UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2004

  • John Reid – 2004 Speech on an NHS for the Future

    johnreid

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Reid, the then Secretary of State for Health, on 26 June 2004.

    It’s a year since I made my first major speech as Secretary of State for Health to the Confederation. I remember that very clearly – newly arrived, anxious about the detail and the acronyms that I didn’t know, but sure that I knew and was passionate about the values of the NHS. Those values inspire and invigorate us as we shape the vision for the continuing renewal of the health service in this country.

    You will know that this morning I made a statement to the House of Commons about the next steps in delivering the National Health Service Plan.

    My preface to the plan we published today starts by saying, “The NHS was founded on two fundamental principles. The first is that there should be equal access to treatment for all, based on clinical need and regardless of ability to pay. The second is that collective funding of the NHS, through national taxation, is the most effective way to ensure that quality care is available to all”.

    For me, these are not empty words. They are a real guide to our actions. And to carry them out, to bring them into reality we will all have to work very hard and very differently.

    Lets remember the context of 1997, we inherited public services in a state of widespread dilapidation – a claim almost no-one would deny. This wasn’t because public services and their staff were somehow inferior. The problem was too little resource, and therefore grossly inadequate capacity in terms of staff and facilities.

    By 1997 the hospital building programme had ground to a halt. Waiting lists were rising at their fastest rate ever. Nurse training places had been cut by a quarter. Training places for GPs were cut by one fifth.

    There was no maximum waiting time either for a GP appointment or for hospital treatment – although the hospital waiting lists stood at 1.1 million and many patients were waiting more than a year, with rates of death from cancer and heart disease amongst the highest in Europe.

    It was in response to those conditions that together we developed the 10-year NHS Plan launched by the PM with the words:

    “The challenge is to make the NHS once again the health care system that the world most envies.”

    I can report to you today that we are making good progress towards this goal, and that’s down to your work and your staffs’ hard work. I thank you most sincerely.

    In the last four years we have succeeded in expanding the capacity of the NHS. I hope you know these achievements off by heart, but just in case you don’t, there are now:

    – 67,500 more nurses working in the NHS compared with 1997
    over 19,000 more doctors

    – 68 major new hospitals built, underway or planned the largest ever hospital building programme.

    But these are just the means to the real end, improved services for patients. There are now:

    – over 258,000 fewer people on the inpatient waiting list compared with March 1997

    – virtually no waits of over 9 months for a hospital admission – down from over 18 months in 1997

    – over 97% of people can see a GP within 48 hours

    – almost 19 out of every 20 people seen, diagnosed and treated within 4 hours in A&E departments.

    We said that we would put in place reforms to ensure services improved. We have brought in new contracts, new institutions and new services such as NHS Direct and NHS Walk-in Centres and we have embarked on the world’s largest health related IT programme.

    Most importantly we said that outcomes for patients would improve as a result of this investment and these reforms. They have.

    – Cancer death rates are down by over 10% since 1997

    – Cardiovascular disease death rates are down by over 23% since 1997

    – It’s because of figures like that that I am sick and tired of hearing NHS staff constantly maligned as unproductive bureaucrats.

    The truth is that we are delivering more treatment, more quickly, to more people than ever before and there are thousands of people alive and well who would not have been even a decade ago.

    But I have always claimed significant progress, never perfection. That is why we are making a radical new set of proposals to develop the NHS plan. By 2007/8 we will be spending over 90 thousand million pounds of public money on the NHS. In return for such expenditure we must be ambitious.

    Our vision must be to meet the expectations and ambitions of people. We must provide a service that is fair to all of us and personal to each of us, offering the same access to, and the power to choose from, the widest possible range of services of the highest quality, based on equality of access, clinical need and not ability to pay.

    But, I want to start off by saying what there isn’t in this programme. There are no changes in structure; there are no changes of direction. What we will do is make the present structure work and move faster in the agreed direction.

    There are four main issues. We must ensure that we are able to transform the way patients experience the health service. With the continued increases in capacity and as waiting times come down, we are now in a position to aim for a maximum limit to the whole patient journey of 18 weeks, from GP referral, through outpatients and diagnostic tests, to treatment. The whole journey.

    Then, with dramatically shorter waiting times for treatment, “how soon?” will cease to be the major issue. “How?”, “where?” and “how good?” will become increasingly important. Patients’ desire for high-quality personalised care will drive the new system. Giving people greater personal choice will give them control over these issues, allowing patients to call the shots about the time and place of their care, and empowering them to personalise their care to ensure the quality and convenience that they want.

    Second, alongside this improvement in access, we want to give patients a greater degree of choice in where they access treatment. We want all patients to be able to choose from a range of services that best meet their needs and preferences.

    People will be able to book their hospital appointments for a time that suits them, from a choice of hospitals:

    From April 2005, patients who need a heart operation will be offered a choice of provider from the time they are referred for treatment

    By December 2005, all patients who need surgery will be offered a choice of 4 to 5 alternatives at the time they are referred for treatment by their GP.

    We want to go further. By December 2008, every patient will be able to choose to be referred to any treatment facility that meets NHS standards and which can provide care at the NHS price for the procedure that they need.

