Blog

Lord Falconer – 2016 Speech on the Loyal Address

Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Falconer in the House of Lords on 24 May 2016.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his exposition of what was in the gracious Speech. He is a fine advocate on a sticky wicket. Looking at his profile on the Ministry of Justice’s website, I noticed that he used to work for the literary agents Curtis Brown. I am glad to say that my very good friend Ed Balls has chosen Curtis Brown as the agents to promote his new book, Speaking Out: Lessons in Life and Politics—available in all good bookshops from 16 September. I would be happy to arrange for the noble Lord a signed copy and the opportunity to learn whatever lessons are going. In exchange, I wonder whether he could get me a copy of another book currently being promoted by Curtis Brown—The Churchill Factor, by Boris Johnson.

Moving on from works of fantasy, I turn to the gracious Speech. It seems a long time ago that it was delivered. Hardly was the ink dry on the vellum than the Government were willing to regret the contents of their own gracious Speech by agreeing the TTIP amendment. Historically, as noble Lords will know, the last time that a gracious Speech was amended was in 1924 and the then Tory Government, led by Baldwin, fell.

That doomed gracious Speech has echoes of the speech that we debate today and included the following line:

“You will be asked to develop the … system of dealing with offenders”.—[Official Report, 15/1/1924; col. 8.]

The gracious Speech had a more direct tone in those days. That gracious Speech lasted just six days before being defeated on 21 January 1924. Three weeks later, Ramsay MacDonald, having deposed JR Clynes as the party leader after the general election, then became Prime Minister. I hope that this does not give political plotters on either side any ideas.

I know that noble Lords in this House are sure that the Conservatives are currently entirely focused on the national interest and not on badmouthing each other. One should completely discount the Minister, quoted in today’s Sun, who said:

“How the f*** are they going to put the party back together after all this?”,

or the reports in today’s Daily Mail of a senior Back-Bencher who said:

“People want a date when they know that he”—

I believe that to be a reference to the Prime Minister—

“will be gone. There is real anger”.

I am sure that the Daily Mail has got it completely wrong this morning with its headline: “Knives out for Cameron”. It may well be that we are the only part of the political system that is taking the trouble to analyse this gracious Speech in any detail. I very much look forward to the winding-up speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley. I note from his website that he was the assistant political secretary to Mr John Major from 1994 to 1997, so he is a bit of an expert on blue-tinged civil war. He will know that his then boss between 1994 and 1997, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, the former Leader of this House, chose to leave the country in anticipation of what is happening.

My final point in introduction is that it is so encouraging that the current Lord Chancellor, Mr Michael Gove, has remained above the fray. Take, for example, his claims that the European Court of Justice is undermining the security of the United Kingdom. Those were described by the former Conservative Attorney-General, Mr Dominic Grieve—who turns 60 today, so we wish him a happy birthday—as “unfounded and untenable”, “simply wrong”, and that the Lord Chancellor was,

“labouring under a very serious misunderstanding”,

of the way the European Union worked. Or take the Lord Chancellor’s claim that up to 5 million new immigrants would arrive in the European Union from Turkey and four other alleged new joiners by 2030. This was based upon the proposition that Turkey would have joined the European Union by 2020—a view to which nobody, apart from the Lord Chancellor and other committed Brexiteers, appears to subscribe.

I turn to the gracious Speech.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

I knew that noble Lords would be pleased.

First, there was the reference to a British Bill of Rights, which has now featured in the gracious Speech for two years in a row, and in almost identical terms. The Human Rights Act 1998 has effected a fundamental change in the relationship between the overmighty state and its citizens. The effect of the incorporation of the convention into our domestic law has been to force Governments and state organisations to think about the citizen in a different way. Examples of this are legion. The second Hillsborough inquests would not have taken place without the Human Rights Act; the Government’s attempts to introduce oppressive security laws after 9/11 were struck down in the Belmarsh cases because of the Human Rights Act; and the decision of a local authority that tried to separate a couple who had been married for 60 years into separate care homes was struck down as contrary to their basic human rights.

There can be no going back on the rebalancing of the relationship between citizen and state. The Tories have run a campaign against the Human Rights Act since it was introduced. They have found powerful allies in elements of the media who are happy for there to be human rights—but only for those people they like. If as a nation we are serious about human rights, there must be human rights for all, not just for those that the Executive wish to bestow them on or for those of whom the Daily Mail approves.

The Tories came out of the general election in 2015 suggesting that they could leave the European Convention on Human Rights if that is what it took to reform the Human Rights Act. The Prime Minister appears to have retreated from that position, as evidenced by the briefing around this gracious Speech. Not so the Home Secretary, who gave a speech very recently saying that we should withdraw from the convention for the express purpose of reducing some people’s human rights.

As for the Lord Chancellor, who knows? The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was careful to give no insight into his thinking. The Lord Chancellor’s evidence to the European Union Justice Sub-Committee of this House led it to say:

“The proposals the Secretary of State outlined did not appear to depart significantly from the Human Rights Act—we note in particular that all the rights contained within the ECHR are likely to be affirmed in any British Bill of Rights. His evidence left us unsure why a British Bill of Rights was really necessary”.

So I invite the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, to give this House some clue—not in detail and not breaking any confidences—about what is proposed.

It is a very strange concept: a British Bill of Rights that would be likely to be refused legislative consent by the Scottish Parliament, to be opposed by the Welsh Assembly and would frustrate and complicate the Good Friday agreement. It may be that those rights would remain unchanged; I do not know and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has not told us. It may be that the Government will say that the United Kingdom courts should be supreme in determining what the convention means in UK law. Of course, that is what the Human Rights Act already says. It may be that the so-called British Bill of Rights will declare the supremacy of the UK Parliament—but of course that is already the position under the Human Rights Act, as the prisoner voting rights issue demonstrates.

We so damage ourselves as a country by the inability of our Government to accept human rights in a constitutional settlement that works. It goes without saying that the Lord Chancellor should be the champion of human rights within the Government. A commitment to the rule of law carries with it a commitment to defend people’s basic rights. It is a fundamental weakness in the Government that the champion of the law will not be straight in his defence of its most basic rights. My plea is that the Lord Chancellor and the Government make it clear that they accept that the rights that Winston Churchill insisted be agreed by Europe after the Second World War are now beyond argument both in their terms and in the fact that they will be enforced by our courts in this country. We on this side of the House stand by the Human Rights Act 1998 and we implore the Government to do the same.

The prison and courts reform Bill contains many measures that we welcome. We welcome proposals to give prison governors more autonomy and to increase the focus on rehabilitation and prisoner education. I congratulate Dame Sally Coates for the impressive work she has done as part of her review into prisoner education and I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s commitment last week to review the plight of prisoners serving IPP sentences. But the prison reforms, billed as the centrepiece of the gracious Speech, have no prospect of success unless the fundamental crisis in the prison system is addressed.

First, there is chronic understaffing in our prisons. Secondly, there is chronic overcrowding. Thirdly, there is a chronic rise in violence and self-harm, with 7,000 fewer officers and a prison population which has risen by nearly 3,000 since 2010. There have been six murders and 100 suicides in prisons across England and Wales in the past 12 months—the highest levels seen for at least 25 years. Assaults on staff are up by 36% from the previous year, and overcrowding in prisons is forcing inmates to double or even treble up in cells. I worry, as do many informed observers, that we are on a road which led 30 years ago to the Strangeways riots. I look forward to the speech later of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who issued a seminal report after those riots.

The Prime Minister lost his nerve the last time a Justice Secretary tried to reform our prisons and we ended up with Chris Grayling as a result. Until we tackle those issues and see a reduction in the prison population, these reforms are tinkering while Rome burns. I welcome the announcement today of an extra £10 million to spend on safety in prisons. The extra £10 million is to be made available,

“to prison governors for extra prison staff; more training, including on suicide awareness; additional equipment, including body cameras and CCTV; and on additional drug testing, including for legal highs”.

The announcement was no doubt timed to coincide with today’s debates in your Lordships’ House and the other place on prison reform. In the face of the scale of the prison crisis, the £10 million looks risibly small.

If the Lord Chancellor is serious about prison reform, the first step he must take is to reduce the prison population—dealing with IPP prisoners as a matter of urgency. He can take two further steps: first, reduce the number of prisoners who are remanded in custody and then do not get custodial sentences; and, secondly, reduce the length of sentences for non-violent and non-sexual offenders. Not taking these steps makes me worried that prison reform—the centrepiece of the gracious Speech—is not serious but rather an eye-catching initiative designed to distract attention from the troubles of this Government.

The Lord Chancellor speaks of his personal commitment to the issue of prison reform. He gave a detailed interview to the House magazine on 13 May of this year, which stretched over five pages—I have to say that one page was a very large photograph of the Lord Chancellor—but he did not mention the question of prison reform once.

I turn now to court reform, and welcome the commitment to it. We should not underestimate the crisis in our courts. Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, wrote in January this year:

“Our system of justice has become unaffordable to most”.

He is right. What is more, this Government and the coalition Government before them presided over the decimation of our justice system. In 2009-10 more than 470,000 people received advice or assistance on social welfare issues. By 2013-14, the year after the Government’s reforms to legal aid came into force, that number had fallen to fewer than 53,000—a drop of nearly 90%.

The Briggs report on the civil justice system puts it as follows:

“The single, most pervasive and intractable weakness of our civil courts is that they simply do not provide reasonable access to justice for any but the most wealthy individuals, for that tiny minority still in receipt of Legal Aid … In short, most ordinary people and small businesses struggle to benefit from the strengths of our civil justice system … The civil courts are, by their procedure, their culture and the complexity of the law … places designed by lawyers for use by lawyers”.

This is the crisis with which we need to deal. Access to justice depends on a level playing field. The cost of going to court needs to be reduced and the availability of legal aid needs to be increased. It must be wrong that abandoned spouses, whatever their means, cannot get legal aid to sort out their financial position or continued relationships with children unless they can meet stringent tests to prove that they are victims of domestic violence. The whole issue of legal aid needs to be properly reviewed. That is why my noble friend Lord Bach and his legal aid commission are asking hard questions about how to address these problems, including how technological change can be seen as a benefit to be grasped rather than something to be afraid of.

I am surprised by the reappearance of an extremism Bill in the gracious Speech. The key issue there will be the definition of extremism. The Government must be very careful. We welcome the criminal finances Bill—better late than never. The Wales Bill is important. We need carefully to scrutinise the detail to determine whether it does propose the long-lasting settlement that we all want to see. Labour, as the party which established the Welsh Assembly, welcomes the devolution of further powers. That is why we opposed the disastrous draft Bill that was before us last year. The First Minister—I am glad to see him back in that role—was right to say that that process had been, “an avoidable mess” and that the Government,

“need to get into the habit of treating Wales and the National Assembly for Wales with proper respect”.

