too. Some in politics or in business who say the NHS precisely because it is run on public service principles can never actually deliver the goods for patients.

    We have to prove those doubters wrong. And we have to do it together.

    When we put taxes up to get more resources for the NHS – as people in the NHS urged us to do – we entered into a new contract with the people of our country. In exchange for extra resources we will deliver better results. Not just improvements in services for patients but services which are increasingly shaped by the informed choices of patients. Not the old style take it or leave it NHS of the last century but an NHS that is tune with the needs of this century – where services are responsive, where patients have choices, where quality always comes first. This is the challenge together we must now meet.

    I believe that we are in a strong position to do so. NHS funding is secure. There is progress under way. There is a ten year NHS Plan, the cornerstone of all that we do. And there is a major programme of reform to match the programme of investment.

    It is these reforms that are so crucial to the future of health care in our country. That are capable of making the NHS precisely the modern service that both patients and staff want to see.

    These reforms began in our first term with the introduction of a new national framework of standards. As the Kennedy Report into the tragedy at Bristol confirmed, it was really the absence of national standards that was such a structural weakness in the NHS. Hence the NSF programme, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the system of clinical governance, the Modernisation Agency, the Commission for Health Improvement. All of this, designed to prevent bad practice and to spread good practice, so that patients everywhere get the care and treatment they need. Whatever doubts there might be about finer points of detail there is broad consensus that this new national architecture is right for the NHS and most importantly for NHS patients.

    With this national framework in place, in this second term our core objective is to shift the centre of gravity in the NHS. As both the NHS Plan and our recent follow up command paper Delivering the NHS Plan make clear, it is right that standards are set nationally but it is wrong to try to run the NHS nationally. It is only frontline clinicians and managers in day to day contact with patients who can transform local services. This is something which the new strategic health authorities in their relationships with Primary Care Trusts will need to fully understand: the PCTs need to be helped and enabled not commanded or controlled. In turn, they need to devolve resources to their constituent practices from the growing proportion of the NHS budget the PCTs will control.

    As the NHS Plan indicated a million strong service cannot be run from Whitehall. For patient choice to thrive it needs a different environment. One in which there is greater plurality in local services with the freedom to innovate and respond to patient needs.

    It is an explicit objective of our reforms therefore to encourage greater diversity in provision and more choice for patients particularly for elective surgery. Hence primary care trusts having the explicit freedom to purchase care from the most appropriate provider – whether public, private or voluntary. From next April we will begin to move to a system of payment by results for NHS hospitals. Resources will follow the choices patients make so that hospitals who do more get more; those who do not, will not. Over the next four years an increasing proportion of each hospital’s income will come to it as a result of the choices patients make. For the first time in the NHS patients will be able to choose hospitals rather than hospitals choosing patients. That process will start this summer when patients waiting more than 6 months for a heart operation will be able to choose a faster waiting time in another hospital which has the capacity to treat them – whether it is public or private, on the doorstep or further afield, in this country or abroad.

    Later this year we will also test in different parts of the country how patients with other conditions can exercise greater choice over where they are treated. We will want to work with the NHS in developing these policies – just as we have done in developing our thinking on NHS Foundation Trusts – so that by 2005 patients will be able to choose not just the location of their treatment but when to be treated and by whom.

    This is the most fundamental change the NHS will have ever faced. It will mark an irreversible shift from the 1940s take it or leave it, top down service. Patients will be in the driving seat – and not before time. Of course different approaches will be needed to bring about improvements say, in emergency care or mental health services.

    And more choice for patients, of course, requires more capacity in services. Patients can only choose to have an operation if a hospital is able to provide it. Consistent growth in staff numbers and in capital infrastructure will be needed if local NHS services are to expand patient choices and gain from the new system of financial incentives.

    The biggest constraint the NHS faces is shortages of capacity. So I can tell this conference today that in addition to sustained growth in existing NHS provision, we will bring new providers from overseas into this country in order to further expand elective services for NHS patients.

    A few have already started work in the NHS but as you know it is very early days. I can tell the Conference that we are now in discussions with a number of major overseas providers to bring clinical teams – in particular extra surgeons and other doctors – to this country. I can tell the Conference today, I will be meeting personally with prospective providers from both Europe and America over the course of the next few months with view to encouraging them to invest in England. They will concentrate on elective surgery in hard pressed specialties in those parts of the country where capacity constraints are greatest. I expect to see a growing number of these new providers in place beginning later this year. Like NHS use of existing private sector providers, this is not a temporary measure. These new providers will become a permanent feature of the new NHS landscape. They will provide NHS services to NHS patients according to NHS principles. And in the process they will open up more choices for patients and more diversity in provision.

    These reforms are about redefining what we mean by the National Health Service. Changing it from a monolithic centrally run monopoly provider to a system where different health care providers – public, private, voluntary and not for profit – work to a common ethos, common standards and a common system of inspection. In such a system wherever patients are treated they remain NHS patients because they get care according to NHS principles – treatment that is free and available according to need not ability to pay. This is the modern definition of the NHS.

    It is also a fundamental change. Not in how the NHS is funded or the values on which it is founded, but in how it is organised. NHS healthcare no longer always needs to always be delivered exclusively by line managed NHS organisations. The task of managing the NHS becomes one of overseeing a system not running an organisation. Responsibility for day to day management can be devolved to local services. None of this means the abandonment of national standards. Far from it. It is precisely because over these last five years we have put in place such a rigorous framework of standards nationally that the centre of gravity can now shift to how improvements can be delivered locally.

    So while some advocate a false choice between national standards and local autonomy, the experience from elsewhere in Europe in the health sector, and from across the developed world in other economic sectors, is that securing improvements in performance requires both.

    There is a simple deal on offer here. The better you do the more you get. It is a discipline that needs to work just as much in public services as in the private sector. I have lost count of the number of times I have been told by NHS managers and NHS clinicians alike that the NHS has got to stop bailing out the poorest performers and instead reward the better performers in the NHS in order to provide the right incentives for innovation and improvement to take hold across the whole of the NHS. And that is precisely what we must do if we are to translate the extra resources into real results for patients.

    That is the reason for star rating the performance of local health services so that those who are doing less well get more help, those that are doing best get more freedom and those that are persistently failing feel the consequences. Where there are persistent problems we will step in. Where there is progress we will step back. At one end of the spectrum new management teams – whether from the public, voluntary or private sectors – will be brought in through the franchising process to turn round NHS organisations that are in trouble. At the other the best performers will become NHS Foundation Trusts legally free from Whitehall direction and control. Three star trusts will have less monitoring and greater freedom.

    The more overall performance improves – as I am confident it will – the more autonomy will be earned across the NHS. That is what I want to see happen. We are at the start of a transition where more and more decisions about the NHS are taken locally rather than centrally.

    It is time to unleash the spirit of public service enterprise that I know exists in so many parts of the NHS.

    As in any large organisation some functions will need to be undertaken centrally but they should be strictly limited. The Department of Health will focus on setting strategic objectives, determining standards, distributing and accounting for resources and securing the integrity of the overall system through for example workforce planning and better IT. Overall the Department will be slimmed down as power and resources are devolved out of Whitehall. Some functions will move from the Department to the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection as the existing Commission for Health Improvement, National Care Standards Commission and the value for money work of the Audit Commission are brought together. The new CHAI will benefit from the comments that the Confederation and others in the NHS have made about avoiding bureaucracy and fragmentation but it will have the teeth to ensure that money is being spent wisely and that standards are improving.

    Rather than trying to drive improvements through top down performance management the transition will be towards improvements being driven through greater local autonomy in which PCT commissioning, new financial incentives and the choices that patients make become the driving force for change with scrutiny through independent inspection. That transition will take time. It will require careful management and a new, more mature understanding about the relationship between government and the health service where the government does less and the NHS does more.

    To help smooth that transition there are three areas where I hope government can help the NHS.

    First, by focussing on the priorities for patients. If the NHS is to deliver for patients it has to remain focussed on what counts for patients. And the extra resources must be properly focussed too. The NHS does many things. There will be many pressures from many quarters for many good causes. But none of us will be forgiven if having raised the resources we fail to use them to get the results that both staff and patients want to see. Shorter waiting times. Higher clinical standards. Better health outcomes.

    The public’s priorities have to be the health service’s priorities. Getting waiting times down in every aspect of NHS care from ambulances to diagnostics, from primary care to secondary care. Providing quick high quality emergency services not least in A&E. Making sure that the fundamentals are right – clean wards and safe care. Improving cancer, cardiac, mental health and elderly services.

    These are the priorities. In time it is true we will develop further NSFs but only at a pace the NHS can properly absorb. I know the complaint in the service is that there are too many priorities and too many plans. I sometimes hear people say they cannot see the wood for the trees. It is true that sometimes in the rush to make change happen we have opted for the short cut of a dictat from Whitehall when what was needed was a longer discussion with the service. But in a public service like the NHS there has to be accountability to ensure that public money delivers the results that patients want to see whether that is matrons in charge of wards or shorter waiting times for treatment.

    So national standards are necessary. Nobody wants to see a lottery in care where cancer patients are denied treatments in one part of the country which they are entitled to in another.

    And targets are necessary – without them history shows that GP and hospital waiting times would not now be falling so consistently. But national standards and targets work best when they are focussed on key priorities.

    Today I can announce some changes that will do just that. To begin with we will reduce the number of plans that local health services have to submit to the Department of Health.

    At present the NHS is asked to produce scores of plans every year. We will be working with the NHS to review the number of these plans with a view to cutting their numbers by at least two thirds. If we can go further we will. In future planning will focus around delivering the core priorities. The same will be true of monitoring. The concentration will increasingly be on outcomes and outputs. That will allow the volume of overall guidance and monitoring to be reduced. We have already cut the number of circulars issued to the NHS each year and shortened the planning guidance. But senior staff still complain they receive too much clutter that does not help them focus on the core priorities.

    So I can announce today that we will establish a panel of senior managers and clinicians from the NHS to act as a firebreak, to vet communications between the Department and local health services so they are limited to those that are absolutely necessary.

    Secondly, I want to give the NHS the stability it needs to deliver the NHS Plan. The five year financial settlement that the health service has now got allows us to plan for the longer term particularly to meet the waiting time reductions planned for 2005. I can confirm to this Conference today that when we make financial allocations to PCTs this autumn they will receive funding not for a single year but for three years. Annual planning and annual target setting can become a thing of the past. Local health services will be able to concentrate on what needs to be done to bring about improvements over the medium rather than the short term.

    Thirdly, stability will help local health services implement a sustained programme of expansion. It is time to go for growth. To use the large scale increases in both revenue and capital funding to expand capacity. To get the staff, the buildings, and the equipment the NHS needs. To shift the balance of services so that more patients can be seen in primary, community and social services, not just in hospitals.