    That choice will be for all – not just for those of affluence or influence and will be available because of the extra capacity and lower waiting times.

    This is not a false choice such as the one advocated by some, which is available to those with the money to jump the queue. This is choice for everyone, paid for by the NHS, equally.

    Third, we will also extend the greater personalisation of patient care to people with chronic and long-term medical conditions. Some 17.5 million people – have their life dominated by conditions that cannot be cured – diabetes, asthma, heart failure, some mental health problems. Providing them with the personalised support and care that they need and deserve to live fulfilling lives will be a priority. We will do this by providing thousands of community matrons, rolling out the Expert Patients Programme across the country and ensuring that the new contract for GPs delivers the best care for patients.

    Fourth we also need to ensure that the NHS becomes more than just a sickness service. We have a duty as a Government to ensure that everyone has the chance to live a healthy life.

    The White Paper that I will publish in the autumn will set out in more detail our plans to tackle the major causes of ill health, including smoking and obesity. We have called that White Paper ‘choosing health’, because our policy is to encourage more people to make more healthy choices.

    We also want to work with people to improve the conditions that effect their choices – giving people a better chance to make those choices.

    These improvements will be underpinned by strong reform. By 2008:

    – The national IT programme will ensure that patients can make informed health choices and can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of NHS staff

    – NHS Foundation Trusts will have become the norm for hospital care, enabling local hospitals to respond more quickly to their patients’ needs;

    – PCTs will be able to commission care from a wide range of providers, including those in the independent sector;

    – The new system of payment by results will have been fully implemented, supporting patients as they exercise choice and ensuring that there are strong incentives for the NHS to make the best use of resources.

    The NHS University will ensure that NHS staff are given more help to train and learn new skills

    Fewer national targets will be set, ensuring a greater degree of local flexibility to respond to local health needs and reducing still further the extent of central involvement in the running of the NHS.

    I am also pleased to formally announce today that our plans to establish a new employers’ organisation under the umbrella of the NHS Confederation are coming to fruition and the new organisation will be in place in October.

    The employers’ organisation will provide an authoritative voice for NHS employers. Within the context of Government policy and resources, it will have responsibility for conducting national negotiations on pay and conditions. It will represent employers’ views and support them through guidance, advice, information and research.

    These are improvements that will re-define the service that patients can expect from the NHS. An NHS characterised by:

    – Commitment, not ambivalence

    – Investment, not cuts

    – Access based on need, not ability to pay

    – Queue cutting, not queue jumping

    – Fair for everyone, not just the rich few

    – Personal to each of us, not just those who can afford it.

    Conclusion

    Over the next four years we all have a big chance to develop an NHS which will meet the aspirations of today’s people. To secure the NHS as a part of the personalised world of today and to demonstrate that the greatest gift from the people of this country to the people of this country is able to meet the expectations of people in the 21st century.

  • John Reid – 2004 Speech on Health Inequalities

    johnreid

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Reid, the then Secretary of State for Health, on 23 September 2004.

    Philosophy, Policy and Priorities: The philosophy of health improvement

    I’d like to thank the Health Development Agency for the timing of this debate, since improving the health of the public has never had such a high-profile in the Government, in the media or in the public mind.

    As you are all aware, we will shortly be publishing a Public Health White Paper, which will bring about action to produce real change. I am not going to tell you the detail of that White Paper today, but I do want to describe the philosophy behind it and how that philosophy informs the new Labour Government’s attack upon inequalities.

    I don’t want to alarm you, but I would like to start with the Enlightenment. At that time it was recognised that mankind collectively and individually could make the world, rather than be made by it. Making things happen was not magic. It was nature, and we could all begin to fully understand nature, and then given that understanding we could control it.

    This is not abstract philosophy; in terms of health it is very concrete indeed. Over the last 200 years we have systematically understood aspects of health and disease and illness and then turned our attention to mastering them. Decade after decade, mankind has mastered more about health and disease and kept millions alive and in good health.

    In this country in 1900 most people died before they were 45 years of age. Now only 5% do. If control of nature by mankind means anything it means being alive longer. The speed of growth in our understanding and control of disease has been such that most interventions we carry out today were science fiction in my youth. Where a nation has the resources, humankind is winning the fight against disease. All of that is progress.

    Alongside our collective knowledge and mastery of disease there has been a growth in individual mastery. More people in our country have the resources and the knowledge to be more in control of and have more power over their mental and physical health than ever before. In terms of health and health policy, we know what to do to make us healthier and we know that both for ourselves and for the nation.

    As we approach the White Paper on health it is clear that knowledge is not our problem. So, given 200 years of the enlightenment, and all this knowledge, what is the problem?

    Put simply, it is that whilst we constructed an ever greater intellectual mastery, this intellectual power was developed in a society where the economic, social and political power was not equally distributed. This imbalance did not effect the creation of ideas but it has had a big influence on the application of these ideas – the way in which those ideas had an impact on society. One example of this is the way in which the people who developed the ideas conveyed them to the public. So, at the time the great philosopher Hegel was writing, only a very small part of the population could read and understand him. No one bothered to ensure that important ideas were distributed to the great mass of the people.

