UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • David Miliband – 2004 Speech on Public Services and Social Democracy

    davidmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Miliband at the Guardian Public Services Summit on 28 January 2004.

    I want to start with a simple point. I am here as a politician. And we are at an absolutely critical time in the life of the Government – the first Labour government re-elected to serve a full term, the only Government in Europe to be raising investment in education and health care as a share of national income, the first Government since 1945 to make the renewal of public services its number one priority.

    Day to day and week to week it is your decisions that help patients, pupils, victims of crime. But politics sets the direction, the investment, the purposes, the priorities. I want to use my short time to address the following: what is a distinctively social democratic approach to public services, and how we make a social democratic settlement for public services a reality in Britain.

    A Social Democratic Settlement

    I speak as someone who believes passionately in the renewal of social democracy – the project of civil, social and political progress that dominated reform, though not always government, of industrialised countries for most of the 20th century. The aim for our country is simple: to extend to all the life-chances of the most fortunate. And the challenge for public services follows directly: to create a public realm where security and opportunity are available on the basis of need not ability to pay.

    This needs more than good policies – though they are vital, and numerous in the work being done around the country. A social democratic settlement for public services aims to embed in the governing structure and culture of the country new parameters for public policy.

    We need services that are, and are seen to be, excellent or improving or both. But we need more. A social democratic settlement for public services would have distinctive features:

    – a social democratic settlement would tilt against inequality, giving greatest help to those in greatest need, and using the power of an active welfare state to change life chances;

    – a social democratic settlement would engage citizens in their production of public services; people do not want to spend their lives in meetings, but they will increasingly want choice and voice in how their services are delivered

    – it would embody the best of social partnership, making the most of the sense of vocation among public servants, and using this commitment as a spur to the most modern working practices, not an excuse for holding back change

    – it would have funding secure, sustainable and equitably raised;

    – and it would recognise that the public sphere cannot do it all, and instead thrives when it brings together the best innovation from public, private and voluntary sectors.

    If these are the aims, I see three central challenges to their achievement, derived directly from the ambitions I have set out. They go to the heart of the political and policy choices open to us today. They concern the role of the individual citizen, the purposes set by government, and the incentives for staff.

    Challenges
    The first challenge for a social democratic settlement is to ensure that universal services meet individual need. Neither rights-based paternalism nor choice-based consumerism are adequate.

    Some people argue that by definition mass services cannot deliver the personal touch. I disagree. Services for all citizens can be customised to the needs of each citizen.

    In education we call it personalised learning. Its key components try to learn from experience – strengths and weaknesses – of professional power and market forces. It depends on flexibility at the front line, choice for the learner, and incentives for innovation:

    – the education service can only be personalised when there is serious and ongoing assessment of individual student need; this requires the time of staff and the engagement of students

    – it needs school staff to be able to deploy a range of teaching strategies, so professional flexibility and development are key

    – the school and its component lessons need to be organised around the learning needs of the student, so that lesson times and timetables are informed by what we know about how youngsters learn as well as what they want

    – when students get older they need an increasing range of curriculum choice, within the school and including college and work-based alternatives; this requires integration of service between different institutions

    – and services in school must be properly linked to services beyond, which is the exciting promise of the new engagement between education and children’s social services.

    These foundations of personalised service cannot be restricted to the education service. From what I understand intelligence-led policing is founded on serious engagement with data; efficient hospital care depends on proper integration of primary and secondary services around the needs of the patient; this summit can deliver deeper understanding of the links and similarities.

    The second challenge concerns the relationship between excellence and equity. We see this in every debate, from Foundation Hospitals to university funding to specialist schooling. In an unequal society, how can excellent provision serve the least fortunate, rather than the most?

    There are two answers. One is to say we cannot; excellence will always be monopolised by the well-off, so a social democratic approach should be simply to tackle poor performance.

    I believe this is profoundly wrong. We must obviously tackle failure. But aside from the absurdity of trying to put a glass ceiling on the achievement of different services, excellence can be used as a battering ram against inequality.

    Education is a case in point. Since 1997 the number of schools judged effectively failing by Ofsted has fallen by 960 in primary and 227 in secondary, to 207 and 78 respectively. But tackling inequality of opportunity requires us to do more:

    – by challenging every school to develop a centre of excellence for itself and as a resource for other schools; this is the aim of the specialist school programme

    – by paying the best schools in public and private sectors to partner with other state schools and spread their good practice; this is the aim of the Leading Edge programme, which now involves 100 leading schools and 600 learning from them

    – by pooling budgets so schools can use each other’s resources to raise standards; this is how leadership development is being fostered in our 1400 toughest secondary schools

    – by promoting the development of federations of schools, and syndicates of schools, that replicate excellent provision.

    So excellence should be a resource for a more egalitarian system, not a threat. It can do more than set an example; it can be a locomotive for improvement across the system.

    The third challenge is about how we combine flexibility in delivery with accountability for results. No one believes every community has the same needs; but flexibility on its own can lead to poverty of aspiration and paucity of provision.

    It may be tempting to say that that strategies, targets, Czars and interventions are a diversion. But they are a reaction to the laissez-faire that led to low aspirations, provider convenience, limited innovation. We saw it in English secondary education in the 1970s.

    We need central and local government to speak up for the fragmented voice of the consumer, and make good the market failure that allows underperformance to continue. I stress the importance of local government: a Britain of a 100 strong, vibrant and challenging city governments would be a great place.

    But here are what I see as the bones of the settlement between front line providers and their funders in central and local government:

    – There must be public information on performance, produced in an accessible form, that commands the confidence of professionals and citizens. It should rounded and informed view of how different institutions are performing. That is why we are developing the idea of a School Profile, that will set out in an accessible way qualitative as well as quantitative information beyond the bare bones of raw and value added exam and test results. The answer to the limitations of league tables is more information not less.

    – There must be central intervention to set minimum standards. For example in the 111 schools with less than 20% of pupils getting 5 GCSEs grade A-C, and the 425 schools above 30% but underperforming given their intakes, we are intervening directly from the centre to help them make progress.