The Strathclyde proposals have all the hallmarks of the Government’s approach to human rights: “We say we like them but if they cause any difficulty we then try to take them away”.

This is a gracious Speech overwhelmed by the sound of blue-on-blue gunfire, with the Lord Chancellor right in the thick of it. At a time when our prisons and our courts are in crisis and there is real suffering as a result, he is on a front line fighting a different war. I will give him, as will all on this side, full support for genuine and properly thought through proposals to reform our prisons and our courts. My goodness, we really need such proposals. Unfortunately, the proposals in the gracious Speech do not meet the hurdles either of genuineness or of being properly thought through. We do not know whether the Lord Chancellor will ever return from his current war—but if he does, I urge him to lay off human rights and devote his very considerable energies to the progressive reform that is so desperately needed.

May 24, 2016
David Cameron – 2016 Speech at easyJet on Staying in EU

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at easyJet in Luton on 24 May 2016.

Thank you, it’s great to be here with you here in Luton, and I am a proud easyJet passenger. You’ve flown me actually all over Europe: Portugal, Majorca, France, Spain, and almost always on time, although I have to admit that I’m not always on time. Actually, as I drove in here this morning, I remember once when I missed a flight altogether and had a lovely night in the Ibis hotel on the way into the airport. So I’ve let you down more often than you’ve let me down.

But it is actually, funnily enough, interesting point: very few people have I stopped on the street to tell them that I think that they’ve done an amazing thing, but actually your founder is one of them. I did do that once, because I think easyJet was a fantastic creation. And today, with whatever it is: 800 routes, 70 million passengers, supporting around 10,000 jobs in our country, this is a fantastic great British success story. So it is a pleasure to be here, talking to you about this vital issue and taking your questions.

Because on 23 June, we’ve got to make a really big decision for the future of our country. General elections are important, of course I believe that, but actually I think this is more important than a general election. If you don’t like the result of a general election, 5 years later you can make a different decision and have a different team running the country. Obviously not something I’m looking forward to, but nonetheless that’s the way the system works.

But this is a really big choice about Britain, and I’m arguing very clearly that we are safer if we stay in, because we can fight terrorism better if we’re part of this team. I think we’ll be stronger, because I think Britain gains from being in these organisations rather than losing by being in them. But crucially, I think we’ll be better off. And it’s not a complicated argument to make. It’s because we’re part of a market of 500 million people; the biggest single market anywhere in the world. And that is good for jobs, it’s good for companies, it’s good for investment, it brings businesses here to Britain. It means great businesses like this one can expand throughout the single market. It’s good for our economy, and so if we were to leave, it would be bad for our economy. It would mean less growth, it would mean fewer jobs, it would mean higher prices. It would mean, as we set out yesterday, a recession for our economy. So we’re better off if we stay in this organisation.

And it’s not a static thing, because of course the single market is still expanding. It’s good we’ve got a single market in aviation; that has massively helped your business. I can remember days, I’m old enough to remember, when flying off on holiday meant getting on a sort of state owned aeroplane and going to a state owned airport in another country, and paying a very high price for it. And as Carolyn has said, prices have come down 40% since the single market has come about, and since the radical transformation that companies like easyJet have brought about.

So I’m quite convinced that when it comes to this economic argument, we are better off if we stay in and we’re worse off if we leave. And as I said, it’s not static, because the single market is going to go into energy, it’s going to go into digital, where we’re a real leader, and it’s going to go further into services industries, which actually make up 80% of our economy. So for those reasons I think we’ll be better off.

And today we’re talking about some quite specific things, some quite ‘retail’ things, if you like, which is what would happen to the cost of a holiday if we were to leave. If we were to leave, and the pound were to fall, which is what most people expect and what the Treasury forecast, that would put up the cost of a typical holiday for a family of 4 to a European destination by £230. It could, as Carolyn has said, put up actually the cost of air travel, because if you’re outside the single market, which is what those who want us to leave think, then you’d face all sorts of bureaucracy and restrictions that you don’t face today.

Another very retail thing that is happening in Europe, and there are a few people with mobile phones right now – don’t worry, film away, this is all live anyway. We’re abolishing roaming charges in the European Union. It’s one of the most annoying things: you’re on holiday, you use your mobile phone, you get an enormous bill. Getting rid of roaming charges could mean on a 10 minute call back to the UK, you’re saving almost £4 on that 10 minute call. So I think there’s some very strong retail arguments about the cost of a holiday, the cost of food, the cost of using your phone, for staying in the European Union.

Now, before I take your questions, I just want to make one other argument, because I think in this debate it’s very important to talk about the specifics, and we have, about jobs and prices and costs of holidays and costs of phone calls. But there is also, in my view, a bigger argument. I don’t believe those people who say, ‘Well, my head says we ought to stay in the European Union but my heart says somehow, we would be a prouder and more patriotic country if we were outside.’ I don’t think that is right. I think this is an amazing country. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world. We’ve done great things in this world. We’re a very interconnected country. What happens on the other side of the world matters to us. We care about tackling climate change; we care about trying to alleviate poverty in Africa; we know we need to have the world’s trade lanes open for British business and enterprise. And I absolutely believe, if you want a big, bold, strong United Kingdom, then you want to be in organisations like a reformed European Union, rather than outside of them. Britain is part of the G7, we’re part of the G20, we’re part of NATO, which helps to keep our defences strong. We are a very important part of the Commonwealth, which brings about a third of humanity together in one organisation. And we’re members of the European Union. Being in these organisations doesn’t diminish our standing and our strength in the world, in my view. It enhances it. So I think the big, bold, patriotic case is to stay in a reformed European Union, to fight for the sort of world that we want, rather than to stand back and be on the outside.

And in a way, that’s sort of what easyJet has done. Here you are, a British based business, but a business that has decided to take on the world in terms of being competitive, running routes all over Europe and beyond, and recognising that is in your interests, your passengers’ interests, your shareholders’ interests, all the people in this room’s interests.

And that’s my argument about Britain: let’s be the big, bold strong Britain inside the reformed European Union rather than voting to leave, and that’s the case I’m going to make every day between now and 23 June, with just under a month to go.

May 24, 2016
Theresa May – 2016 Speech on Fire Reform

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on 24 May 2016.

Introduction

Thank you very much, Andrew and Graham. It is a great pleasure to be here today to talk to one of Britain’s leading think tanks on public service reform. In my time as Home Secretary, Reform has consistently challenged government to be more radical and more urgent in its pursuit of accountability, value for money and transparency in public services. And it is a challenge I have taken to heart in my time at the Home Office, and I think our work to cut crime, control immigration, safeguard the vulnerable and protect against terrorism and extremism is more effective as a result.

So today I would like to talk about reform of another public service essential to keeping people of this country out of harm’s way. One with a fine tradition and a proud record. And one made up of individuals who command profound affection from the communities they serve – the fire and rescue service – which I now have the privilege of overseeing in the Home Office. But before I talk about that, I want to go back to 2010, to when I was first appointed Home Secretary and when I first began my programme of reform in policing.

The lessons of police reform

Back then, the problems in policing were painfully apparent. Police forces beset by an opaque system of governance and diffuse accountability. Productivity held back by targets and the systems which officers relied upon were inefficient and ineffective. And a closed culture which insulated failure and rewarded the wrong things. There was no question of the need for reform, or the urgency with which it was needed.

Yet when I first launched my programme of reform in policing, the response from Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Police Federation was to deny the need for change. For many in policing in 2010, the word ‘reform’ could mean only one of 2 things, top-down reorganisation of the 43-force model or the establishment of a royal commission – and the fact I intended to do neither was heresy. When I set out the government’s plans to reduce police budgets by over a fifth over the course of a Parliament, they were united: the frontline would be ruined and crime would go shooting up. The Police Federation predicted “Christmas for criminals”.

Today, those claims lie in tatters and no-one in policing can be in any doubt of the purpose of police reform. In the last 6 years, we have set about systematically reforming the institutions of policing – bringing real accountability for local people; modernising pay and conditions; transforming the approach to procurement and collaboration; and abolishing the system of targets and bureaucracy which undermined productivity and drove centralisation.

And these reforms are bearing fruit. We now have a framework of institutions and processes that works properly to ensure accountability and operational integrity. Policing is more diverse, more professional, and better qualified than ever before. Public confidence has been maintained and the proportion of officers on the frontline is up. And crime is down by well over a quarter, according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales, even as police budgets have fallen.

The experience of police reform shows what is possible. And over the course of this Parliament, I want to bring that same relentless focus to reform of the fire and rescue service – to improve the whole range of services provided to the public and to preserve the sustained falls in fire incidents and deaths we have seen in recent decades.

The achievements of fire and rescue

It is 15 years since the Home Office last oversaw fire and rescue services, and in that time the risk of fire has fallen considerably. Since 2001, the number of fires in England has been reduced by nearly two-thirds. Fire deaths have fallen by almost half and we have seen similar reductions in the number of non-fatal casualties. There are approaching 200,000 fewer false alarms each year, of which malicious incidents have fallen by nearly 90%. Buildings are safer, families and communities are more secure, and firefighters’ time is being wasted far less, freeing them up to focus on more effective activity locally.

But what is striking about those achievements is that they were achieved not by change imposed from above, but by reform driven from below.

Just as in policing before 2010, local services were weighed down by bureaucratic control, targets drove confusion and perverse outcomes, and taxpayers’ money was wasted. But unlike in policing, fire and rescue services seized the need for change at a local level and reformed themselves from the ground up. What began with the Bain Review in 2002 led to wholesale change in the culture and priorities of fire and rescue services, marshalled not by Whitehall but by chiefs and authorities themselves.

Most importantly, as Andrew referred to, fire services embraced prevention over response. Today, prevention work in communities is second nature to every firefighter and core business in every local fire and rescue service. Over 600,000 homes were visited by fire personnel in England in 2014 and 2015 and nearly 59,000 businesses were checked for compliance with fire safety laws and given tailored advice on prevention and fire safety.

At the same time, fire and rescue services worked to shift the balance of responsibility for fire protection onto industry and society more broadly. It is down to years of home safety visits, the successful Fire Kills awareness campaign and the continued pressure for building, furniture and fire safety regulations that fires are at an all time low and nearly 90% of all homes have a working smoke alarm, compared to only 8% a quarter of a century ago.

By working in partnership with other local services and using data more systematically, fire and rescue services have developed a deep understanding of the needs and the risks of the communities they serve. The elderly residents at risk of falls. The families whose chaotic lifestyles make them a cause for concern. The buildings with construction shortcuts and poor management standards. By understanding these risks, fire and rescue services have been able to better manage them – saving countless lives as a result.

And recent events remind us of the increasingly varied job that our fire and rescue services do. The crash at the Shoreham Air Show in August last year that left 11 dead and 16 injured. Widespread flooding in large parts of Cumbria and the Lake District in December. The collapse of part of Didcot Power station in March. Today firefighters do not just fight fire, they protect their communities from a range of dangerous situations.