    Consequently, the conditions under which the mass of the population lived meant that these powerful ideas passed them by. Until people had more control over their lives, they could not use these ideas. And, unless the ideas were actually in the hands of people, they could only change a part of the world.

    Over time, of course, more people become better educated and therefore more powerful. More people became more affluent and therefore more powerful. And more people understood more about how to improve their health and became more powerful.

    Some of the more impatient amongst you may be beginning to ask “What on earth has this got to do with health improvement and inequalities”?

    Well, mastery is increasing in health. Now, more people are trying to control their health than ever before. Two thirds of smokers want to give up and struggle to do so. Millions of people try to go on a diet and millions more try to increase the amount of exercise that they do. People have got the ideas right. They know what the intellectual answer is. The problem is the doing of it.

    But still, many people are left behind in this mastery of their health environment. For too many, their environment masters them and overcomes their ability to act. Ideas do not by themselves give people the mastery of the world, or mastery of their health. To do that we have to work with them to change their environment.

    Therefore, men and women make their own health, but do not do so under conditions of their own choosing. So, whilst the engine of health improvement is the individual’s control over their own life, it is not enough to say to all the individuals in our society that you can choose to make your own health, because the different economic and social conditions under which we live either differentially hinder or help our choices. Those with more financial resources generally have more choices, as do those with more educational qualifications.

    So, the priority this Government has given to improving health and tackling health inequalities is rooted in the fact that health and life expectancy are linked to social circumstances in adulthood and childhood.

    Political, social and economic equality only improves when previously disadvantaged people work to change their position in society. Government and public services can and must assist this process, but people’s own motivation is at the core of change. The core of my philosophical approach is to increase the power that people have over their own lives and opportunities – to empower them and to enable them to effect changes in their circumstances. If people don’t do the hard work of taking up that opportunity, of exercising that power – very little happens at all and equality of outcomes does not improve.

    Work is a crucial part of the social and economic experience and to be excluded from it is a very serious inequality. Being unemployed can be bad for your mental and physical health as well as excluding individuals from society and benefits that others have access to. This is why we have very specific employment policies for very specific groups of unemployed people.

    Our employment policy does not come through diktat from the centre but through personalising policies for certain groups. 493,000 young people have moved from the New Deal into work and, without New Deal, long term youth unemployment would have been twice as high. New Deal 50 plus has supported 110,000 older workers in taking up work. And over 260,000 lone parents have been assisted to move into work through the New Deal. The proportion of single parents in work has increased by 8%.

    Each of these people has taken up a difficult opportunity to change their lives. They have each changed the conditions under which they live and have gained more control. This puts them in a better position to take more control over their health.

    Gaining educational qualifications are another area where people can gain more control over their lives. Some time ago, the Government introduced policies for the teaching of literacy and numeracy in primary schools. At the time, it was felt by some that if 11 year olds were being judged against a standard it would be bad for students who had disadvantaged backgrounds. The accusers’ expectation therefore was that this policy was NOT about improving equality, but that the pressure to achieve would make matters worse for disadvantaged children.

    It is interesting, even if with a few years of hindsight, to look at the outcomes. One of the proxies used in education for poverty and inequality is whether the child receives free school meals. A school where less than 8% of children receive free school meals would represent a school represented largely by better-off parents. A school where over 50% of them received free school meals would represent worse-off parents. If the first group of schools improve faster than the second group, then inequality can be deemed to be getting worse. If the second poorer group of schools improve faster than the first then by implication equality improves.

    In 1997 there was a gap in Key Stage 2 English achievement between the better-off and the worse-off schools of 35%. In the poorer schools less than half – 42% – achieved the required level with nearly twice as many in the better-off schools reaching that level. Over the 6 years from 1997 to 2003, under New Labour plans and programmes, both groups of schools improved. But the better-off schools improved by 8%, while the poorer schools improved by 17%.

    In short, since 1997 it is not just the fact that more 11 year olds can read and write, but it is the fact that children from poorer schools have been improving at twice the rate of children from better-off schools.

    In maths the rate of improvement of the poorer schools is nearly three times that of the better-off schools and in science it is two and a half times better.

    New Labour’s literacy and numeracy hours have reduced educational inequality despite all the initial criticism. They have done so by assisting pupils in schools with poorer backgrounds to develop the motivation and opportunities to learn.

    Let me return to my main theme. If we want people’s health to improve, then we have to unlock their motivation to gain more control over their health. If we want to achieve that for everyone then a prior condition for disadvantaged people is to unlock their motivation to improve their condition perhaps through work, perhaps through education.

    All of these policies for reducing health inequalities, either directly through addressing health, or indirectly through addressing the constraints on people’s ability to chose, recognise the importance of unlocking motivation.

    The Government needs to support disadvantaged people as they struggle to get motivated to either improve their health or take more control over their conditions, but it is their motivation that is the defining characteristic of change.