    – This central intervention must be in inverse proportion to success, and critically it should be an organised and systematic engagement with a single accountability mechanism. In education it is what we are now calling the ‘single conversation’: every school with an annual engagement with all its partners, central and local, to identify problems, agree priorities, set targets.

    – Choice between services helps raise the quality of those services; it promotes innovation and improvement; but it is most effective when it is combined with voice for individuals over their services, to help shape it to their need.

    – Some funds will always need to support central initiative – to tackle inequalities, to promote innovation, to spread good practice; but the aim should always be to end up mainstreaming it in front line services. So funding should be delegated as soon as capacity exists to the frontline, with full flexibility to meet local need.

    Intelligent accountability is the essential foundation of public confidence in public services. It can be a burden, but it is a vital one, because it supports improvement and challenges the lack of it.

    Conclusion
    Let me conclude as follows. Ideology without competence is a dangerous vice. But competence without ideology is a limited virtue. I believe our challenge is to achieve a consistent harmony of the two.

    A social democratic settlement for public services is vital for the future of the country – and most vital for those in greatest need. Enabling government, empowered staff, informed citizens. This is the relationship I have tried to sketch out today. I look forward to discussing it with you.

  • John Whittingdale – 2015 Speech on WSIS Review

    johnwhittingdale

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Whittingdale, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, at the UN General Assembly on 12 December 2015.

    Thank you Mr. President

    Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

    It is an honour for me to represent the United Kingdom at the conclusion of the ten-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society.

    WSIS is a crucial agenda for the United Kingdom. This review is a major step forward in our shared aim to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society.

    It is an agenda built on the inseparable links between access to ICTs, the protection of human rights and social and economic development across the globe.

    The UK has played a leading role in the evolution of ICTs – from the early development of telegraphy and the first submarine cables, to the work of the Marconi Company in radio-communications in my own area of Chelmsford. And that pioneering work continues, from the invention of the World Wide Web by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, right up to the development of 5G mobile.

    The revolutions in technology we have seen over recent years have transformed business, public services and access to information, education and culture. They are transforming the lives of billions of people for the better.

    We need to make sure that these benefits reach every corner of the world.

    Investment by the private sector, and governments, has delivered enormous progress in the last 10 years. 3.2 billion people are now online.

    But there is more to do to close the digital divide. Four billion people worldwide remain offline – most of them in developing countries, and a disproportionate number of them, women.

    That is why the UK has emphasised throughout the review that we must make an explicit link between WSIS and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

    In the UK we have kept our pledge on overseas aid by enshrining into the law the UN’s target of spending 0.7 per cent of gross national income on development aid.

    Many of the development programmes we fund are driven by information and communication technology.

    But for development to be truly sustainable, investment alone is not enough. We must also create an enabling environment.

    That is why we are pleased that the WSIS review emphasises the importance of competition, proportionate taxation and independent and non-discriminatory regulation.

    But governments cannot achieve the Information Society alone. That is why the multi-stakeholder approach – which brings together, governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia – is so vital.

    Our experience in the UK has demonstrated the critical importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. Whether it’s the rollout of superfast broadband to every UK citizen or keeping our children safe online, we have found that working together brings the best results.

    And let me be clear. ICTs do bring new challenges. As we become more dependent on ICTs so we need new solutions to ensure networks are open and secure.

    A year ago, the Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron, convened the first WePROTECT Summit in London. Industry, governments and other organisations came together, united by a determination to treat child sexual abuse as a global crime requiring a global response. A multi-stakeholder approach to a serious challenge that affects us all.

    Our resolve to combat child sexual abuse is mirrored in our resolve to tackle the use of ICTs for other harmful activities – from harassment to crime to terrorism.

    A vital part of digital literacy is learning how to stay safe online. In the UK we are helping parents make choices about what their children can access and giving them filtering tools to protect them.

    We are looking at the best ways to require age verification for some types of harmful content and at ways to tackle illegal online gambling, to prevent piracy and to protect personal data.

    And we are investing £1.9 billion in cyber security over the next 5 years.

    But Governments cannot successfully tackle these issues working in isolation. If we are to achieve the WSIS vision, then all stakeholders need to play their part.

    I would like to conclude by talking about freedom. As the Minister in Britain for culture and media and telecoms, I know that societies thrive when there is access to information, an independent media to hold the powerful to account, the freedom for people to express their opinions and freedom for cultural expression.

    But in many parts of the world, serious threats remain to freedom of expression and plurality of information.

    Online censorship, restrictions on social media, and efforts to restrict civil society, are all undermining human rights.

    Journalists live in fear of attack, intimidation, politically motivated persecution and arbitrary libel suits. And because the Internet has made millions of people citizen-journalists, these new activists and bloggers are also under threat.

    The UK calls on all countries to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    That is why we consider one of the major achievements of this review the affirmation that human rights apply online as they do offline.

    Without that foundation, we will not be able to realise the potential of ICTs for global sustainable development.

    In conclusion, the WSIS review has been a major step forward in our common goal to build an Information Society for all.

    That goal should not only be measured by economic development and the spread of ICTs, but also by progress towards the realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the opportunity for every individual to fulfill their potential.

    Our work has just begun. Let’s now move on to get the next four billion people online.

    Thank you.

  • Caroline Dinenage – 2015 Speech at Relate Event

    carolinedineage

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Dinenage, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Women, Equalities and Family Justice, at a Relate event on 17 December 2015.

    Thank you for the introduction. May I say how pleased I am to be here with you as you launch the ‘Breaking up is hard to do’ report. Thank you to everyone at Relate who worked so hard in producing it – not least Dr. David Marjoribanks, its author.

    And I also thank colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions for commissioning this important report. I know you at Relate have worked with a wide spectrum of distinguished specialists and professionals in preparing it, including officials from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ).

    Many of your findings chime with my own views on family justice. You want families to have the information and tools they need to make informed decisions. You want to give families the best possible chance of reaching a secure and stable arrangement. You want to help as many families as possible to find their own solutions – rather than falling into court proceedings which can be expensive and unnecessary. So do I. I will say more about that in a moment.

