UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Sarah Teather – 2010 Speech to 4Children Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sarah Teather to the 4Children conference on 13th October 2010.

    Thank you for inviting me here today and for your report, which is an extremely important contribution and I know is a culmination of a long piece of work and research. It is particularly useful ahead of next week’s spending review.

    I absolutely agree with your analysis. If we want to build any kind of society, let alone a big one, it needs to be built on units. The fundamental building block is family – families of all sizes, big, small, families that extend up through generations and horizontally too. All the elements of society exist in them. Many of society’s problems begin there and pass through generations. But so too are many of the solutions.

    As you say, families are a great untapped resource.

    So, if we are to build a big society, critical to our discussion is how we support families so they flourish and thrive. We need to look at removing the barriers that stop families thriving.

    This is the time for including families, and this is particularly true for the most vulnerable families.

    It’s the reason why so much of our focus has been and will continue to be on how we can support the most disadvantaged families. That’s why we’re making Sure Start children’s centres work better to help more families, recruiting extra health visitors, reforming the special educational needs system – because disabled children and their families have particularly important needs that can put a strain on family relationships, or making work pay to encourage people back into work.

    But the relentless top-down approach from Whitehall has not yielded all the results we want. People’s experience is of services being done to them and not taking account of them. They have been offered the wrong kind of help and there is a sense that they’re not being listened to. You can’t reach the most alienated families from a Whitehall office – we can’t do everything from the centre.

    We need to design services in a radically different way and encourage councils to think more innovatively. We need a different relationship with local government to fundamentally reshape the way we think about working with children and families. By removing ring fences on funding, changing how we deliver things and involving the voluntary sector more.

    This is especially important in Sure Start, where there is much more room for voluntary sector involvement.

    Penn Green, the children’s centre research centre I visited last week, has a fantastic track record of involving the community, and particularly parents. This is a model we need to learn from.

    But it is more than just about services. It is something bigger in vision – more difficult to achieve outright. Social capital is at the heart of what the Big Society is all about. It’s the links you have with others, the informal networks you are a part of that matter. Informal relationships offer people information, connections to work, sources of support.

    When relationships in your family get tough it’s the informal support networks that are key. Having somebody to talk to, other people who know what you are going through.

    The more disadvantaged you are, the fewer of those social links you have. Resilient families is what really matters. Building resilient families is partly about putting in place professional support and also about trying to create a society where people are less isolated – building communities – or putting in place the things that are needed so they build themselves, so that families of all types make connections with others.

    We need to create a society where people are less isolated – that’s the big vision. Children’s centres are at the heart of that, as well as churches, mosques, local clubs and even pubs – all provide ways to get to know people.

    Localising power down to local communities is not about getting things done for free, but about giving communities more power to find the solutions that are right for them.

  • Jeff Rooker – 1998 Speech to the British Poultry Meat Federation

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Jeff Rooker, to the British Poultry Meat Federation on 29th April 1988.

    I am pleased that I have been given the opportunity to address this lunch. It has long been recognised that the poultry industry represents a great success story for UK agriculture. A success that has come about with little or no support from the Common Agricultural Policy.

    Despite the lightness of the CAP regime for your sector the Ministry’s work does of course impinge on your industry in a number of ways.

    Firstly, of course, there is the forthcoming establishment of the Food Standards Agency. This reflects consumers concern about the safety of the food they eat. But it would be quite wrong to see this development as conflicting with the ideal of a healthy and successful food industry. In fact, the opposite is true: the Government believes that UK food producers stand to benefit both domestically and abroad from the increased confidence in the safety of our food which the FSA should bring.

    To back this up, we are building in safeguards to ensure that the agency does not impose disproportionate costs and burdens on British producers which are not justified on safety grounds. The rules under which the FSA operates will enshrine the principle that its actions should be proportionate to risk, and pay due regard to the costs as well as benefits to those affected by them.

    Moving on, I know from your Federation’s detailed and well thought-out response to the White Paper that our plans to shift some of the costs of food safety work from the taxpayer to the industry are worrying you. This question perhaps provoked the biggest reaction in our consultation, with many strong views voiced from all quarters. It is our firm belief, however, that the food industry stands to benefit in the long term from the new food safety arrangements, and that it is only fair that it should pay its share of their costs.

    But we do recognise that the area is complex, and we want to make sure that the final arrangements are both equitable and workable. We shall therefore be consulting on questions such as the scope of any scheme and the basis for calculating charges, including the need to take account of the size and type of the business, before we finalise our proposals.

    Still on charges, I am aware of your concerns over Veterinary Medicine Directorate charges for residues surveillance which will raise more money from the UK poultry meat industry than is actually needed to carry out the sort of cost-effective residue testing programme the VMD is committed to. You know, however, that the level of charge is set directly by EU legislation and that the Commission will be closely monitoring our compliance. I firmly believe that the extension of the VMD statutory programme to poultry significantly enhances the protection available to the consumer. All results from the programme will be published along with brand names for those above the action level and all such positives will be followed up with farmer and his veterinary adviser.

    I know the VMD have suggested ways in which to mitigate this problem. I have asked them to continue to be pro-active with your representatives and can assure you we will seek to re-negotiate the poultry residue charge set out in the EU legislation should the opportunity arise.

    The levels of salmonella infection in the national poultry flocks continues to be a matter of concern. The ACMSF has looked at this area in detail, and its Report on Poultry Meat provides clear direction for the industry. In addition, the Forward Programme for the Poultry Meat Industry, in which the British Poultry Meat Federation were involved, indicates the way in which HACCP can be applied in the slaughterhouse.

    I am pleased that the levels of salmonella enteritidis and salmonella typhimurium in broiler breeder flocks has been reduced. The policy of eradication in the breeding pyramid, which we have been concentrating on, does appear to be working.

    I hear that the level of infection in the broiler flocks has also reduced significantly in recent years – perhaps to as low as 10% in some cases. Again, this deserves recognition, but I believe further progress is possible. The ACMSF saw no reason in principle why the prevalence of salmonella contamination in chickens on retail sale should not be reduced to single figures in percentage terms, on the basis of existing technology. The Department of Health will be conducting a survey on salmonella in UK produced chickens on retail sale later this year. As you know from the White Paper, the scope for pathogen reduction throughout the food chain in general is a subject in which we propose the Food Standards Agency will take a close interest. The continued co-operation of the whole industry will be essential in order to build on the progress made so far.

    You may know that the European Commission has started its review of the original Zoonoses Directive. We will consult the industry as the review progresses.

    You may also know that, in December 1997, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) looked at the possibility of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies arising in pigs and poultry. Although it considered the risk to be small, it felt that recycling pig and poultry waste as feed for the same species could create the potential to spread disease, and recommended that the Government should remove this risk in discussion with our European partners. We have accepted SEAC’s recommendations and have asked the Commission to schedule early discussions about a possible ban on the use of poultry and feather waste as poultry feed within the European Community.

    With regard to mammalian meat and bone meal I should say that there are very good reasons why our own controls on feed are more restrictive than those in place elsewhere, in countries where mammalian meat and bone meal can be fed to poultry. The Uk has had far more cases of BSE than any other country. Consequently we have to maintain stringent controls in order to remove the risk of ruminant diets being infected, either directly or through cross-contamination, with the disease agent.

    Last year I announced that there would be a review under the Poultry Meat Hygiene Regulations, to look at the current exemption from licensing of those premises with an annual slaughter of less than 10,000 birds. This exemption affects both on-farm production and small slaughterhouses. The issue relates to the European Community wide prohibition on the production of New York dressed poultry, to issues of food safety and to the maintenance of a level playing field for all of the poultry industry.

    This review is now under way within the Ministry, and we plan to have proposals ready for consultation in the summer. As I have promised, there will be a full public consultation, including the industry. The review will address all aspects of the issue, and consider all the practicalities of the various options available. I look forward to receiving the contributions of this Federation and of this industry to our proposals.

    There are, of course, other policy areas that are of concern to you as producers, such as animal welfare and environmental protection measures.

    It is important to strive to improve minimum standards on animal welfare. Obviously this is best done at international level if we are to achieve real improvements and not just open up our market to products produced elsewhere to lower welfare standards. There are encouraging signs of progress on this front but realistically the adoption of agreed EU minimum standards is likely to take some time. Meanwhile, as you know, there are pressures on us to legislate at national level and consumers and retailers are continuing to demand reassurance as to welfare standards. It is important therefore to show that progress is being made voluntarily by the industry to improve welfare.

    You will all also be aware that the public is more conscious of the impact of agriculture on the environment. It is important that the industry takes a responsible attitude to how it organises its various operations, and takes care that those which might cause pollution do not do so.

    The Ministry provides advice on preventing pollution, for example, through the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice. In the near future there will be legislation aimed at requiring an integrated approach. The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive will affect a wide range of businesses, including some in agriculture. Of specific interest to you is the fact that it will apply to poultry businesses which have more than 40,000 birds. It will also apply to installations which process raw animal material including poultry meat, as well as slaughterhouses and animal renderers.

    The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is in the lead on the implementation of this Directive, but the Ministry is closely involved in the discussions and you have been, and will continue to be, consulted as the implementation process develops towards legislation and the guidance to comply with that legislation.

    Agriculture, including poultry businesses, will also be affected by the development of the EU Acidification Strategy. There is still some way to go on discussion of the Strategy. In particular, national emission targets which will limit emissions of the acidifying gases including ammonia, the gas most relevant to agriculture, have not been agreed. Once again the Ministry will continue to keep you informed of, and consult uyou on, developments.

    Let me turn to the subject of trade, which I know is of major concern to the Federation. You will be aware that the next World Trade Organisation (WTO) Round of agriculture negotiations is due to begin at the turn of the century. Informal preparatory work has already begun at the WTO in Geneva under the WTO Agriculture Committee, involving the analysis and exchange of information between member countries to help them prepare their positions for the next Round.

    What will the Government be looking for in the next Round ? The Uruguay Round was a significant step forward in terms of bringing agriculture under international trade disciplines, but there is still a great deal to be done in terms of policy reform and reducing protectionism. So we will be looking to the next Round to achieve further liberalisation of trade and reductions in agricultural support and protectionism.

    This means lower tariffs, larger import quotas and tighter limits on export subsidies. And there will be pressure on domestic agricultural support, which will have to either be decoupled from production or live within tighter limits.

    Having said that the Government support trade liberalisation, I know that a major concern of your industry is the increased volume of imported chicken particularly from Brazil and Thailand. The fact is that the Community is committed, under the Uruguay Round settlement, to provide a minimum level of access for imports of products including poultry-meat. This level of market access is bound to go up after the next WTO Round as the trend towards further liberalisation continues.

    But the Uruguay Round also allows countries to take action in circumstances where the volume of imports has risen dramatically, or their price fallen. As you know, the Community has exercised its right to take this special safeguard action in your sector.

    Under the forthcoming Poultrymeat Marketinbg Regulations THIRD country of origin will be required on labels for both pre-packaged and unpackaged poultrymeat. The latter is an option that the UK has decided to take.

    We will continue to monitor the trend in imports closely and to discuss with you the effect on the UK market and industry. But the trend is clearly towards more liberal trade, and I urge you to be prepared, in the longer term, to operate in a more open and internationally-competitive environment.