    Our philosophical approach is that our health and our inequality policies must be about empowerment. Getting a job improves the amount of power a previously unemployed person has over their life. Learning to read and write improves the amount of power that people have over their lives. Choosing the time you go for a hospital appointment and choosing the doctor you see, gives you power over your life, and yes, giving up smoking gives you power over your life. Government policies to reduce inequality must give you more power over your life. The Government that achieves this will enable people rather than just instruct them, hector them or try to dictate to them. In fact the Government that only instructs people takes away from the power of people and reduces their capacity.

    The problem with the enlightenment philosophers was that they thought that having the great ideas was enough to provide control of the world. What we learnt in the 19th and 20th century is that people needed to be economically, socially and politically emancipated to enable them to work to develop not just the idea of controlling their own life, but to make that idea a reality. Throughout the last 200 years it has been the people’s own struggle for improvement that has been the bedrock of economic and social progress.

    So I believe that the lessons for us in health improvement are clear. We know the ideas that need to be applied. Enjoy the good things of life, but in moderation. Cut out the bad things of life as much as possible. But the problem is in doing this. It is not just a matter of motivation. The millions of people trying – and failing – to improve their health are a signal of this. They know what needs to happen, they try and try, but it is just too hard.

    Given this philosophy the aim of Government is two fold.

    First, we need to provide clear leadership to our whole society about what are healthy choices and how important it is to struggle to gain control of your health. This leadership must recognise that these healthy choices are sometimes very hard choices for some individuals, but through clear and consistent information we must bolster and increase individuals motivation to improve and gain control of their health.

    Second, whilst this whole struggle depends upon individual motivation, Governments need to provide the support for people to improve their health. This involves the NHS in developing smoking cessation services that are convenient and are easily accessible. It involves ensuring that the services for sexually transmitted diseases can be easily accessed without shame. It involves the NHS recognising how important and how difficult health improvement is for patients and providing real and sympathetic help.

    So our philosophy is clear. Without people’s motivation very little health improvement will happen, but people have a right not to do this hard work on their own. They have a right to look to Government for practical support and we aim to provide it.

  • Charles Clarke – 2004 Speech on Five Year Children Strategy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Clarke, the then Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons in London on 8 July 2004.

    Today, I am proud to publish the Government’s five-year strategy for education and skills and for children’s services.
    Since 1997, substantial new investment and significant reform have brought education, skills and children’s services to the centre of our national life. A powerful alliance now exists for higher standards, embracing parents, our schools, colleges and universities, the voluntary sector, local authorities and employers. Improvements can be seen across the board: nursery education is now available for all three to four-year-olds; our 10-year-olds are among the best readers in the world; specialist schools are producing our best-ever results in secondary education; record numbers of young people are going on to university; and adults at work are gaining new skills.

    That progress has reversed years of under-investment and complacency; but more than that, it has lifted expectations in communities all over the country where educational failure had become entrenched. People know that education provides the key to lifelong achievement, and they now believe that it can be for them and for their children. They are right to have those expectations, challenging though they are to all of us in Government. Most parents do not want good schooling to depend on the ability to pay or to be rationed by admissions to selective schools. For many years, a quality education was the prerogative of the few: it must now become the entitlement of all.

    Five key principles of reform will underpin our drive for a step change in children’s services, education and training: first, greater personalisation and choice, with children, parents and learners centre stage; secondly, opening up services to new and different providers; thirdly, freedom and independence for front-line head teachers and managers, with more secure streamlined funding arrangements; fourthly, a major commitment to staff development, with very high-quality support and training; and fifthly, partnerships with parents, employers, local authorities and voluntary organisations to maximise the life chances of children, young people and adults.

    Our five-year strategy is ambitious for children and learners at every stage of life. In the early years, all parents will be able to get one-stop support through children’s centres that provide a combination of child care, education, health and advice services, and there will be a flexible system of “educare” that joins up education and childcare to provide twelve and a half hours of free support a week for three to four-year-olds before they start school, with more choice for parents about when they use it. Local authorities will play a major new role, through children’s trusts, in joining up all local services for families and children.

    In primary schools, we will continue to drive up standards in reading, writing, numeracy and science, but also to enrich the school curriculum and to give every child the chance to learn a foreign language and to take part in music and competitive sport. We will develop more dawn-to-dusk schools offering child care and after-school activities to help children and busy parents.

    Those extended schools, as they are called, will combine with early years and with family learning providers to provide a genuine educational centre to every local community.

    In secondary education, we will build on the achievements of the past seven years to increase freedoms and independence, accelerate the pace of reform in teaching and learning and extend choice and flexibility in the curriculum. Driving our reform will be a system of independent specialist schools—not a new category of school, but more independence for all schools.

    Independence will be within a framework of fair admissions, full accountability and strong partnership. We will never return to a system based on selection of the few and rejection of the many. The strict national requirement for fair admissions will remain and we will not allow any extension of selection by ability.

    We will put in place eight key reforms. First, real freedom for schools will come only with secure and predictable funding in the hands of head teachers. Every penny meant for schools must get to them. We will therefore introduce guaranteed three-year budgets for every school from 2006, geared to pupil numbers, with a minimum per pupil increase for every school each year. That dedicated schools budget will be guaranteed by national Government and delivered through local authorities. We will consult in the autumn on the practical arrangements and on ensuring there are no adverse effects for other local government services.