    But first if I might introduce myself to those of you I have not met before. And I have met a good number of the people in this room since I took up post as Family Justice minister. I have visited family courts, met judges, Cafcass practitioners, families going through separation. I’ve made it a priority to meet as many of the people who work in this important area of justice as possible. I haven’t managed to meet all the key players yet, however, but I am working on it!

    In the meetings I have had, I have been impressed by the professionals who work together to support separating couples to make the best decisions about their children and finances. Many of these people share my own view that the system could work much better for separating couples and does not yet sufficiently or consistently put children first.

    We know that it’s very sad when a family breaks up and an acrimonious split between parents can have damaging effects on children. When children are drawn into conflict it can lead to both emotional and behavioural difficulties. Children benefit most from cooperative parenting following a separation and a positive relationship with both parents.

    But from speaking to people who work in family justice, as well as those who go through it, I know that people feel there is no single source of authoritative, accessible information or advice on what they can do to resolve their disputes. Our own new research set out in the Varying Paths to Justice report tells us that people have a strong preference for avoiding court, which they see as daunting, particularly in relation to child arrangements. They are not aware of the options available to resolve their problems themselves and feel there is no clear ‘route’ for those who want to avoid litigation.

    This cannot continue. I want to build a family justice system around the needs of its users with a particular focus on the most vulnerable – whether these are children, vulnerable adults or victims of domestic violence. We want to support people during the most stressful periods of their lives.

    I want to support and incentivise separating and separated couples to make their own arrangements for their children and finances, wherever possible.

    There should be clear alternatives to court that help separating couples work together to make arrangements that are appropriate to their circumstances. Where there are children involved, parents should have the tools to help them make arrangements that are sustainable and can be reconsidered in light of the changing needs of their children, in a way that a court order cannot. Where couples are making arrangements about their finances, they should have a clearer understanding of what is fair.

    I want to foster a cultural change to enable people to solve their own disputes in a less acrimonious way and not look to government to do it for them – with the right tools and information, most separating couples shouldn’t need to take their disputes to court.

    That means mothers and fathers stepping up and taking responsibility for their own separation – where that’s possible – and together working through the practicalities, always remembering to put children first. And it requires a system that enables parents to do just that.

    I am a strong supporter of family mediation in the private law process. Mediation enables parties to take ownership of their dispute and helps them to reach an agreement rather than be subjected to a court order which one party – or both parties – may not want.

    However, I accept that there are other ways in which parties can be helped to make their own arrangements, for example the Separated Parents Information Programme (SPIP), or the website and call centre service offered by DWP to enable parents to resolve disputes over child maintenance.

    That is why I would like to see a responsive system which is not one-size-fits all. I want to introduce an end to end, user-focused range of services. I want to see a system which minimises the impact of separation on parents and their children. Our Varying Paths to Justice report shows that people feel they would benefit from improved access to clear and timely information around the options available to them to help them resolve their problems – especially online. We’ll be looking at that as we consider how best to help those experiencing separation.

    Let me be clear about something, however: reform of the system will not be about excluding lawyers. Some people will still choose to hire a lawyer to help them through the process. But they shouldn’t need to if they don’t want to. Some people, of course, will always need to go to court. Any change to the system must involve effective protection for vulnerable people so that their disputes are resolved quickly, in a way that minimises impact on themselves and their family. And the sad truth is that the courts will still need to play a role in cases where parents are not working productively together to agree arrangements that are in the best interests of their children. The law is clear that in most cases this will mean children continuing to have an ongoing relationship with each parent. We will be reforming our courts system to transform it into a service that is built around the needs of all the people who use it and which will fundamentally improve access to justice for citizens.

    That is what my colleagues and I at MOJ will be working on. I will tell you more about it as our work develops. We will certainly take on board the advice and experience of those working in family justice and the many experts and academics across the voluntary and other sectors who have important experience in this field.

    Thank you.

  • Robert Goodwill – 2015 Speech at British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association

    robertgoodwill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Goodwill, a Minister of State at the Department of Transport, to the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association in the Strangers Dining Room of the Houses of Parliament on 16 December 2015.

    Thank you for inviting me to say a few words this afternoon.

    It’s good to be here.

    I am very grateful to the BVRLA for organising the discussions which have culminated in this evening’s reception.

    There really is no substitute for getting the experts around a table and thrashing out some good ideas.

    And I must say that I am impressed that such a broad range of organisations including BT, Barclays, Diageo, John Lewis, KPMG, and Royal Mail have reached agreement on so many fundamental issues.

    Of course, my job is to look at all the different ideas and attempt to plot the best possible course.

    That means it’s rarely possible to please everyone.

    But such a clear set of recommendations certainly helps.

    Autonomous emergency braking

    First, I was interested to see your strong support for autonomous emergency braking.

    I agree that this technology has great potential for increasing road safety.

    The good news is that progress is already happening.

    The European Union has made autonomous emergency braking mandatory for heavy vehicles such as lorries.

    And I have been encouraged by what has happened in the US where, in September, 10 of the top car manufacturers voluntarily agreed to install the braking technology in all future car models sold in America.

    It’s a classic example of technology moving quicker than the need for regulation.

    The market, helped along by demands from buyers, and perhaps some gentle encouragement from government, is getting us to near-universal adoption of autonomous emergency braking technology far quicker than we could draft, propose, debate and pass new laws.

    I am also grateful for your recommendation that the government adopts a requirement that its own vehicles should have a 5-star rating from the European New Car Assessment Programme.

    We are currently looking at this very question – of how to best include NCAP ratings into the official government buying standards and your recommendation is a very welcome contribution to that process.

    Intelligent mobility

    Turning to your recommendations about intelligent mobility, I agree that a common set of standards would be a huge help in the development of this new technology.

    Not just for the industry and for consumers.

    But also to give Britain the best chance of leading the field in new designs.

    So we have asked the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles – funded by the government to work with the British Standards Institute, the Intellectual Property Office and the Government Office for Science.

    To map the existing standards landscape and identify what more should be done.

    Air quality

    Finally, I am really glad you picked up on the issue of air quality.