    One of my main concerns in this area is to ensure that the market for poultry meat in the UK, and the opportunities for export, are not undermined by producers in other European Union Member States who are not complying with the hygiene conditions laid down in Community law. I know that this is a particular concern for the Federation at this time. We do not have an easy task given the fact that trade in poultry meat is not normally dependant on official health certification and there will always be unscrupulous traders who seek to circumvent the rules for their own ends. The problem is not helped by the fact that some Member States have failed to transpose Community directives into their national law. But this does not excuse them from ensuring that their producers meet the conditions laid down in those directives.

    We are very keen to bring examples of transgressions by traders in other Member States to the attention of the authorities in those countries. But we need your help in order to identify problems and I am pleased to say that we have been getting it.

    Finally can I say that your Federation has effectively represented the views of your industry on the establishment of the FSA, on the implementation of the Poultry Meat Marketing Standards enforcement regime and on a whole range of other issues. These contributions are greatly appreciated and valued by the government, and long may they continue. Thank you.

  • Herman van Rompuy – 2014 Speech to Conference of Parliaments

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Herman van Rompuy, the President of the European Council, to the Conference of Parliaments on 20th January 2014.

    It is a pleasure to be able to join you today in this second meeting of the Conference of Parliaments provided for by Article 13 of the Stability Treaty. Inter-parliamentary meetings like today are important in helping the participating parliaments to better exercise their scrutiny role at home, as regards their respective executive’s involvement in European decision-making, and also of course to confront their own ideas directly with one another.

    Although each national parliament remains responsible for its country’s own economic policy and its own budget, these powers are now exercised in a context of enormous interdependence and in a framework that we are developing together to manage that interdependence.

    This interdependence is, of course, particularly acute for those who share a common currency, but, as the treaty spells out very clearly in Article121 relating to the whole Union, “Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council”.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the economic crisis that hit us half a decade ago was the biggest economic downturn to face the western world since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It revealed shortcomings in national economic policies, in our single European market and in the structure of the eurozone.

    All EU-members paid a huge price for a lack of surveillance of banks and for their irresponsible risk-management. Public and private debt was another root cause of the crisis. And major mistakes were also made in the first ten years of the eurozone.

    Much of our work over the last few years has been to rectify these shortcomings at each of those levels. Huge efforts have been made at national level, and not only in those countries that have been in the headlines: all of us have had to address structural issues and long- term changes in our economic situation.

    Looking at the European Union as a whole, a manifest shortcoming was that, although we had a common financial market, we had little in the way of common regulation or common supervision of that market. We did it separately and ineffectively. We have since adopted a significant volume of legislation providing for common and strengthened rules and, for those wishing to join the banking union, a system of common supervision. We also found that our rules on debt and deficits were not applied and were anyway inadequate. This too, has been addressed. Finally, we have set up procedures, as part of the “European

    Semester”, to coordinate economic policy-making among countries across a broad range of areas and to detect and correct the emergence of economic imbalances.

    Last, but not least, at the level of the eurozone, where the Maastricht treaty made no provision for a crisis of this magnitude, we have set up the rescue mechanisms, culminating in the European Stability Mechanism, and brought in stronger coordination of economic policies as set out in the Stability Treaty. And we are continuing the work, with the creation of what is loosely called a “Banking Union”, with last month’s Ecofin and European Council being a key staging post.

    Allow me to dwell in more detail on the Banking Union, as it has been the focus of our most recent agreements, in particular around last month’s European Council. Heads of State and Government had previously promised this for December, and agreement was delivered in December. Banking frameworks generally come in three parts – supervision, resolution, and deposit guarantee – and so does ours:

    First, deposit guarantees: the new directive, which will provide a unified scheme, was agreed in talks between the Council and the European Parliament, two days ahead of that European Council meeting.

    Second, on supervision: the single supervision mechanism will be up-and-running at the latest in November, with Ms Danièle Nouy as its head. A health check for banks is currently underway, ahead of the European Central Bank taking on this new supervision role.

    Third, on resolution: the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive, that will harmonise the rules on this, was also agreed between the Council and the Parliament, just before our December summit. But, most important of all, the finance ministers found a consensus on the single resolution mechanism. A good agreement must now be reached, of course, with the European Parliament on this. I hope this will happen swiftly to make sure we have the Banking Union framework agreed by the end of this electoral cycle. And I urge Council and Parliament to find a consensus.

    The magnitude and speed of these achievements should not be underestimated. For the eurozone, it is the biggest leap forward since the creation of the euro itself. We are putting the vicious link between failing banks and government finances behind us, and this will help to get economies going again. Beyond that, what the banking union reconfirms, is the full commitment of all leaders to a strong and stable eurozone. Our political will remains intact. The existential threat to the eurozone is behind us. Precisely thanks to this political will.

    By the end of the year, the main elements from my reports and the report of the four presidents, on getting to “a genuine Economic and Monetary Union” will largely be in place. And, while designed to address the Eurozone’s shortcomings, our new Eurozone architecture is open to non-euro-area Member States.

    We also made further progress in the December European Council on the “E” in EMU: our economic union, going beyond the European Semester, the 6-pack, the 2-pack, and the fiscal compact. We discussed how to complement all this with “Partnerships” for competitiveness, growth and jobs.

    The idea is to encourage key structural reforms, necessary for the sound working of EMU, through a balanced approach, to foster more national ownership through mutually agreed partnerships. With more responsibility – more engagement and investment in sound economic policies – and with more solidarity – more support and financial incentives. The aim is to reach final agreement on this piece of the “Economic Monetary Union puzzle” by October 2014.

    In the December European Council, we also came back to our on-going work on competitiveness, growth and jobs, assessing the progress on the Compact for Growth and Jobs. With President Werner Hoyer of the European Investment Bank, we followed up on the EIB stepping up its lending to the economy, in particular to small and medium-sized enterprises. The new EU funds for 2014-2020 are also now available, including for the Youth Employment Initiative and the SME initiative. The EIB delivered.

    In the past year we have mobilised all possible levers to spur the recovery forward and, thanks to this and, more importantly, all the national efforts, I am convinced 2014 will be a better year, with average employment levels beginning to grow again.

    Allow me now to return to the overall picture – of the cumulative work carried out over the last four years, step by step, to endow our Union with these new means that will, together, make a real difference to the management of our economic interdependence.

    Some of all this was done on the basis of the existing treaties, through European legislative procedures. Other aspects required the creation of new instruments that did not previously exist and which needed the approval and ratification of national parliaments. Some aspects relate to the Union as a whole and some to the eurozone. All have raised questions about ensuring democratic accountability.

    As a general rule, accountability for national decisions is of course via national parliaments, while accountability of European decisions is ensured jointly by the Council (whose ministers are accountable to national parliaments) and the European Parliament – a double safeguard, a dual legitimacy, but also a dual complexity.

    But when a decision involves both national and European competences, it can become even more complicated. And that is indeed what, in some cases, has emerged from our work. And even if, at the end of every line of accountability lies a parliament, it requires us to address the challenges of transparency and readability of our procedures.

    One key aspect is to ensure that national parliaments – whether they are scrutinising a national decision by their government, or their government’s participation in a European decision – are able to ensure accountability and have the tools to do so.

    The key tool – the ability to scrutinise their national minister – is for each Member State to organise in respect of its own constitution and parliamentary tradition. It does not require a European rule to do so. But the European level can facilitate this, as it has done, for instance, through the Lisbon Treaty provision that all legislative proposals are first sent to national parliaments to consider, before the Council or the European Parliament take a position. The establishment of inter-parliamentary dialogue, such as in this Conference, is also a useful tool.

    As for European-level decisions taken by new authorities to which specific tasks have been delegated (such as the Single Supervisory Mechanism for banks or the forthcoming Resolution Authority, which operate with a degree of independence), what is particularly key here is transparency and reporting mechanisms, enabling an ex-post control of their actions – actions which are in pursuit of objectives laid down for them in the decisions that established them. In addition, the European Parliament plays a role, where appropriate, in appointments to these bodies.

    No-doubt more can be done to enhance democratic legitimacy and accountability in the mechanisms we have established. But it is my firm belief that proposals in this regard should come, first and foremost, from parliaments themselves. I therefore look forward with interest to the ideas and suggestions that will emerge from this Conference and from individual parliaments on this, as well as to your on-going reflections on current economic policy.

  • Dan Rogerson – 2014 Speech at the Royal Bath and West Show

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dan Rogerson, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management, at the Royal Bath and West Show on 28th May 2014.

    Thank you for this opportunity to join you here this morning. One of the great pleasures of my role of Minister is the opportunity to attend events like this, and have an opportunity to meet a wide range of people.

    As many of you will know, my constituency, North Cornwall, is a beautiful area of the country, with some wonderful countryside. It’s vital that, as a constituency MP, I understand the rural agenda as well as the urban, and doubly so as a Defra Minister. So I do very much value events like this, and I welcome the opportunity to take your questions and listen to your opinions at the end of my speech.

    I thought I would set the scene a little first, and talk to you about Defra’s key priorities. I’ll then talk about some of the key issues currently facing us- the recent floods, TB, and the importance of food.

    General strategic direction

    My department, Defra, has four key priorities: growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health.

    However, running through all of these is economic growth as the Government’s top priority- and we all know how important the rural economy is for this.

    We’re supporting the rural economy by helping key business sectors to grow. We work for increased competitiveness in the food chain and the rural economy; improved rural skills; more investment in tourism, and protecting plant and animal health.

    For instance we have sought to allocate £350,000 of RDPE funds for the delivery of rural business skills training activity during 2014/15.

    We can also support a growing rural economy by investing in infrastructure- improving broadband and mobile phone access; investing in flood and coastal protection- and by reducing regulatory barriers and red tape.

    We know, for instance, that online small businesses, whether rural or urban, grow 4-8 times faster than offline counterparts.

    We also know that rural businesses are equally reliant on good mobile coverage. We are working closely with BDUK to optimise benefits of the £150m Mobile Infrastructure Project, providing coverage for premises in ‘complete notspots’.

    One of my first visits as a new Minster was to the launch of an EE mobile broadband project in rural Cumbria, where I had a chance to see first-hand the importance of broadband services for the rural economy.

    There are lots of other projects which Defra is doing to continue promoting and supporting the countryside, from Grown in Britain’s work on growing the British woodland sector, to promoting the importance of British rural tourism.

    However, we can’t have a growing rural economy without ensuring that we manage the big issues well.

    I will speak about a few of the things which I know are on all our minds- TB, flood recovery, and the key importance of the food industry.

    TB

    Firstly, I was asked to briefly touch on TB, a subject which is very important to many of you here today.

    The Government remains determined to tackle bovine TB by all available means which is why we have outlined a 25 year plan to eradicate this disease by addressing infection in both cattle and wildlife. The plan was debated and approved by Parliament last year.

    Following extensive consultation, Defra has launched a Strategy to achieve Official Bovine TB-Free (OTF) status across England by 2038. In the low risk areas, we hope to achieve OTF status by 2025.

    Taking into account the Independent Expert Panel’s recommendations and lessons learned during the pilots, badger culling will continue in Gloucestershire and Somerset as planned later this year.

    It is important to get this right, which is why we have decided to assess the success of the improvements we are making to the culls, in the light of the lessons learned, before taking a decision on how we extend to other areas.

    We fully accept the conclusions of the Independent Expert Panel’s report, and are currently looking at the best ways to implement the recommendations in time for the second year of culling in Gloucestershire and West Somerset.