    Secondly, we expect all secondary schools to become specialist schools with a centre of excellence. They will now be able to take on a second specialism. High-performing specialist schools could become training schools or leaders of partnerships.

    Thirdly, every school will have a fast-tracked opportunity to move to foundation status, which will give them freedom to own their land and buildings, manage their assets, employ their staff, improve their governing bodies and forge partnerships with outside sponsors.

    Fourthly, there will be more places in popular schools. There is no surplus places rule. We already enable popular and successful schools to expand—we have a special capital budget for that. Now we will speed up and simplify the means to do it. There will be more competitions for new schools, which will enable parents’ groups and others to open up schools.

    Fifthly, a new relationship with schools will be established to cut red tape without abandoning our ambitious targets for school improvement or intervention in failing schools. We will halve the existing inspection burden on schools, with sharper short-notice inspection. Schools will have a single annual review carried out by a “school improvement partner”—typically, a serving head teacher from a successful school.

    Sixthly, in areas where the education service has failed pupils and parents, sometimes for generations, we will provide for 200 independently managed city academies to be open or in the pipeline by 2010. About 60 of those new academies will be in London.

    Seventhly, through the “Building Schools for the Future” programme, and a sevenfold increase in the capital budget for schools since 1997, we will refurbish or rebuild every secondary school to 21st century standards in the next 10 to 15 years.

    Eighthly, foundation partnerships will enable schools to group together to raise standards and take on wider responsibilities, such as special educational needs or hard-to-place pupils.

    Local authorities will play a key part as champions of pupils and parents, setting a strategic vision for services in their area, encouraging and enabling strong partnerships of schools, holding schools to account and intervening where standards are at risk.

    In each school, every pupil should have the personalised teaching they need to succeed, backed by excellent training for teachers, a broad and rich curriculum and more sport, clubs, societies and trips. We will continue to crack down on truancy and poor behaviour wherever it occurs, giving new powers to schools and local authorities.

    From the age of 14 onwards, there will be a much wider choice of subjects, with better vocational options delivered in close collaboration with employers, and the opportunity to start an apprenticeship at 14. There will be more choice after 16, with high-performing specialist schools opening more sixth forms where there are not enough.

    There will be a new framework for the curriculum and qualifications following the Tomlinson review. I appreciate the Conservative party’s support in working with us. That will help the reform process. I also appreciate the strong support that the director general of the Confederation of British Industry gave yesterday for working together. That is a positive step.

    In the autumn, we will publish a Green Paper on bringing together activities and services for young people. The structure of what is currently offered to young people is too complicated and unclear, and we will tackle that.

    For adults developing their skills, there will be free tuition for basic skills and for those going on to level 2 qualifications, which is equivalent to five good GCSEs. There will be a leading role for employers through sector skills councils and a reformed further education sector, rewarding success and closing weak courses and colleges. For those going on to university, there will be grants for students who need them, an end to up-front fees and a fair system for graduates to contribute to the cost of their course. There will be foundation degrees in vocational subjects, designed with and for employers, and world-class research to maintain our leading edge, particularly in science and technology.

    This ambitious programme of reform is backed by the further investment announced by the Chancellor in his Budget statement in April. Spending on education will rise by more than £11 billion to £58 billion by 2008 and—through the efficiency review and the 30 per cent. reduction in the Department’s main staff—will be focused more than ever on front-line services.

    The dividing lines for the future of children and schools are clear: whether we select a few, or raise standards for all; whether there is no role for local authorities, or a new role for local authorities; whether we take funding out of public services, or put it in; whether there is freedom for all, or a free-for-all; and whether some children matter, or every child matters. On this side of the House, we have made our decision: for excellence, for opportunity, for choice, but, importantly, for all.

  • Gordon Brown – 2004 Speech at the Advancing Enterprise Conference

    gordonbrown

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Advancing Enterprise Conference held at the QEII Conference Centre in London on 26 January 2004.

    I am very pleased to be able to welcome all of you, distinguished business leaders, to the QE2 centre this morning.  And let me begin by saying what I firmly believe: that the whole country owes you a debt of gratitude for the way, particularly throughout the world downturn of the last few years, you have been meeting the new challenges of the global economy – challenges that have required resilience, fresh thinking and the courage to change.

    Today, leaders of business and government come together in one room to discuss the future.  And I am delighted that we are all here together to discuss how best we can advance enterprise and equip ourselves for the next challenges of the global economy.

    It is the first time this Treasury has done anything like this.

    So why, you might ask, have we done so today?

    I wanted this get together because we all know that in the modern global economy Britain has to meet competitive challenges that are more fearsome than ever, but that the opportunities for the winners are greater than ever.

    I believe that if this country is to achieve its full potential, government and business must work constructively and creatively together.

    Through this exchange of ideas – with often different points of view – and through seeking the broadest harmony, our aim is to forge a shared and long term national economic purpose for Britain.

    A shared purpose that recognises that wealth creation is, today, even more important to the society we want to build; and that if we have the strength to make the hard long term choices, Britain is uniquely well placed to become one of the strongest, most successful enterprise centres of the world.