    Poor air quality results in thousands of early deaths each year across the UK, and the main source of air pollution is road transport.

    So there can hardly be a more important issue for the government or for industry.

    I am pleased you have called for the continuation of the plug-in vehicle grants.

    They have been a real success in moving the industry forwards.

    But we need to do more, so we will shortly be publishing a new National Air Quality Plan.

    It will show how the UK will meet European air quality standards in as short a time as possible.

    Many of the points you have made will need to be taken account of in that plan.

    Conclusion

    But in the meantime, I agree that the government has an opportunity to lead the way in many of its purchasing decisions.

    As you recognise in your recommendations, governments can make a difference not just through passing new laws or imposing new taxes, but by setting an example and raising awareness – whether of air quality or new car technology.

    And as we look at how far the vehicle manufacturing industry has come in the last few decades, we must also recognise that pioneering fleet managers in the private sector have been great agents of change.

    That you have got together with the BVRLA and made these recommendations shows that the spirit of enterprise and innovation is still strong.

    So we will continue to reflect on your recommendations.

    In some cases, we are already taking action, and I will be pleased to circulate your recommendations among my colleagues in government.

    Thank you.

  • Sam Gyimah – 2015 Speech on Support for Families

    samgyimah

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sam Gyimah, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Childcare and Education, at 61, Whitehall, London, on 4 December 2015.

    Good morning, it’s a pleasure to be here today at the Family and Childcare Trust, whose aim is to make the UK a better place for families, campaigning for affordable and accessible, high-quality childcare.

    As Childcare Minister, I am pleased to say that government shares these objectives. Support for families is at the heart of our agenda. We want to give children from all backgrounds the best start in life and deliver high-quality childcare that parents can access and afford, and that works best for them.

    And last week’s Spending Review showed how committed we are to supporting parents and families. Over the course of this Parliament we will invest more in childcare than any government before. By 2019 to 2020 we will be spending over £6 billion to support parents with childcare, £1 billion more per year, covering the free entitlements for 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds, Tax-Free Childcare, and the childcare element of the Universal Credit, which will provide support of up to 85% of childcare costs.

    The average market price paid for 25 hours of nursery provision for children aged 2 and over has risen by 69% in the last 10 years. It’s no surprise that working families struggle to find high-quality, affordable childcare. That’s why we are putting parents at the heart of our childcare offer and why we pledged to increase the free entitlement for 3- and 4-year-olds from 15 hours to 30 hours for working parents.

    What does this mean in practice? Working parents will continue to get 15 hours a week of free childcare. In addition to this, from September 2017, working parents of 3- and 4-year-olds will be able to get 30 hours a week of free childcare, worth up to £5,000 per child a year.

    Early implementation pilots will mean this will happen earlier – in 2016 – in some parts of the country. This will be an important opportunity to test what works and what doesn’t in delivering the extended entitlement before we roll out the additional 15 hours nationally.

    The reforms mean that along with the introduction of Tax-Free Childcare, which will provide support worth up to £2,000 per child per year, working families with 2 children could have claimed support with childcare costs worth up to £40,000 by the time both children go to school.

    We’re making this investment because of the benefits for children – with development and school readiness – but also to give families greater choice to work or work without being put off by childcare costs.

    30 hours eligibility

    There is a lot of speculation over eligibility. Every 3- and 4-year-old child will still get 15 hours free – the existing universal entitlement for 3- and 4-year-olds – which has very high take-up of 96%.

    Studies like the ‘Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education’ (EPPSE) study – carried out by academics at the Institute of Education, University of Oxford, and Birkbeck, University of London, has shown how successful the 15 hours is for educational attainment and that’s why it’s so important.

    Parents will be able to access the additional 15 hours if they each work at least the equivalent of 16 hours per week at the national minimum wage or living wage, including those who are self-employed, and the same threshold will apply in the case of lone-parent households. On current minimum wage levels, anyone earning more than around £107 a week will be eligible.

    We are setting an income cap set at £100,000, whereby parents earning more than that won’t be able to access the additional entitlement, although we’re not talking about a combined income here, but rather if one parent’s salary exceeds £100,000. This cap puts the extended entitlement in line with the tax system and means support is targeted at those who need it most.

    We also recognise that families have different circumstances which need to be taken into account.

    Parents working on zero-hours contracts will be eligible so long as they meet the criteria I just mentioned. Where one parent is employed, but the other has substantial caring responsibilities or one parent is disabled, the family will be eligible. Where both parents are employed, but one or both parents are temporarily away from the workplace, for example on maternity or adoption leave, the additional free hours will still be available, which will support continuity for families.

    Quality

    Quality is at the heart of what we are offering parents through the entitlements. Because we know it is quality of provision that delivers the best outcomes for young people, helping to prepare them for school and with their development more broadly.

    At August 2015, 85% of providers on the early years register were rated good or outstanding for overall effectiveness. Ratings for providers in the most deprived areas have improved from 59% good or outstanding in 2010 to 79% good or outstanding in 2015. Congratulations to all the providers in the sector for delivering this high-quality provision.

    We have confirmed that we will not adjust statutory staff-to-child ratios to deliver our pledge to offer more free childcare; and I will reiterate today that ratios won’t change. As the costs of childcare review we carried out shows, there are large benefits to operating at the statutory ratio of 1:8 and high-quality provision is delivered by providers who make the most of the flexibility offered by the current regulatory requirements.

    And we’re making sure we have the best-quality staff.

    The qualification level of the early years workforce has been rising – in group daycare settings 87% of the workforce have a relevant level 3 qualification and many members of the workforce have qualifications beyond this. We know this is important because leading international educational experts have found that staff qualifications are “one of the strongest predictors of the quality of early childhood education and care”.

    We have provided specialist training for some of our highest-quality graduates through early years initial teacher training; we have set clear qualification requirements for staff working in childcare settings so that they have a solid grounding in supporting children’s learning; and we have provided funding to help deliver on-the-job training and development for childcare staff.

    But I want to do more to make sure young people consider the early years as a career of choice and a sector in which they can pursue a long-term career full of potential. And I want those already working in the sector to have the opportunity to enhance their skills and to pursue qualifications that enable them to progress.