The continuing need for reform

But as impressive as these achievements are, there remains much more to do. Families, businesses and property in this country remain at risk of fire. Last year there were more than 150,000 fire incidents in England. A total of 263 people lost their lives to fire and 7,500 more were injured. The insurance industry tell us that fire costs industry hundreds of millions a year, and we know that many businesses never recover from the ashes. These are not statistics we can or should ignore.

Nor should we forget that, whilst fire does not discriminate, those most at risk are not those living in modern houses with expensive appliances and insurance to protect them when things go wrong. The victims of fire, too often, are the vulnerable within our society – older people, those living alone, and those whose behaviours, lifestyles or housing puts them at greater risk.

And when I look at the fire and rescue service, I see a service that has succeeded in spite of the framework it operates in, not because of it. A fire and rescue landscape still beset by poor governance and structures. A workforce lacking diversity and still bound by many of the old ways of working. A service that requires further reform to improve accountability, bring independent scrutiny and drive transparency. And efficiencies and savings which could be made to improve the working lives of fire service employees and to reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

So, over the course of this Parliament, I intend to work with fire and rescue services to deliver a programme of reform that is as radical and ambitious as I have delivered in policing since 2010. The job of police reform is not yet finished and I am not going to pretend that reform in fire and rescue will be easy or straightforward. Meaningful and lasting reform never is. But with fire and rescue in the Home Office and with – I sense – a real appetite for change, I believe now is the time to deliver the change that is needed.

Efficiency and collaboration

In the last 6 years, fire and rescue authorities have shouldered their fair share in delivering savings to bring the public finances back onto a sustainable footing. And over the next 4 years, further savings will need to be made, including a 1.6% cash reduction in spending power for single purpose fire authorities this financial year, as we continue to bring the public finances onto a sustainable footing.

But we should be in no doubt that such efficiencies are possible. And nowhere is the scope for savings more apparent than in closer working between emergency services.

The development of much closer collaboration between emergency services was one of the great unsung successes of the last Parliament. This takes many forms, from basic practical steps, like sharing headquarters or back office services, to radical reform, such as the integration of command and control or response teams, but those areas that have worked together have realised savings and operational benefits. The Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme has developed a common approach to how the 3 bluelight services are trained for, and respond to, major or complex incidents, such as flooding or terrorist attacks.

And new ways of working between services have cut duplication and enhanced the response to incidents. Initiatives like the introduction of rural intervention vehicles, jointly crewed by police and fire officers, to serve hard to reach locations in Northamptonshire. Or the establishment of a joint station in Norfolk that houses not just police and fire, but ambulance crews and the coastguard too. Or the development of Community Risk Intervention Teams in Greater Manchester, which deliver prevention services on behalf of all bluelight services and respond to high volume, low priority calls. Since 2013, the government has invested over £88 million in fire transformation schemes such as these, with expected savings estimated in the hundreds of millions of pounds over the next 10 years.

But progress is patchy and collaboration remains the exception, not the rule. In this Parliament, I want to see much deeper collaboration between fire and rescue and other local services, to improve the service to the public and deliver savings. And that is why we are legislating in the Policing and Crime Bill to put a statutory duty on the police, the emergency ambulance and fire and rescues services in England to collaborate whenever it is in the interests of their efficiency or their effectiveness to do so.

And it is why I am committed to ending the narcissism of small differences between local fire and rescue services, which make no sense in principle and which frustrate joint working in practice.

Two weeks ago, progress was made when the Chief Fire Officers’ Association, the Fire Service College, the Fire Industry Authority and others agreed to unify research and development so that equipment is only tested once, rather than by each local service. And I welcome the Chief Fire Officers’ Association’s proposals to develop a coherent and comprehensive set of professional standards, building on the work of the National Operational Guidance Programme. There are many legitimate reasons why collaboration can fail – competing aims, conflicts of leadership, differing financial positions – but a lack of consistent professional standards is not one of them.

And to help services work together to buy equipment and services, I will publish comparable procurement data from every fire and rescue authority in England, to show how much each is paying for common items like uniform, operational kit, and vehicles. As we have seen in policing, local services can deliver significant savings just by pooling their purchasing power and buying the same equipment collectively – and there’s no good reason not to do so.

Reform of the fire and rescue workforce

These changes will lead to better use of resources and more thoughtful deployment of assets. But there is one resource, which comprises the majority of fire and rescue budgets, where there is still work to do: the fire and rescue workforce.

In the last 10 years, the overall size of the fire workforce has not changed significantly despite the number of incidents attended falling by 42%. The challenge facing senior fire officers is therefore how to reform the workforce to meet a completely different risk and demand model, and how to build in the flexibility to deploy resources in different ways as demand changes again in the future. But, let me be clear, this does not and should not mean a reduction in the quality of frontline firefighting. Just as we have seen in policing, it is possible to protect the frontline and increase the proportion of officers deployed in frontline roles even as savings are made.

These matters are rightly operational decisions for fire professionals, not for politicians. But already the characteristics of a future workforce are visible from changes the best chief fire officers have introduced. New and flexible shift patterns so that firefighters are available at times when risk or demand is greatest. The recruitment of dedicated fire prevention staff to conduct prevention work in communities and businesses and free up firefighters for specialist tasks. And increased use of on-call firefighters to increase flexibility and generate savings, not just in rural areas but in major metropolitan areas too, as Sir Ken Knight and the retained firefighters’ union have powerfully argued.

Now I know there are those in the audience who will say that the National Joint Council (NJC) acts as a barrier to some of these changes and to a flexible workforce more broadly. The fact that, after 15 years of discussion and steadfast opposition from the Fire Brigades’ Union (FBU), the NJC has only recently reached agreement to pilot co-responding suggests to me that at least some of those complaints are well-founded. But the NJC is owned by fire and rescue, not by government, and fire authorities form one half of its membership. It is in your hands to change it, and my challenge to you is to deliver that change or have the courage of your convictions and withdraw.

And reform must extend to chief fire officers too. There is widening disparity between the pay of chief fire officers in different parts of the country, with little relationship to their skills, performance or the size of the role. And it can never be justified for chief and principal fire officers to retire one day only to be rehired in the same job just a few days later with financial benefits that rank and file firefighters could never expect. It looks wrong; it erodes public confidence; it undermines the respect of firefighters and staff in their leadership; and it must stop.

Just as the culture of bullying and harassment we have seen in some fire and rescue authorities can no longer be allowed to persist. There is no excusing this type of culture – which was described as “toxic” and “corrosive” by last year’s review of Essex Fire and Rescue Service. I know that there has been progress in Essex to put that right and I will be monitoring developments, but we must let it serve as a wider lesson too. In doing so, we must transform the diversity of a firefighter workforce that is 96% white and 95% male. Because it is not just professionalism and integrity that underpin the relationship with the public, it is also how representative fire and rescue services are of their communities and the communities they serve. I know this is something the FBU has championed in the past, and I hope we can work together to increase diversity in fire and rescue.

And I can confirm that I intend to publish the Thomas review of the fire and rescue workforce as soon as is possible. This is an important piece of work, which I know has been a long time coming, but fire and rescue services should not wait for its conclusions to start reforming their workforce – you are the employers, not me or Adrian Thomas, and it’s up to you to drive the process of reform.

A more accountable and transparent fire and rescue service
And as you do, I will put in place the right framework of institutions and processes to ensure operational integrity and to restore the link between fire and rescue services and the communities they serve.

Because governance in fire and rescue bears all the hallmarks of the flawed police authorities I abolished in 2012. Bureaucratic committees of appointed councillors without the direct democratic mandate to drive real change or the public profile to engage local people. In policing, I replaced police authorities with single, visible individuals held to account in the strongest possible way – at the ballot box. And 3 weeks ago, more than 9 million people did just that when they voted for a police and crime commissioner to oversee their local force on their behalf.

So we will bring the same direct democratic mandate to oversight of fire and rescue services – by giving police and crime commissioners the ability to take on responsibility for fire and rescue services where a local case is made. This provision, which is already in the Policing and Crime Bill currently making its way through Parliament, will bring greater accountability to the work of local fire and rescue services where it is taken up and provide stronger leadership in keeping the public safe. And I encourage Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to carefully consider the potential benefits and I hope fire and rescue authorities will work constructively with PCCs to realise them.

But let me be clear, these proposals are not a police takeover of fire and rescue services, or a top-down merger of the roles of police officers and firefighters. The important distinction between operational policing and firefighting will be maintained – fire officers will not be given the power to arrest and the law will continue to prevent full-time police officers from training as firefighters. Funding streams for police and fire will not be merged and PCCs will raise a separate fire precept, so local people can hold them to account for how their money is spent.

But there’s one problem – it is currently almost impossible to scrutinise your local fire and rescue service. There’s no independent inspectorate; no regular audit of performance; and only limited available data on performance over time or between areas. Instead, local fire and rescue services are examined by a system of peer challenge – which provides no assurance whatsoever to the public. It may serve a purpose as a tool for self-improvement, but in practice it means that chief fire officers handpick their own reviewer, set their own terms of reference, and decide whether or not to publish the results. It is not so much marking your own homework as setting your own exam paper and resolving that you’ve passed – and it has to change.

To help fire and rescue authorities and PCCs hold their service to account and to drive closer scrutiny by taxpayers and communities, I intend to bring forward proposals to establish a rigorous and independent inspection regime for fire and rescue in England. I will shortly table amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill to strengthen the inspection powers in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to put beyond doubt the powers of fire inspectors to enter premises and access information, and to ensure the government has the power to commission inspections of particular issues or fire and rescue services. Because it is only by understanding problems and holding services accountable that we can begin to fix them.

To support greater accountability, I will publish transparent fire and rescue information so that ordinary members of the public can compare fire and rescue services on performance, value for money and diversity, monitor that performance over time, and access useful fire safety information and advice. And if anyone doubts the public appetite for this information, just look at the success of Police.uk, which now receives 450,000 unique visits each month from interested members of the public.

Conclusion

I am sure there are those who question some of these reforms; who simply don’t accept the need for change; who, rightly, say that fire and rescue today does not share all the problems of policing in 2010. After years of falling risk of fire and even fewer incidents, it would have been easy for me to adopt the same mentality and let fire and rescue services stand still.

But if we do that, if we choose to ignore the 263 people who lost their lives to fire last year and the thousands of business owners whose livelihoods went up in flames, we implicitly suggest that the institutions and structures of fire and rescue are good enough, not the unaccountable and inefficient framework we know them to be. And we brush aside, under the carpet, difficult questions about culture, leadership and diversity – which matter to those that work in fire and rescue just as much as the public they serve.

The reforms I have set out today will make fire and rescue more accountable, more effective and more professional than ever before. They will build on the great strides in prevention and collaboration that fire and rescue services have already made. And if we get them right, they will benefit not just the public or the taxpayer, but firefighters too and I hope you will all work with me to deliver them.