    To help this programme of expansion take hold locally there will be help nationally. As far as IT is concerned we urgently need to reverse almost two decades of failed attempts to modernise the NHS core infrastructure. So I can tell this conference today that later this summer we will bring forward a nationally run IT programme which will be backed by large scale investment.

    Alongside the programme to bring overseas clinical teams to England we will be helping to establish the first generation of Diagnostic and Treatment Centres to separate elective from emergency work. Some will be run purely by the NHS, some by the private sector, some through partnerships between public and private.

    To help the NHS focus on this longer term capacity building the next three years there will be a minimum amount of earmarking by the centre of local NHS resources. PCTs will have greater discretion over how growing NHS resources are spent.

    These changes are all about helping the NHS to deliver. The national standards are in place. The resources are there. The NHS Plan is underway. There is a clear focus on what counts for patients.

    We are in transition but the direction of travel is one way. Our supply side reforms – payment by results, freedom of commissioning, power to PCTs, NHS Foundation Trusts, plurality of provision – all lead towards a more devolved and more diverse health service where patients have greater choice.

    You know transition takes time. I know that. So does bringing about improvement. Public expectations are high. But they also need to be reasonable. People need to understand that a 10 year plan is exactly what it says. It will take time to be delivered in full. But the NHS has to prove – not in five years time or in ten – but over this coming year that progress is underway in every part of the service.

    The Budget this year represents an enormous vote of confidence in all of you, in the whole of the health service.

    The ethos of the NHS and its staff express the values of our nation. Some have said that the Budget is a gamble. In some people’s minds it may be. But not in mine. I wouldn’t have fought so hard for the resources we’ve now got if I thought there was a better way of providing health care for our country. For me there is no better way than a tax funded, well funded NHS.

    It is a genuine One Nation policy that puts need before ability to pay. Quite simply in a world where health care can do more – but costs more- than ever before the NHS should be supported with our heads as well as our hearts.

    With the investment now secured, with the reforms now taking place, with the brilliance of our staff, I can tell this conference without a moments hesitation: I believe the best days of the NHS are ahead of us not behind us. I believe that investment plus reform does equal results.

    And above all, I believe that you can do it.

  • Alan Milburn – 2002 Speech on NHS Foundation Hospitals

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Milburn, the then Secretary of State for Health, on 22 May 2002.

    Thank you for coming – and particularly to our guests from Denmark, Spain and Sweden. This is a unique event. A gathering of existing “Foundation” hospitals from other European countries and of prospective Foundation hospitals from this country. We have brought you together to learn from the successes that have been achieved elsewhere in Europe. To understand how the autonomy that hospitals enjoy there and that have brought improvements in care for patients could work here. Today’s event takes place against the backdrop of the recent Budget that has put funding for healthcare in Britain on a sustainable footing for the long term. Today the NHS is the fastest growing health care system of any major European country. There is of course a huge amount of catching up to do. After decades when under-investment put Britain behind the rest of Europe now we can have the ambition as country to be up with the best. In Europe and across the developed world, every country faces similar challenges in health care – growing public expectations, advances in treatments, changes in populations. Everywhere reform is on the agenda. There is a wide ranging debate taking place about the future of health care. In essence this debate revolves around two central questions. First how health care is funded. Second how it is organised. On the first the Government’s decision to double health service spending in real terms by 2008 from the position we inherited in 1997 is a declaration of faith in the NHS. With the right level of funding we believe it can be the best insurance policy in the world. No health care system comes for free. Improvements in health care have to be paid for. Through general taxation, social insurance, private insurance, charges or a mix of approaches. We believe that the benefit of a tax-funded well funded NHS is that it is an insurance policy that comes with no ifs and no buts: whatever your illness, however long it lasts you get cover as long as you need it. In a world where healthcare can do more but costs more than ever before, the NHS precisely because it provides care that is free, according to need not ability to pay, should in our view be supported with our heads as well as our hearts. So while others say we should adopt the system of funding from elsewhere in Europe we say those countries have not enjoyed a superior system of funding but a superior level of funding. The lessons to be learned from the rest of Europe are less about how health care is funded but more about what level of funding and what form of organisation is needed to translate resources into results for patients. For what is patently clear is that elsewhere in Europe health care systems have not only benefited from more resources but from a different way of being run. The NHS has great strengths in how it is organised. Its ethos and its staff express the values of our nation.

    1. Thank you for coming – and particularly to our guests from Denmark, Spain and Sweden. This is a unique event. A gathering of existing “Foundation” hospitals from other European countries and of prospective Foundation hospitals from this country. We have brought you together to learn from the successes that have been achieved elsewhere in Europe. To understand how the autonomy that hospitals enjoy there and that have brought improvements in care for patients could work here.

    2. Today’s event takes place against the backdrop of the recent Budget that has put funding for healthcare in Britain on a sustainable footing for the long term. Today the NHS is the fastest growing health care system of any major European country. There is of course a huge amount of catching up to do. After decades when under-investment put Britain behind the rest of Europe now we can have the ambition as country to be up with the best.

    3. In Europe and across the developed world, every country faces similar challenges in health care – growing public expectations, advances in treatments, changes in populations. Everywhere reform is on the agenda. There is a wide ranging debate taking place about the future of health care. In essence this debate revolves around two central questions. First how health care is funded. Second how it is organised.

    4. On the first the Government’s decision to double health service spending in real terms by 2008 from the position we inherited in 1997 is a declaration of faith in the NHS. With the right level of funding we believe it can be the best insurance policy in the world.

    5. No health care system comes for free. Improvements in health care have to be paid for. Through general taxation, social insurance, private insurance, charges or a mix of approaches. We believe that the benefit of a tax-funded well funded NHS is that it is an insurance policy that comes with no ifs and no buts: whatever your illness, however long it lasts you get cover as long as you need it. In a world where healthcare can do more but costs more than ever before, the NHS precisely because it provides care that is free, according to need not ability to pay, should in our view be supported with our heads as well as our hearts. So while others say we should adopt the system of funding from elsewhere in Europe we say those countries have not enjoyed a superior system of funding but a superior level of funding.

    6. The lessons to be learned from the rest of Europe are less about how health care is funded but more about what level of funding and what form of organisation is needed to translate resources into results for patients. For what is patently clear is that elsewhere in Europe health care systems have not only benefited from more resources but from a different way of being run.

    7. The NHS has great strengths in how it is organised. Its ethos and its staff express the values of our nation. Its unitary structure gives it great advantages both in overall levels of efficiency and in its focus on public health for example. Its primary care services, led by Britain’s family doctors, are the envy of many other countries. However, in addition to its long standing capacity problems, the NHS has great structural weaknesses too – not least its top down centralised system that tends to inhibit local innovation and its monolithic structure that denies patients choice. These weaknesses are a product of the health service’s history. At the time the NHS was being formed as a nationalised industry in the UK elsewhere in Europe many socialist or social democrat governments were creating institutions which favoured greater community ownership over state ownership. Whereas in the UK’s health care system there is uniformity of ownership, in many other European countries there are many not-for profit, voluntary, church or charity-run hospitals all providing care to the public health care system. There are private sector organisations doing the same. As other European nations testify there is no automatic correlation that tax-funded health care has to mean health care supply run purely by central government. Tax funded health care can sit side by side with decentralisation, diversity and choice.

    8. There are important lessons to be learned in this country from the more diverse European model of provision. When I visited the Alcorcon hospital in Madrid last year for example I was struck by the fact that the greater independence it enjoyed from the rest of the state run health system had given patients there faster waiting times and improved outcomes despite dealing with a more severe case mix than comparable state run hospitals. As we will hear from our international colleagues today greater independence has improved performance in hospitals across Europe. Why? Because whatever the profession or walk of life, people perform best when they have control. Giving local organisations greater freedom helps promote innovation and encourages enterprise. In the NHS that is particularly important because of the high level of skills and knowledge that clinicians and managers have. Releasing their talents – and those of other staff – is the key to better health care.

    9. Our reform programme for the NHS in this country needs to absorb some of these lessons. As the NHS Plan indicated a million strong service cannot be run from Whitehall. For patient choice to thrive it needs a different environment. One in which there is greater plurality in local services which have the freedom to innovate and respond to patient needs. It is an explicit objective of our reforms therefore to encourage greater diversity in provision and more choice for patients. Hence new providers from overseas being brought into this country – alongside greater use of existing private sector providers – to expand capacity for NHS patients. Primary care trusts having the explicit freedom to purchase care from the most appropriate provider – be they public, private or voluntary. Hospitals to be paid by results with resources following the choices that patients make so that hospitals who do more get more; those who do not, will not.

    10. These reforms are about redefining what we mean by the National Health Service. Changing it from a monolithic centrally run monopoly provider to a system where different health care providers – public, private, voluntary and not for profit – work to a common ethos, common standards and a common system of inspection. In such a system wherever patients are treated they remain NHS patients because they get care according to NHS principles – treatment that is free and available according to need not their ability to pay. This is the modern definition of the NHS.

    11. It is also a fundamental change. Not in how the NHS is funded or the values on which it is founded, but in how it is organised. NHS healthcare no longer needs to always be delivered exclusively by line managed NHS organisations. The task of managing the NHS becomes one of overseeing a system not running an organisation. Responsibility for day to day management can be devolved to local services. None of this means the abandonment of national standards. Far from it. It is precisely because over these last five years we have put in place such a rigorous framework of standards nationally that the centre of gravity can now shift to how improvements can be delivered locally. So while some advocate a false choice between national standards and local autonomy, the experience from elsewhere in Europe in the health sector and from across the developed world in other economic sectors, is that securing improvements in performance actually requires both.

    12. As both the NHS Plan and our recent follow up command paper Delivering the NHS Plan make clear, it is right that standards are set nationally but it is wrong to try to run the NHS nationally. It is only frontline clinicians and managers in day to day contact with patients who can transform local services. That is why Primary Care Trusts are being given control over 75% of NHS resources. Why we look to PCTs in turn to devolve to their constituent practices. It is the reason for star rating the performance of local health services so that those who are doing less well get more help and those doing best get more freedom. And it is why we want to set up NHS Foundation Trusts with the local flexibility and freedom to improve services for patients without day to day interference from Whitehall.

    13. In January this year I announced that we were developing plans to enable the best performing NHS organisations to become NHS Foundation Trusts. Since January my officials have been working with the chief executives of three star trusts and others to develop these ideas. They have also been looking at how services are organised in other countries and the lessons we can learn from them.

    14. I can set out today how we now plan to proceed to establish NHS Foundation Trusts. First of all in the summer we will set out how NHS trusts can apply for foundation status and the criteria that will be used to assess applications. Decisions on the first NHS Foundation Trusts will be made in the autumn. The first wave will be selected from those that achieve three star ratings this July. They will need to demonstrate that they have the management capability and clinical support to make a success of NHS Foundation Trust status, and that they have the support of the local PCTs who commission services from them. They will need to show how they will use their freedoms to demonstrate rapid progress in delivering the NHS Plan.