    I want us to do all we can to improve career progression routes. So through a workforce strategy I will explore how we can develop a career structure for all staff, as well as put in place a clear career path for apprentices in the sector.

    This is a key priority for me going forward.

    Funding places

    As well as being high-quality, we want to ensure that a free place for parents is exactly that, a free place.

    Through the investment we announced at the Spending Review we are setting a level of funding that will enable childcare providers to deliver high-quality care for children and parents, while at the same time providing value for money to the taxpayer. The overall increase in funding for childcare includes £300 million a year from 2017 to 2018 to increase the national average hourly funding rate paid to providers for the free entitlements. The new average hourly rate is £4.88 for 3- and 4-year-olds and £5.39 for 2-year-olds, and the equivalent rate per carer for 3- and 4-year-olds is £39. We based this funding on a comprehensive review of childcare costs, including careful assessment of 2,000 replies we had to the funding review, with input from all the leading sector organisations.

    We were the only party at the general election to commit to raise the average funding rate paid to providers and we have now delivered that.

    And we will make sure as much money as possible gets to the front line. I understand the way the local authority top slice works and how that leads to variation in rates across local areas, and that funding differs depending on types of provider. As the Chancellor announced at the Spending Review, we are committed to ensuring that funding is allocated in the fairest way and we will consult on an early years national funding formula next year. This will also consider funding for disadvantaged children and special educational needs.

    We are reducing bureaucracy – by simplifying and limiting the conditions that LAs can place on providers. And we are also looking at what else we can do to increase consistency across the country. We will consider whether we can support local authorities in drawing up agreements with providers and whether when providers form a statutory relationship with one local authority, they could then use this when setting up provision in other authorities.

    Availability

    We know that parents like a mix of provision, combining school nurseries – because they support school readiness – with childminding, day nurseries and other provision. We understand this and want to make sure enough places are created in the sector to support these choices.

    So as part of our spending commitments we are also supporting the sector with capital spending, and will allocate at least £50 million to support the creation of early years places. In addition, we will create at least 4,000 places through nursery provision as part of new free schools. And we will also consider why some providers on the early years register do not offer the free entitlement to see if we can make changes to encourage them to do so.

    All of this means that more childcare places will be created, giving parents better access to the childcare they need. And I want to make sure this works for all parents.

    We are opening up new sources of funding in disadvantaged areas through social investment. In March we launched the Childcare Investment Readiness Fund and we will announce the winning applicants shortly.

    This will help to generate a new culture of social investment in the early years market, supporting providers to grow. Groups such as LEYF in London have already effectively leveraged social investment and we want these success stories to be more widespread.

    I am clear that the free entitlement should be accessible by all eligible children, including special educational needs and disability (SEND) children. That’s why as part of early implementation of the 30-hours entitlement next September, we will be encouraging innovative approaches to providing high-quality, affordable and flexible childcare for working parents whose children are disabled or have special educational needs.

    We want to hear more about existing good practice, such as the Solent Teaching Alliance, which is delivering support for private, voluntary and independent nurseries – PVIs – with a focus on children with SEND, and Tor View School, a specialist learning community in East Lancashire helping PVIs in disadvantaged areas improve their support for children with SEND.

    We want to support parents with quality and availability of flexible places and help them to make informed choices. That’s why we have worked with childcare.co.uk to develop a digital app which allows parents to search for 2-, 3- and 4-year-old free childcare based on where and when they need it.

    Through the Childcare Bill we have introduced a requirement on local authorities to publish information and advice for parents on childcare in their area which will further support them with the information they need – from hours offered to cost and suitability for disabled children.

    Flexibility

    We know from the Facebook consultation we did over the summer – with nearly 20,000 members of the public – why flexibility and choice are so important to working parents. And, as a working parent myself, I know how important it is to find childcare that you are happy for your child to attend and which accommodates all your needs – from the parent who needs one child picking up from school at 3pm and the other from nursery so needs to combine childminding with traditional PVI provision to make drop-off and pick-up work. To the shift worker who works non-traditional hours.

    We want to support parents to make the choices that suit them in a high-quality way and this is what we will be looking at during early implementation.

    We have already taken steps to build flexibility within the existing 15-hour entitlement. For example, by encouraging local authorities to fund providers to allow parents to access early education hours between 7am and 7pm so that children can be dropped off earlier in the day or collected later. We will continue to encourage this flexibility because we want childcare to fit with parents’ working hours.

    We know that that this kind of flexibility is possible because we already see it in places such as Swindon, where at the Swindon 2 to 19 Academy the free offer for disadvantaged 2-year-olds is being offered over the weekend to support parents’ working patterns. In this case delivery works through a partnership between the school and a private provider, and I want to see more of these types of partnership.

    Supporting the type of childcare that parents need applies to all age groups, not just those under 5. That’s why we’re making sure that from September 2016 parents in schools will have a right to request wraparound childcare – before and after school, and during the school holidays.

    Simplicity

    A key message from parents during consultation was that a simpler system would help them – I’m sure that’s the message from providers too.

    With a range of childcare support from government it therefore makes sense that 30 hours matches up with Tax-Free childcare and that as well as the same terms of eligibility, because many parents will be eligible to use both the extended entitlement and Tax-Free Childcare, a joint application is being developed by HMRC which will mean that parents will be able to apply for both schemes through a joint online application.

    The Childcare Implementation Taskforce which joins up work on childcare across government will continue to work towards delivering a childcare system which is simpler for parents and providers alike.

    Conclusion

    Over the course of this Parliament we will invest more in childcare than any government before. We have made a strategic choice to invest in the sector at a time of austerity because we are on the side of working parents.

    We will build on existing successes – such as the 96% take up of the existing 3- and 4-year-old offer – to continue developing a childcare system which delivers for families. The decisions taken at the Spending Review and the Childcare Bill currently going through Parliament demonstrate our clear commitment to getting on and doing this.

    We will support children to have the best start in life, support families to work and, as a result, allow our country to prosper. But I know more than anyone that this requires an understanding of the childcare sector and working closely with providers, and I look forward to continued engagement with you as we do so.