Thank you.

May 24, 2016
Tessa Jowell (Baroness Jowell) – 2016 Maiden Speech in House of Lords

Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Tessa Jowell (Baroness Jowell) in the House of Lords on 23 May 2016.

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address and to be doing so for the first time in your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lord for his kind introduction. This place throngs with noble Lords who have for years been my heroes and my heroines, as well as my very dear friends, so it is an honour to be able to listen to their speeches and to learn. What a pleasure to have been able to listen to the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, who I think is a woman with more than one more adventure inside her.

I extend particular thanks to my two sponsors, my long-standing and dear noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, who has been a heroine of mine for many years and has deserved all the acclaim she has received as a campaigner against racism and for social justice. If only it had not been as a result of such a terrible personal loss. I also thank my mentor and dear noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington. There are so many more to whom I would like to pay tribute, but for the sake of your Lordships’ time and their blushes I will stop there. Of course, I would particularly like to thank all the staff of the House who have been so kind, welcoming and helpful since I arrived here. The doorkeepers, those in the Dining Room and those who welcome guests at the Peers’ Entrance have made me feel so welcome and have been so helpful.

As I was preparing my contribution to the debate today, I consulted my noble friend Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield—who, in turn, recalled asking the late and much-loved Lord Peston in advance of his own maiden speech what happened here. “Gossip and the discussion of ailments”, came the reply. These topics no doubt do get their occasional airing, but I have been so impressed in the short time I have been a Member by the important contribution made by this House in confronting with uncompromising humanity some of the most difficult issues of this time. The campaign led by my noble friend Lord Dubs showed that a confident, optimistic country can indeed distinguish between the fear of a free-for-all in immigration and the chance to give back to a small number of unaccompanied refugee children who have suffered unimaginable trauma their childhood.

Tax credits, support for disabled people and social housing are all causes that will change the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. They were all taken up by your Lordships in the short time that I have been a Member. So I would say to the Prime Minister, in the light of the proposals in the Loyal Address, that, however thwarted he may feel by this House, bad and unfair laws are not improved by curtailing the power of scrutiny in this place.

I sat for 23 years in the other place, both as a Back-Bencher and in government. I do not think there was a single day in my 23 years as a Member of Parliament when I did not feel awe at the responsibility of representing 80,000 people and trying to meet their expectations of me. My former constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood, now so ably represented by my successor, Helen Hayes, represents all I most admire about our country—its diversity, the endless ingenuity of its people, their optimism and their belief in the possibility of change. All my constituents, rich and poor, benefited equally from the dedicated staff at King’s College Hospital. Over all those years we campaigned together with community organisations such as the Brixton Soup Kitchen, Centre 70 and 4ALL, along with many others, and with local parents, for secondary schools which are transforming the ambition of young people so often written off.

My own first job was as a social worker in Brixton, tramping the same streets that I was later lucky enough to represent in Parliament and supporting families who had so much stacked against them. I hope that I will never become inured to what poverty smells like, nor forget the look of disappointment in a young person’s face when they realise that the great opportunity of London seems to be for others and not for them. Our new mayor, Sadiq Khan, carries on his shoulders such high expectations from those dispossessed. I congratulate him so warmly on his victory and pledge to help and support him in every possible way to be, as he wishes, the mayor for all Londoners.

The great issue before this country today is, of course, our membership of the European Union—the focus of so much of today’s debate. I devoutly hope that we will remain in it as fully engaged partners, but with the self-confidence to continue to negotiate change. So a vote to remain is not a vote for the status quo. Amid the daily salvos from warring economists and the claims and counterclaims of the partisans, it is too easy to forget that the European Union is a union of 28 nations, in a continent that saw the deaths of 70 million from wars in the last century, that have bound themselves together by common commitments to standards of human rights, rights at work, democracy, the rule of law and peaceful coexistence. We should never take that for granted.

Of course the EU institutions need to be improved. In many ways, this forthcoming referendum is a reproach to their slow response to public concern about this. Of course the EU faces enormous challenges, but we are not alone in wanting to shake up its inadequate institutions. But the founding optimism, its vision and its purpose are noble ones. We should stand up for them. Of course I respect the sincerely held views of those who want to leave, but behind the go-it-alone rhetoric I detect a deep pessimism. Those who wish to make this leap in the dark discount our importance to the rest of the European Union and the fact that our active engagement is a force for stability and good sense. It is a matter of vital national interest and it is a view which betrays a lack of confidence in our own country, in our ability to lead and win the argument for reform.

Personally, I feel I have been here before. When I proposed that we bid for the 2012 Olympic Games in London, I was told by all sides, “I wouldn’t bother if I were you. Even if we try, we won’t win. The French have it all sewn up—and, if we do win, we won’t be able to host it properly”. “Best not get involved” was the general advice. Here I pay particular tribute to my dear friends, the noble Lords, Lord Coe and Lord Deighton, who always believed that we could do it and did so much to make sure that we did.

And indeed we did. We did make a world-class venue out of a wasteland. We did inspire our young people not just in this country but around the world through International Inspiration. We did lead the world in sport after sport, and in that summer we found a renewed sense of our national identity, of who we are: self-confident and diverse. I think it took us a little by surprise. In those summer weeks four years ago, to recall Abraham Lincoln, we found,

“the better angels of our nature”.

I hope that in that same spirit the people of this country will renew their commitment to the European Union as an optimistic community of nations in which proud and distinct national identities are also the foundation of collective solidarity and open trade.

What I wish for my country, I wish for my own beloved Labour Party. I hope it can embrace the energy of its new and growing membership, who all share a belief that we should help people achieve more together than they can alone. But my party can do that only when it governs. It fails when it becomes a sect of the elect, turning its back on those who are not true believers, and becoming obsessed with rooting out heresy.

My Lords, I am truly honoured to join you. I hope to be useful and constructive, to learn from you and to offer help where I can. The great Seamus Heaney’s last injunction to his wife was, “Noli timere”—“Do not be afraid”. In holding the Executive to account, in defending a just cause even when it is unfashionable, in defending the weak against the strong and in forging our future proudly and confidently in a prosperous, peaceful Europe—in all these endeavours, we need not be afraid.

May 24, 2016
Baroness Perry – 2016 Valedictory Speech in House of Lords

Below is the text of the speech made by Pauline Perry, Baroness Perry of Southwark, in the House of Lords on 23 May 2016.

My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, and I thank my colleagues for their kind support.

Although education is not today’s topic, it is the target of much of our overseas aid and the foundation of everything which establishes this country’s place in the world order. Education changes lives and changes societies. I love what the writer Malinowski said, “In the life history of every individual, education is that which either bestows upon them the freedom of their culture, or else deprives them of it”. How right he was. Good education gives to our young people the freedom of our culture as a nation: an open mind, strong values and character, the richness of science, language, art, music, history, and so much more. But poor education, whether in the failing schools of our own country or in areas of extreme poverty in the wider world, indeed deprives the young of the freedom of their culture.

I will say something about where my passion for education stems from. In my first teaching post in this country, and at my request, I was sent to a girls’ secondary modern school in the worst slum area of Wolverhampton. The height of ambition for those lovely girls was to get a job in what they called the “dirty room”—the acid room—of the Eveready factory near the school, because, although they knew that they would lose the ends of their fingers after a few years, it paid better than any other available job. They were bright, often clever girls, but were given no challenge in the curriculum on offer in the school, and no hope for a more ambitious future.

I was expecting my second baby during my time as their teacher, and they made me promise to bring the baby to see them after I left. I kept my promise and brought my baby daughter to meet them. From their precious small resources those dear girls had clubbed together to present her, with huge solemnity, a small silver spoon they could ill afford—to remind her, they said, with good West Midlands humour, of, “the months she had to spend in this horrible place”. They had won my heart in my time as their teacher, but as I thought of the future that awaited them, my heart broke for them. From that day, I vowed to do what I could to see an offering of different education for young people like them—one which would raise their aspirations and their life chances.

However, education gives more than the life chances of individuals; it is the necessary condition for the,

“publick wealth, peace and tranquillity of the Realm”,

in the lovely words of our daily Prayers. Economic growth and productivity depend on a well-educated and skilled population. Social cohesion and equality depend on the transforming power of education, and the advancement of technology, as well as our ability to deal with it, depend on education.

I am happy that on all sides of this House we agree that those who teach are the single most crucial factor. Respect for the professionalism of teachers in school and lecturers in universities means giving them freedom to determine the best approach with their pupils and students, and helping them to gain the best results. Governments in free countries will always respect the limits of intrusion into this process, because academic freedom, like press freedom, is one of the cherished gifts of a free society.

I have always been better at looking forward than looking back, but on this occasion it is surely right to look back over 25 years. I came into the House in 1991 on the honours list, not on a party list, and I am so proud that I chose to sit on the Conservative Benches. However, the friendships that I value have come from all parties and none. Of the many good and treasured memories of 25 years, the work of Select Committees will be the strongest. As a member of at least 10 different committees and a member of the Science and Technology Committee for over 15 years, I have enjoyed some great committee chairmen. Battles on the Floor of the House have brought some moments of triumph. In the 13 years of opposition, I have much for which to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for the days when we collaborated in ensuring that education Bills were better when they left this House than when they arrived.

These past six years—with my huge thanks to my noble friend Lady Anelay, who appointed me—I have enjoyed the privilege of working as a party Whip. I have worked with a splendidly loyal flock, who have become good friends. However, with my fellow Whips and my fellow party Whips, I found friendship and a wonderful team spirit, and I thank my team-mates for the collegiality and good fun which have made the long days and busy weekends almost a pleasure. I cannot praise too highly the leadership of our Chief Whip, who carries the great burden of that role with such a light touch and a great heart, and who makes those who work for him such a happy team. We are indeed fortunate to have as a chief someone who commands the respect of all sides of the House and the affection of those of us who work in his team.

I have so much to be thankful for in the huge privilege of 25 years of membership of this noble House, and I leave with nothing but praise for the work done here: for the quality of debate; for the comradeship and laughter; for the influence it has over the Executive in scrutiny of legislation, and for the work that individual Lords do in liaison with the public over issues which might otherwise be ignored.

Not only the Members but the wonderful staff throughout the House—the attendants here in the Chamber, the clerks in their many roles and the staff in the Library and the refreshment and banqueting departments—all maintain the best of tradition, and I salute them wholeheartedly for their professionalism and for their personal help and kindness to me throughout the years. I am both proud and humbled to have been a Member here.