    So let me thank you for joining this discussion here today – friends from the business community, neighbouring governments, international guests – all of you distinguished in your own fields… all of you with powerful influence on the world economy.

    So what are the facts this Monday morning that should both focus our attention and drive us forward?

    We all know that the new global economy means speed in innovation – it took nearly forty years for the first 50 million people to own a radio, just 16 years for the first 50 million people to own a PC, but just 5 years for the first 50 million to be on the internet.

    But it also means a shift in global production.  In 1980 less than a tenth of manufacturing exports came from developing countries.  Today it’s 25 per cent: in twenty years time 50 per cent.  That’s not just cars and computers but half of all the world’s manufacturing exports coming from developing countries.

    By 2015 up to 5 million American and European jobs could have moved offshore – outsourced to countries like India and China as they strive to become the world’s second and third largest economies.  Indeed even today China’s significance to the global economy is that every year it, on its own, is adding as much output as the whole of the G7 put together.

    And so for companies like yourselves, there is hardly a product or increasingly a service you produce that is not subject to global competition.  And at every point you have to look not just where round the world you source not just your materials but your labour and skills, but where your competitors source their labour and skills.

    For Britain this means recognising there is no escape from uncompetitiveness by resorting to loss making subsidies, artificial barriers or protectionist shelters.  Indeed, the price of failure is not a long period of slow decline but sectors going under altogether.  And the opportunity for us is that as low cost, low value production comes under increasing pressure, the continuing challenge of finding and exploiting the high valued added, high tech, high skilled, science-driven products and services is the key to wealth creation in the future.

    Here in the Treasury we have been thinking hard about all this.  And I believe that Britain ought to be well placed in this new world.

    In this world of open, global competition, we – Britain – are the nation that not only pioneered free trade, the very idea of open competition, but have a greater global reach across all continents than any other.  With our long history of international engagement, our network of contacts – enhanced by the English language, the language of the internet and business everywhere – extends wider and deeper around the world than any other country.

    And we have not just a long tradition of inventiveness and creativity – a tradition that gave us the steam engine, the telephone, penicillin and the television and made Britain the world’s leading industrial power – but since 1945 it is British inventors that have given us the internet, magnetic resonance imaging, the human genome project – all starting from Britain – affirming both our potential as a scientific nation for the future and the need to continue to invest in British science.

    And we know we will only succeed if we can build on these inherent strengths and if politicians take the hard decisions making the tough long-term choices that are needed.

    When it was clear that decades of stop go had held Britain back, that stability was the essential precondition for Britain to be the success it could be Tony Blair and I took the decision to forswear the power of politicians to manipulate interest rates for short term political advantage and make the Bank of England independent.

    This was not an easy decision to persuade other fellow politicians to take.

    But its importance is greater than ever in a world of ever more rapid financial flows where investors will gravitate to those countries where there is greater stability and away from those countries that do not deliver it.

    And in Britain today, our new monetary and fiscal framework, this British model we have created – decisions we had to take to make the Bank of England independent, impose a symmetrical inflation target, cut debt and entrench tough fiscal rules – has made us better placed than before to cope with the ups and downs of the economic cycle.  So instead of being – as in previous downturns – first in, worst hit and last out of any world downturn, Britain has not only avoided recession but has continued to grow in quarter after quarter, year after year, in all six years of our Government since 1997. And we are not just one of the only major industrialised countries to have avoided recession but have been more stable than any of our neighbours over the last few years.

    We will never take stability for granted and I can say categorically to investors everywhere that we will continue to steer a course of stability and support our monetary authorities in the difficult decisions they have to take.  And we will entrench not relax our fiscal discipline.

    At this stage in the economic and political cycle governments have resorted to short termism in fiscal policy and gone on to raise the rate of spending.

    But I am determined not to go down the short term road: I have announced that while meeting all our commitments and our fiscal rules the rate of spending growth in the next spending round will be lower than in this round – at all times I am determined that we will avoid the short termism and mistaken monetary and fiscal policies of the past.

    And we will entrench this newly won and hard won stability and continue to demonstrate the same willingness to take the hard decisions so we can build on our strengths.

    Now it is precisely these British qualities – our global reach, our scientific genius and now our stability – that are the vital assets for winning in a more harshly competitive global economy. And it upon this foundation that I believe we now have a unique opportunity to build the next crucial and decisive ingredient for future British success – a shared commitment to enterprise and wealth creation, and a determination to remove, one by one, all the barriers in its way.

    We will take the tough long term decisions that are necessary to drive this through.

    Just as with Bank of England independence we will take the long term view – take on political vested interests – and persuade the British people that everything they cherish about this country can only be built on the bedrock of a flourishing culture of enterprise and achievement.

    And each session of this conference will focus on both specific barriers that can be removed and opportunities that can be seized so that we do better on flexibility and economic reform, on trade, on skills, on science, and have a stronger and deeper enterprise culture right across our country.

    In the first session we want to learn what the imperatives and choices are for making a successful global company for the future.  The job of government is to do only what it needs to do, no more than what it needs to do – stability, a competitive environment, investment in science skills and infrastructure.