    15. A number of existing three star Trusts have given firm expressions of interest in joining the first wave of NHS Foundation Trusts. They are Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust, Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust and Addenbrooke’s NHS Trust.

    16. If these Trusts are successful in meeting the criteria they and others who come forward will start operating as shadow NHS Foundation Trusts in April next year. I can also say that we intend to legislate to enshrine in statute the freedoms and responsibilities that NHS Foundation Trusts will have. Subject to legislation I expect the first of them to become fully operational before the end of next year. As performance across the NHS improves so more autonomy will be earned by more local NHS organisations.

    17. NHS Foundation Trusts will operate in a quite different way from existing NHS Trusts. NHS Trusts were supposed to guarantee self governing status. In fact they were at best a half way house and at worst a sham. Trust status promised independence but in practice didn’t guarantee it. In reality their legal status – with direct accountability to Ministers – meant that Whitehall continued to hold on to the purse strings, maintained the powers of direction and continued to run the NHS as it had been since 1948. The challenge now must be to genuinely free the very best NHS hospitals from direct Whitehall control.

    18. We plan to do this firstly by removing the Secretary of State’s powers of direction over NHS Foundation Trusts. Instead of being line managed by the Department of Health, they will be held to account through agreements and cash for performance contracts they negotiate with PCTs and other commissioners as well as through independent inspection. These contracts will reflect national priorities around reduced waiting times and improved clinical outcomes. The expectation must be that the greater freedoms that NHS Foundation Trusts will enjoy will help them exceed national performance targets but that will be a matter for local not national negotiation. Those that perform well will benefit from the system of payment by results and patient choice that we announced in Delivering the NHS Plan.

    19. There will of course need to be appropriate safeguards in place. NHS Foundation Trusts will operate according to NHS principles. They are there to serve NHS patients by providing high quality care that is free and delivered according to need not ability to pay. They will be subject to inspection by the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI). The Commission will play a key role in assessing performance and in reassuring patients and the public that national standards of service and quality have been met wherever care is provided. Strengthening arrangements for audit and inspection through CHAI are an essential complement to increased provider plurality, including the setting up of NHS Foundation Trusts.

    20. CHAI – rather than the Department of Health – will therefore take on the function of regulating NHS Foundation Trusts and stepping in to take necessary action to protect patients and the public.

    21. Secondly, we intend to establish NHS Foundation Trusts as free-standing legal entities which are indeed free from direction by the Secretary of State. We are currently exploring a number of options about how best to establish NHS Foundation Trusts in law. In particular there has been growing interest in recent years in developing the concept of the public interest company – a middle ground within public services between state-run public and shareholder-led private structures. Organisations as diverse as the Co-operative Movement and the Institute of Directors have made the case for such organisations on the basis that they have a clear public service ethos and are not for profit. These organisations are based firmly within the public service with their assets remaining within public ownership and being protected against takeover by the private sector. They are toughly regulated but not externally controlled. They open up more potential for both staff and public involvement.

    22. We are continuing to actively explore the best option here based on a firm principle that should guide us. As national control over day to day management of these NHS hospitals ceases so local community input will need to be strengthened. NHS Foundation Trusts will have the ability to develop governance arrangements that enable patients and the public to play a more effective part in the running of the NHS at a local level. The NHS is a national service but it is delivered locally. The relationships that count most are those between the local patient and the local clinician, the local community and the local hospital. 1948 silenced the voice of the local community in the NHS. It is time it was heard again.

    23. We are exploring how best this could be done. One potential model would involve local members of the community sitting alongside other key stakeholders such as hospital staff, local businesses, local authorities and, where appropriate, universities as lay governors. In this model day to day management of the NHS Foundation Trust would rest in a separate board including the chief executive and other senior staff such as clinical leaders. However they are constituted NHS Foundation Trusts will remain part of the NHS family but with local freedom from national control.

    24. Thirdly, then, NHS Foundation Trusts will be freed up from having to respond to an excessive number of prescriptive central demands, guidance and reporting arrangements. As free-standing organisations they will be held to account through the commissioning process rather than through day to day line management from Whitehall. They will have the freedom to retain proceeds from land sales to invest in new services for patients. We are exploring how we can increase their freedom to access finance for capital investment under a prudential borrowing regime modelled on similar principles to that being developed for local government. The intention is that they will have greater freedom to decide what they can afford to borrow and they will be able to make their own decisions about future capital investment. They will be able to use the flexibilities of the new pay system we are currently negotiating to modernise the workforce including developing additional rewards for those staff who are contributing most. Exercising these freedoms will give NHS Foundation Trusts precisely the sort of autonomy that is commonplace for hospitals elsewhere in Europe.

    25. Some say this is a form of backdoor privatisation. That is utter nonsense. There will be a lock on the assets of NHS Foundation Trusts so that they work for NHS patients. Their purpose will be to provide NHS services to NHS patients according to NHS principles. They will be governed by people from the local community instead of by the state or by shareholders. They will be part of the wider NHS family. They are all about unleashing the spirit of public service enterprise that exists within the NHS but for too long has been stifled.

    26. NHS Foundation Trusts will help create a radically different health service. One that is true to its values but is changed in its structures. One that learns the lessons from what has worked elsewhere in Europe. I want to thank our international speakers who are here today to share their experience and their insights with us. I know that there is more we can learn from them as we develop our approach. I would also like to thank people from the NHS who have been working with us to develop our thinking on NHS Foundation Trusts. The development of policy in this area I believe exemplifies a new way of doing business between the Department and the NHS. It is one that I hope we can build on for the future.

  • Shailesh Vara – 2016 Statement on HM Courts and Tribunals Estate

    shailehsvara

    Below is the text of the speech made by Shailesh Vara, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister for the Courts and Legal Aid and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, on 11 February 2016.

    The government is committed to modernising the way in which justice is accessed and delivered. We are investing over £700m over the next 4 years to update the court and tribunal estate, installing modern IT systems and making the justice system more efficient and effective for modern users.

    Working closely with the judiciary, we have begun installing Wi-Fi and digital systems in our criminal courts but much more needs to be done. We want to make the entire justice system more accessible to everyone – witnesses, victims, claimants, police and lawyers – by using modern technology including online plea, claims and evidence systems and video conferencing, reducing the need for people to travel to court.

    As part of this modernisation, the court and tribunal estate has to be updated. Many of the current 460 court buildings are underused: last year 48% of all courts and tribunals were empty for at least half their available hearing time. These buildings are expensive to maintain yet unsuitable for modern technology.

    Court closures are difficult decisions; local communities have strong allegiances to their local courts and I understand their concerns. But changes to the estate are vital if we are to modernise a system which everybody accepts is unwieldy, inefficient, slow, expensive to maintain and unduly bureaucratic.

    On 16 July 2015 I therefore announced a consultation on proposals to close 91 courts and tribunals in England and Wales. Over 2,100 separate responses were received, along with 13 petitions containing over 10,000 signatures. I am grateful to all who took the time to provide their views. It is clear from the responses that the service our courts and tribunals provide continues to be highly valued.

    Having considered carefully all responses to the consultation, we have decided to close 86 of the 91 courts and tribunals. 64 sites will close as proposed in the consultation. A further 22 closures will take place but with changes to the original proposals. These changes, many suggested by respondents, include the identification of suitable alternative venues, such as local civic buildings; or different venues in the HMCTS estate to those originally proposed. I am very grateful to all those who engaged with the consultation to help us to reach the best solutions.

    On average, the 86 courts we are closing are used for just over a third of their available hearing time. That is equivalent to less than 2 days a week. It will still be the case that after these closures, over 97% of citizens will be able to reach their required court within an hour by car. This represents a change of just 1 percentage points for both criminal and County Courts. The proportion able to reach a tribunal within an hour by car will remain unchanged at 83%.

    For each proposal in the consultation, we have considered access to justice; value for money; and efficiency. The consultation response, which is being published today, contains details of all the decisions and changes including an indicative timetable for closures, and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2016 Statement on Junior Doctors

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Health, in the House of Commons on 11 February 2016.

    Mr Speaker, nearly 3 years ago to the day the government first sat down with the British Medical Association (BMA) to negotiate on a new contract for junior doctors. Both sides agreed that the current arrangements, drawn up in 1999, were not fit for purpose and that the system of paying for unsocial hours in particular was unfair.

    Under the existing contract doctors can receive the same pay for working quite different amounts of unsocial hours; doctors not working nights can be paid the same as those who do; and if 1 doctor works just 1 hour over the maximum shift length it can trigger a 66% pay rise for all doctors on that rota.

    Despite the patent unfairness of the contract, progress in reforming it has been slow, with the BMA walking away from discussions without notice before the general election. Following the election, which the government won with a clear manifesto commitment to a 7-day NHS, the BMA Junior Doctors Committee refused point blank to discuss reforms, instead choosing to ballot for industrial action. Talks did finally start with the ACAS process in November but since then we have had 2 damaging strikes with around 6,000 operations cancelled.

    In January I asked Sir David Dalton, Chief Executive of Salford Royal, to lead the negotiating team. Under his outstanding leadership, for which the whole House will be immensely grateful, progress has been made on almost 100 different points of discussion, with agreement secured with the BMA on approximately 90% of them. Sadly, despite this progress and willingness from the government to be flexible on the issue of Saturday pay, Sir David wrote to me yesterday advising that a negotiated solution is not realistically possible.

    Along with other senior NHS leaders and supported by NHS Employers, NHS England, NHS Improvement, the NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, he has asked me to end the uncertainty for the service by proceeding with the introduction of a new contract that he and his colleagues consider both safer for patients and fair and reasonable for junior doctors. I have therefore today decided to do that.

    Tired doctors risk patient safety, so in the new contract the maximum number of hours that can be worked in 1 week will be reduced from 91 to 72; the maximum number of consecutive nights will be reduced from 7 to 4; the maximum number of consecutive long days will be reduced from 7 to 5; and no doctor will ever be rostered on consecutive weekends. Sir David Dalton believes these changes will bring substantial improvements both to patient safety and doctor wellbeing.

    We will also introduce a new Guardian role within every Trust, who will have the authority to impose fines for breaches to agreed working hours based on excess hours worked. These fines will be invested in educational resources and facilities for trainees.

    The new contract will give additional pay to those working Saturday evenings from 5pm, nights from 9pm to 7am, and all day on Sunday. Plain time hours will now be extended from 7am to 5pm on Saturdays. However, I said the government was willing to be flexible on Saturday premium pay and we have been: those working 1 in 4 or more Saturdays will receive a pay premium of 30%, that is higher on average than that available to nurses, midwives, paramedics and most other clinical staff. It is also a higher premium than that available to fire officers, police officers or those in many other walks of life.