    Farming and Food security

    The CLA organiser also asked me to talk a little about on food and food security. This is the one area of Ministerial remit I wish I had got. Food is one of my favourite things- so much that I set up an All Party Parliamentary Group on Cheese.

    Food and drink is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, contributing £24.1 billion to Gross Value Added (GVA) in 2012. It’s vitally important for the UK in terms of economic growth and thriving businesses.

    We have a rich diversity of food businesses- including some remarkable cheese and cider industries, whose wares I hope to be able to enjoy later on today. We also have a high degree of food security in terms of access, availability, resilience and variety of food supply. This is due to our diverse sources of supply, and the strengths of our trade links.

    We know this because we did a UK Food Security Assessment, published in 2010, which analysed the different factors impacting on UK food supply. This told us that UK food security is built on a strong food production base in the UK and access to a wide variety of markets through the EU and an open, rules-based world trading system.

    All of this is supported by consumer prosperity and income, which is addressed through the Government’s focus on growth.

    We support domestic food production and want to see it increase. The Government is committed to championing a thriving, competitive British food and farming sector, driving sustainable growth in the wider rural economy in support of rural communities.

    We are doing this by increasing exports and improving domestic competitiveness. We are also enabling public procurement to support a competitive and sustainable food and farming sector.

    I also particularly appreciate the work that the Farming Sector is doing as part of its own resilience planning- work like the Somerset farming fund to help recovery from flooding. This leads me on to flooding, my last area.

    Flooding recovery and farming specific funding

    The floods from December 2013 until earlier this year have certainly been challenging, for people and communities, central and local government, and all of the agencies and companies involved in dealing with the winter floods.

    Unprecedented weather events caused the flooding we witnessed across the UK. We experienced an extraordinary period of very unsettled weather since before Christmas.

    It was the wettest January since 1766 for England and Wales. Central and south-east England received over 250% of average rainfall. Added to this, tidal surges caused by low pressure, strong winds and high tides led to record sea levels along many parts of the east coast. High spring tides brought coastal flooding to parts of the south and west coasts. River, surface water and groundwater flooding occurred in many areas.

    Latest estimates suggest that over 8,000 properties have been flooded in England since the beginning of December 2013. But our defences and the sterling work of responders helped to protect 1.4 million properties.

    Our Preparations and Response

    The local response was a magnificent effort. In the face of such unprecedented weather, countless people and organisations worked together around the clock to help those affected. The level of response, and spirit of it, was staggering.

    I appreciate how hard everyone worked and just how hard it is for those people whose homes and businesses have been affected.

    All levels of government and the emergency services were fully engaged in dealing with the floods and extreme weather. The Government’s response was led by the COBR emergencies committee.

    The Environment Agency was at the forefront of the local response. In Somerset, this included one of the biggest pumping operations the country has ever seen.

    Military personnel from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force provided flood relief in affected parts of the UK. More than 5,000 personnel were committed to help with flood relief operations. Thousands more troops remained available if required.

    Somerset

    As you will well know, Somerset was particularly affected by the flooding. At the end of January Owen Paterson asked local leaders to produce a long term Action Plan for the sustainable future of the Somerset Levels and Moors. The plan was published on 6 March.

    The plan is wide ranging, and recommended priority actions including dredging 8km of the Tone and Parrett, working on infrastructure including roads and options for the Bridgewater Barrage, setting up a Somerset Rivers board, catchment sensitive farming, minimisation of urban runoff and working on community resilience to flooding.

    I was also particularly impressed to learn of the Somerset flood recovery fund. The Somerset fund is an excellent example of industry pulling together at a time of crisis, and is typical of the genuine community spirit I know from first-hand experience exists throughout English agriculture.

    Looking to the future, we want to see industry doing more to proactively enhance its resilience to all forms of external shock. That’s why my colleague the Secretary of State formed the Farming Resilience Group: A collection of key industry bodies, high street banks, Farm Charities, and others- including the Met Office—tasked with delivering real, practical action on enhancing farm business resilience.

    National Funding

    Protecting our communities and businesses against flooding, and helping them to recover is a high priority for this Government.

    Over this Parliament, the Government is spending more in cash terms, more in real terms, than ever before. Defra will be investing an extra £270 million to repair and maintain critical defences over the next 2 years. This new funding will help the Environment Agency ensure that the most important defences are returned to, and maintained at, target condition. With the extra funding, this Government will be now spending more than £3.2 billion over the course of this parliament on flood and erosion risk management (between 2010/11 to 2014/15).

    We are working with insurance firms and the ABI to ensure that flood insurance coverage is affordable and payments are made when they are needed.

    We’ve also announced funding for flood resilience for households and businesses affects by flooding through the Repair and Renew grant, which launched on the 1 April 2014. Households and businesses who were flooded in the period 1 December 2013 – 31 March 2014 will be able to apply to local authorities for a one off grant of up to £5000.

    Flood Recovery – Farming Recovery Fund

    My last point is also the most important. Our farming industry contributes billions of pounds to the UK economy every year and we want to see it get back to business as soon as possible. Through the Farming Recovery Fund we have made £10 million available to help farmers affected by flooding get their land back into production as quickly as possible.

    Farmers can apply for grants of up to £35,000 to cover 100% of costs of restoring their land. Following feedback, we’ve made it quicker and simpler to claim, with standard costs to negate the need for 3 quotes. The fund closes on the 27th of June, and I would encourage affected farmers to apply for the funds. The application can be found on Gov.uk

    Closing remarks

    I hope this whistle-stop tour of some of our key rural interests has helped to demonstrate that this Government has a strong interest in the countryside and that we are hugely grateful for the work that you and your members do. Working together, we can overcome the challenges of things like flooding and TB, and ensure a thriving countryside and growing rural economy. I very much look forward to hearing your questions and our discussions.

    Thank you.

  • Dan Rogerson – 2014 Speech at the National Flood Forum Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dan Rogerson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resources Management, on 13th March 2014.

    Thank you to the National Flood Forum and your new chairman John Pegg for your invitation to speak at the conference today. I look forward to continuing to work closely with you.

    Officially we’re still a week away from the start of spring; but in my mind this drier weather has been long overdue! We’ve had at least 12 major storms this winter and the wettest weather on record since 1766. Latest estimates suggest that over 7000 properties have been flooded in England since the beginning of December as well as large areas of farmland.

    Thank you to all of you therefore for taking time out today from what I realise for many of you has been a very busy few months dealing with the response and ongoing recovery from these floods. I know that many of you were working non-stop over Christmas and have given up tremendous amounts of your free time to assist. Since December more than 1.3 million properties have been protected from flooding by existing defences and improvements to the way in which we respond to incidents. That’s more than 140 homes protected for every one that flooded.

    To me this illustrates that we’re not helpless – there is much that communities, voluntary organisations Government at all levels, and individuals can do collectively and individually to manage flood risk and increase our resilience in the face of it. In every event there are lessons to be learned. I think one of the lessons to emerge will be the importance of valuing local knowledge.

    So this morning I’d like to talk about how we’ve already been doing this, give you my own thoughts about where I think we can do more, and set out one area in particular – building community resilience to flooding – where I think we need to do more, and need to do more together. I’m also here to listen to your reflections from your own local experiences of the recent floods.

    Firstly I want reassure you that we are listening to local communities affected by flooding – the challenges you face and your suggestions for how we can do things better. We’ve taken practical action to cut red tape, be more transparent about our priorities and make it easier for local communities to have their say.

    Funding system

    For example in 2011 we changed the funding approach to flood risk management projects to give communities greater choice and certainty about how their community is protected and what Government’s contribution to worthwhile projects will be. Twenty-five percent more schemes are already going ahead than would have been possible under the old approach, including rural projects like Badsy Brook in Worcestershire which would not have received any Defra funding under the previous system.

    River maintenance pilots

    Last year when farming communities said that red tape was getting in the way of taking practical action to maintain river environments and reduce flood risk, we set up river maintenance pilots in seven areas of England. These are testing out new approaches which put local communities at the centre of decisions around the future upkeep of rivers in their area.

    It is vital that we listen to local experts and learn from their experience in deciding how best to manage flood risk in each area. For example dredging of rivers can produce real benefits in some areas. But in others it could cause serious problems such as flooding of communities downstream or damage to the environment.

    So we need to engage communities in making informed choices about priorities, drawing on the best available evidence – both local and national.

    But the recent floods have shown there is still more Government can do to listen to communities whose local knowledge, skills and energy is vital for an effective response before, during and after a flood. This is why we’ve taken the following actions…

    Armed Forces deployment

    Last month when community leaders in the flood-affected Thames Valley called for more practical assistance on the ground, we deployed 1,600 servicemen and women to work alongside the local multi-agency command chains to protect people, property and vital infrastructure.

    Somerset

    When the people of Somerset called for something to be done about the flooding, we brought in extra resources to facilitate one of the biggest pumping operations this country has ever seen. We also aided the local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards to work together to produce an action plan for the long-term management of the Somerset levels and moors in just 6 weeks. It was important that this responded to the local knowledge and calls for action.

    Published just last week the plan sets out some immediate actions, such as our commitment to dredge 8 km of the Rivers Parrett and Tone and to give more responsibility for water management to local partners – key things local people asked for.

    The plan also recognises the importance of sustaining and enhancing business and community resilience.

    We also announced a £10milion Farming Recovery Fund to help farmers like those in Somerset to restore flooded agricultural land and bring it back into production or improve field drainage.

    The level of support from the public for those affected has also been truly impressive, and shows the strength of our communities.

    We’ve seen everything from direct personal support to those who have had to move from their homes, to gifts of blankets, food and household goods, with great generosity of farmers in donating feed to those whose fields have been flooded and face prolonged loss of grazing.

    We all owe those community organisations who have been at the forefront of organising this support a big vote of thanks.

    I’m sure there will be further lessons to learn, for example around the handling of transport and electricity supply disruptions, that will emerge as part of the review that the new Cabinet Committee on Floods is overseeing. I am interested in what those of you here today think worked well and where there is room for improvement.

    Our focus for the time being though must be on the few areas of the country, especially in southern England, where high groundwater levels mean flooding is likely to continue into the coming weeks.

    Our aim in all of this is to help people get their lives back to normal as quickly as possible.

    But ‘back to normal’ shouldn’t mean burying our heads in the sand and crossing our fingers that flooding won’t happen again – that would be foolish when climate scientists are telling us to expect more frequent and intense rainfall as is consistent with the climate change.

    ‘Back to normal’ should mean developing a ‘new normal’ where our resilience as a nation, as local communities and as individuals is improved, so that we’re all better prepared when flooding next happens.

    So secondly this morning I want to seek your help in embedding community resilience at the heart of our approach to flood risk management. I know that a number of you are already beavering away in your communities helping them develop their resilience.

    I think there will be particular opportunities to develop this even more when our new ‘Repair and Renew’ grant scheme goes live from 1st April.

    The scheme will provide flood resilience grants of up to £5000 for households and businesses that have been flooded because of the exceptional weather this winter.

    It will help people with the cost of repairs that improve a property’s ability to withstand future flooding, over and above like-for-like repairs funded by insurance payouts.

    To ensure the scheme works on the ground for those affected by the flooding we’re working closely with Local Authorities and insurers to develop the scheme.

    But resilient homes and businesses are only part of the story – we need resilient people to achieve resilient communities.

    Sir Michael Pitt noted in his review of the widespread flooding in 2007 “although resilience begins with the individual, greater dividends can be achieved if activities are organised at the community level”.