  • Baroness Anelay – 2015 Speech in Geneva

    baronessanelay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Anelay, the Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, in Geneva on 10 December 2015.

    Thank you, Mr Chair.

    I would like to begin by paying tribute to the courage and dedication of all those in the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement.

    The British Government is extremely grateful for the extraordinary contribution they make – under the most difficult of circumstances – in alleviating the suffering of the most vulnerable, particularly in armed conflict.

    Their vital work complements that of states, as we work to build and maintain peace around the world.

    We in the United Kingdom are clear that International Humanitarian Law remains the most effective framework for regulating armed conflicts.

    That is even more the case as the nature of war changes, as we see new tactics emerge, and new groups take part.

    Tragically, the laws of war are being increasingly ignored – by state and non-state groups alike. Therefore, the need for an effective system to minimise the damage of war is greater today than it has ever been.

    Mr Chair, my message today is that we already have that effective system. What we need is – not new laws – but better implementation of, and better compliance with, the existing framework.

    If everyone complied, International Humanitarian Law would prevent harm to civilians, just as it was designed to do.

    That is the immediate challenge.

    However, it is also remarkable that unlike other bodies of law, there are no dedicated fora where states can discuss International Humanitarian Law. Where they can meet and take stock of its developments and challenges.

    While the Human Rights Council has a wealth of expertise to discuss matters of Human Rights Law, it sometimes lacks expertise on International Humanitarian Law. This has led to confusion and conflation of the two – undermining their integrity and implementation.

    That is why the United Kingdom has actively participated in the four-year consultation process to establish a new meeting of states, dedicated to International Humanitarian Law.

    The UK strongly believes that this new forum should become the primary focus for all future discussions of International Humanitarian Law amongst States. This is essential to ensure these two important areas of international law remain valid and relevant.

    Conclusion

    To conclude, we remain convinced that International Humanitarian Law [IHL] remains the most effective way to protect innocent civilians from the devastating impact of armed conflict.

    Whilst during the course of the negotiations at this Conference over resolution 2 on IHL compliance there were divergent views about how best to address the problem of non-compliance with International Humanitarian Law, we were reassured that every delegation agreed that compliance with International Humanitarian Law is a matter of the utmost importance.

    We hope that, despite the divergent views expressed during this Conference, States can continue discussions on this important matter to ensure a new meeting of states can be established along acceptable lines. The UK remains fully committed to International Humanitarian Law, to ensure it is enforced and its principles are protected.

  • Michael Fallon – 2015 Speech on Stronger Defence

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, at the Atlantic Council in Washington on 11 December 2015.

    I’m delighted to be back in the United States, a place where I always feel at home.

    That familiarity reminds me of something President Reagan once said:

    “Great Britain and the United States are kindred nations of like minded people and must face their tests together.

    “We are bound by common language and linked in history. We share laws and literature, blood, and moral fiber. The responsibility for freedom is ours to share.”

    Values under threat

    Our freedom was threatened by Nazi evil, and our nations united to defeat it, seventy years ago.

    Today it’s threatened by a new evil, Islamist fascism.

    This year we’ve seen its followers slaying innocent American people in a San Bernadino day care centre, French people socialising in Paris, and British tourists on a Tunisian beach.

    To defeat this evil we require unity of purpose and a total cross government response.

    That doesn’t just mean shutting down their online presence, stopping their financial support, preventing fighters crossing borders, and building up capacity of fragile states.

    It means calling out their extremist narrative.

    Those susceptible to radicalisation must understand that the way of ISIL/Daesh is a metaphorical and literal dead end.

    The only item on its agenda is the destruction of our nations and establishment of its own barbaric realm.

    Yet no one becomes a terrorist from a standing start.

    There’s a process of radicalisation.

    So we need to expose that Islamist ideology for the perversion it is.

    And we can’t deny this process has anything to do with Islam.

    These extremists are self-identifying as Muslims.

    As President Obama said in his Oval office address:

    “This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse”.

    But we mustn’t hand a propaganda coup to ISIL/Daesh.

    Their mouthpieces and apologists paint their war as a clash between Islam and the west…in order to sow division.

    Yet the facts are:

    …ISIL/Daesh kills more Muslims than any other group

    …and our anti-ISIL/Daesh coalition is made of many Muslim countries

    …who recognise

    …that what’s at stake

    …is a conflict between those who love life

    …and those who love death and chaos.

    Our challenge is to support reforming voices within the Muslim community, preventing the fusing of religion and politics and stopping the slide into extremism.

    At the same time, taking pride in what our 2 nations offer all our people whatever their colour, class or creed: not discrimination or sectarianism, but freedom of religion, tolerance and opportunity for all.

    Again quoting President Reagan…speaking here at the Atlantic Council: “Our consensus is built not only on what we’re against but on what we’re for. And we are against totalitarianism. We’re for freedom and democracy, for them without hesitation or apology.”

    We won’t discredit their poisonous ideology, if we are not true to those values.

    Use of force

    The use of force must be part of this total government response.

    There can be no compromise, no deal with Islamo-fascists.

    Those who murder innocents at a Christmas party with their co-workers, who behead aid workers and push gay people off buildings must be stopped.

    That was the message from UN Security Resolution 2249 which called on states to take “all necessary measures” to expunge the extremists.

    The US and the UK have always stood side-by-side against terror.

    Against Hitler; against Al-Qaeda; and as part of the anti-ISIL/Daesh coalition.

    From the very start the UK’s been flying missions in Iraq.

    We’re providing some 60 per cent of the Coalition’s tactical reconnaissance.

    And last month the UK Parliament voted decisively to answer our allies’ call and lift the shadow of the 2013 Syria vote.

    We are stepping up

    …alongside our US, French and Coalition allies

    …bringing the full force of the RAF to bear

    …destroying their infrastructure

    …cutting off their oil supplies

    …and locking onto their leaders.

    Multiple dangers

    But our recent National Security Strategy makes clear ISIL is not the only danger we face.

    We’re threatened by multiple, concurrent risks.