    Nonetheless it does represent a reduction compared to current rates, necessary to ensure hospitals can afford additional weekend rostering. So because we do not want take home pay to go down for junior doctors, after updated modelling I can tell the House these changes will allow an increase in basic salary of not 11% as previously thought but 13.5%. Three-quarters of doctors will see a take home pay rise and no trainee working within contracted hours will have their pay cut.

    Mr Speaker, our strong preference was for a negotiated solution. Our door remained open for 3 years, and we demonstrated time and again our willingness to negotiate with the BMA on the concerns that they raised. However, the definition of a negotiation is a discussion where both sides demonstrate flexibility and compromise on their original objectives, and the BMA ultimately proved unwilling to do this.

    In such a situation any government must do what is right for both patients and doctors. We have now had 8 independent studies in the last 5 years identifying higher mortality rates at weekends as a key challenge to be addressed. Six of those say staffing levels are a factor that needs to be investigated. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh describes the status quo as ‘an avoidable weekend effect which if addressed could save lives’ and has set out the 10 clinical standards necessary to remedy this. Today we are taking one important step necessary to make this possible.

    While I understand that this process has generated considerable dismay among junior doctors, I believe that the new contract we are introducing – shaped by Sir David Dalton, and with over 90% of the measures agreed by the BMA through negotiation – is one that in time can command the confidence of both the workforce and their employers.

    I do believe, however, that the process of negotiation has uncovered some wider and more deep-seated issues relating to junior doctors’ morale, wellbeing and quality of life which need to be addressed.

    These issues include inflexibility around leave, lack of notice about placements that can be a long way away from home, separation from spouses and families, and sometimes inadequate support from employers, professional bodies and senior clinicians. I have therefore asked Professor Dame Sue Bailey, President of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, alongside other senior clinicians to lead a review into measures outside the contract that can be taken to improve the morale of the junior doctor workforce. Further details of this review will be set out soon.

    Mr Speaker, no government or health secretary could responsibly ignore the evidence that hospital mortality rates are higher at the weekend, or the overwhelming consensus that the standard of weekend services is too low, with insufficient senior clinical decision-makers. The lessons of Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay, and Basildon in the last decade is that patients suffer when governments drag their feet on high hospital mortality rates – and this government is determined our NHS should offer the safest, highest quality care in the world.

    We have committed an extra £10billion to the NHS this Parliament, but with that extra funding must come reform to deliver safer services across all 7 days. That is not just about changing doctors’ contracts: we will also need better weekend support services such as physiotherapy, pharmacy and diagnostic scans; better 7-day social care services to facilitate weekend discharging; and better primary care access to help tackle avoidable weekend admissions. Today we are taking a decisive step forward to help deliver our manifesto commitment, and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Baroness Verma – 2016 Speech on Education for Children with Disabilities in Kenya

    baronessverma

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Verma, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for International Development, at 1 Parliament Street, Westminster, London on 9 February 2016.

    Thank you very much. It really gives me great pleasure to be here. I really want to start by thanking the All Party Parliamentary Group on Education for All. I also have to thank you, Mark [Mark Williams MP – Chair of the APPG for Global Education for All], for this really insightful introduction because it is really about going there [to Kenya] and having a look at what is working on the ground. It really gives us a sense of how what we are doing in the UK impacts positively the lives of people on the ground.

    I am also delighted to sit next to my colleagues from the House of Lords – Lord Low and other colleagues I have known for many years, so I am really pleased. And of course as I look across the room, I see many faces that are very familiar and I am pleased that civil society partners are always with us and working hard. These are the partnerships which do develop a real thinking and allow us to make sure that what we are delivering on the ground actually does work. And also, the challenges you rightly bring to us. We do need the challenges so that we can do much better in delivering the services from DFID.

    Last year was a really crucial year for everybody who is committed to disability inclusion. As you know, people with disabilities in the past have been unable to benefit from much of the programmes we had globally on tackling poverty. For all of us, seeing disability mentioned in the global development agenda for the first time was an extraordinary moment and no Global Goal, I am so glad, will be considered met unless it is achieved for everyone. And that should really mean everyone. This for me was a major step forward for insuring that those currently left behind, including people with disabilities, are equally benefiting from international development. I would like to use this opportunity to thank all of you in the room who have worked so hard in the last years to make this possible.

    At DFID we have pushed for disability to be at the heart of all our programmes and everyone who has worked with DFID has hopefully been a testimony to that. We have learned a lot since the launch of the first Disability Framework in 2014 and the revised Framework of 2015 confirms our vision that people with disabilities need to be put at the heart of our work, which includes our commitment to secure education for everyone.

    Education is one of the most crucial instruments a country can make in its people and the country’s future. It is a critical driver in reducing poverty and the importance of making education inclusive of children with disabilities cannot be overstated. It does not only play a central role in fostering development, but also breaks the stigma and discrimination and allows people with disabilities to gain agency over their own lives. Leaving no one behind is not only essential for sustainable development and eradicating poverty, but – and I hope we all agree – for the freedom, dignity, tolerance and respect that all human beings should see as a right. These are fundamental to our all humanity. That is why we are committed to ensuring that all children, including those with disabilities, are able to complete a full cycle of education.

    In the last three years, we have invested nearly £35 million in education in Kenya to improve early learning, enhance transparency and drive up enrolment and retention so that Kenya’s poorest and most marginalised children, including those with disabilities, are reached. In 2014 we made the commitment that all DFID-funded educational related construction is fully accessible. In Kenya, this meant that by August 15th, 24 new and renovated classrooms, 12 dormitories and 24 latrine blocks directly funded by DFID were fully accessible for people with disabilities.

    I think the basics of having latrines for children with disabilities can sometimes be overlooked. I recently visited another country where I saw latrines developed and when I asked, “What about for those children with disabilities?” they looked at me and said, “We don’t have any children with disability”. I think this is the stigma and taboo we really need to challenge hard. Our Girls Education Programme has undergone an analysis of how well our projects are targeting girls with disabilities. My Department has provided £7 million to fund disability-funded girls’ education programmes in Kenya, Uganda and Sierra Leone. In Kenya, our partner Leonard Cheshire Disability is working with policy makers, research institutions, teachers and community members to address the key barriers faced by disabled girls in accessing schools.

    On a global level, we are working closely with the Global Partnership for Education to ensure that their approach of children with disabilities is inclusive. Our influencing efforts made disability a priority for the June 2015 replenishment of the Global Partnership and it was a great success to see that twelve countries, including Kenya, pledged at this event that they would do more for children with disabilities.

    However, we do know that despite these successes, so much more has to be done. And reports like the one you are launching today are crucial reminders that there is still a very long way to go. The study confirms that too many children with disabilities are out of school – 1 out of 6 in Kenya. In light of this, I would like to thank the All Parliamentary Group for Education, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Global Campaign for Education UK, RESULTS UK and Leonard Cheshire Disability for supporting this very important report. One thing which has been clear is that none of this will be easy and it will require a concerted action by governments, citizens, civil society and by business. I am convinced that we are moving in the right direction with the work we have done so far. We at DFID are doing more than we have ever before on disability inclusion and together with the organisations in this room today and beyond, we can really do much to contribute to a better future for people with disabilities all over the world. That is a way of making sure that we speak to the pledges we made to leaving no one behind.

    Thank you very much.

  • Justine Greening – 2016 Speech on Social Mobility

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, in London on 16 February 2016.

    Introduction

    Good afternoon.

    It’s a real pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to you today under the auspices of the Centre for Social Justice.

    This is an organisation dedicated to putting social justice at the heart of British politics and policy.

    And it’s great to be speaking here at 2nd Chance, which does fantastic work giving unemployed young adults a future, by helping them move into sustained employment.

    Now you might be wondering why, as Secretary of State at the Department for International Development (DFID), I’m here today talking to you about social mobility.

    Well partly it’s because international development and social mobility are both issues very close to my heart.

    But it’s also because improving social mobility is a generational challenge.

    And tackling generational challenges is really what DFID has been all about:

    – Ending extreme poverty,

    – Ending Female Genital Mutilation,

    – Eradicating polio and malaria.

    If these are the generational challenges for our world, then I believe social mobility is the generational challenge for our country.

    DFID is all about creating a levelled-up world, and I think it can equally help point the way to how we can get a levelled-up Britain.

    I know from personal experience just how much social mobility matters. It has underpinned my personal and my political life.

    Today is a long way from the local comprehensive school I went to in Rotherham.

    And climbing the ladder has been exhilarating but at times a real challenge. It involved going to university – a step in the dark.

    When I asked my parents for advice on where to go, what to study, it was new to them too. As no one in my family had done it before.

    At the time, I remember that it felt like a risk, because I was putting off when I would start earning money in a job.

    I didn’t know what kind of job I was aiming for, so I wasn’t 100% sure what I should study.

    When I look back, my horizons were quite limited.

    I didn’t consider doing law as a degree, because I’d never met a lawyer.

    And instead, I chose to study something that had already had a big impact on my family.

    Economics. Which at the time was all around me in Rotherham and South Yorkshire.

    I grew up against the backdrop of the steel industry strikes and miners’ strike.

    In fact, my first ever economics lesson was the day my dad was made redundant from British Steel.

    That year he was unemployed was the toughest year of my childhood.

    But I knuckled down at school and college. And I got on with climbing my own ladder.

    As I got on through university and got on with my career, sometimes you had a feeling almost of ‘vertigo’, from gradually getting further and further away from where I started.

    Things didn’t always go well. I’ve had to be very resilient at times.

    And the bottom line is that my own experience of climbing the ladder is that it is often extremely hard.

    I’m not alone in my experience.

    The question I ask is: is it easier climbing the ladder now?

    Well, if you look across the piece, there is progress on social mobility. But it’s a mixed picture, depending on how you define progress.

    So in Britain over the past 50 years, as in other developed countries, we have seen so-called “absolute” social mobility take place. It’s a sort of “quantity” measure.

    This is, put simply: have there been more opportunities for people? The answer to that is yes. There have been more opportunities for more people.

    Fundamentally, the research by people like Goldthorpe suggests it’s been a story of economic restructuring, as jobs became less manual and more office-based, and economic growth.

    With more jobs, many young people have had the opportunity “headroom” to get on.

    It’s why keeping our economy on track, creating jobs with our long term economic plan, is so vital.

    But what if we look at social mobility in a more qualitative way?

    Relative social mobility is when we strip out what’s happened over time in the economy. Look at an underlying picture.

    And when you strip out those economic structural and cyclical effects, then, as in so many countries around the world, it’s a different picture.

    Because where you relatively start still over-whelmingly predicts where you relatively finish. Even today.

    So not accepting that lack of relative social mobility and then changing it, that is our generational challenge.