Some friends have asked me why I have chosen to retire from work I enjoy. I can reply only with a misquote of one US politician—that I would rather people asked me why I was retiring than wonder why I was not. More seriously, there are persuasive reasons why I have chosen to go. I believe it is important that your Lordships’ House is constantly refreshed with new and younger Members without the overall size of the House becoming too great. For the first 20 years after I entered the House, I headed first a university, then a Cambridge college, and then I was involved with local authorities and schools, so I was able, like many noble Lords, to bring first-hand experience to the work of the House. As that involvement declines, I am happy now to stand aside, knowing that others, on these and other Benches, will bring fresh and current experience to the work of the House, and I know it will be the richer for that.

One other powerful reason is that I am, by God’s grace, still healthy enough in mind and body to build a life in retirement. I have a book to write—my fifth, although it is 10 years since my fourth was published—and I am excited about getting back to writing. I have a job to do to help my Cambridge college to raise funds for its teaching, and I have beloved family scattered around the world whom I want to visit. I do not want to wait to retire until these activities become less possible.

Of the many gifts that my darling husband gave me, none is more important than his oft-repeated conviction that “there’s always one more adventure”. As we whisked across the Atlantic several times and across the North American continent, dropping babies as we went, he taught me always to embrace the anticipation of “one more adventure”. And so it is in that spirit that I look forward to life in retirement as the next great adventure.

May 24, 2016
John Glen – 2016 Speech on the Advertising Standards Authority

Below is the text of the speech made by John Glen, the Conservative MP for Salisbury, in the House of Commons on 23 May 2016.

This evening, I want to raise an ongoing challenging issue with the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd, commonly known as the ASA, and related companies, including the Committee of Advertising Practice Ltd, the author and publisher of the CAP code.

I have been involved with two separate cases relating to the ASA on behalf of constituents. I intend to spend the balance of my time on the second, but the first is the case of Innovate Product Design, an excellent Salisbury company that provides a complete service to inventors, from patent search and product protection to design and prototyping and advice on marketing. It has had six complaints, not upheld, against it but still has outstanding concerns about the material subject to the ASA’s ruling and whether it was within the scope of the advertising code. I hope to resolve this with a meeting that I have asked Craig Jones of the ASA to convene with ASA representatives, but for now it would be helpful if the excellent Minister could confirm that Innovate has no outstanding ASA complaint against it and that it has never had a complaint upheld against it. It is a company that offers a first-rate service and there is nothing to suggest that it has misrepresented anything in its promotional literature.

The second of the two cases, which I will speak about in some depth, relates to my constituent Dr Alyssa Burns-Hill, PhD, MSc, fellow of the Royal Society for Public Health and member of the Institute of Health Promotion and Education. Dr Burns-Hill first came to see me on 13 November 2015 and explained that in November 2012 the ASA had upheld one complaint made against her. The first part of the complaint was that she was making misleading claims about saliva testing being able to detect hormone levels. My constituent believes that the study submitted as evidence was cited inappropriately in the ruling, demonstrating a lack of deep expertise in interpreting health-related data. The second part of the complaint was that she was being misleading in using the academic title “Dr”, as while she had a PhD, she was not a medical doctor.

Following the ruling, Dr Burns-Hill was told in an email from the ASA to change her website, business cards and publications to say only her name followed by “PhD” and then the phrase “doctorate in healthcare”, followed by the rest of her post-nominals, including her MSc and professional memberships. Dr Burns-Hill refused to comply as she felt it conveyed that she was the holder of two doctorates, a PhD and a doctorate in health. After being rebuffed by Lord Smith of Finsbury and Guy Parker, managing director of the ASA, she went through the extended process of an independent review at her request, while the original judgment was still published on the ASA website. After the independent review, the ASA partially admitted its mistake but still insisted that she had to qualify that she was not a medical doctor next to any listing of her qualifications. She had already made it absolutely explicit on her website’s “About” page that she was not a medical doctor as well as issuing substantial information on her qualifications and work practice, as was acknowledged in the ruling. Yet Dr Burns-Hill is held up by the ASA as a misleading advertiser, and is even referenced in the CAP advice and guidance.

Dr Burns-Hill refused to comply with this ruling, as she felt that the proposed remedy was still inconsistent with established conventions of listing academic qualifications and served only to justify the ASA’s initial ruling. In response, the ASA imposed sanctions on her, including taking out Google adverts claiming she was a misleading advertiser, which she claims has damaged her business and reputation in what is a narrow and specialist field. She also contends that, as a means of persuasion or sanction, the ASA is itself in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. She was also advised that to pursue the case through judicial review would cost at least £20,000—a prohibitive cost by any estimate.

Since first speaking to Dr Burns-Hill about her case, I have been in contact with the ASA and have been very grateful to have had an in-depth phone conversation just before Christmas last year. I subsequently received a detailed letter from Craig Jones, the director of communications at the ASA. None the less, my constituent still feels aggrieved, as she feels that the underlying issues surrounding her case have not been adequately addressed or remedied.

First, there are legitimate concerns about the transparency of the ASA in terms of its processes and in particular with regard to its status and relationships to trading standards. I have looked into the legal framework within which the ASA operates, and I realise that it will always be complex for a self-regulatory body with a legal backstop. I understand that the ASA is recognised by the courts and the Government as the “established means” for the purposes of section 19(4) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Judicial review is therefore possible because the ASA is recognised as a public body. However, the advertising codes it enforces are not enshrined in law; it is funded by industry and its council is appointed by industry, so it is also a self-appointed, regulatory body. I do not doubt that the legal status of the ASA is sufficiently robust, but it is extremely complex, and was certainly opaque to my constituent, a well-educated professional.

In preparing for this debate, I have even heard differing views from the ASA and from the House of Commons Library on the ASA’s legal position and authority, which I think suggests that there is unacceptable and misleading uncertainty. This has fuelled Dr Burns- Hill’s sense that the ASA is not operating legitimately and is not accountable in the way that statutory bodies are.

I am aware that similar concerns about the ASA have been raised previously in the other place by Baroness Deech. My constituent also feels that the recent South African High Court judgment against ASA Ltd reflects some of these concerns, and I understand that barrister Richard Eaton is raising questions with regard to the Competition and Markets Authority and its relationship to the ASA. I believe that there are some genuine transparency concerns here. The reasoning of the independent reviewer is not publicly available, and nor are the details of any original judgments that have been subject to revision, although it is noted when a judgment has been revised.

Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)

I, too, met the ASA in relation to a case raised in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are inconsistencies regarding transparency in the ASA? One of the challenges is that where complaints have been made but not upheld, parts of the investigation are still published online, yet other evidence is not published and is withheld from the public.

John Glen

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. She raises other issues, which I hope the Minister will pick up on in his response.

To return to my case, after the independent review process, the only avenue remaining is expensive judicial review. Dr Burns-Hill was referred to trading standards in January this year, three and a half years after the ruling, but only heard from trading standards today— as a result, I believe, of the tabling of this debate. That referral is only on grounds on non-compliance, despite my constituent asking to be referred since the original ruling in 2012 and reiterating that request to them in January and September 2013. Would the Minister consider an option for an advertiser to require a referral to trading standards after independent review, who would then conduct their own investigation?

Secondly, I am concerned about the depth of the ASA’s technical expertise. In October 2015, Lord Smith of Finsbury, the chair of the ASA, said in the other place that in 2014 the ASA had used expert support in only 16 out of 900 cases. My constituent strives to reach the highest professional standards, and is a member of several professional bodies. Because of her significant experience in the healthcare sector, she is well aware that individuals with PhDs can call themselves “Dr” without having to qualify expressly that they are not medical doctors. That is true even in hospital settings, where, for example, holders of PhDs in public health and psychology often work.

I believe there is a concern that the ASA did not pay sufficient attention to established academic practice, and, indeed, to the codes of professional healthcare bodies. I was told only recently that it consulted such bodies. That fact appears nowhere in the public ruling, and the evidence from the consultations has not been published. My constituent was put in the invidious position of respecting the authority of those bodies in relation to how she presented her professional and academic qualifications, and being confronted with the opaque authority of the ASA, which initially demanded that she use a completely non-standard way of conveying her qualifications and did not use the title “Dr”, as was her right.

An advertiser without the tenacity of my constituent would probably have passively accepted the substandard—and subsequently adjusted—ruling of the ASA, the suggested remedy of which was to include the phrase “doctorate in healthcare” throughout her website and on her business cards. If the ASA did consult on the established professional and academic conventions for displaying qualifications, why was the evidence of those consultations not made available and cited specifically in the judgment? If the ASA is not seen to make use of readily available expertise in such an important area as academia, it is difficult for it to retain its full credibility as a self-regulating body. Will the Minister require the ASA to publish when it has drawn on external advice, what that advice is, and by whom it was provided? That would surely be a sensible step to improve the authority and credibility of the ASA in such specialist matters.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is clearly an important personal issue in his constituency. Many of us have had cause to have dealings with the ASA, and, all too often, have seen it go far beyond its intended reach. No doubt it does good work in rooting out misleading advertisers, but are there not occasions on which it goes too far? I hope that the Minister will assure us tonight that it possible to achieve a balance between credibility and responding to constituents’ concerns. If we can achieve that balance, we can do better.

John Glen

The purpose of this debate is not to undermine the ASA—obviously, I am raising a very specific case—but I believe that its credibility is at stake, and that there are sensible steps that it can take to improve the transparency of its decisions and the way in which it represents them.

For my constituent Dr Burns-Hill, it is too late. She is left feeling aggrieved, because she had an uncertain basis for action given the opaque authority of the ASA, which required a remedy that did not fit her understanding of established academic and professional conventions. It is very difficult for her to have confidence in the ASA, given its apparent lack of relevant expertise in its dealings with her. I recognise that there is a difference between the academic recognition of a qualification and the implications of the marketing of that qualification to lay prospective consumers, and I recognise that the ASA’s role is to examine those matters. However, my constituent does not recognise the right of the ASA unilaterally to require an individual to adopt a non-standard use of post-nominals, when someone could work in a hospital and use the title “Dr” without the need to qualify it, if they were the holder of a PhD.

I am grateful to the ASA, and in particular to Craig Jones, the communications director, for their engagement with me and my constituents and for their detailed responses to date. They have sought to answer my questions and address the case as far as possible. However, I have raised this matter today on the Floor of the House as my constituent still feels aggrieved and besmirched. I want to give satisfaction to my constituent on this matter and I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to address the specific points I have raised. I would also be grateful if he would use the authority of his office to facilitate a meeting between the ASA and Innovate, the first set of constituents. I very much look forward to hearing his response.

May 24, 2016
Jacqui Smith – 2008 Speech at the Philip Lawrence Awards

Below is the text of the speech made by Jacqui Smith, the then Home Secretary, on 2 December 2008.

I am very pleased to be here today to meet the Philip Lawrence Award winners.

The Awards recognise the tremendous achievements of the many young people spending their own time to make a positive change in their communities.

Not only that, but they stand as a tremendous tribute to the memory Philip Lawrence and as a testament to the determination of Frances to honour that memory in a very meaningful way.