    …a resurgence of state based threats

    …an expansionist Russia

    …and a growing cyber threat.

    Collectively they challenge the rules-based international order on which our security and prosperity depend.

    We are a powerful partner today with capabilities and reach few, if any, US allies can provide.

    Tomorrow, we’re going to be an even more powerful partner.

    1. Bigger stronger, defence

    First, we’re investing in stronger defence in a more dangerous world.

    This government was elected to deliver national as well as economic security.

    That’s what we’re doing.

    We’re increasing defence spending.

    We’re the only major country choosing to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence and meeting the OECD’s goal of at least 0.7 per cent on development.

    This helps us stabilise and support broken and fragile states and prevent crises turning into chaos.

    Over the next decade we plan to spend more than $265 billion on new equipment.

    That money underpins the centrepiece of our Strategic Defence and Security Review, Joint Force 2025.

    To respond to increasing demands in future we’ll have

    …a potent expeditionary force of up to 50,000

    …made up of an Army Division, Maritime Task Group and Air Group.

    Some retired generals were concerned about the size of the British Army.

    Let me reassure them, Britain will remain one of the few countries able to deploy such a highly capable division in the field.

    And now we’ll be able to deploy…two self-sustaining strike brigades.

    At sea, we’ll have a maritime taskforce of new frigates and destroyers alongside, in the 2020s, the world’s second most capable carrier force.

    And in the air, we’ll have more F35s more quickly

    …delivering our carrier strike capability

    …and nine new Maritime Patrol Aircraft

    …protecting our nuclear deterrent.

    All of this and we’re enhancing our global strike capability with more investment in our special forces.

    Our new Joint Force lets us do more independently, but also more in tandem with you.

    That’s why we’ve made a point of investing in shared platforms

    …like P8, like Rivet Joint, like Reaper

    And with the United States locating their European F35 base in the UK

    …I look forward not just to welcoming you on board our carriers

    … as I was welcomed on USS Theodore Roosevelt

    …but seeing your F35s flying from our decks

    …and ours flying from yours.

    Two-way street

    So we have the will and the means to respond.

    As we become a stronger partner I want our relationship to become more of a 2-way street.

    We’re investing more in you and we’re expecting more from you.

    I want to see more contracts in the supply chain flowing from the majors on these programmes to British companies.

    We have so much common.

    Look at our areas of shared interest such as our nuclear enterprise.

    We’re spending almost $47 billion on 4 new Successor submarines.

    And the US is also looking to replace the Ohio… that uses the same common missile compartment.

    Look at our expertise in a huge range of areas.

    We’re building 15 per cent of each F35 produced, from tail parts to wing tips.

    We have unique Dual-Mode Brimstone missiles, bringing a high precision capability to the fight again Daesh not even the US have.

    Many of the companies we use have footprints in both the US and the UK.

    Illustrating a level of industrial integration that is unique.

    It surely makes sense for both of us to benefit from the industrial expertise that exists in our countries.

    2. Strengthening our influence

    Second, the UK is doing more to project our influence around the world and strengthen the international rules based order.

    This year UK forces were involved in more than 20 operations around the globe.

    We’re one of your few global partners.

    In Europe, we’re your closest ally.

    And we’ve been urging our European colleagues to up their game.

    The threats Europe faces on its eastern and southern flanks highlights the value of a joined up response, using our membership of NATO, the UN and the EU to protect our security.

    Britain has pressed the EU to play an important role as part of a comprehensive approach, mobilising its economic might to enforce sanctions on Russia and co-operate on security in the wake of Paris.

    None of this means giving up on our sovereignty.

    What it does mean we can have the best of both worlds: free to act on our own accord with the swiftness and strength that comes from being an independent nation; but working with a bloc of 27 other countries to advance our shared interests.

    But NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence.

    And at Wales last year our PM and your President, urged NATO nations to do more.

    Since then 7 countries have pledged to increase their spending.

    We’re also stepping up our leadership role

    …leading NATO’s high readiness Spearhead force in 2017

    …bringing six northern EU nations together as a new expeditionary force

    …and having a persistent presence in the Baltic states and Poland

    We’re also looking beyond Europe’s borders, doubling peace keeping efforts in Africa and strengthening our hand in the Asia Pacific.

    We’re elevating our defence relationship with India with more joint military exercises and co-operation on technology and manufacturing.

    We’re enhancing our relationship with Japan. In January, we held our first combined Foreign and Defence Ministers’ meeting in London. Next January, we hold the second in Tokyo.

    When it comes to China we’re clear.

    We want to work more closely with them and bind them into the rules based international order.

    But provocative behaviour in the South China Sea destabilises the region and increases the risk of miscalculation.

    We want to see maritime and other disputes settled peacefully in accordance with international law.

    We’re also investing more than $750 milion over the next decade…expanding our presence with British Defence Staffs in the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Africa.

    3. Innovation

    Finally, the UK will have stronger defence because we’re investing in innovation.

    The US’s 3rd Offset strategy addresses the erosion of the west’s technological edge.

    Our SDSR also recognises the need to keep ahead of our adversaries: in cyber, robotics, autonomous systems, and space.

    We’re putting $1.5 billion into an innovation fund to secure operational advantage in future.

    You’ve set up the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) to access innovation in Silicon Valley.

    We will be launching our Emerging Technology and Innovation Analysis Cell.

    …to identify game changing technologies.

    We’re also setting up a new centre to pool the intelligence of the best British brains in business, academia and the public sector.

    And, next year, we introduce a new defence innovation initiative adopting a different approach to risk and doing more to test new ideas.

    But we know when we work together we’re more than the sum of our parts.

    2015 marks 75 years since British scientist Henry Tizard set off for the US on orders from Churchill, armed only with a top secret briefcase.

    That precious cargo, containing blueprints for radar, the jet engine and nuclear fission, helped win a war.

    We’re building on those firm foundations.

    Today we’re collaborating on everything from F35

    …to insect-like Black Hornet UAVs

    …and quantum clocks.