    And this government is rising to that challenge.

    UK social mobility: the goal

    On his first day back in Downing Street after the General Election, the Prime Minister set out how he wants to make Britain “a place where a good life is in reach for everyone who is willing to work and do the right thing.”

    And, we have already got on with delivering on that ambition:

    – More students from disadvantaged backgrounds in English universities

    – More apprenticeships

    – Lower youth unemployment

    – Lowest levels of young people not in education, training or employment since records began.

    As a nation our social mobility strategy has a lot of good elements already in place.

    And I want to set out what I believe lessons from DFID can contribute to get that structural shift our country needs in relative social mobility.

    And it’s worth briefly setting out the case of why we do need social mobility.

    In my department, we talk about development being not just the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do.

    I believe that dramatically improving social mobility is both the right thing to do and the smart thing to do for Britain.

    There is both a moral and an economic case for more social mobility in Britain.

    It’s better for individuals – as I know from my own experience. When people believe they can get higher, they aim higher. And when they aim higher, they’re likely to go further.

    It’s better for communities. When people believe we all have an equal shot, it makes for more cohesive, stable communities.

    It’s right for society. The wider the pool of people from which we draw our Parliament, our courts, our boardrooms, our newsrooms, the stronger the basis for trust in accountability, in how Britain runs day-to-day.

    But it’s more than that.

    Improved social mobility, making more of our country’s human capital, is one of the biggest structural levers we can pull in the UK economy.

    Work for the Sutton Trust has assessed that improved social mobility could boost our economy by up to £140bn a year by 2050, that’s an extra 4% of GDP.

    It means that only when people can reach their potential, will our economy reach its potential.

    Lessons from DFID

    So, to take a first lesson from our work on DFID.

    On improving prospects for girls in developing countries.

    That has taught us that alongside day to day work, there are “critical moments.”

    For example girls reaching adolescence may be under pressure to marry, have children and drop out, instead of staying in school.

    Yet if they stay in school they’ll marry later, have fewer, healthier children, and if they can work they’ll reinvest most of what they earn back into their family and community.

    So focusing on supporting these girls through those moments is especially important to their lives down the line.

    For young people in the UK those “critical moments” might be different, but recognising them and helping manage through them is vital.

    Another lesson comes from our projects tackling FGM. Getting that work done, and making that generational change on FGM, means taking a comprehensive, holistic, approach.

    One that works at a range of levels – all at the same time and for long enough, for change to take root from the top right the way through to the grass roots.

    If you look at the work we have done combating FGM, it has seen:

    – National Laws changed

    – National and local political leadership

    – Grass roots projects working with communities and individuals

    – Community leaders and religious leaders giving the same messages on ending FGM

    – Civil society voices backing up and amplifying the message, often doing the work on the ground.

    And all tailored at the local level for communities. Take Ethiopia, for example, where tackling FGM at the local level means dealing with challenges like the fact that over 80 different languages.

    So the lesson is the power of an approach that is comprehensive but locally tailored, and locally led.

    Another lesson I’d point to from FGM and across the board, that I can’t emphasise enough, is the huge role civil society plays in success, and the momentum that civil society brings.

    Make Poverty History was a hugely influential movement that had a big impact.

    And the ability of our NGOs to work collaboratively as one team has proved immensely powerful in generating political consensus.

    And in getting culture, tradition, attitudes changed on the ground.

    The fight against ebola is just one example. It was civil society work that helped people understand in communities how they could stay safe.

    And civil society advocacy has helped take what was wrongly a niche issue like FGM to being much more mainstream.

    Looking at all that, I don’t think we will have the sort of step-change on social mobility we need here in the UK, without that kind of coordinated advocacy and campaigning from civil society.

    You’ve got to be out there, beating the drum, holding all our feet to the fire as well as doing the amazing projects you do.

    Time and time again, our work in DFID tells us, it’s about finding momentum and keeping it, because otherwise the power of inertia and status quo drags you back.

    In international development we have International Women’s Day coming up on 8 March, we’ve just marked International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM (6 February).

    What are the days and moments for social mobility we can come together on?

    Another lesson from DFID: meeting that challenge, sustaining that momentum, and staying the course, is about not chopping and changing our approach every few years.

    We’ve been working to eradicate polio for at least 25 years, and working towards a malaria-free world for at least 15 years.

    Generational challenges require generational policy.

    If we are to shift the dial on social mobility in Britain, we need a longer term approach. Not interventions that are changed with every incoming government.

    That means achieving a cross party consensus, built around an evidence-based strategy, working on the 80% we can agree on rather simply arguing about the 20% of this agenda we don’t agree.

    And here is another lesson from development work: the central role of evidence, of data and analysis in what we do.

    DFID works in complex places, in tough places, with a lot of risk, sometimes danger, and tracking effectiveness is critical.

    So in DFID we are data and measurement geeks – and proud of it. That approach to evidence is also key to social mobility strategy in the UK.

    It’s happening – take the Sutton Trust-run Education Endowment Foundation, take the work of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.

    But we need more. And what we’ve got needs pulling together and sharing much more systematically.

    The other side of the evidence coin is ‘scale’ and scaling up what works.

    At the end of January, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission published its Social Mobility Index.

    Most strikingly, while we are in a city, London, that really topped the tables – this city is a social mobility hotspot – whilst other cities, including relatively affluent places like Oxford, Cambridge and Worcester, are social mobility coldspots.

    We need to dig into why we are finding such big differences on the ground, what has worked in London – can it work in other places? How might it need to be tailored?

    If every city could replicate London, that would be a prize worth having.

    Call to action

    For our part, this Government is stepping up to the challenge on social mobility.

    We have a Prime Minister who is leading from the front, who has put giving the opportunity for every child in Britain to go as far as their talents will take them at the heart of this government’s work over the next five years.

    In the last month alone the PM has announced the new campaign for mentors for children.

    We have BIS working with universities on going further to bring in those from disadvantaged and BME backgrounds, and the Cabinet Office setting out how we will tackle inequality in the public sector.

    We have our forthcoming Life Chances strategy.

    And so, step by step we are doing what we can in Government.

    But Westminster and Whitehall are only part of the solution on social mobility. This is so much more than just about government.

    All of us have a role to play. We can and should all ask ourselves, what more can we do?

    Employees – ask your boss what more your company can do.

    Employers, business need to see that apprenticeships is a start, but what else?

    Are they really getting beyond the usual recruits? Are you promoting outside of the usual networks?

    My then employer Smithkline put me through an MBA at the London business school. It’s not that normal though.

    How can Britain’s corporate world do a better job of more consistently pulling in and then pulling through talented young people who start as rough diamonds?

    Professions – there’s been lots of progress, but there’s much more work to do.

    My profession of accountancy has done lots but there’s much more work to do.

    Conclusion

    I started by talking about my own journey.

    But what galvanised me as a young person wasn’t being angry about a less than perfect start. I’m actually very proud to have been born and brought up in Rotherham.

    I remember how I felt. It was a mix of challenge, of excitement, of optimism, of aspiration, of being in an amazing country, with an amazing history, having a sense of wider world out there too, which I wanted to be part of.

    It was great parents, encouraging teachers, adamant swimming coaches, who taught me about single-minded persistence to reach your goals.

    And I believe that our young people will get themselves and our country a very long way.

    But we need to make that ladder of opportunity one that’s easier to climb now and in the future, than it was for those of us climbing it in the past.

    It’s about setting Britain fair to help our young people successfully navigate those critical moments, having them channel their energy into achieving goals rather than overcoming barriers.

    Improving social mobility is a lot more than individuals reaching their potential.

    It’s about our community, our society, our economy, our politics.

    A social contract between all of us with everyone else. To me it underpins everything. And it’s complex.

    That’s also why delivering a more socially mobile Britain is hard, because it’s about changing Britain’s DNA if we’re going to be successful.

    But we’re truly making a start now and we have a huge amount to be proud of.

    Britain is a recognised world-leader in international development.

    And I believe, in time, we can be a world leader on social mobility too.

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on Cyber Security

    Matt Hancock
    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, in Israel on 16 February 2016.

    Thank you for being here today and for the warm welcome we have received.

    I’d like to begin by thanking Herzog, Fox and Neeman for hosting us today, and the Israeli National Cyber Bureau and UK Israel Tech Hub for organising the workshop.

    I am full of admiration for what can only be described as the modern transformation of Israel.

    David Ben Gurion wanted to see the Negev bloom. And the flourishing cyber ecosystem in Beer Sheva must be a fulfilment of his dreams.

    You have transformed an arid desert into a Silicon Valley and brought Israeli companies, academia, public authorities, venture capitalists, and multinationals together to produce a fertile breeding ground of ideas and enterprise.

    And it is not just Beer Sheva. Israel’s cyber ecosystem is thriving in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Nazareth and beyond.

    It is an amazing and brilliant fact that Israel has the highest density of cyber and digital start-ups per capita in the world. We are very jealous of this fact. So I thought I’d do something about it, and come and learn from this start-up nation; from the Israeli spirit of innovation and mission.

    I am delighted to lead a fantastic group of businesses representing the best of British industry and academia.

    I hope we find businesses on both sides with an opportunity to showcase their products, discover areas of mutual interest and identify opportunities for partnership. And I hope to see concrete outcomes flowing from the discussions. We want to boost our trade, encourage even more Israeli investment in the UK and oppose those calling for boycotts.

    The problem

    So what is the challenge we face? New technologies, including digital technologies, give the world and its citizens opportunities like never before. This connection has helped more people escape poverty around the world, at a pace never seen. Yet this new opportunity brings new threats.

    We are here today as cyber security is increasingly important. To our citizens, to our businesses, to our infrastructure, and to government itself. In the UK, our mission to create better digital public services for citizens is wholly dependent on the ability to protect our networks, our users and our data.

    As the minister responsible for both digital government and cyber security in the UK government, it is my duty to drive progress on both of these interdependent issues.

    Part of that means supporting the cyber security sector, helping companies innovate and learn from the best. And that is the theme of the workshop today. Part means better protection of government itself, and I’ll touch on that later.

    As you will know, this is increasingly difficult because the volume and complexity of cyber attacks is increasing, both in scale and complexity.

    Cybercrime, espionage, or attacks on critical infrastructure, from both state and non-state actors are increasing. The average cost of the most severe online security breaches for bigger companies now starts at almost £1.5 million. The number of significant attacks has doubled in the UK in the last year alone.

    What we are doing

    And cyber security is a shared responsibility. It requires the engagement of the whole of society. When it comes to protecting our critical national infrastructure, the importance of partnership between government and industry is particularly important.

    You lead the world in making this partnership effective, and I want to learn how. You lead in the world in bringing government expertise and private enterprise together and we want to know how. In the UK we are establishing a National Cyber Centre to provide business and the government with a single point of contact and source of advice on how to manage cyber security risk.