    Community Pathfinders

    The 13 flood resilience community pathfinders that we’ve funded are looking at trialling approaches to achieve that. I am grateful for the National Flood Forum for their work with many of them.

    For example, with support from our Pathfinder scheme the Cornwall Community Flood Forum, spearheaded by their chair Charles Richards, is developing the expertise of individuals in the community and in the council to retain a lasting resource to support others and share good practice beyond the life of the project.

    Similarly in Calderdale with support from the pathfinder scheme, the council is working with the local community to consider simple practical solutions like ensuring there is sufficient local storage for vital flood protection equipment so it’s close-at-hand and can be called on quickly by those that need it.

    They are also looking at ways to help less affluent households by offering low cost, professional advice on flood resilience and working with a credit union to provide affordable loans to fund the recommended measures.

    We’re also making sure people have the tools they need to develop their resilience. Back in November I launched the Property Protection Adviser tool which provides instant tailored advice to householders about what they can do to help protect their homes from flooding and how much it might cost. Kindly hosted by the National Flood Forum on their website, we’ve already generated tailored reports for 500 homes – I’d love your help in getting the message out there in your own communities about this great free tool.

    Lead Local Flood Authorities have a vital role to play in coordinating approaches locally. Whilst some of them have already published their local flood risk management strategies, many others are still developing or consulting on them.

    I would therefore encourage you to play an active part in the consultation process to help make the local strategies as effective as possible.

    Some authorities won’t had the added impetus that the recent flooding has brought to others; we need to ensure that managing flood risk doesn’t slip down their agenda until a rainy day!

    Flood Insurance

    Insurance is another important tool in developing households’ resilience in the face of flooding. The impact of a single inundation of floodwater lasting just a few hours typically causes £35,000 of damage to a home, according to the Association of British Insurers.

    The Water Bill currently before Parliament is seeking to put into effect the Government’s preferred approach to deal with the future availability and affordability of flood insurance.

    The approach, known as Flood Re, would effectively limit the amount that most UK households at flood risk should have to pay for flood insurance. Flood Re’s benefits will be targeted towards lower income households who are least able to pay.

    I recognise concerns raised by the National Flood Forum (and in Parliament) that Flood Re should not disincentive households in Flood Re from understanding their risk and taking appropriate action to manage it and plan for the withdrawal of the scheme over time. We are keen to ensure that Flood Re plays its part in preparing high-risk households for the transition to the free market.

    The Association of British Insurers has now come forward with proposals for ensuring that the correct incentives are in place to drive uptake of resilient repairs after a flood, particularly for those properties subject to repeat flooding.

    This is a complex issue. There is an important balance to be struck between support for high-risk households and the need to keep Flood Re simple, to ensure that it remains viable and attractive to insurers. We’ll be reporting back on our proposals on this important issue when the Bill is next back before Parliament.

    Concluding remarks

    The number of properties protected despite the exceptional nature of the weather and December’s tidal surge are testament to our improved levels of preparedness for flooding.

    Our short term focus needs to remain on helping those still at risk of flooding and those entering into recovery.

    But our attention then needs to turn to look at what lessons there are to learn from this winter and how we can increase our collective resilience to flooding so we bounce back better from such events in the future.

    That is going to require close cooperation within and between communities and we in Government need to ensure we’re facilitating that, not creating obstacles that prevent it. The National Flood Forum and your members are vital partners in this.

  • Hugh Robertson – Speech to the 2nd UN/IOC Forum on Sport for Development and Peace

    Below is the text of a speech made by Hugh Robertson in Geneva on Tuesday 10th May 2011.

    It is a great honour to address the Second Forum on Sport for Development and Peace; I don’t say that lightly.

    Even though I am here as the UK’s Minister for Sport and the Olympics, this Forum brings together two organisations with a special place in my personal affections.

    The first, the IOC, has awarded London the honour of hosting the Olympic Games next year.  I would publicly like to thank the President, and the IOC, for all the help, encouragement and friendship that they have extended to us over the past six years.  The work of the Co-ordinating Commission, the IOC’s panel of experts, headed by Denis Oswald, many of those members are here today, has been invaluable and as a country, we very much appreciate your help in delivering London 2012 and your wider work for world sport.

    I would also like to extend my thanks to the President for his personal lead in the fight against corruption in sport.  If those watching sport ever cease to believe that the contest they are watching is not a fair contest between individuals and teams, then many of the benefits of sport that we will discuss today will be lost.

    Thank you, sir, for your personal commitment to this fight and for the global lead that the IOC is giving over this issue.

    The second organisation, the UN, is also one close to my heart.

    As a young army officer, I served twice with the UN Peacekeeping forces in, first, Cyprus and, later, in Sarajevo, a former Olympic host city, during the siege.

    I also chaired the UN group in our Parliament before I became a Minister so I am a great supporter of the work of the UN.  I am delighted that my government is supporting the work of the UN Sport for Development and Peace movement.

    I think that we are also at an exciting turning point with this agenda.

    The issue is how we use sport more effectively to contribute to the Millennium Development Goals – and, crucially, how we measure and sustain progress.

    So I don’t come here with any definitive answers. But what I did want to do today is –

    Firstly, give you a brief overview of the work we’re doing as part of our Olympic legacy programme.

    Secondly, share some reflections on what has worked well.

    And thirdly, to be honest with you about some things that haven’t worked so well.

    Let me start by saying a little bit about International Inspiration.

    This is the UK’s global sports legacy programme inspired by the London 2012 Games and the Olympic and Paralympic Values and supported by the IOC and IPC.

    It’s run by an independent charity, the II Foundation. And it’s delivered by UK Sport, the British Council and UNICEF – working alongside the British Olympic Association and British Paralympic Association, host Governments and other local and national agencies.

    A variety of projects are already running across 16 countries, spanning all continents, and we aim to reach 20 by the end of the programme.

    And the benefits work both ways.  The school links programme has developed partnerships with 300 schools in the UK helping to foster a greater understanding amongst children of the challenges of their counterparts in other parts of the world.

    The range of programme activities is considerable, but in essence the programme is centred around two key aims.

    The first is to develop the skills of teachers, coaches and young leaders around the world to increase access to high quality PE, Sport and Play

    The second is to help local agencies and partners to influence and improve national policies and programmes so that they can lock in progress and bring about systemic change in their countries.

    What sort of things does this involve? Well, here a few examples.

    In Bangladesh, the programme has helped to train teachers to deliver swimming lessons for more than 80,000 children.

    These are children learning to swim in one of the safe ponds that have been built in local communities. Working with the Bangladesh Swimming association, a new structure of clubs is being supported, and talented young swimmers identified.

    But the backdrop here is the urgent need to reduce the 17,000 children who drown in Bangladesh’s many rivers and waterways every year.

    In Jordan, we’re working very closely with HM King Abdullah’s Awards programme, and the Jordanian National Olympic and Paralympic Committees, to improve opportunities for young people to get involved in sport.

    This includes helping with the development of 15 ‘Sports Hubs’ which provide safe spaces for children to play and practise sport, as well as helping to recruit ‘youth leaders’ – young people who are trained to help other children to get their first taste of sport.

    A particular focus here is among girls who in the past had not been encouraged to take part in physical exercise and sport.

    There’s also some innovative work – strongly supported by the Jordanian Government and the IOC – for example to help more disabled young children to play an active role in the sporting life of the nation.

    And I would like here to pay tribute to the work of the whole Jordanian Royal Family and, in particular, Prince Feisal Al Hussein for his leading role in establishing the Generations for Peace Academy, opened by the king last week.

    Finally, in Zambia, we’re recruiting local leaders to train peers to reach out to disadvantaged children through sport.

    This isn’t just sport for sport’s sake, but an effective medium for spreading crucial messages about identifying and preventing HIV infection and importantly reducing the scourge of stigma attached to the many thousands of people already affected.

    One of the young leaders involved in the programme is a young man called Philip, who has been trained up to deliver support for his community.

    Frankly, he summed up the whole philosophy better than I can.

    He said that, “If you take a fishhook and put it in the water you are never going to catch anything. If you put bait around the hook, you will attract many fish! Sport is our bait and our messages are hidden within the hook.”

    Well, I couldn’t agree more.

    So what have we learnt? Well, let me highlight four things that I think have worked well.

    First, we’ve found that projects must be embedded within, and make a clear contribution to, the wider development agenda.

    For example, in Mozambique, there was already a great opportunity thanks to the country’s commitment to UNICEF’s Child Friendly Schools initiative.

    What International Inspiration was able to do, is review what it was already doing to promote sport and then to make some very targeted and specific interventions.

    The Mozambique Government worked with us, and backed the programme – so much so that the sporting aspect of the child friendly schools programme has been rolled out to seven out of 11 regions across the country.

    That takes me onto a second observation: partnership working is vital.

    It’s perhaps an obvious point, but success isn’t about our agencies working in a specific country, but rather working with that country.

    In terms of:

    – Understanding its agencies, and its government, and in particular the challenges they face in prioritising the needs of young people.
    – Getting to know the key personalities and players.
    – Working with their agenda, rather than trying to impose new priorities on them.

    Frequently, we are dealing with sensitive, cultural realities and challenging some entrenched behaviours or attitudes. Buy-in and support at the highest level is crucial for making the breakthrough.

    In other words, we’ve come to understand that delivering real change through sport is about building coalitions, not mounting crusades. This was a specific recommendation made by the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation in their excellent report on What Sport Can do for Africa.

    Thirdly, you have to be clear about the outcomes.

    In Bangladesh, the priority was quite obvious: as I said earlier UNICEF estimates that 17,000 Bangladeshi children die each year by drowning.

    The Swim Safe programme led by UNICEF, was already working across seven flood prone districts.

    With International Inspiration’s help, it’s been able to expand the number of swimming instructors who have been trained.

    That multiplier effect helps to amplify the impact. In this case: an extra 80,000 children have been taught survival swimming skills since 2009.

    Finally, evidence is key. Without the proof that investing time and effort does pay off, it’s hard to maintain long term support even for the most impressive projects – at a time when all national budgets are under pressure.

    We’ve found that we needed to become more forensic, more exacting in how we measured success – and yes, more critical and honest when things haven’t worked.

    As with any programme of this size and scale, there are things we could have done differently and better. Let me share a few of these too.

    Firstly, in the early days, we tried to develop and deliver the programme in strands, rather than through integrated working.

    Different agencies doing different things with not enough central co-ordination. There was no sense of a grand plan, bringing everything together under a clear and agreed set of shared outcomes.

    Second, I already mentioned the importance of partnership. Again, we found the programmes worked best where the right relationships were built at the outset.

    If you don’t encourage a sense of shared ownership and excitement for the programme, then you don’t get the long term commitment you need.

    Finally, I think we learnt over time, you have to be realistic about what the programme could and couldn’t do.

    The International Inspiration programme is not about achieving elite sporting success. It isn’t a short cut to medal success in the Olympics and Paralympics.

    The schemes may help in the long-term, of course, but it is a very long term prospect.

    Where early programmes fell away, it was because the commitment was superficial and short term.

    These programmes need local enthusiasm and energy to sustain progress and ensure lasting change; collaboration is absolutely vital.

    So, based on our experiences, I would say that co-ordination, partnership and realism are key to successful delivery.

    In conclusion, yes, there are challenges. Yes, the financial situation is difficult for many, if not all, of us.