Continued support for the Awards

It is my privilege to be here today to show our continued support for the Awards that were first set up by Michael Howard in 1996 with the full approval of Frances.

She has been a great example to us all over the years and the Awards have provided an important platform for recognising the many people who work so hard to combat violence, vandalism, bullying and racism wherever they find it.

Far too often in the media, young people are portrayed as criminal or yobs. But these youngsters represent a tiny minority of the youth of this country.

I share Frances’ view that every child is capable of greatness. I also believe that the vast majority want to play a role in making our society a better place to live for everyone.

Celebrating outstanding contributions

That’s why we are here today. To celebrate the outstanding contribution that young people make to our society. To redress the balance and to show that young people can – and do – make a positive contribution to our communities.

The fact that we received so many nominations from all around the country clearly demonstrates the positive impact that young people are having across our towns and cities every day.

I met the initial panel in September when they were sifting through the mountain of entries and I have to say they had their work cut out for them. But the effort was well worth it and what fantastic winners we have.

We have ‘Reclaim’ from Manchester who have been working hard to challenge negative stereotypes and behaviour, as well as tackling youth violence in their area.

Giving young people a voice on social issues

We are also recognising the work of the ‘Young Muslim Voices Listen Up’ Project in London.

This particular group gives young people a voice on social issues through film, music, discussion, and even sports – as we saw with the ‘Kick Islamaphobia’ football tournament.

That particular scheme involved two local Mosques, Arsenal Football Club, Connexions and the Police.

Other winners hail from Ayrshire and Yorkshire and from the Midlands to Merseyside. Each group has shown how young people can work together to deal with some really challenging issues like strengthening links across the generations; sexual health; drug abuse and knife crime.

The commitment, enthusiasm and energy of these young people stands as an example to us all of how we can work together to tackle these issues head-on.

At the same time, they are building new skills, forging new friendships and setting the foundations for the stronger communities we all want to see.

I know that many previous winners have gone on to be involved with the Philip Lawrence Awards through joining the judging panel or taking part in interviews or other events. This is also something that I’m sure this year’s winners will want to do as well.

Positive about the future

Before I finish, I want to make one more point.

What’s very clear from today is that we don’t live in a ‘broken Britain’. In fact, seeing the energy and commitment of the groups represented here today, I believe we can be quite positive about the future.

You only need to meet some of the young people here to know that there are all sorts of people up and down our country giving up their own time for others.

So I’m thrilled to have had the opportunity to be here and I want to congratulate you all again on your achievements.

Thank you.

May 23, 2016
Jacqui Smith – 2008 Speech on Preventing Violent Extremism

Below is the text of the speech made by Jacqui Smith, the then Home Secretary, at the Conference on Preventing Violent Extremism on 10 December 2008.

Good morning.

It may only be the second Prevent Conference, but we have come a long way over the past year and for that I want to thank you for all your hard work.

The importance of our work has been brought into stark relief by recent events.

The horrific and savage attacks on innocent people across Mumbai demonstrate all too clearly that terrorists do not care who they kill.

The victims were Muslim… they were Sikh… they were Hindu… they were Jewish… they were Christian… indeed, whatever faith they were, it’s clear that the terrorists made no distinction.

In September, we saw an attack at the Marriott in Islamabad. Again, innocent people were killed and maimed indiscriminately – taking no account of age, colour or religion.

And going back through all the terrorist attacks in recent years, we have seen the same tale of horror and misery repeated, including here in the UK – in London, in Glasgow and in Exeter.

Our sympathy goes out to the families of all those killed and injured – not just in India or Pakistan or Britain, but in every country that has had the misfortune to suffer from such attacks.

But again we are left asking “Why?”

There are extremists out there who suggest that these attacks can somehow be justified by some twisted interpretation of Islam. They cannot. Indeed, many of the victims of these attacks were themselves Muslim.

That’s why so many groups around the world have utterly condemned these terrorist acts.

Influential religious bodies in both India and Pakistan have this year proclaimed suicide bombing to be forbidden by Islam. Former high-profile terrorist supporters have denounced the use of violence.

And here in the UK – The Hindu Forum of Britain, the British Muslim Forum, and the Muslim Council of Britain have all come out to condemn the terrorist atrocities in Mumbai, to name just three from a long list.

It is clear that violent extremists do not truly represent any religion or community. They are simply criminals and terrorists.

Rapidly evolving terror threat

It is also clear we are facing a rapidly evolving terror threat that spans the globe, as well as being relevant at local level.

As such, we all have a duty to be even more prepared, more vigilant and more determined than ever to prevent further terrorist attacks taking place – no matter where that threat arises.

As you know, the threat level in the UK remains severe. In other words, an attack is highly likely.

The police and the security services are working all-out to disrupt and negate that threat. But we also need the public to remain vigilant – to trust their instincts; to pass information to the police; and to keep our shared responsibility to help keep each other safe.

In addition, we have to make sure the infrastructure is in place at national level and international level – whether that means getting the right legislation on the books or enhancing coordination across the various agencies.

However, even that will not be enough. We cannot simply arrest our way out of the threat.

That’s why our long term strategy is ultimately about stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism in the first place.

That is why we have to work particularly hard at local level to make sure that we are tackling violent extremism before it can take root – before the ideologies of fear and hatred can infiltrate and poison our society.

And that is why your work with Prevent is so important.

More funding for Prevent

You are key in delivering this – and as we will hear from Hazel in a moment – it’s already working.

I know that Hazel will want to talk about the success of the Pathfinders scheme, so I won’t go into any detail myself. However, I do want to commend the police for the way they have responded to the challenges of Prevent.

The Police have recognised that the community needs to be at the heart of their strategy in tackling this threat. They have prioritised a partnership approach that includes working closely with schools, colleges, universities, and across communities.

This marks real progress and to support these activities even further, we are funding more than 300 new Prevent police posts over three years.

£16 million will be spent this year creating new posts across 24 priority forces, as well as funding several other initiatives such as the Channel programme, which is currently up and running in 6 forces.

I’ll just say a little bit about Channel since it is an excellent example of partnership in practice.

This scheme identifies individuals that may be vulnerable to getting swept up in violent extremism and refers them toward multi-agency support.

Since it started in April 2007, the two pilot sites in London and the North West have received over 100 referrals. We are going to expand this further and the aim is that by the end of the financial year, we will bring the total number of sites up to approximately 25 operating across 12 police forces.

Prevent is still a relatively new strategic programme and I think the successes we’ve seen to date show that it is effective. But as always, there is more to do.

I am determined to make sure that we continue to support your efforts and, to that end, I am delighted to announce we have just granted a further £5.8 million to Prevent.

This funding comes in addition to the £12.5 million we announced in June this year and the extra money will be used at local level to fund a wide range of projects to disrupt radicalisers, strengthen institutions and support vulnerable individuals.

Future projects

One project we have in mind is a scheme to develop a Pan-London Somali Youth forum that will operate across 16 boroughs and work with Somali youths who may be vulnerable to radicalisation.

Another programme we’ve identified involves boosting the Prevent capacity and capability in universities.

We are not stopping there though. A further £5 million will be made available this financial year for local authorities, government offices and the police in support of our work in schools and colleges.

Focusing on younger age groups is important and these funds will help local schools and colleges put into practice the advice in the DCSF toolkit that Ed Balls published in October.

We are constantly analysing our performance and trying to find out how we can do more. We are also listening to you.

That’s why, for example, Hazel and I will be setting out simply and clearly how all these different funding streams will sit together ahead of the next financial year.

Some of you have also raised the point that your would like more information about the threats and vulnerabilities in your area.

So from the New Year we are introducing a process for sharing information that will enable all local authority chief executives and police borough commanders to see a ‘CT local profile’.

This includes an assessment of the vulnerabilities in a particular area, as well as an analysis of the factors that can contribute to radicalisation. It will also detail further research on extremist groups active in the UK and the ideologies they try to promote.

Again, this is part of our commitment to ensure that you have all the tools and information you need to target activities and resources as effectively as possible.

Where necessary, we will support you with changes that can only be delivered by national government. As such, we have introduced legislation to tackle those who incite violence.

Not only that, but just in the past few weeks we made it easier to exclude from the UK any foreign national who promotes hate.

More than legal solutions

But tackling extremism cannot just be about legal solutions. It is about supporting those who have real knowledge within Muslim communities, who can point authoritatively to how violence and separateness are not part of our shared values.

A great example of how we are doing this is the work we are doing on the Internet.

We know that radicalisers use the internet to prey on vulnerable individuals. As a result, we recently worked with companies that provide internet filtering products to strengthen the protection they offer against online material that can promote violent extremism.

And for the first time tomorrow we will host a core network of people who will put forward positive messages from the British Muslim community on the internet, directly challenging the extremists that set out to groom vulnerable individuals.

This readiness to make a civil challenge to extremists wherever they are is important and I can illustrate that with another recent example.

A couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to visit Luton and see at first hand the ‘ambassadors for Islam’ scheme funded by the local authority and supported by the police and other partners.

This initiative is doing a great job working with young Muslims in the community. It aims to build understanding and equip them with the tools they need to counter extremist ideologies and develop them into role models of the future.

What is even more important than the skills they are learning, though, are the values that underpin the mentoring scheme.

There was a strong sense of pride in being Muslim AND being British. A recognition of what they could contribute and a determination to make the most of the opportunities this country has to offer.

These young people – like the ones I met recently at a similar project in Waltham Forest – are our future, just as much as any other group of confident, articulate, challenging young adults. So it is vital we get them engaged and the project is doing a good job on that.

But I have noticed something else during my visits around the country.

As we have rolled out the Prevent strategy and become more effective in challenging extremist ideologies, we have seen a greater challenge from extremist groups who are careful to avoid promoting violence.

Instead they cynically skirt the fringes of laws that rightly defend free speech to promote hate-filled ideologies.

They may not explicitly promote violence, but they can create a climate of fear and distrust where violence becomes more likely.

These are the groups that fail to speak out and condemn violence when any reasonable person would be outraged.

In many cases, mosques, community centres and other institutions are being targeted by the Far Right, as well as by those peddling their particular brand of antidemocratic ideology in the guise of religion.

On both sides, these extremists are trying to create the idea that being Muslim and being British are incompatible.

Clearly, they are not. But the lesson here is that we need to respond to the extremists out there who are working to undermine the democratic and inclusive values that these young Muslims exemplify.

Confident as they are, these young people are having to put up with threats, intimidation and general abuse and that is something we all need to make a stand on.

This is not the only example. Take the case of Derby where an extremist group sought to take over a community centre by worming its way into the management structure.

The community banded together and drove this outside pressure away.

We applaud that and want to support it.

That’s why we have to work even harder to ensure that we are supporting the positive individuals in our communities, especially when it sometimes takes real bravery to make a stand.

That is why we are getting money and support into the grassroots of all our communities so they can respond.