    The new Centre will make it easier for government and industry to share information on cyber threats to better protect the UK. And it will give us a new platform to handle incidents in real time, ensuring a faster and more effective response to major attacks. It will be critical in joining the secret and public-facing worlds together.

    In the first instance this is to protect UK Crucial National Infrastructure (CNI). In the UK, where much of our CNI is owned and operated by the private sector, companies are responsible for ensuring privately-operated CNI is cyber secure.

    New proposals

    We need to get the design right. And we want to do more. In November we announced that the UK government will invest £1.9 billion over the next 5 years in cyber security. This means we’re nearly doubling our current investment to make the UK one of the safest places to do business online.

    More widely, we are strengthening law enforcement capabilities to ensure that cyber criminals can’t escape justice.

    We are boosting skills, sponsoring students and rolling out a major programme for the talented teenagers, involving after-school sessions with expert mentors, challenging projects, and summer schools. A number of academic initiatives in the UK are based on Israeli models of identifying and nurturing young cyber talent.

    But cyber isn’t just about government alone.

    The UK’s cyber security sector already contributes over £17 billion to the economy. Our ambition is for the UK to develop an innovative and truly world-class cyber security sector that will protect our national security.

    We want to create a cyber ecosystem in which cyber start-ups proliferate, get the investment and support they need to win business around the world, to provide a pipeline of innovation that channels ideas between the private sector, government and academia.

    We will establish cyber innovation centres to support early-stage companies to commercialise their products. I look to the Israeli model as an exemplary precedent.

    And we are setting up a £165 million cyber and defence fund to invest in the next generation of cyber-security companies.

    To get this right, international collaboration is crucial.

    As a fellow member of the D5, which brings together the 5 leading digital governments in the world, we have been working closely with you to help reform government technology.

    British/Israeli collaboration in technology and innovation has facilitated a multitude of business partnerships in areas such as fintech, cleantech, digital health and more.

    I want to see this partnership strengthened. So I can announce today that we have launched a new academic engagement between the UK and Israel in the emerging area of cyber-physical security – an area vital to the safety and security of our economies and our infrastructure.

    Israeli experts will engage in joint research with UK academics in cyber-security. We will launch a competition to find the best ideas and people to work together to develop research focussed on what is another new frontier: protecting our cyber physical systems: like protecting industrial control systems, the internet of things and driverless cars.

    I can also announce that our leading cyber security bodies, CERT-UK and CERT-IL will strengthen their engagement and provide greater situational awareness through sharing incident information, malware analysis, methodologies, policies and best practice.

    It is my hope and intention that we can build on what we have done in the past by identifying and developing opportunities for collaboration amongst our two nations.

    For perhaps no two countries know more, in times both historic and present, of the need to fight for our security, to keep our people safe and free. While very real physical battles persist, the new frontier in that fight is the cyber war.

    Together, we must ensure that cyberspace is resilient to malicious attacks, and remains open and free for the innovation and progress that is the embodiment of the human spirit. Our task is no less than that.

    So, together, let us make it happen.

    Thank you very much.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Speech on Tackling Terrorism

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington DC on 16 February 2016.

    I am delighted to be able to be in Washington and speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. For more than half a century this think tank has been at the forefront of international research and analysis, helping decision makers navigate our volatile and unstable world.

    In the five years since the start of the conflict in Syria, millions of people have lost their livelihoods, their loved ones, the country they call home. Syria’s neighbours have provided sanctuary to the vast majority of those who have fled the country. But when more than a million people, from Syria and elsewhere, sought to travel to Europe last year the debate changed.

    The problems of failed and fragile states, not just in Syria, but across the Middle East and Africa, are no longer confined to those regions. Not only has this created one of the greatest humanitarian challenges in decades, it has also sparked a political crisis within the European Union. It has forced countries to re-examine their approach to migration and border security. And it has made the threat from terrorism more complex than ever before.

    According to last year’s Fragile States Index a terrorist or insurgency campaign was being waged in nine out of the top ten failing states. These power vacuums provide a conducive environment for terrorists, organised criminals and insurgent groups. Groups that do not play by international norms or humanitarian laws.

    They are able to exploit the lack of effective governance in these countries, unchallenged by corrupt and weak law enforcement agencies. And they are able to manipulate populations resentful of widespread abuse of human rights, promising an alternative to the dysfunction and injustice they already suffer in their daily lives.

    Exacerbating this changing picture are the same technologies that we all use, exploited by terrorists and organised criminals. Today there is no need for face-to-face, or even direct contact: a cyber-criminal sitting in Moldova can attack the online bank account of a pensioner in Minneapolis, while a terrorist sympathiser in Raleigh, North Carolina can communicate with Daesh in Raqqa.

    In the UK, we’ve seen a 15-year-old boy, inspired by terrorists in Syria, jailed for encouraging violent extremists in Australia to commit a terrorist attack on Anzac Day.

    This then is the new reality: a web of global threats that feed off the instability of conflicts overseas, that exploit modern technology, and which – sadly – are all too often supported by misguided individuals at home.

    A constantly changing threat

    Last week a sickening video was released online by the terrorist group Daesh. That video featured a small child who in full view of an audience was seemingly made to kill others.

    You may not have heard about this video. Just as you may not have heard about similar videos with gruesome content often targeted at western leaders including our Prime Minister and your President. But there will be some people from across America who will have watched this video, and been captivated by the twisted message.

    Daesh is an organisation that revels in its own depravity. It has killed hostages in the most horrific way possible. It has murdered hundreds of thousands of men, women and children – the vast majority of them the same practicing Muslims it purports to represent.

    The threat from terrorism is not new. When I first sat down at my desk, as Home Secretary, nearly six years ago, the main threat was from Al Qaeda. Today, Al Qaeda’s senior leadership may have been weakened, but that threat has not gone away.

    Its affiliates in Yemen and in North West Africa remain a serious concern. Al Shabaab in Somalia recently claimed an attack on a plane flying out of Mogadishu airport, while Boko Haram in Nigeria continue to wage a brutal insurgency against the Government.

    But the hard truth is Daesh is operating in a way that we have never seen before. At the start of the conflict in Syria and Iraq, some likened this to the Spanish civil war, or fighters that went to Bosnia and Afghanistan. But the reality is we have never seen this number, demographic, or range of ages travelling to take part in a conflict. Nor have we seen this scale of territorial ambition before.

    From the UK we believe that around 800 people of interest to the security and intelligence agencies have gone to Syria and Iraq, including women and families. Independent organisations estimate that up to 11,000 foreign fighters have travelled to Syria from the Middle East. To this we can add the thousands from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, Russia and the former Soviet Union.

    In 2014, in its bid to establish a global Islamic Caliphate, Daesh in Syria and Iraq directed, inspired or enabled around 20 attacks in other countries worldwide. In 2015, there were almost 60 such attacks – from Paris to Sydney– as well as over 200 attacks carried out by Daesh branches including those in Libya and Egypt.

    There have been 16 attacks in Europe over the past two years, the majority inspired or directed by Daesh. A number of the terrorists that carried out the attacks in Paris last November received training in Syria. And in Sousse in Tunisia, a young man murdered 38 people at a beach resort, 30 of whom were British holidaymakers. It was an evil and senseless attack, and the largest loss of British life from a terrorist attack since the London bombings in 2005.

    The domestic response

    In the UK, over the past 18 months, the police and the security and intelligence agencies have disrupted seven terrorist plots to attack the UK – all either linked to or inspired by Daesh and its propaganda.

    The number of people arrested for terrorism-related offences has increased by over a third in the last year – a total of 315.

    And as the threat has continued to morph and adapt, the strength of our security at home has prompted terrorists to seek out new methodologies, new evasive methods and new spaces in which to carry out their crimes.

    And we must, in turn, adapt our response.

    In the UK, we recently announced that we will make new funding available to our security and intelligence agencies to provide for an additional 1,900 officers – at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – to better respond to the threat we face from international terrorism, cyber-attacks and other global risks.

    To ensure they have the powers they need to do their jobs in a digital age, we are committed to introducing legislation that both protects the security of our nation and the public’s private lives.

    Our draft Investigatory Powers Bill brings together all of the powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications; it introduces a double-lock on the way these powers are authorized – using Secretary of State approval, backed up by the decision of a judge; and it ensures these powers are fit for the digital age.

    The Government has now received three Parliamentary committee reports on the draft legislation. We are carefully considering their recommendations. However, I want to make one thing clear on a subject that resonates on both sides of the Atlantic.

    The British Government believes encryption plays a valuable role in today’s society. It helps keep people’s personal data and intellectual property safe from theft by cyber criminals. It helps our economy grow and prosper.

    But as President Obama has said, we cannot be in a situation where technology is also used by terrorists and criminals to escape justice. The government has a responsibility to protect national security and ensure public safety. Communications service providers have a responsibility to their customers to ensure their privacy. Together we can find a way that achieves both.

    But the Investigatory Powers Bill is not the only new legislation we have introduced to keep our citizens safe.

    We have introduced a power to temporarily seize passports of those suspected of travelling to engage in terrorism overseas. And we have extended our ability to refuse airlines the authority to carry people to the UK who pose a risk.

    This legislation is designed to underpin the delivery of CONTEST, our world leading counter-terrorism strategy. Pursuing terrorists, protecting people and infrastructure and preparing in case of an attack are three pillars of that strategy.

    But crucially, it contains a fourth pillar – aimed at preventing people from becoming radicalised in the first place. Because unless we address the circumstances in which radicalisation and terrorism thrives, we will always be fighting a rearguard action against it.

    To do this we work with sectors and institutions where people are at risk of radicalisation or where there are opportunities to intervene. We work in prisons, with educational institutions, in communities and online. We support community based initiatives up and down the country that aim to challenge terrorist propaganda and communicate an effective counter-narrative. We work with internet companies to remove terrorist propaganda online. And we have established a programme, Channel, designed to protect and divert vulnerable people who we know are at risk of becoming radicalised.

    This work can be controversial, but it’s too important to ignore – and it is vital not only for our national security, but in safeguarding vulnerable people from harm.

    Since Channel was rolled out nationally in April 2012, there have been more than 4,000 referrals to the programme. Of those referrals, hundreds have been provided support, by trained intervention providers, to help lead them away from radicalisation.

    However, we want to go further than preventing people from becoming terrorists and focus on a broader approach to counter-extremism – both violent and non-violent.

    Because where non-violent extremism goes unchallenged, the values that bind our society together fragment. Women’s rights are eroded, intolerance and bigotry become normalised, minorities are targeted and communities become separated from the mainstream. So while by no means all extremism leads to violence, it creates an environment in which those who seek to divide us can flourish.