    In the UK, we are increasing our overseas assistance to 0.7% of our Gross National Income by 2013, but we do need to think carefully about priorities.  It is always a challenge to make the case for sport for development against other development priorities.

    But that makes it all the more important that we fix on the things I’ve been talking about: effectiveness, relevance, sustainability and, above all, evidence of value.

    And let me say this to you finally.

    If we get our collective approaches to sport and development right.

    If we work together and learn from each other, I’m confident we’ll see this agenda expand and mature in the years ahead.

    Sport can achieve great things for people around the world.

    – To strengthen and reinforce those founding values of the Olympics and the Paralympic.

    – To give renewed life to de Coubertin’s vision of sport as an agent for justice and social progress.

    But more than anything else, to support many thousands more young people across the world.

    We all want to involve, engage and inspire young people to use sport as a path to a better life for themselves, and many others in their communities.

    That’s what International Inspiration is all about, and I hope it will leave a valuable legacy long into the future, certainly long after the Olympic torch leaves London for, first, Sochi and then Rio.

    To both the IOC and the UN, co-hosts of this forum, thank you for all that you have done – and good luck for the remainder of this exciting forum, and beyond.

  • Angus Robertson – 2014 Speech in Dublin

    angusrobertson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Angus Robertson to the Institute for International and European Affairs in Dublin, Ireland, on 20th January 2014.

    Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the Institute for International and European Affairs on the subject of “Independent Scotland: A positive, proactive international partner”.

    2014 is a historic and exciting year for Scotland and the international community is watching.

    On 18th September 2014 voters will be able to freely and democratically answer the referendum question: “Should Scotland be an independent country”.

    The consequences of the vote are profound and will bring tremendous benefits to people in Scotland and will improve our relationships with neighbours, friends and allies in the international community.We shouldn’t lose sight of how we have got to this historic point and why the way in which it is happening is of global relevance.

    Scotland’s constitutional journey is a long one, which has accelerated in recent decades with the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, culminating in the independence referendum.

    Home rule efforts go back into the nineteenth century, following the First World War the Scottish Trades Union Congress pressed for Scottish representation at the Versailles Conference, just like the then British dominions: Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    The formation of the Scottish National Party in 1934 marked the beginning of serious political efforts to re-establish direct democracy in Scotland and has had permanent parliamentary representation since 1967.

    At the historic 1967 Hamilton by-election Winnie Ewing declared: ‘Stop the world Scotland wants to get on’.

    At the heart of Scottish nationalism is an internationalism which has long pursued a desire to play a positive, proactive direct role in the international community of nations.

    Even with the limited powers of devolution since 1999 Scotland has sought to reach out to the world, in particular to neighbours on these islands, our European partners, nations with a strong diaspora connections such as the United States and countries with strong ties of history like Malawi.

    However, the powers of devolution are limited. They don’t offer the full advantages of bilateral and multilateral relations in a world where normality is independence and growing interdependence.

    In 1945, the United Nations had 51 member states. Now there are 193.

    Over the same period there has been a proliferation of international organisations which seek to improve national and international conditions, whose members are sovereign states.

    From the European Union and the biggest single-market in the world, the Council of Europe and its human rights safeguards, the World Trade Organisation supporting economic growth, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with defence cooperation guarantees and the list goes on and on.

    In this age of cooperation it is states of all sizes that determine progress, and Scotland is not represented in its own right.

    This can and will change with a ‘Yes’ vote on the 18th September 2014.

    In unique international circumstance, the Scottish and United Kingdom governments have signed an agreement which charts the democratic referendum process. The Edinburgh Agreement, was signed in the Scottish capital by Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond following the election of a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament in favour of an independence referendum, and supported by parliamentarians from the Scottish National Party, Scottish Green Party and independents. In fact referendum legislation is also being supported by the Labour Party, Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.

    The Edinburgh Agreement crucially commits both the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government in Article 30: “to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom”.

    Following a ‘Yes’ vote in September 2014 both governments would begin discussions and negotiations about transition to Scottish sovereignty. There is an eighteen month period for this co-operation while Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. It is during this time that arrangements will be made for Scotland to take its place in the international community including multilateral organisations such as the European Union, NATO, United Nations, WTO and so on. While the anti-independence campaign seem to spend most of their time suggesting this will be extremely difficult, even the UK Government’s legal adviser, says the timescale is ‘reasonable’, and the ‘No’ campaign’s own constitutional adviser believes it would occur with an ‘accelerated’ procedure.

    How this will happen and details of the international priorities of the Scottish Government are laid out in unprecedented detail in ‘Scotland’s Future – The White Paper on Scottish Independence’

    There is no international precedent for such a detailed prospectus.

    In over 10 chapters, 650 pages and 170,000 words, it details the  proposal to move from devolution to sovereignty. It has an extensive Question and Answer section with clarification on hundreds of common queries.

    Within weeks of the White Paper launch last November:

    40,000 copies printed, following third reprint of 10,000.

    Around one million online page views.

    More than 90,000 hits on the PDF download page.

    It is free for all to download the White Paper at: www.scotreferendum.com where there is also extensive further documentation.

    At the heart of the independence prospectus is the proposition that decisions about Scotland will be taken by the people who care most about Scotland – that is the people who live and work in Scotland.

    Our national democratic life will be determined in an independent Scottish Parliament elected entirely by people in Scotland which will replace the current Westminster system. Under that current antiquated and inadequate  system, elected representatives from Scotland make up just 9 per cent of the 650 members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords is wholly unelected.

    Governments in an independent Scotland will always be formed by parties that win elections in Scotland. It will no longer be possible for key decisions to be made by governments that do not command the support of the Scottish electorate

    This will end the sorry unacceptable situation that we are regularly governed by parties we have not entrusted to make decisions on our behalf. For 34 of the 68 years since 1945, Scotland has been ruled by Westminster governments with no majority in Scotland. Policies are imposed on Scotland even when they have been opposed by our elected Westminster MPs, including foreign, defence and security policy.

    With a ‘Yes’ vote in the independence referendum we will put an end to governments, policies and priorities which do not have democratic support.

    With a ‘Yes’ vote Scotland will rejoin the international community as a sovereign state and enjoy the benefits and advantages of a normal country.

    In the White Paper, Chapter 6 deals with International Relations and Defence.

    It explains:

    Why we need a new approach,

    The opportunities open to Scotland, and The Scotland we can create, in an international, defence and security context.

    The main summary is as follows:

    Scotland’s national interests will be directly represented on the international stage

    Scotland’s foreign, security and defence policies will be grounded in a clear framework of participating in rules-based international co-operation to secure shared interests, protecting Scotland’s people and resources and promoting sustainable economic growth

    We will continue to be a member of the EU and will have a seat at the top table to represent Scotland’s interests more effectively; we will not be at risk of leaving the EU against the wishes of the Scottish people

    An overseas network of 70 to 90 international offices is planned, built on Scotland’s existing capacity and our share of the UK’s international assets

    Scotland will recognise and act on its responsibilities, as one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, to international development

    Our defence plans focus on a strong conventional defence footprint in and around Scotland and the removal of nuclear weapons, delivering a £500 million defence and security dividend in 2016/17

    Scotland’s security will be guaranteed as a non-nuclear member of NATO, with Scotland contributing excellent conventional capabilities to the alliance

    The foreign policy and international relations of the Scottish Government will take place within three overlapping and interacting spheres that will be the cornerstones of Scotland’s foreign policy:

    our partnership with the other nations of these islands

    our regional role as an active member of the EU with strong links to the Nordic countries and the Arctic

    the global context: our independent role in international and multilateral organisations, including the UN and NATO

    I would like to take these priorities in turn to underline why an independent Scotland will be a positive and proactive international partner.

    Island Neighbours – Closest Partners

    On these islands, we are bound by historic, economic and social ties of great value. This importance is not of itself, determined by where political decision-making lies but we have the opportunity to do so on the basis of equality.

    We now have a British-Irish Council which brings together governments from across Britain and Ireland. With a sovereign Scotland, there will be three independent governments in the Council together with Scotland, the Irish Republic and the rest of the United Kingdom working with the devolved and island authorities.  The secretariat of the Council is already headquartered in Edinburgh, and there is active cooperation between governments across the widest range of subjects from health to the environment.

    Scotland is a bigger trading partners with the rest of the United Kingdom, than China, India, Russia and Brazil combined. This is also true for Ireland.

    Our Common Travel Area, citizenship and voting rights and other cooperation arrangements, including the importance of our shared common market through the European Union are crucial.

    It is in all of our interest that these closest of relationships flourishes. It is in the interests of all of the peoples of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and our immediate island neighbours that our cooperation goes from strength to strength.

    European Union – Crucial Cooperation

    It is also crucial that we continue to safeguard and build on the advantages delivered through the European Union. Decades of peace, economic growth social rights, free movement of people, goods, services, capital and cooperation in an ever widening European Union are a massive achievement.

    28 member states make up the European Union, and more seek to join. We look forward to Scotland taking its seat at the EU top table shortly.

    While there is no doubt there is a need for democratic, political and economic reform to how the European Union works, we need to face up to the threats posed by strong Europhobic extremes, especially in UK politics outside Scotland.

    Even the UK government is planning an in-out EU referendum, and are being politically driven by anti-Europeans in UKIP and the Tory Party.

    This is dangerous to Scottish and Irish interests, and also incidentally to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    This weekend prominent Scottish businesspeople wrote the following letter to the media:

    “It looks as though the UK may leave the EU following an in-out EU referendum promised by the Prime Minister David Cameron in 2017.

    “Access to the common market is vitally important to both Scottish and wider UK companies. We can see from the poor performance of UKIP in elections and successive opinion polls here that the people of Scotland are generally more outward looking and pro-European than the electorate in other parts of the UK.

    “Scottish businesspeople are worried that despite an overwhelming desire to stay connected with our European partners, voters beyond our borders will remove Scotland from the EU against the democratic expression of Scotland’s business community and wider public. This threat may persist no matter what the result of Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague’s ongoing negotiation on the terms of membership with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

    “On this issue, as with many others, Westminster opinion does not represent the democratic will of all the constituent parts of the UK.  It seems likely that all major political parties with a chance of being in government after the 2015 Westminster election will commit to holding an EU referendum. This prospect of a dangerous, metropolitan media driven referendum on EU membership creates great uncertainty.

    “Scotland may no longer be part of the UK at the time of the EU poll and an independent Scotland’s approach to negotiating continued EU membership (which experts have said there will be an obligation to have after a Yes vote) will ensure continuity of membership and effect.  We note in particular the recent positive comments of No Campaign policy adviser Professor Jim Gallagher regarding an independent Scotland staying in Europe and its ability to successfully negotiate key opt outs.

    “Indeed, the Scottish people must now see that there is far more uncertainty over Scotland’s continued access to the common market if we vote to No in the independence referendum on September 18th this year.  A Yes vote is the only way to guarantee that Scottish based companies can continue to trade in a UK and European common market for the free movement of capital, goods, services, trade and people.”

    Scottish independence in a European Union context means that the Scottish Government, elected by the people will be present at all Council of Ministers meetings where the big decisions are taken. Scotland will have a nominated commissioner in the powerful European Commission, and there will be fairer Scottish representation in the European Parliament.

    Scotland will play a positive and proactive role in the EU.

    Key Regional Priorities – Northern Dimension

    A key regional regional priority is the northern dimension. Scotland is a northern European nation with significant priorities shared with our Nordic regional neighbours including: Norway, Denmark and Iceland.