    And at every stage – whether for companies starting up, investing, hiring, training, seeking equity, exporting – our aim is to be on businesses’ side.  And learning from US flexibilities, remove all the old barriers holding the enterprising back.

    Let me give a few examples:

    Planning: Britain must make our planning laws quicker, more flexible and more responsive – and we will.

    Pay: Britain must and will do more to encourage local and regional pay flexibility.

    Competition: we have just about the most open competition regime in the world.

    Transport: we must work with you – private and public sectors together – to tackle the massive backlog in infrastructure investment.

    Tax: Britain must do more to reward and encourage investment – and we will.  Just as we have already made our choice and cut long term capital gains tax from 40 pence to 10 pence, small business tax from 23 pence to 19 pence and corporation tax from 33 pence to 30 pence, I promise we will continue to look with you at the business tax regime so that we provide incentives for investment in wealth creation and greater rewards for success – and make and keep the UK as the best place for international business.

    Most of all in the coming spending round a government focused on the global economic challenge must make hard choices – as we will do tomorrow on university finance – to make investment in science and skills a central priority because they are the investments where government can make a difference and are most vital to our future.

    Every one of you here who runs a company knows that you must draw on the potential of everyone in your company to be successful; its no different for a country.

    Through Learn Direct, Employer Training Pilots, Union Learning Funds and then the return of apprenticeships, over 1 million more adults are learning today than six years ago.  But I want us to be the best educated and best trained workforce and tomorrow’s much-needed reform of university finance – which I urge all Labour MPs to support – is another vital step towards that goal.

    Our reforms will extend opportunity and equip young people with the skills to meet the demands of the 21st century and they deserve the support of all who share our goal of securing for Britain world class universities now and in the future.

    And I also commit us to taking, in this spending round, the tough decisions necessary, demanding, in return for investment, the highest standards in our schools and further education colleges; reforming university finance to secure for Britain world class universities now and in the future; working with you to – both of us – invest in employee training… all the time encouraging and incentivising a work-your-way-up ethos of self improvement and self reliance among British employees.

    And in science all the measures we are taking: £1.25 billion a year invested in renewing Britain’s science base; R&D tax credits; science learning centres; investing in science teaching in our schools; and what I can announce today – our commitment to make a long term plan for science funding over the next decade a central feature of our 2004 spending review… are for one purpose: to make Britain the best location for research and development and for innovation.

    The flexibility we need is not just in Britain but in Europe too – and I am very pleased that we will be joined later this morning by some of my European Finance Minister colleagues.  The best contribution we pro-Europeans can make to the cause of Europe is by ensuring that in Europe we face up to rather than duck the difficult decisions about economic reform — resisting the kind of inflexibility being added into directives like the working time directive, the agency workers directive, the investment services directive and the transparency directive, as well as insisting on tax competition not tax harmonisation.

    And I can tell you that the Irish, Dutch, British and Luxembourg Finance Ministers are today setting out our joint initiative to reduce the burden of existing regulation and to ensure that every new regulation is subject to strict and stringent tests for its impact on enterprise and on the competitiveness of the European economy.

    To ensure that enterprise takes centre stage in the drive for economic reform in Europe, the British, French and German governments are also setting out today our proposals for more pro enterprise pro innovation policies in the European Union.

    Better trading relationships with the US and the rest of the world help not hinder Europe.  So we welcome the restarting of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue.  We must do more to reopen the world trade talks by tackling agricultural protectionism.  And we propose a review to study – and then strive to secure – the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers between Europe and America and to agree approaches to competition and regulation.

    Finally – a government on the side of enterprise must build a deeper and wider entrepreneurial culture – where starting and growing a business is open to all with ideas and ambition.

    Our proposals on enterprise for this year each add up to something bigger than their individual parts – initiatives that taken together can make a difference, and contribute to a change in culture and attitudes by valuing and celebrating the spirit of enterprise throughout Britain:

    • We will hold the first ever national Enterprise Week – focused on inspiring the young to be enterprising – in November 2004;
    • The Queen and other members of the Royal Family will be visiting the most outstanding examples of enterprise in each region on July 14th;
    • In addition to the Queen’s Award for Enterprise, the Government is in discussions with the Palace about new ways of rewarding outstanding individual contributions to the development and promotion of enterprise in our country;
    • Young entrepreneurs from Britain will meet and learn from young US entrepreneurs;
    • All pupils before they leave school will have the opportunity to enjoy not just work experience but enterprise education too;
    • We will launch a new National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship;
    • There will be an annual British competition for the British town or city of enterprise;
    • And just as we compete for a European City of Culture we propose a competition for the European City of Enterprise too;
    • A joint US-UK Forum on Enterprise – which I hope some of you will attend – this summer;
    • In our high unemployment areas 2000 new enterprise areas as zones for new business opportunities with fast track planning, community investment tax relief, the abolition of stamp duty, and the prospect of enhanced capital allowances for renovating business premises.  And we have promised Local Authorities who create new businesses in their areas a share of the increase in national business rate as a reward for their enterprise.

    But all of this tells us that building an enterprise culture doesn’t just depend on any one initiative or individual but on changes in attitude and outlook which will, in time, transform our culture.