    The fight at home and abroad

    As I have said, our approach needs to continually adapt. That is why the British Government is currently reviewing CONTEST – to ensure the highest priorities are given the right resources, that government departments and agencies have a unified approach, and that we ensure we are making an impact on our counter terrorism priorities overseas.

    Because this is a fight that cannot just be won at home.

    So we must go well beyond traditional counter-terrorism policy. We can no longer afford to see our counter terrorism work at home and our counter terrorism work overseas as two separate entities.

    In the UK we are forming a new joint unit for International Counter-Terrorism, which brings together existing expertise in the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    This new joint unit will drive our counter-terrorism agenda abroad, our work with partners such as the Five Eyes, as well as influencing and supporting our work with multilateral organisations such as the EU and the UN.

    Because it is no good arresting a person in your own country, if they cannot be brought to justice in theirs … it is no good ensuring world class aviation security at home, if people are not properly screened at airports abroad… and it is no good sharing intelligence with another country, if they cannot act on it effectively… and it is no good fighting terrorism in and from Syria, if we can’t help stabilise that country and its neighbours.

    What needs to change

    I am in Washington to attend the Five Country Ministerial with my counterparts in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Together, we will expand upon the successful cooperation between our countries on issues of national security which we have built over the past decades.

    Faced with the growing threat I have described, we must act with more urgency and with greater joint resolve than we have before.

    We must be more open to sharing intelligence with our partners, and more proactive in offering our expertise to help others.

    We must counter the twisted narrative peddled by Daesh and show it for what it is – a perversion of Islam built on fear and lies. And we must organise our own efforts more effectively if we are to bring order to those failed states most beset by disorder and disarray.

    So at this week’s Five Country Ministerial I will be calling for action on three key fronts, action I believe to be essential if we are to defeat extremism and keep our people safe from terrorism.

    Building capacity where it is needed most

    We need to work with vulnerable states to improve their ability to respond to the threat from terrorism. This includes providing advice on crisis management to helping them combat the extremist narrative, from improving their investigative capacity to strengthening aviation security.

    For example, following the downing of the Russian Metrojet plane last year, we have been working with the Egyptians on improving security at the airport at Sharm Al Sheikh.

    In Pakistan and Nigeria, we have well-established programmes to strengthen investigatory and prosecutorial frameworks for dealing with terrorism, underpinned by clear human rights principles. That includes zero tolerance for torture and mistreatment. Not only because that reflects our principles, but because we must reduce opportunities for extremists to feed grievance narratives.

    We would like to do more in fragile states, and draw on the expertise of our partners. Because we need to be working together with these countries to prevent atrocities happening – not just reacting in response to them.

    Stopping the message of hate from spreading
    We also need to do more to stop the message of hate from spreading, and prevent people from becoming radicalised.

    I have already mentioned that in the UK we are working with civil society groups who seek to challenge extremist messages and provide credible alternatives.

    And I am pleased that last week the UN endorsed the UN Secretary General’s Preventing Violent Extremism Plan, encouraging a whole system approach to counter-terrorism. This is a welcome step and the UK stands ready to support other countries with this work.

    Together, with other European Union member states, we continue to build capabilities at the European Internet Referrals Unit at Europol to secure the removal of terrorist propaganda from the internet. The Unit has expanded its language capabilities which now includes Arabic, Russian, German, Dutch, and French. But we need other like-minded groups to come on board and reduce the scope for terrorist groups to spew their hate online.

    I would like to see the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia – Britain’s Five Eyes Partners – taking the same approach in working with communications service providers to tackle this propaganda. We need other like-minded groups to come on board from all corners of the world to reduce the scope for terrorist groups to spew their hate online and to undermine their twisted narratives.

    Working together, creating lasting impact

    Finally, and most importantly, we need to bring much greater order and joint resolve to the disparate work taking place internationally, and a comprehensive and coherent response to the common threat.

    It is great to see the potential of capacity building initiatives in many countries – whether that’s sharing intelligence between European agencies, training law enforcement in Tunisia, or counter violent extremism projects with civil society groups in Kenya. These measures can have real impact.

    But governments and organisations often undertake similar things in the same place with too little join up. Likeminded nations too often work in parallel rather than in partnership. And we need a much better understanding of what really works.

    Bodies such as the Global Counter Terrorism Forum and the Radicalisation Awareness Network regularly convene policymakers, practitioners and experts from governments, multilateral organizations and NGOs, to discuss their approaches and share best practice. But we must now focus on practical delivery and translate this expertise into action.

    There has been some useful progress in the past year.

    In December last year the UN held the first meeting of Security Council finance ministers in its 70-year history. Together with our allies we agreed on new measures to update the UN counter-terrorism sanctions regime to focus on Daesh in order to deny it the access to the resources they need and to identify and exploit the vulnerabilities in their financial network.

    In the EU, after many years of negotiations, we reached agreement on the sharing of passenger name records on flights to, from and within Europe, a crucial step in supporting our fight against terrorism. Further measures to raise the deactivation standards for firearms across Europe were agreed at the same meeting.

    But across the board there is scope for more action: better information sharing between countries, more active use of passenger data to identify persons of interest, more thorough exchange of terrorist finance information, as well as work to improve protective security and crisis response. For the EU to deliver on the security of its members, it must be a forum for taking action and garnering a collective response.

    And then, there is the opportunity we have together, as Five Eyes countries, to garner collective action. We enjoy the deepest, longest lasting security relationship in the world. The innovation of the Five Eyes Ministerial in 2013 provides us with a forum not just to share collective lessons on security and counter terrorism, but to take collective action.

    Conclusion

    So this evening I have spelt out three of the most important priorities in our efforts: building the capacity of those governments that need support to counter terrorism; preventing the pernicious spread of extremism and ensuring that we, collectively, match international cooperation with coordinated international action that has real, lasting impact on the ground.

    Because I am clear that defeating terrorism requires a global response, and we will not succeed by acting in isolation.

    This is the challenge of our generation. Extremism is spreading, threatening and taking lives, not just in our countries but in other lands. It thrives in the disorder created by fragile and failing states. It is contributing to, and in some cases exploiting, mass migration. It is turning the benefits of modern technology to its twisted ends.

    If we are to deal with this threat effectively, we can no longer look simply for domestic solutions. There must be international cooperation, a common approach, free flows of intelligence and information, and the closing of technological gaps which the extremists exploit.

    Together, we can defeat terrorism. We can stop the spread of extremism. We can save lives not only from terrible attacks, but from the damage and destruction which is wrought.

    It is a challenge for our generation, and it is a challenge that we must win.

    Thank you.

  • Hugo Swire – 2016 Speech in Wellington

    hugoswire

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hugo Swire, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand on 19 February 2016.

    I am delighted to be here in New Zealand and I am particularly pleased to have this chance to talk to you today about the UK economy and the opportunities that exist for future collaboration between the UK and New Zealand.

    Before doing so, I would like to pay tribute to the success of the New Zealand economy. At a time when the rest of the world was beset by the Global Financial Crisis, we watched as the New Zealand economy flourished. We were impressed and jealous in equal measure!

    Five years ago, in 2011, the British economy was facing huge challenges.

    We were struggling to recover from the financial crash that threatened our economy, and the recession that followed on its heels.

    There was talk of a double dip recession.

    Our unemployment rate hit a peak of 8.5%. Real wages were falling.

    But under the leadership of David Cameron there was a clear long term economic plan for us to follow. We would tackle the crisis in our public finances.

    We would cut business taxes and boost enterprise.

    We would take the difficult long term steps to ensure a lasting private sector recovery rather than pump up the public sector balance sheet still further and risk catastrophe.

    Our British people and British business understood that there was no easy shortcut to the work Britain had to do. Everyone kept their nerve.

    And the results have been there for all to see.

    Britain has been one of the fastest growing advanced economies in the world these past few years.

    Unemployment has fallen to almost 5%.

    And now we’ve got the highest employment rate in our history.

    Real wages are growing.

    The deficit as a share of GDP is down to nearly a third of what it was.

    On the back of this, business investment is forecast to grow at 7.4% this year – the fastest growth since before the crisis.

    That shows the high level of confidence that exists in the UK economy.

    Now I know that that optimism is sometimes tempered, both here and in the UK, by concern about global economic trends – whether it be China’s slowdown, low dairy prices or falling oil prices.

    But my message today is one of confidence: we can meet these challenges and overcome them.

    There’s a lot of transition taking place – some that is difficult and turbulent, yes; but some that is fundamentally positive too.

    We know that China’s economy is in transition, with growth driven increasingly by consumption, services and domestic demand.

    We know that global oil markets are in transition, with new suppliers like Iran and new sources like shale.

    We know that interest rates in the US are in transition.

    And we know there are big forces at work as the demographics of many Western nations change, altering the balance between investment and savings.

    In New Zealand – of all places – I hesitate to use the shifting tectonic plates metaphor. But there is no doubt that huge changes are taking place in the global economy.

    And the question for all of us here is: do we just talk about this transition – or do we take the action, and show the political will, to adjust to it and make it as smooth as possible?

    We need to see every shoulder at the wheel. Every country acting as one in search of growth.

    We need China to keep reforming. To deliver on the ambition set out at the Fifth Plenum to allow markets to play a greater role.

    We need countries like Russia and Brazil to make greater efforts to diversify, away from state owned companies and to increase investment, particularly in infrastructure.

    We need a global commitment to tackle the corruption which stunts global growth. This is why the UK is hosting an Anti-Corruption Summit later this year. We aim to put fighting corruption at the heart of our international institutions. We want to make the rules and practices which govern global commerce even more resilient to threats from corruption.

    And in Europe, we don’t want yet another action plan for completing the single market, or yet more calls for free trade deals. We want to see those plans put into effect, which is why the UK has been the strongest and loudest advocate for the proposed EU-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.

    As we face these challenges side by side, I am confident that New Zealand and the UK will remain close trading partners. The UK is New Zealand’s 6th largest trading partner. We are the 6th largest destination for New Zealand exports and the 7th largest source of imports for New Zealand in the year ending September 2015.

    Now is a great time to join us and invest in Britain. This is not yet more empty rhetoric. As a government we are investing in hard infrastructure

    In Victorian times we led the world in rail infrastructure.

    The first inter-city railway in the world was British, the fastest steam locomotive in history was British.

    But then we fell back. We are now addressing that, with innovative projects like Crossrail – a smart railway for 21st century London.

    We’re also backing the largest road investment programme since the 1970s, building new nuclear power and investing in renewable energy.

    We are committed to creating a competitive economy. We know that competition doesn’t always happen if you leave it to the market alone.

    That’s why in November we published a new plan to break up monopolies and back new entrants into certain sectors.

    We need action to let competition flourish, back the new company that doesn’t always have a seat at the top table and put the customers first.

    We are the top destination in Europe for Foreign Direct Investment and the leading FinTech hub in Europe.