    There are huge environmental challenges posed to the High North and Arctic as well as potential opportunities especially in the energy sector.

    Our neighbours are cooperating through a host of bilateral and multilateral organisations and initiatives.

    Scotland can and must take its responsibilities seriously and work with our regional neighbours.

    This will be a key Scottish priority.

    Scotland’s geo-strategic position with the Atlantic to our west, Iceland gap to the north and North Sea to our east also has an important security dimension. It is in the interests of all allies, neighbours and friends that there is stability.

    That is why the Scottish Government White Paper outlines in great details the plans for defence and security arrangements. Scotland will prioritise maritime capabilities, including maritime patrol aircraft (something that Ireland has but the UK does not).

    We will work with our NATO allies just like the overwhelming number of other members as a non-nuclear state to fulfil the objectives of mutual defence, appropriate capabilities, stability and peace.

    Global Context – Something to Offer

    In a global context an independent Scotland has something particular to offer.

    On international development a strong commitment has been made by the Scottish Government with an an aspiration to be a global leader, championing best practice and innovation.

    The White Paper explains that being a global leader in international development is not necessarily just about the size of aid given in absolute monetary terms, but the impact that can be made across government policy.

    Aid is however an extremely important dimension and an independent Scotland would enshrine a legislative commitment to spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on Official Development Assistance, and an aspiration to reach  1% of GNI in time.

    Success and global impact will be pursued by delivering a coherent approach to international development across all Scottish Government policies – crucially trade, environment, defence and finance.

    On peace and reconciliation there is a long standing commitment to make Scotland the ideal place to support international initiatives. Scotland has already hosted the St Andrews northern Ireland discussions, also meetings from the South Caucausus and there is significant Scottish NGO peace and reconciliation experience such as Beyond Borders Scotland. A sovereign Scottish government can do so much with our particular experience of civic, non-ethnic, democratic and peaceful constitutional change. Scotland is known and liked around the world. This is an ideal way of being able to contribute to a better world.

    On helping the vulnerable we look to a new model with of asylum services separate from immigration. The White Paper Contains proposals for a Scottish Asylum Agency to oversee asylum applications:

    ‘The process will be both robust and humane, and we will continue Scotland’s present approach of promoting the integration of refugees and asylum seekers from the day they arrive, not just once leave to remain has been granted (as is the case in the rest of the UK). In an independent Scotland, we will close UK  Home Office detention centre at Dungavel, end the practice of dawn raids and inhumane treatment of those who have exercised their legitimate right to seek asylum”

    While these initiatives will bring international benefits to those from outside Scotland, there will also be tangible advantages to Scotland in Scotland when pursuing its own international agenda.

    For all of those talented and committed people wanting to work in the diplomatic service, on international development and in defence and security, there will be a full Scottish headquartered career path. Home postings will be in Scotland and the relevant government departments will be based in Scotland. International partners will be directly represented in Scotland with embassies and diplomatic staff and international organisations will also seek enhanced representation in Scotland.

    For all of those involved in the voluntary, charitable and academic sectors in Scotland which deal with international affairs, it will be possible to work with  government departments, agencies and decision makers at all levels in Scotland.

    Conclusion

    Independence will mean Scotland taking its place in the international community and playing a positive proactive international role.

    We will be able to promote a bigger role for the British-Irish Council that brings together the home nations, work constructively within the European Union and join our Northern European neighbours to fully address the challenges and opportunity  of our region.

    Scotland will be a trusted security partner for our allies, play a full role in the Commonwealth, properly carry our burden towards international development and have an ambition to support peace and reconciliation efforts around the world.

    This contrasts with an ever growing parochial anti-European agenda at Westminster. Sadly politics at a UK level is massively influenced by the anti-immigration, Europhobic agenda of UKIP and large swathes of the Tory Party. Their priorities are leaving the EU, walking away from European Human Rights commitments and ignoring the opening gulf in political priorities with Scotland.

    The time has come for people in Scotland to embrace a better international future and grasp the huge exciting opportunity offered by the independence referendum with a ‘Yes’ vote.

  • Andrew Robathan – 2011 Local Government Association Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, Andrew Robathan, to the 2011 Local Government Association Conference on 1st November 2011. This speech was released by the Ministry of Defence and these are speaker’s notes and not a full transcript.

    Thank you Sir Merrick for that introduction.

    My congratulations on organising a fascinating day with some excellent speakers – they’re still to come..! -and workshops.

    I used to be a Councillor myself, and my wife is currently – within Westminster – so I have some understanding of the issues you face.

    It’s fantastic to see so many representatives from across local government, and the voluntary and charitable sector.

    You are in the vanguard of our plans to cement the bond between our communities and the Armed Forces through the Armed Forces Covenant and Community Covenant.

    Not everyone down the years would have embraced such localism.

    General de Gaulle once observed of France, “How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?”

    He would have really struggled in Britain which – according to the gloriously named British Cheese Board – boasts over 700 distinct local cheeses!

    And he would have despaired at your job, Merrick, representing as you do hundreds of councils and thousands of councillors.

    Because, in part, De Gaulle’s complaint seems to have been that localism interferes with the smooth pursuit of the national interest.

    Perhaps so in France, but in Britain I’ve always believed that’s the wrong way round.

    This Government believes in ‘small government’.

    Of course Westminster and Whitehall should lead on those issues which are truly national in scope.

    But, at most, they should complement – not substitute – local efforts on everything else.

    It’s why decentralising power is at the heart of this government’s agenda.

    Yet Britain’s Armed Forces straddle the national and local divide.

    At one level, they are rooted in lock communities.

    For instance, the British infantry system of county regiments helped to forge deep ties between those who serve – often alongside neighbours and friends – and the communities they left behind.

    At another level, our Armed Forces are woven into the fabric of our nation’s history and psyche.

    Nelson on the quarterdeck; the Pals on the Somme; the SAS on TV as they stormed the Iranian Embassy.

    Courage, sacrifice, excellence.

    It’s why the British public have a deep respect for, and pride in, our Armed Forces.

    But respect and pride are not the same as understanding.

    Our Armed Forces Community may be an integral part of our society, but in recent decades the link has declined.

    When World War II ended in 1945, there were around five million men and women in uniform.

    Almost everyone in the country knew someone close who had served.

    My parents and her generation gave up their youth in the service of this country.

    The National Service generation only added to the ledger.

    But for many years, our Armed Forces have been a professional, volunteer force – declining in number – while the older generations have dwindled.

    Public understanding of our Armed Forces has declined as a result.

    This matters hugely.

    The effectiveness of our Armed Forces depends on them knowing that they have their country’s support.

    Parliament has taken to welcoming home units of the Armed Forces, and yesterday we welcomed 3 Commando.

    We asked them to go to war, and it is right that we welcome them home.

    Such support requires the public to understand the role of our Armed Forces, and the sacrifice our men and women in uniform make with their families.

    We should never take public support for granted, even in times of plenty.

    Nor should we under-estimate their principled conviction that our Armed Forces Community should get the support they need and the dignity they deserve.

    That they should suffer no disadvantage as a result of serving; indeed should receive special consideration in some instances.

    And that they have a right to expect a whole of society approach – not just a top-down, or bottom-up one.

    So I’m pleased to say that in the 18 months since the General Election we’ve taken action over a very broad canvas.

    For the first time ever, the principles I have mentioned (no disadvantage) will be recognised in the law of the land through the Armed Forces Bill.

    On the front line, we’ve doubled the operational allowance and extended it to Libya.

    We’ve improved the Rest and Recuperation leave.

    And we’ve doubled Council Tax relief from 25% to 50% for all personnel on operations, including Libya.

    In May, we set out – in the ‘Today and Tomorrow’ paper – what we’re doing to give the Covenant practical effect.

    For instance, we have endorsed all of Andrew Murrison’s recommendations for improving mental health care.

    We have allocated resources for 36,000 Service children as part of the pupil premium, and introduced a separate fund for schools with high proportions of Service children.

    And we are giving our personnel a high priority in Affordable Housing Schemes.

    Yet, as I’ve said, the Armed Forces Covenant is not just about action from the centre.

    There are fewer than 200,000 serving members of our Armed Forces, whereas there are still more than four and a half million people who have served.

    With their families, our Armed Forces Community is roughly one in six of the total population.

    Providing support to this vast number of people involves all areas of local government working with communities up and down the land.

    The 10 NHS Armed Forces Networks have proved particularly useful in ironing out local healthcare and adult social care issues through their extensive local networks.

    For example, an RAF couple were devastated to hear that their application to adopt a child had been scuppered by orders posting them overseas.

    The Local Authority had withdrawn from the process as ‘suitable’ counselling services would not be available.

    By contacting their regional Armed Forces Network lead, they were able to get SSAFA Forces Help to liaise with the Local Authority until the issue was resolved and the adoption went ahead.

    This is the ‘no disadvantage from service’ principle in action.

    It also shows the importance of local authorities forging links with Service charities and the wider voluntary and charitable sector.

    And in June, four counties became the first in Britain to demonstrate community-led support for the Armed Forces through the Community Covenant scheme.

    You’ll hear more about best practice later this morning from three of the counties involved so far – Oxfordshire, Hampshire, and North Yorkshire.

    A further seven councils have signed, with over 30 in the pipeline.

    The Community Covenant has been well-received, and my hope is that every community will sign one.

    It’s important as a symbol of our beliefs, and it’s important as a commitment to action.

    This afternoon you will hear more about the Community Covenant Grant Scheme.

    We have allocated up to £30 million until 2015 to fund projects which support the aims of the Community Covenant.

    A panel considered the first bids last month.

    I am delighted to announce that we have approved 11 superb bids in full, and another two in part, totalling over £400,000.

    I am particularly pleased to see that those bids will draw in matched funding of over a quarter of a million pounds.

    As to the successful bids themselves, they include help towards a new Scout and Guides Headquarters in Bedale; supporting the Dover Diamond Jubilee Tattoo; and helping elderly residents in their village during adverse weather.

    Decisions on another 14 applications will be made once we have received some additional information.

    If they are all approved, it would take total project funding past £1 million in just this first round.

    Panels are due to sit again in December and March, and quarterly thereafter – so it’s not too late!

    Ladies and Gentlemen, Defence is a very human endeavour – and the consequences of Service life are very human too.

    I hope that today inspires you to deepen the relationship between our Armed Forces and the communities they’re drawn from.

    Because that relationship is as important now as it’s ever been.

    How we, as a nation, treat our Armed Forces Community is a litmus test of who we are as a nation.

    I’m confident that the nation will respond to the challenge.

    And that it will be driven in part by localism in the national interest.

  • John Reid – 2003 Speech to Amicus Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Health Secretary, John Reid, to the Amicus Conference at Bishop’s Stortford on 17th September 2003.

    NHS values are at the core of existing and future policy of this Government. Equal access to health care free at the point of need paid for out of general taxation. We need to say much more loudly how important these principles are in the improvement of the NHS.

    Especially since the consensus which has held for almost six decades has now been shattered by a Conservative Party which is more extreme on the issue of health than even Mrs. Thatcher. In that, they are at odds with the British people.

    Independent MORI survey data shows consistently that three quarters of the British people believe the NHS is critical to British society and we must do everything to maintain it.

    Satisfaction with the NHS is higher than 10 years ago. And the NHS – and the future of the NHS – is not only a key issue. People feel it is more important than any other issue – including crime and immigration. They are committed to this idea of collective provision.