    Yet as Defence Secretary Carter and I announced in London…we’re tightening those ties

    … working on emerging technology demonstrators

    …better use of joint war gaming to test out new ideas

    …and adapting new operating concepts fit for a new environment.

    Prosperity

    The opportunity that comes from innovation has wider applications.

    Defence technologies are often spun off in the commercial sector.

    Together we’ve given the world GPS, the world wide web, and splash proof technology.

    Recently British company Reaction Engines and BAE systems signed a deal to develop the SABRE (Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine).

    Its aircraft will operate at over five times the speed of sound and can transition to a rocket mode, allowing spaceflight at speeds up to orbital velocity.

    Once this was science fiction.

    Today our scientists are making it science fact.

    We need to do more to take advantage of this dual-use technology.

    Conclusion

    So, at a time of growing threats the UK is stepping up with bigger, stronger defence.

    We’re increasing our defence budget and the size and power of our forces so we can do more to protect our security.

    By doing so we are becoming an even stronger partner with our most steadfast ally, the United States.

    Open societies, successful countries like Britain and the United States, attract enemies as well as envy. The more open we are, the harder we must work to ensure that all our people enjoy the security that comes with greater freedoms.

    As we look ahead, we recall the words of Karl Popper who said: “We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than that only freedom can make security secure.”

    So together we will plan for security, for freedom and for prosperity.

    Together we will overcome the evil we face, preserve our cherished values, and open up opportunity for our people to make their mark

    Together, in a darker, more dangerous world we will continue to be a light among the nations.

     

  • Nigel Farage – 2002 Speech on Common Fisheries Policy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament on 18 November 2002.

    Madam President, it is on record that the outline regulations on the common fisheries policy were not agreed until eight hours after the Community had opened the accession negotiations with the United Kingdom in 1971. The head of the British delegation, Sir Con O’Neil, remarked that these two events were not unconnected. Prior to that there had hardly been any interest in a Community fisheries policy because the founding six had virtually no fishing resources. Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway all had rich coastal fisheries and they had been kept in good condition by effective conservation measures.

    O’Neil attests to this; experts from the British Ministry of Agriculture produced a report showing that British waters were literally teeming with fish, whilst there were very few within the fishing limits of the present Community countries. The main evidence for this is that Community waters did not attract foreign fishermen, while British waters most certainly did. After 30 years of the CFP, Britain’s waters no longer teem with fish. To paraphrase Sir Con: ‘These two events are not unconnected’. Yet still members of the Committee on Fisheries seem unable to make the connection. They call for more technical and human resources. They want more money for research. They want management plants, sustainable development, integrated policies, multiannual plans, the application of the precautionary principle and, wait for it, target reference points for biomass and fishing mortality. If jargon were the solution, Member State waters would still be teeming with fish, the CFP would be a world-beater. But all that jargon does is to hide an uncomfortable truth: the common fisheries policy has not worked, does not work and cannot work no matter how much reform is dressed up in flowery words. As long as fish are considered to be a common European resource, there will be no sense of ownership or responsibility. Predatory fishing becomes the norm. It is an inevitable consequence of the policy and leads to the depletion of stocks. Reform is not the solution. The CFP cannot be reformed. It has proved to be incapable of reform. It should be scrapped and fisheries should be managed once again by national governments.

  • Nigel Farage – 2002 Speech on Immigration

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament on 18 December 2002.

    Mr President, there are two aspects to this issue: firstly, the problem of excluding unwanted migrants from the European Union – or at least controlling their access; and, secondly, the reasons for migration.

    Excluding population pressure, political instability and regional war, it is clear that the main pressure stems from economic disparities. In short, the bulk of immigrants seeking access to the European Union Member States are economic migrants. Therefore, any successful policy must deal with not only the exclusion issues but also the causes of migration.

    Here it seems clear the European Union is making things worse. Virtually all its external policies in respect of third countries and its policies towards the candidate countries seem geared to causing migration from less-developed countries. The Union has rigid quotas, tariffs and other protectionist policies restricting trade with third countries. While it subsidies its own industries – especially agriculture through the unreformed common agricultural policy – and it dumps subsidised goods on the world market, all of this destabilises third-world economies. In terms of fishing agreements, the Union pillages third-world waters, instead of encouraging local industries. It also takes skilled, educated workers from these countries, depriving them of the building blocks of economic development.

    All of this cruelly exposes the imperialism of the European project. Instead of getting on with practical issues, you launch upon idealistic common policies. These policies are making the problems worse. It would make far more sense to stop damaging third-country economies, rather than embarking on these extraordinary new ventures. In other words, leave immigration control to the Member States – a policy that my party supports – and address the failures of existing policies. There it seems to me, in deference to the Council member present, you must try harder.

  • Nigel Farage – 2015 Speech at the State of the Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament on 9 September 2015.

    Mr President, Mr Juncker has simply got this wrong. As I warned in April, the European Common Asylum Policy sets its terms so widely as to say that anyone setting foot on EU soil can stay: I said it would lead to a flow of biblical proportions, and indeed that is what we are beginning to see. This has been compounded by Germany saying last week that basically anyone can come. It is a bit too late now to draw up a list, by countries of origin, of who can stay and who cannot stay. All they have to do, as they are doing, is throw their passports into the Mediterranean and say they are coming from Syria.

    As we know, the majority of people who are coming – and the Slovakian Prime Minister has been honest enough to say so – are economic migrants. In addition, we see, as I warned earlier, evidence that ISIS is now using this route to put their jihadists on European soil. We must be mad to take this risk with the cohesion of our societies. If we want to help genuine refugees, if we want to protect our societies, if we want to stop the criminal trafficking gangs from benefiting as they are doing, we must stop the boats coming – as the Australians did – and then we can assess who qualifies for refugee status.

    I noted your comments, Mr Juncker, because there is a referendum coming in the United Kingdom. I look forward to seeing you in the UK. I know you intend to spend tens of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money telling us what we should think. I have a feeling that the British people will warm to you on a personal level, but, as to suggesting that getting rid of a few EU regulations is going to change our minds, sorry – unless you give Mr Cameron back control and discretion over our borders, the Brits, in the course of the next year, will vote to leave.