    These are encouraging signs. Because a digital economy is a productive one

    And we will continue to build stronger and deeper links with the rest of the world.

    We don’t deliver sustained growth by becoming insular and isolated.

    We’ll protect ourselves by reaching out to the world and broadening our links.

    By looking to each and every trading opportunity. Particularly with close partners such as New Zealand.

    And let me just say a few more words about a trading relationship close to the hearts of both our countries – China.

    We want China to rebalance.

    As recent events have shown, China is bound to experience bumps along the road to a reformed economy. But we’re in it for the long haul.

    We are going to support China on its path to prosperity, along which it has already made such impressive strikes.

    Some say that stock market volatility in China means we are wrong to strengthen our economic ties.

    But those critics fail to look beyond that day’s headlines.

    China is an economic colossus, it is the second biggest economy on the planet. It’s a huge part of our world’s future.

    Any economy of that size you would want to trade with, whether it is growing at 7%, 6% or 5%.

    At a 7% growth rate, China will add an economy equivalent to the size of Germany’s to world output by the end of this decade.

    So we, the British government, are committed to strengthening our links across the world.

    A country can only thrive as an outward looking nation that wants to trade with the world if it has a pro-business government.

    Under David Cameron’s leadership, I am proud to be part of a government working to achieve that, and in doing so making Britain the best place for New Zealand companies to establish an international presence.

    For five years we’ve unashamedly backed business, large and small.

    We’ve reformed R&D tax relief – making it more generous.

    We’ve dealt with the punitive 50% income tax rate because it was destroying enterprise.

    But the biggest business tax reform introduced was made to corporation tax.

    In 2010 it stood at 28%, and Britain suffered as a result. In Budget after Budget we have cut the rate, from 28% to 20%. The lowest in the G20. Today, the United Kingdom is recognised as a low tax destination for business.

    Overall the business tax cuts we’ve announced since 2010 will be worth nearly £100 billion to business this decade.

    That is £100 billion of support for business. In return we expect businesses to pay their fair share of taxes.

    You won’t be surprised to discover that there aren’t many votes in cutting taxes for business.

    But supporting business in the UK is the right thing to do. Support of this magnitude encourages business to invest, to expand and to compete.

    It encourages businesses to build for the future.

    To innovate to solve problems, and to respond positively to open and fair competition.

    Never has Britain been more open for business, in every sense. The welcome mat is out for more New Zealand businesses, partners, investors and consumers to follow the lead of companies like Rex Bionics, Tri-Max and Orion Health. I look forward to welcoming you to the UK.

  • Eric Lubbock – 1962 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    lordavebury

    Below is the text of the speech made by Eric Lubbock (later Lord Avebury) in the House of Commons on 27 March 1962.

    I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there are two conventions which are generally followed by hon. Members in making their maiden speeches. The first of these is that they should make some general references to their constituency. In view of the fact that a great many things have been written in the national Press about my constituency which hon. Members may have had an opportunity of reading, I think that I need not deal with that subject. Indeed, several hon. Members have paid visits to my constituency within the last few weeks. Some of them came away with some curious ideas.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, from his researches, concludes that there are—and I think that I have the figure correct—22,846 people out of an adult population of 55,000 who do not possess features. I happen to be an example of them, but I have, as you can see, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a perfectly good nose and ears and I have, not only in the literal sense but also in the metaphorical sense, teeth—as the right hon. Gentleman may discover.

    The second convention which is generally followed by maiden speakers is that they should say nothing controversial. But we are speaking about nurses’ pay, which is a subject on which I feel very strongly—as, indeed, do many of my constituents—and, therefore, if it is necessary to transgress this rule slightly I am sure that hon. Members will understand.

    There is another factor, which is that I have already been attacked from the Treasury Bench before I had an opportunity of speaking and when I did not have an opportunity to reply. But this is a thing which I welcome. I hope that it will happen on many future occasions, because it proves conclusively to me that I have been saying the right things.

    In speaking about nurses’ pay, I would like to refer to a reply given on 12th March by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). The hon. Lady told him that it was mistaken to compare the salaries and conditions of nurses with those of ancillaries. It may be mistaken, but that is what I intend to begin by doing today.

    A male ward orderly in the London area receives £10 0s. 8d. basic pay for a 42-hour week, which was the figure the hon. Lady gave. He also gets 100 per cent. extra for Sundays; 25 per cent. extra for nights; 50 per cent. extra for Saturday afternoons; 100 per cent. extra for Bank Holidays, and, of course, if he works on a Bank Holiday, he has another day off in lieu as well. He also gets overtime for all hours over 42.

    A State enrolled nurse at the top of the scale receives £11 13s. 3d. for a basic week which is two hours longer, and does not receive one penny extra, no matter if he or she works round the clock. Two pay slips have been shown to me by a constituent, and they have been sent to the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that she will have seen them by now. They were sent to her by a nurse in Orpington Hospital. One of them was the pay slip of the nurse. He received the maximum figure of £11 13s. 3d.—and he is a man with twenty-five years’ service in the profession. Also sent to the hon. Lady was the pay slip of a ward orderly who had been in the hospital five weeks, who worked for two hours less and who received £13.

    The hon. Lady also said that we should not compare these two because the nurses receive better conditions of service—among other things, better holidays. I can prove that that statement is false, because they work a greater number of hours in the course of the year than do the ancillaries. The nurse, indeed, has five weeks holiday. But if my arithmetic is correct, he or she is working 47 weeks at 44 hours a week. Multiply these, and the total is 2,068 hours. The ward orderly works 50 weeks of 42 hours, but he gets five Bank Holidays, each of eight hours, so that his total comes to 2,060 hours. In fact, there is hardly any difference, in spite of the fact that, on the face of it, nurses get longer holidays.

    In one respect, indeed, there should be no comparison between trained nurses and ward orderlies. The ward orderly has no responsibility whatever, whereas the trained nurse has the greatest responsibility which any person can possibly undertake—that of protecting human life.

    The consequences of this situation are much more grave than the Minister would lead us to suppose. I must talk about my own constituency in this because, obviously, I know more about it than I do about other parts of the country. But I think that the situation which we have in Orpington is a microcosm of the whole country, and many of the aspects of our situation are repeated in other places, as the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. L Williams) has already said.

    We have trained nurses who are leaving the service in Orpington and are going to industry—to Morphy Richards, or to Tip Top Bakeries, or whatever we have in Orpington—and there are nearly as many trained nurses in Orpington’s factories as there are in Orpington Hospital. This is because we have presumed on the spirit and devotion of the nurses for far too long. But if we want to look at this not from the point of view of equity, but from the point of view of how public money is spent, then the present policy is entirely wrong because public money is being spent on training these people. They take several years to acquire their skills and then leave to work at a factory bench.

    The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that 30 per cent. of those who enrol in the nursing profession fail to complete the course, but the Guardian of 12th October last gave the figure of 40 per cent., and in the same article said that 50 per cent. of the nurses who had completed their training had left for other work.

    The students are already doing a shorter week, and they spend less time in the wards nowadays than they used to because there are more lectures in the course. Therefore, it becomes all the more important that those who enrol remain in the profession, because the ward sisters have less time to give attention to the students in the wards, because there is a more rapid turnover of patients, and because there is a shortage of ward sisters. It is extremely important for those who enrol in the profession to complete the course and stay with it.

    What inducements are there? I have already quoted the figure of the maximum which a State enrolled nurse can attain. Also of interest is that a staff nurse’s maximum is £656 and a ward sister’s £840. This maximum of a State enrolled nurse of £578 per annum is after two years’ training and six years of qualified service.

    When one considers that this is £1 a week less, roughly, than a shorthand typist gets right at the beginning of her professional career, one can see how ridiculous these salary scales are. The Minister has been unwarrantably complacent about the staffing situation in hospitals. He sees the situation as being adequately covered in the nation as a whole. I can tell him that, in Orpington Hospital, there are 58 vacancies in its establishment of 168 trained people. In the country as a whole, there are 25,000 such vacancies.

    This is borne out by looking through the pages of journals such as the Nursing Mirror. I was looking through its issue for 23rd March, and I counted 56 pages of situations vacant. Someone asked the Parliamentary Secretary the other day how much money was being spent on advertising vacancies in the National Health Service. I therefore did a little sum and I found that the Nursing Mirror was receiving £150,000 a year in advertising revenue for nursing situations vacant—and this is not the only journal in which these vacancies are advertised.

    I have spoken of shortages of staff and the danger particularly as it refers to Orpington Hospital, which has three night sisters on duty for 23 wards, in which there are between 500 and 530 patients. As a result of this situation, first-year students are in charge of the wards after only nine months’ training and in other cases, nursing auxiliaries are in charge of the wards.

    That is not a situation about which the hospital authorities can do anything. They would like to be able to get the extra trained staff to which their establishment entitles them, but there are 74 part-time and 30 full-time auxiliaries working in the hospital and it would be impossible to function without them. They are not trained, however, to recognise an acute condition when it occurs. Moreover, even if they recognise it, they have to summon help in a crisis, because, obviously, they are not themselves allowed to give treatment. This constitutes a danger to human life.

    The danger is increased by the expansion of the geriatric side of the general hospitals. To ease overcrowding in the mental hospitals—this is an arrangement which dates back some years—a great many senile dementia cases were diverted to the general hospitals which took geriatrics and were rechristened cerebral arteriosclerosis cases. In Orpington Hospital, there are 350 geriatric patients in a total of 510, many of whom are totally incapable and require constant skilled attention. It may well be imagined that in these circumstances superhuman efforts are necessary to cope with any emergency.

    During the summer, accident cases are brought in nearly every weekend and this happens frequently even in the winter and spring. Nurses have to be recalled to duty in their time off and from their beds. I should like to quote an instance of this which happened on Sunday, 11th March. A particularly serious motor accident occurred at Badger’s Mount and the casualties were brought into Orpington Hospital. The theatre sister had already done two spells of duty that Sunday, from 7.45 a.m. to 1.15 p.m. and from 4.30 to 8.15 p.m. She was summoned back to the hospital, where she attended from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. next day, having assisted at two major operations.

    That is not the end of the story. Monday is a busy day in Orpington Hospital and it was not possible to allow that sister to go home. She then had to do another spell of duty from 9 a.m. until 1.15 p.m., at the end of which time she had been on duty on and off for 22½ hours without sleep. How many professions or occupations are there in which people would not only stand for this kind of treatment, but would do so without asking for a penny extra?

    The 2½ per cent. which has been offered to those in nursing is an outrageous insult and is presuming on the noble ideals of service of the profession. The Minister knows of the reluctance of these people to take positive action by striking in defence of their legitimate rights. Perhaps he thinks, like the Minister of Aviation, that striking terror into the hearts of a potential enemy is a mission which should be fulfilled at the expense of those sections of the community who are least able to protest.