Emphasising all that we share

Tackling extremists cannot just be about legal solutions. That is why we are giving a strong governmental lead by supporting and funding those who promote shared values. And this is why we are calling for a civic, as well as a legal challenge, against those who seek to undermine us. All of these elements are central to the Prevent strategy.

Hazel has made this case strongly and David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has been up and down the country in the last few months setting out our position on key foreign policy issues.

He is responding to the legitimate concerns of Muslim and other communities, but he has also been very ready to challenge those who want to twist their concerns into a general critique of our inclusive and liberal democracy.

We won’t win the argument by running scared. And we certainly will not be intimidated.

The message is loud and clear – we have the intellectual, moral and emotional confidence to take on the extremists and we will defeat them using every democratic means at our disposal.

We must all challenge the extremists, racists, and apologists for both, and not define any community by its extreme elements.

For despite what the extremists may want, our country is not built on hatred. It is built on shared values – tolerance, compassion and a respect for democracy and the rule of law. At heart, it is about fair rules and a fair say for everyone.

The threat we face is significant. But our most profound response is to have the confidence in people of all faiths and backgrounds to stand up for our shared values.

The appetite to fight for these shared values is there and that’s why – despite what the extremists may try – I’m confident that we will succeed.

Britain has always been stronger and more united because of its rich mix of people and cultures and the values they share.

That is who we are, and that is why we will face down this challenge together.

May 23, 2016
Jacqui Smith – 2008 Speech at the Intellect Trade Association

Below is the text of the speech made by Jacqui Smith, the then Home Secretary, on 16 December 2008.

Today I’d like to address one of the most pressing questions we face as a modern society – how we secure our rights and liberties as individuals, at the same time as ensuring the wider protection of all in our society against terrorism, crime and disorder.

Balancing these individual and collective rights has always been a key responsibility of government. And in an era of rapid technological change, it is right that we should constantly satisfy ourselves that we have got the balance right.

Looking back over the year, we’ve seen the question raised in some new – and it’s fair to say, peculiar – ways.

In June, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden booked himself a footnote in the history books by resigning from parliament and the Conservative front-bench, only to return to the Commons a month later.

And one night in April – less than a mile from here, just off Oxford Street – the artist Banksy left his calling card, with a piece of 30 foot high graffiti that proclaimed ‘ONE NATION UNDER CCTV’.

Eight months later, it’s still there – with a CCTV camera watching over it. And while it’s probably done wonders for the value of that gable wall, we’re entitled to ask how much this effort, and others like them, have hit the right target.

A nation under CCTV?

Are we, really, a nation under CCTV? Do we, today, live in what critics call a surveillance society?

I don’t believe so, not for one moment. But I welcome the debate. And while not condoning graffiti per se, I understand the need to keep revisiting these issues in an open and democratic society.

We are – all of us, as citizens, consumers, businesses and government – now presented with a host of new ways to capture, analyse and use data.

And there are clear benefits:

– retailers, banks, and insurance companies delivering more personalised and efficient services

– nurseries using online webcams to reassure parents that their children are in good hands

– sat nav technology making people’s everyday lives easier, whether it’s working out the route of a journey or accessing information from your mobile phone

– strengthening the frontline against crime, with handheld computers and mobile fingerprint devices meaning the police can spend more time out of the station

In the space of a century, we have moved from setting up the first fingerprint branch in Scotland Yard in 1901 to the regular use of DNA today to extend and backdate the ability to investigate crime.

To put it another way, we have seen elementary policing progress from the deductions of Sherlock Holmes and his dear sidekick right through to the forensic use of the discoveries of Francis Crick and Dr Watson’s namesake.

These developments have brought opportunities and challenges in their wake.

In some cases, like with DNA or the use of covert surveillance powers, it means rethinking our regulations and ensuring high standards of safeguards.

In other cases, as with the rapid growth of online communications, new technology demands that we find new ways to maintain the protections we currently rely on for the public good.

Early in the new year, we will consult on how to best continue tracking information relating to serious and organised crime and terrorism in this new environment.

As today’s verdict in the trial for the murder of Rhys Jones has shown, communications data can form an important part of prosecution evidence. And indeed this information – on the fact that communication has taken place, but not on its content – plays a role in some 95% of all really serious criminal cases, such as murder, drugs trafficking, and child sex abuse.

If this capability isn’t to be lost due to the growth of online communications, it’s clear that we need to respond and adapt to technological change.

As always, of course, new technology presents opportunity gaps for criminals as well – a set of early adopters if ever there was one, always on the look-out for new ways to exploit weaknesses.

Identity fraudsters, child pornographers, and international terrorists – all have made extensive use of the internet. And, our response – working with industry on the responsible use of social networking sites, for example, or to develop filtering software – has had to adapt constantly to stay ahead of the game.

One thing is clear. The eager take-up of innovation in the consumer sector does not mean that government itself can proceed without caution, or without robust safeguards in place.

Common sense guidelines

The public expect us to make use of technology to protect them – and that is a clear priority for me. We would be failing in our duty to do otherwise.

When we talk about fingerprints…CCTV cameras…DNA swabs…or scanning machines at airports…I think that people instinctively understand that these technologies, used properly, are vital tools against crime, terrorism and illegal immigration.

But I also recognise the absolute necessity of getting the balance on privacy right.

And so today I want to set out some basic tests, and set out the direction of travel for some of our key policies.

Are there appropriate safeguards in place – to keep data secure, for example, and to provide independent oversight where appropriate – as we have progressively built into how the National Identity Scheme operates?

Are we being as transparent as possible – and as with ID cards, how do we provide individual citizens with the right level of choice and control?

Where surveillance powers are used, are they kept in proportion to the damage and the threat they are seeking to prevent?

And perhaps the toughest question of all – does it stand up to the test of common sense?

Safeguards, openness, proportionality and common sense.

For the public to have confidence that we will protect them and protect their rights, it is our responsibility as a government to ensure that these standards apply even as technology evolves.

RIPA consultation

Ten days ago, on a trip to Tower Hamlets, I saw how an entire neighbourhood had had their daily lives made a misery for months by the behaviour of people in one particular flat – until the local council and the police got a premises closure order and boarded it up. That order was only made possible because covert CCTV had helped capture the evidence of anti-social behaviour and crime.

There are literally hundreds of cases like this, where the police and local authorities access investigatory powers like covert surveillance and communications data under RIPA – the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act – and use these powers fairly and squarely to help law-abiding people to hit back against the yobs and bring criminals to book.

But even as we recognise the usefulness of RIPA, we have to be sure that it is being used properly. Even with the clear safeguards that RIPA requires for the use of communications data and covert surveillance, I am concerned at the level of misunderstanding there is about what these powers are, who has access to them, and what they can be used for.

Let’s be clear. RIPA is not anti-terror legislation, as is sometimes suggested. RIPA limits the use of investigatory powers, and makes sure they are used properly and proportionately. The legislation provides for oversight by independent commissioners and routes for individuals to complain if they feel the use of these powers has been unjustified.

While most of the investigations local authorities carry out are important – like protecting the public from dodgy traders, trapping fly tippers who dump tonnes of rubbish on an industrial scale across the countryside, or tackling the misery caused by noisy and disruptive neighbours – there are clearly cases where these powers should not be used.

I don’t want to see them being used to target people for putting their bins out on the wrong day, for dog fouling offences, or to check whether paper boys are carrying sacks that are too heavy.

Local council requests amount to a tiny proportion of the overall numbers – but nonetheless, it’s essential to make sure we’ve got the balance right. And it’s these tales of ‘dustbin Stasi’ and examples of excessive intrusion that give the responsible and respectable use of the powers a bad name.

Early next year, we will consult on a number of proposed changes to RIPA – and we will look at:

– revisions to the Codes of Practice that come under the Act;

– which public authorities can use RIPA powers; and

– raising the bar for how those powers are authorised, and who authorises their use.

One question I will be asking of local authorities is whether the powers are authorised at a high enough level. Would it reinforce public confidence, and avoid frivolous use of the powers, if they could only be done with the consent of a senior executive, and subject to a form of oversight from elected councillors?

I am determined to maintain robust powers to tackle crime and disorder. But to allay public fears of excessive intrusion, and to keep people’s trust and confidence in the wider necessity of these powers to tackle disorder, crime and terrorism, I am equally clear that we have to measure these efforts against our standards for safeguards, openness, proportionality and common sense.

DNA

The same principles apply to DNA evidence. Having looked at this area particularly closely over the past year, I’ve found there are few areas where the balance between rights and protections comes into such stark relief as on DNA.

The recent European Court judgement in the S and Marper case has put the issue back in the spotlight.

Many of you will have seen the response of victims’ families to the recent ruling – notably the family of Sally Ann Bowman, whose killer was convicted as a result of DNA taken after he was arrested following a pub brawl and subsequently acquitted.

I have real sympathy for all those with concerns that any move could undermine a system that helped trap Sally Ann’s killer. And I want to reassure Sally Ann’s father that I will not let that happen.

In this and other cases, we’ve seen convictions for serious crimes of culprits who had had their DNA taken and retained for a previous crime where they were arrested, but not convicted.

In May 2002, Kensley Larrier was arrested for the possession of an offensive weapon. His DNA was taken and loaded to the DNA database, although the proceedings were then discontinued. Two years later, DNA from a rape investigation was speculatively searched against the database and matched his sample. This was the only evidence in the case, and when found guilty Larrier received a 5 year custodial sentence and was entered on the sex offenders register for life.

These cases and others tell me that the DNA database is crucial to public protection. It not only helps to lead to the guilty. It helps to prove innocence and to rule people out as suspects.

There is more we can do to strengthen the dividing line between guilt and innocence. For those who have committed a serious offence, our retention policies need to be as tough as possible.

But for others, including children, I am convinced that we need to be more flexible in our approach.

The DNA of children under 10 – the age of criminal responsibility – should no longer be held on the database. There are around 70 such cases, and we will take immediate steps to take them off.

For those under the age of 18, I think we need to strike the right balance between protecting the public and being fair to the individual.

There’s a big difference between a 12 year old having their DNA taken for a minor misdemeanour and a 17 year old convicted of a violent offence, and next year I will set out in a White Paper on Forensics how we ensure that that difference is captured in the arrangements for DNA retention.

We will consult on bringing greater flexibility and fairness into the system by stepping down some individuals over time – a differentiated approach, possibly based on age, or on risk, or on the nature of the offences involved.

That may mean letting the 12 year old I mentioned come off the database once they reach adulthood. And it could mean limiting how long the profiles of those who have been arrested but not convicted of an offence could be retained.

We are also re-examining retention arrangements for samples. Physical samples of hair and saliva swabs that represent people’s actual DNA are much more sensitive than the DNA profile that is kept on the database – which only uses a small part of non-coding DNA.

This was a key point flagged up when we set up the Ethics Group under the National DNA Database Strategy Board, and we will pursue improvements to the safeguards around the handling of samples.