    And one of the central aspects of that is the belief that everyone in the country should have equal access to care – that no one should be discriminated against in their access to health care because they have less money or because they live in the wrong part of town.

    This value of equity rests at the heart of our people’s affection for the NHS and their trust in it.

    That is why the Government have regarded it as so important. This is why we set up NICE in order to overcome inequity in treatment.

    People believe strongly that if we all pay for the NHS out of the taxation that we all contribute towards, then we all have the right to use the NHS equally.

    People recognise that the introduction of money directly into the health service transaction would add a considerable barrier to access for those people who had less money than others.

    If money was involved as a part of each health service transaction – whether at the GPs, when seeing a nurse, or at hospital – those people who had more money would be able to increase their access. We would therefore not have a system of equal access.

    So it is not through individual meanness that the British people reject any form of payment for health services. Rather it is because they recognise the inequity this would inevitably cause.

    As today’s Datamonitor report on private medical insurance shows the number of people taking out private medical insurance has fallen by more than 10% this year. Their own analyst points out this is because “recent hike in premiums has priced some out of the market”. As the NHS gets better, private medical insurance is getting dearer.

    This is a major challenge to the Tory patient passport plans, and they will now have to recost their plans. On last year’s figures the Tories needed to find £1billion to fund this subsidy skewed to the wealthy. As the premiums go up, the potential tax relief liability goes up. So now they’ll need to make even more cuts to the NHS to fund their policy. Given the escalating and unsupported cost of this policy, Liam Fox should today dump his ridiculous proposal and return to the principles of the NHS. Equal access to treatment free at the point of need.

    This is a value with which the British people agree. Only around 1 in 10 people feel that the Government should encourage people to go private if they can afford it. And only 5% feel that NHS money should be given to people to buy private health care. As far as health services are concerned, inequity is simply not acceptable to most of the British people.

    The original White Paper on the NHS written in 1944 expressed this simply: “Everybody in the country…should have an equal opportunity to benefit from medical and other services”. That was an important aspiration then – it is important now.

    So equity is not an ‘add on’ to the NHS. It is a cornerstone of the NHS itself. Social fairness in the relief of pain and distress.

    And yet, for all our success in combating preventable pain, the National Health Service has not as yet achieved that aim. At the moment, the NHS principle of equity provides the opportunity for a universal and equitable service, since it does not introduce the barrier of cost to the patient into the process.

    But we must be honest – the present system does not yet meet this goal. We must do more.

    The first thing this needs is extra investment to provide the resources and the capacity we need. The extra investment that is now taking place in the NHS over the next five years we will see the biggest sustained funding increase in history.

    That massive increase – and those extra 55,000 nurses, 6,500 doctors, tens of thousands of additional workers – provide us with the possibility of moving further towards the goal of equality of access.

    But we need more than just increases in capacity.

    In July, I outlined the developments that will help us work towards our manifesto commitment on choice, which said:

    “We will give patients more choice…… By the end of 2005 every hospital appointment will be booked for the convenience of the patient making it easier for patients and their GPs to choose the hospital and the consultant that best suits their needs.”

    Today I want to explain to you that one of the main reasons for increasing choice in the NHS is to increase the fair distribution of access to health services.

    Choice and capacity building are partners, not enemies.

    I recognise that for some people this may appear counter-intuitive; for some time now it has been simply assumed that any increase in choice would automatically lead to a decrease in fairness. Many commentators have expressed the belief that it is inevitable that an increase in patient choice would automatically mean we lose the equity that they believe is a cornerstone in the provision of NHS services.

    I disagree with them on two counts.

    First, they are wrong to assume that the existing NHS distributes access to health care in an equitable manner.

    Second they are wrong to see choice as inevitably increasing inequity.

    The Government’s commitment to fairness in the health service is so strong that to help to extend fairness we will extend choice for patients in the NHS.

    The fulcrum of my argument is not just that fairness is central to the NHS, but an honest acceptance of the fact that the aim of the 1948 health service to provide equality of access to healthcare has not been fully met.

    Therefore, if we take this principle seriously – if we really want to achieve fairness in access to health care rather than just talk about it in resolutions – the NHS will have to work differently to bring it into reality.

    In the past, the collective responsibility to achieve equity in access to health was demonstrated by providing health services for ‘the general public’. For decades it was felt that in order to meet the health service needs of masses of people we would need to mass-produce a health service.

    It was felt over these decades that uniformity would create equal treatment for all. It was believed that delivering everyone the same sort of service would ensure that everyone would be treated fairly. The idea seemed to be that all of the British people were all the same and therefore if we were treated all the same it would create fairness.

    This was not the case. The mass production of any service ultimately fails to meet the individual needs of each service user. We have understood that lesson in industry; and we increasingly understand it in service delivery. Since the 1970s we know that uniform services have failed to meet the needs of women, people from ethnic minorities and others in the population who are without sufficient confidence and resources.

    We need a service which is comprehensive, fair to all, and personal to each.

    The problem of unfair health service access is not a new one. Researchers have been pointing it out for some time. A famous left wing critique of the NHS, Tudor Hart, as far back as 1971 created the famous “inverse care law”.

    His point is that, for a variety of reasons, the areas where there are poorer people with greater need simply have less health services than better off areas.

    We recognised that a part of the inverse care law is caused by material factors. More resources had to go to poorer areas. So our distribution of investment to PCTs last December gave the largest increases to those areas where there is the greatest health need.

    This emphasis on revenue spending has been matched by some of the larger inputs on capital expenditure. So for example there is a £707 million programme of investment in the infrastructure to support the continuing expansion of cardiac centres and diagnostic facilities in District General Hospitals. In cancer, new scanners have been delivered to the 6 most deprived health authorities in the country.

    It is not possible to change the distribution of health resources overnight but we have begun to tackle the past distribution.

    But the inverse care law is not just about the distribution of resources. There are what we can call cultural issues involved where some are much more likely to have the information and the confidence to use that information than others. Any system which tries to limit information and fails to support people in using that information will inevitably be unequal.

    That is why our policy on choice in the area of elective surgery for instance will also further our aim of equity. At the moment, there are real problems of equity of access to current health services. For example, in cardiac care there is evidence of inequitable access in the past to treatment in both diagnosis and operations. Studies of cardiac care have shown that deprived patients appeared to wait longer for surgery and were less likely to be rated urgent.

    Doctors, nurses and administrators do not deliberately deliver health care in a discriminatory way. They work with patients and provide them with care to the very best of their ability and with the resources at their disposal.

    However, whilst the existing system is set up to provide a fair chance for everyone, we know that there is room for the patient to intervene and ‘work’ the system. People with more information, confidence and general knowledge of public services are in a better position that others. The existing system, in fact, distributes access unequally.

    There is considerable evidence of differential access to other elective surgery. There are, for example, lower levels of treatment rates for hips, gallstones and hernias for lower socio-economic groups relative to need. There are further differentials according to poorer socio-economic group between consultation rates with GPs and hospital treatment rates for cataracts and tonsillectomies.

    If we believe in the value of fairness in the NHS then we need to do something about this.

    Some people can work the existing system better than others. Information, confidence and support are differentially distributed. The existing system tries to exclude this, but in a modern society this is just not possible. The history of command and control systems demonstrates that no system can ever tell people what to do with sufficient force to stop people finding their way through it. All over the world that has been tried and failed. We cannot tell people what to do and where to go. It does not work. And it does not work equitably.

    If we are a Government committed to equality of access then what we must do is try and tackle this.

    We must start by equalising the information at people’s disposal. We are putting more and more information about NHS health services into the public domain. The British Heart Foundation makes information available to patients, and some local cardiac centres, for example Liverpool, publish their own local information for patients. Only two years ago this information was known only if you were part of a small circle of people and it was kept secret from most patients.

    Every single piece of public information open to all increases the possible power of patients. But it is our job to make sure this is known and used by everyone, and not just the chosen few.

    When in doubt about whether patients want this information and choice, ask the patient!

    Over the last year, we have been carrying out a number of pilots for patients’ choice in surgery. These have been instructive. From July 2002, all patients who had been waiting longer than six months for heart operations have been offered the choice to go somewhere else if they want. Some 2,896 patients – around 50% of those offered the choice to move to another hospital – have chosen to do so. Since October 2002, patients in London have been offered a choice for cataract surgery. And from this summer, all patients in London waiting more than 6 months for any form of elective surgery have been offered choice of an alternative hospital. To date, 7,180 London patients have chosen to have faster surgery in an alternative hospital – over 70% of those offered this choice.

    Let’s be clear what we have done to date and why we have done it. Everybody within a certain clinical category, at a certain time of waiting, and in a certain part of the country gets this choice. Not those with money. Not those that are friends of doctors. Everybody. Everybody gets the same chance through this sort of choice – the same information and, crucially, the same support to help make these choices.

    This choice for people has not only improved their experience of the NHS, but it has also increased the use of capacity within the system. If a patient is ‘stuck’ on a single waiting list there is likely to be a hospital somewhere else that can treat them a lot earlier. By bringing all waiting lists together to provide people with choice, you increase the utilisation of the whole system. In London, in the past it was the case that some people waited for a cataract operation for 8 months and some were waiting for 8 weeks. By giving people the choice to move, you make much better use of the capacity and also encourage those hospitals that are operating well to do even more work.

    Next year we will roll out this choice at six months across the country.

    But even this is not enough. By the end of 2005, choice at the point of referral will be there for everybody, for all elective operations. By that stage we will be able to offer at least 4 different choices for people to make. Each hospital on offer will be backed by detailed information, which will be on hand in the GP’s surgery. Whilst this information will be in the public domain in general – it is when this information goes hand in hand with the GP’s real support that it will provide all patients with the same starting point.

    From the point of view of equity I want to explain what this will mean. It will mean that the information base will be open to everybody. It will mean that the GP will be on hand to assist everyone to use that information. It will mean that people will be able to make decisions that fit into their own lives and their own calendars. Not just those who know a hospital consultant – but everybody for every referral.

    That’s why our approaches to increasing choice and increasing equity go hand in hand. We can only improve equity by equalising the information and the capacity to choose. And we can only provide those choices when we have increased the capacity of the NHS.

    I know some believe that providing everyone with choice automatically biases the system against those who are socially disadvantaged and will lead to inequity. There are two problems with that position. First, as I’ve said, the existing system of not providing everyone with choice has not created equity.

    They are wrong for a second reason. Working people, poorer people, people who have disadvantages in their lives are quite capable of making difficult choices. Living the lives that they lead, they make very difficult choices every day.

    – Trying to make the most of a small income.

    – Coping with a world where English is not your main language.

    – Trying to tussle through a bureaucratic maze to get your rights.

    These are everyday activities for disadvantaged people and they need great capacity to survive and thrive. Such people – if given the information and the support of their GP – will be able to make choices for their health and their health service. And anyone that denies this is simply patronising people.

    So we start from a position that recognises a painful truth. 55 years of a ‘uniform service’ has not created equality of access. If we believe in greater equality of access we need to empower not just the few but the many. To do this we need to put the information and support in the hands of every patient and encourage them to take a greater say in where they have their treatment.

    The Government this week has been accused of being “ideologically timid”. But the course I have outlined is not for the fainthearted. This is not a hunker in the bunker policy. It is a real challenge to those who mistake the structures of the NHS for its values. If we were not addressing the issue of equity then thinktanks could rightly claim we had “lost our way”. But we have not.