These changes will see some people coming off the system. But as I said, we need to strengthen the dividing lines between innocence and guilt – and so I want to do more to ensure we get the right people onto the system as well.

No matter when they were convicted, I want to see the most serious offenders on the database. That’s why we are working with the police to increase the number of convicted offenders on it, starting with those now serving time in prison for rape and murder. And we will also look at whether we need to extend powers so that the police can take DNA samples for a longer period after conviction and from those convicted overseas when they return to the UK.

As I said at the beginning, the use of DNA in investigations is one of the breakthroughs for modern policing. And it’s an area where I’m proud to say that Britain is leading the world.

The strengths of the DNA database can only be safeguarded if they enjoy the confidence and trust of the public – and so the changes we will set out in the White Paper will deliver a more proportionate, fair and common sense approach.

CCTV

It may disappoint Banksy to hear it, but one area where I am quite clear that we have the confidence and support of the public is on the use of CCTV cameras.

I mentioned the use of CCTV to help evict noisy neighbours. On a wider scale, CCTV has helped to reclaim our town centres and public spaces for the law-abiding majority. It’s playing a key role in crime prevention and in reducing the fear of crime – in turn bolstering the confidence of communities to stand up to vandalism and anti-social behaviour.

And it was footage from CCTV cameras, of course, that was crucial in the prosecution of the men who planned suicide bombings on public transport in London on 21 July 2005.

Up and down the country, MPs and local councillors are inundated with requests for more cameras on the streets.

And on the boulevards, too, perhaps – with President Sarkozy now arguing that France should follow our lead and increase the use of CCTV in public areas.

With the growing number of business-related CCTV cameras in operation, there are clear opportunities for closer working in the fight against crime.

I want to see more police forces follow the lead of Cheshire constabulary, who are now mapping out the location of CCTV cameras in shops and offices in their region, so that if they do need to access footage for a serious crime like murder or child abduction, they can get to the source quickly before the evidence is lost.

Conclusion

It’s by using new technologies and new resources in an innovative way – particularly when they’re combined with tried and tested approaches – that we can keep ahead in the fight against crime.

And where we can demonstrate that different arms of the state can tackle those who wilfully persist in crime or anti-social behaviour – like checking persistent offenders against TV Licensing and DVLA databases, and running checks for benefit fraud and council tax payments – I think there are few who would argue that it was not common sense, proportionate or public-spirited to do so.

At a time when technology is moving more quickly than ever before, and in an age where the public has never been better informed and more rigorous in their scrutiny of authority, it is fitting that the age-old question of how we get the balance right between individual and collective protections should continue to be asked.

This afternoon, I have outlined how we will continue to set the highest standards for ourselves in recalibrating that balance for today’s world, and how we will ensure that fair rules continue to be fairly applied.

Over the next few months, I want to engage the public in a discussion based on the protections and security we all derive from getting this balance right.

The public are our best defence against crime and terrorism. But I know they will not thank us if the systems we design to protect them are too intrusive. And so I will continue to put safeguards and openness, a sense of proportion and above all common sense, at the heart of everything we do.

Thank you.

May 23, 2016
Michael Colvin – 1987 Speech on GP Training

Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Colvin, the then Conservative MP for Romsey and Waterside, in the House of Commons on 27 October 1987.

I wish to raise the problems of the funding of general practice training for medical students. We all accept that primary health care is the foundation of the National Health Service, yet it is the one aspect that we need to take more seriously when medical students enter their clinical courses. It is an issue with which I came face to face when visiting the Aldermoor health centre on the edge of my constituency last summer. I wish to thank the head of that facility, Professor John Bain, for having sparked off the inquiry that led me to ask parliamentary questions on this subject and also to introduce this debate.

Everyone knows that there have been remarkable technical advances in medical care during the past three decades, and more can be expected. At the same time, there has been a matching growth in awareness of the importance of the social and psychological implications of being ill. General practice in this country must respond to both developments. Teaching medical undergraduates about medicine in the setting of the family and community and about how patients should be most sympathetically and effectively cared for outside the hospital is a special responsibility of all departments of general practice which have been created in the 31 medical schools in this country.

Such new departments face important problems. Most are understaffed and all are under-resourced. They practise, teach and research a discipline which attracts high public demand but which does not enjoy the drama of acute hospital services to catch the public eye or perhaps the public purse. Their teaching is necessarily based on small groups and clinical experience on one-doctor to one-student attachments. We accept that such methods are expensive of the time which would otherwise be given to patient care.

The shortage of university funding also puts pressure on medical school budgets. Although NHS funding may be well ahead of the rate of inflation, it is not ahead of public wants and expectations, and the ability of the NHS to supplement the shortfall in medical school budgets has been exhausted. One good way to guard against the misuse of high cost specialist services in the NHS is to promote their more sensitive use through more teaching of medicine in the setting of general practice, but this comes at a time when the NHS and medical schools are finding it difficult to fund this new and major academic discipline.

I shall say a little about the background to the debate. Just over a year ago, the Mackenzie report, which is entitled “General Practice in Medical Schools of the United Kingdom”, described the achievements of the departments of general practice in the years since the first chair was established in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the first chair anywhere in the world was established in Edinburgh in 1963. The report also described the problems that are faced by the discipline in the immediate period ahead, and referred to the need for simple and relatively inexpensive measures to be taken to allow proper growth to take place.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Professor John Howie, head of the department of general practice at Edinburgh university. As one of the main architects of the Mackenzie report, he is a leading campaigner for the implementation of its recommendations.

The interdependence of the links between the DHSS and the DES in the funding of medical education is well known. The DHSS contribution to undergraduate education, which is required under section 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977 for England and Wales and section 47 of the parallel 1978 Scottish Act, is recognised, or perhaps rationalised, in what is known as SIFT, the service increment for teaching element in the teaching hospital funding, and ACT, the additional for clinical teaching in Scotland.

It is difficult to quantify how much money this involves and what proportions represent the tertiary health care service, and the teaching and research functions of teaching hospitals, but the total sum involved is now between £20,000 and £30,000 per clinical student year, which, for 4,000 students in each of three clinical years, represents between £240 million and £360 million annually.

Alas, by a series of mischances—mainly historical—departments of general practice do not benefit from the notional budget, although their present and potential contribution to medical practice, medical thinking and medical education is considerable. Their need for service increment is as great as that of any of the hospital components of medical education. Their request for new investment to correct that anomaly is modest — £4 million a year. That is only a little more than 1 per cent. of the NHS contribution to teaching research in hospital specialties.

That raises three questions: first, is the cause a good one and does it attract widespread support; secondly, is it affordable and will it create benefit; thirdly, is there a mechanism for meeting the request or, if not, can one be found, and found quickly? On the first question, there seems no doubt that the cause of providing proper resources to allow properly supported departments of general practice to make a proper contribution to medical school and medical education is a good one. In the Green Paper on the future development of primary health care, Cmnd. 9771, the Government stated: However, the undergraduate course content varies widely between medical schools, and in some general practice still forms only a relatively small part of the curriculum. There is scope for greater emphasis on the role of primary care and its interface with the hospital and specialist services. This would benefit not only those who then decide to seek entry to a general practice vocational training scheme, but also those students wishing to pursue a career in a hospital speciality since they would carry with them a greater understanding of the central role primary health care plays in the health of the nation. No one argued with that during the consultation period on the Green Paper. When the Social Services Select Committee discussed it during the 1986–87 Session and published its report entitled “Primary Health Care”, it specifically requested investment in that area. Paragraph 25 states:

The case for introducing all undergraduates to primary health care is surely overwhelming and we suggest that University Departments of General Practice should be expanded to become Departments of Primary Health Care, not only to allow future general practitioners to be introduced at an early stage to medicine in the community but, perhaps more importantly, to introduce doctors who will spend their careers in hospital to an area of health care responsible for the majority of episodes of illness and which, to be successful, must integrate closely with the secondary care provided in hospital. Furthermore, the education sub-committee of the General Medical Council has now joined in calling for proper investment, which it sees as an essential prerequisite to the basic medical education of the nation’s future doctors. The responses to the Green Paper from the GMSC and the Royal College of General Practitioners, which are sometimes seen as representing the “political” and “educational” wings of general practice, are also agreed that the case presented in the Mackenzie report needs to be met urgently. The medical sub-committees of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom and the University Grants Committee have been equally wholehearted in their support.

Only today I received a letter from the British Medical Association, which sent me a copy of the resolution that was passed by the Conference of Medical Academic Representatives in 1987, which states: That this Conference supports the Mackenzie report and is disturbed by the low level of government funding which is available to academic departments of general practice. Hearts and minds seem to have been won across a remarkable and probably unique width of political, medical and educational opinion.

What about the cost? Of course, the £4 million for which the departments of general practice are asking is either a lot of money or not much money, depending on how it is viewed. Compared with the £1.5 billion that was the cost of the general practice prescriptions issued in England in 1985–86, or with the sum of about £10 billion that was spent on the acute hospital services that are used when patients are referred to hospital for investigation and treatment, the sum is negligible. However, for hospital doctors and future general practitioners, attitudes to the prescribing of drugs, the investigation of patients and the use of hospital services are learnt early in medical training. A more broadly based early undergraduate teaching with greater emphasis on the role of good general practice will produce a more balanced use of services, which will be better for the patient and less expensive for the nation. The investment of £4 million, representing 1 p in £50 of NHS resourcing, will be recouped many times over. It is good value for money.

On the mechanism, I am aware that active discussions are in hand involving, among others, representatives of the heads of departments of general practice and senior officials at the DHSS. Those discussions are mentioned in the recent GMC report. But similar discussions have fallen in the past because of legal advice to the DHSS that no mechanism existed to allow a payment giving the same benefits as SIFT to be paid by the NHS to ensure adequate base line funding of departments of general practice.

The purposes of the debate are, first, to hear confirmed the Government’s acceptance of the merit of the case being argued by departments of general practice; secondly, to hear from the Government that they accept the need to allocate an annual figure equivalent to £4 million at current prices to be paid through DHSS channels; and, thirdly, to ask whether a mechanism has been found to allow such funds to be administered, or whether such legislation is needed and, if so, when it can be expected. To work equitably and efficiently, the mechanism will need to reflect medical student numbers and to be available through the regional health authority budgets, or their equivalents in Scotland, where our 31 medical schools are sited. The distribution will need to reflect the different legal arrangements which apply and will thus need to be apportioned on the advice of the head of the department of general practice in each medical school.

My hon. Friend the Minister has a reputation for getting things done, so I should be grateful if she would reassure the House of effective progress on all three fronts. May we be told how soon the discussions, which in one form or another have occupied the time of three Administrations, can be satisfactorily completed? In short, will the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science acknowledge that they have a joint responsibility for funding medical education and get their act together rather than continuing to pass the buck to and fro?

May 23, 2016