    It is by developing choice and capacity in the NHS that Labour will increase equity in health in his country. If we were timid or had lost our way we would not – painfully at times – be reforming the NHS. But this would be the ultimate betrayal of modern working families since a failure to reform the NHS would soon be rightly seen as a failure to defend the NHS.

  • John Reid – 2003 Speech to NHS Chief Executives

    Below is the speech made by the then Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, to the NHS Chief Executives Conference on 3rd February 2003.

    You are the leadership of the NHS. And coming as you do from both a clinical and a managerial background the fact that you are the NHS leadership demonstrates how vital it is for nurses, doctors and managers to work together. And I would like to thank you for your leadership.

    Last September, in my first speech to you, I argued for the importance of values for the NHS. Values matter, not because they make us feel good about ourselves, but because they are awkward, difficult, bloody minded guides to action. They stand judgementally outside of our practice and argue with us to do better.

    The other thing about values, is they don’t go away, They are not just for Christmas. If you believe in them they last for a long time and they go on arguing with and improving your practice.

    The more we believe in these values; the more the values argue for reform to bring them about. And as I hope you notice, I believe in them strongly. So meeting the challenge of holding strong values argues for policies and practice of strong reforms. That is what my speech today is about.

    Lets look at where we are – the work you all do. The main value we are working towards is equity of access to health services free at the point of delivery. That value cannot be met when some people were waiting 18 months for their operations. The target for inpatient waiting times that you met last April, hopefully the targets you meet this April and will meet next year are all about equalising access to hospital treatment. The same is true of the 48 hour access to GPs. Without access there can be no equity of treatment. That’s why our first priority as a government has been to respond to patient demand and grow the treatment capacity of the NHS at an unprecedented rate.

    Delivery now and in the future has and will come about because of massive investment plus reform. This is now beginning to deliver real improvement and with the new contracts for all our staff and the growth of new capacity there will be more. With this new capacity the NHS is beginning to produce real results.  We continue to see an increase in elective admissions for patients into hospital and a large growth in procedures in outpatients and primary care. Taken together they show that on current trends about 400,000 more people than last year will have elective procedures. And both the NHS and independent sector Treatment Centres are playing their part in delivering additional capacity. Waiting times – the publics number one priority – are coming down. This is important because it improves equity of access.

    But this is not enough. In December we published Building on the Best, which demonstrated how we need to personalise our NHS.

    In the past the NHS has believed that uniformity of provision would create equity. To create that uniformity, decisions would be taken away from the individual patients and carried out by a centralised system. Sameness however, did not created equity.

    And that is why in Building on the Best we have been so careful to ensure that equity remains a goal for choice. People will get support and information in making those choices including interpretation for black and minority ethnic patients.

    Choice can and should be a part of our journey to greater and greater equity of access. As the Long Term Medical Alliance says

    “Choice is often seen as a prime example of inequity in health care. LMCA  believes it is possible to use choice as a lever to improve equity, but only if this has been made a specific objective”

    So, just as increased delivery was aimed at meeting the value of equity of access so to is our second policy aim of personalising the NHS. Equity and personalisation go hand in hand.

    But this is not enough. The NHS needs to, along with the rest of government and the rest of society, work with all the members of the public in helping them to improve their own and their families health. It is obviously in the interests of the NHS that people look after their health. The better the public improve their own health, the more the NHS will achieve. The NHS needs to play an increasing role in that process too.

    This too is about equity. One of the first facts I heard when I became SofS has truly shocked me. The fact that a boy born in Manchester lives ten years less than a boy born is Dorset is a disgrace and is palpably unequal. Of course that’s not just a matter for the NHS, but all of us, health service, government, and above all society itself should not let that situation continue.

    How will combining these three themes work for an issue  that you are looking at this afternoon – chronic disease management. There are 17.5 million people suffering from a chronic disease in England. We could just try to manage chronic diseases through increased capacity of our present system . Whilst this would provide us with a full range of different healthcare options, it does not fully engage the patient.

    Look at what the NHS could do as we develop our more personalised approach to health services, which gives the patient an opportunity to self manage and navigate their own way through the different ways of getting help with their chronic diseases. This will not just create a better experience for the patient but will improve medical outcomes.

    But we need to go further to develop an integrated prevention strategy as well. A genuine set of preventative health improvement measures would play a direct role in chronic disease management. It would reduce the numbers of people at risk, and mean fewer complications for people who already have the disease. The core business of the NHS draws us towards the wider agenda of the health of the public. We will mainly do this because it is the right thing to do, but it is also the case that – as Derek Wanless pointed out – the task of the NHS is less difficult if the public are engaged in their health.

    As a part of this process of developing our core business I want to endorse the conversation that you will be having with Nigel and Trevor Philips later on about leadership and race equality. For decades now people have been extolling other people to do more about race equality and far too little has actually happened. I want to explain why today is different. If you look at these three building blocks of our core business, we can’t do any of them without creating more opportunities for different black and minority ethnic groups.

    Look at delivery. Go into any part of the NHS and our staff our capacity to deliver anything at all, is as diverse as the nation. If we don’t make sure there is more internal race equality for those staff, we will not deliver.

    Look at personalisation. The need for personalising the health service is a medical one. Peoples bodies and needs are different. We need systems that treat them differently, and one of the main themes of difference is ethnicity. People live different lives and as such they need a different approach. Without greater race equality we can’t deliver a service that is personal to everyone.

    Look at improving the health of the public. The public we have is the public we serve. It is their health we have to help improve not some public in the image of the late1940s. In 2004 our public is wonderfully diverse, if we are going to engage them in improving their health, then we have to engage them all in their diversity. Without greater race equality we cannot do that.

    From here on in we cannot do our core business without it – and to signal that, in the near future Trevor Philips and I will be publishing a pamphlet making out that case.

    On the wider front of the health of the public, I am announcing today a very broad consultation leading to a new White Paper on the next stages of action to improve  the health of the public. I am making this announcement to you as the leaders of the NHS because you will be key in both developing and implementing this policy.

    However, and I want to stress this, the prime responsibility for improving the health of the public does not rest with the NHS nor with the Government, but with the public themselves.

    Indeed, the public recognises this. We are seeing a huge upsurge of interest in improving people’s health and wellbeing. It dominates pages in the Press everyday – and not just for the New Year resolution season. Our newspapers, magazines, television programmes are full of material about how to be fitter, healthier, and happier. We are seeing debates across whole cities about how to develop approaches to transport, to smoking, to housing, to find what works best for local communities. Only last week we saw the results of a survey about who should take responsibility for our children’s diet and the problems of obesity and ill health.  Individuals, organisations, communities are all looking at how to make things better. It is this drive for improvement coming from the people themselves that must be the core of our work.

    If people and their communities are the core to the development of the health of the public, does that mean that the Government should do nothing? Just as it is wrong to see the health of the public as solely a matter for the Government, so it is wrong to say that Government has no role. The consultation process we will be going through over the next few months will develop policies and practices for all different levels of Government. But we need a clearer understanding of what that role and its limitations should be.  Is it, as some suggest, the Government’s role to make rules and regulations? To ban things? Should the Government simply try to stop people doing what they enjoy? I can’t speak for every one of my colleagues but that was not what drove me to become a Secretary of State.

    But the Government must provide clear information, we must play our role in helping more people have the opportunity to make healthy choices. We must also be prepared to take action to protect the vulnerable in society – particularly children.

    These are issues that we need to debate seriously and in a grown up fashion. We all have a stake in getting this right. None of us wants to see our children or grandchildren growing up to be less healthy than we have been.

    We know what the big challenges to health are. In the White Paper Our Healthier Nation, we identified the big killer diseases, the scandals of inequalities, the “healthy behaviours” that we all know would make a difference, the continued need to work with people to tackle Beveridge’s giants of want, idleness, ignorance, disease, squalor, so as to create the circumstances in which individuals and communities can thrive.

    And many strands of action have begun. Local initiatives in neighbourhoods, communities, councils, healthy living centres, National initiatives, like smoking cessation clinics, the school fruit scheme.

    We have made excellent progress on reducing premature deaths from CHD by 20% and cancer by 10% since 1997. Also, the 10% fall in under 18 conception rates since 1998 is a very encouraging sign. But the focus on some of the challenges needs to sharpen. For example, obesity levels are rising at an alarming rate. They have trebled since the 1980s, are responsible for more than 9,000 premature deaths a year in England, and are linked to both CHD and cancer. The cost of obesity to the NHS is an estimated £1/2 billion per year.  Most alarmingly, over a third of children are now overweight or obese and we are now seeing increasing case of Type II diabetes in children.

    There has been a lot of sometimes, noisy debate about who should do this or that, to make the difference. We will be posing a wide range of questions to start off this consultation.

    Who should take prime responsibility for obesity in the nation’s children?

    What assistance should Government give to parents in tackling obesity?

    What contribution might schools, the food industry, retailers, advertisers, or others have to make?

    How far is it the business of Government to regulate the advertising of food and drink?

    Or, to take a different challenge,

    How does society as a whole take seriously the issue of increasing mental well being?

    What role could employers play in improving the health of our nation?

    And in the same way we need now to debate how best to support and promote improvement in health. As Michael Barber and Nick Macpherson might put it to you this afternoon, have we got our “delivery strategy” right yet?

    A good example is our Smoking Cessation Services. We have a comprehensive network of Stop Smoking Services at PCT level, backed by an investment of £138 million over 3 years.

    Since 2000, over 300, 000 have set a quit date and were still not smoking 4 weeks after with the help of the service. Many of those helped will have quit for good.

    We know that the Services do work and that they are very cost effective, but at present they are serving a very small proportion of smokers.

    On the one hand, we have this great demand with the vast majority of smokers wanting to quit, and on the other a NHS wide Service that is waiting to assist them.

    So, the challenge for us is to encourage more smokers to go through the door of their local Service, and in parallel, to ensure that the Services which are provided actually meet their needs.

    So now is the time, with Derek Wanless soon to report, to move on to a focused debate about what will help make the most improvements to the health of the public, individuals and communities over the next 5 years; and what are the most important actions for the longer term. This debate must generate some real momentum for social action, in response to the huge individual and public appetite for progress.

    Returning to you specifically as leaders of the NHS. The NHS this summer will start to plan for the next 3 years, the time is right to move upstream and put the same effort and energy into improving health itself, working with all those who have a contribution to make.

    Let me restate my position. I firmly believe that the government should take a lead in addressing these issues. But I also believe that no government or doctor can make a person healthy.

    Ultimately, that responsibility has to lie with the individual. Only they can make the choice to healthy lives, to change their lives for the benefit of themselves and their families. I need to be personal here. After 40 years I chose to give up smoking because at this stage of my life there were personal reasons that gave me the will to do it. I was helped by chewing gum. I was certainly informed by all the science which linked cigarettes and cancer. Lots of things helped me to do this. But no one could have made me do it.

    The role of government is to help its citizens to make those choices, by creating a supportive environment in and by helping them to stop smoking, improve their diets and take more exercise.

    This may sound relatively straightforward, but in reality it is a massive undertaking and I do not think we – the government – have the answers yet.

    It is clear from the current debates on public health that we all have a stake in the future of our health and the health of our children. Real progress will depend upon the concerted efforts of the NHS and other public bodies, local government industry, the media and the voluntary sector. Above all it will depend on working with peoples own desires to lead better healthier lives.