    In other words: advancing enterprise depends upon the efforts of all of us.

    I’ve sketched out what I think are elements of our shared economic purpose for a global era:

    A Britain that is open, outward looking, flexible, reforming, valuing science skills and enterprise;

    Government effective where it has to be effective – in economic stability, science, skills, infrastructure;

    Businesses able to be the wealth creators they are, and encouraged where it matters – with incentives and rewards to invest and grow;

    And a long term shared economic purpose – by that I mean a long term commitment not ever to take the easy way out or the short term course but resolute to get things right for the long term: making Britain a better place to do business – and better still in five, ten, fifteen, twenty years time from now.

  • Tony Blair – 2004 Press Conference on Higher Education

    tonyblair

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, at his monthly press conference. The press conference was held on 15 January 2004.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to this monthly press conference and we are going to start with what will be a short presentation on tuition fees, but nonetheless I think it is worthwhile just going back through the arguments again and John here is going to cope with my lack of technological capability by taking you through the various slides.

    Let me just set it out for you again. The purpose is to get a fair future for higher education, and we believe our reform package is better for all students because the up front fees – people won’t pay fees going through University, and there is a fair graduate repayment system, it’s better for poorer students because there is a new £3,000 a year support package for the poorest students, and it is better for Universities because they are going to see a big increase in their funding.

    Now why is it necessary to do this? It is necessary because there’s been a 36% fall in funding per student in the 8 years prior to us coming to office, it is necessary because University places are being expanded. We are now at 43% of under-30’s in University, but that is projected to rise. There’s a misunderstanding here sometimes. People say we have set some sort of arbitrary target. The reason we have an aim of 50% is that it is actually projected that it will rise to 50% by 2010 in line with both rising school standards and employer demands, and it is necessary to make these changes also because even with this expansion we are still getting far too low participation rates from the poorest families.

    Now this actually shows graphically why it is that we need change because what you will see is that the blue line is University funding, and you will see that that University funding, particularly after we came to office in 1997, has been rising so we have been putting more State money into Universities, but the pink line is the funding per student. That fell, as I say, dramatically before we came into office. All we have been able to do, because student numbers are still expanding, is to keep that static, but it is still significantly below where it was 15-20 years ago.

    Now the student support. What are we doing here? Obviously first of all there is the fee deferral, so this is a completely different concept from tuition fees that a family has to find whilst their children are going through University. They won’t have to find that money at all now. No family will have to do that whilst going through University. We’ve also then made a higher repayment threshold for the loans, starting at £15,000 not £10,000 per year as now, and actually a more generous system as well, as I will come to in a moment. We are writing off the loans after 25 years, and the maintenance loans will be increased to cover average living costs, so that is a very significant package of student support that will help us widen access.

    Now, for the poorest however there will be a £3,000 a year package for those studying the more expensive courses – half of it will be pure grant – and no student from a poorer background need take on extra loans. So how do we compare with the two proposals, if you like, or the two schemes. What happens now and what happens under the new system. Well first of all obviously under the new system there’s no payment up front and the effect is actually far better obviously because people don’t pay the fees on their way through University. Then secondly the writing off of the loans, at the moment for the maintenance loan, remember most students, about 80% of students, have got the full maintenance loan. I think the average is round about £10,000 of debt now, so it’s not as if this is an unknown concept, but that loan is only written off on reaching age 65 or death. Now it is going to be automatically both maintenance and fee loan written off after 25 years. This particularly means that for example if a woman goes to University but decides she wishes to stay at home to look after the children and decides not to go back to work again, then that is written off, and the effect obviously is a fairer system. And then finally there’s the grants for poorer students. This maintenance grant is being reintroduced in line actually with the original Dearing recommendations of some years ago and that of course is a substantial change. One substantial measure of support is that for the first time in years poorer students are actually going to get maintenance support, and that is at £1,500 a year, and together with the rest of the package, as I say, it is a support package of £3,000 in total.

    And then what that then means is for student loans, the interest charge continues to be no real interest rate which is obviously very important, and the graduate contribution is a graduate contribution that is obviously over a longer period of time with better systems of repayment.

    And then finally, if I could just show you two other things, that sets out the scheme for you where you see how much more beneficial it is the new scheme than the old scheme because for example under the existing scheme the maintenance loan that a student will pay off if they earn £20,000 a year after graduation they will be paying £17 a week at the moment, but under the new scheme combined fee and maintenance low will be round about half that, so it is far more generous to people in the early stages of their graduation when they may be earning less money.

    QUESTION:

    (Indistinct)

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well of course you have to pay back the amount of the loan that is true, but what it means is that in the early stages of your work you’re actually better able to pay it off, and you’re not subject to the same financial pressures as when you will be paying off at the moment on £20,000 a year £17 a week.

    Then the final thing which I think is an important point to make because this is all about in the end obviously this is a debate in the House of Commons and that is tremendously important. We have to get the Bill through, of course we do, but I think the other thing is that that is in part influenced by the debate in the country and I think this is both a very interesting and important set of figures because what it shows is what we actually invest in the education of our young people at each stage and what it shows is that in the early years we invest least, and we actually invest £5,300 a year for each University student, which we will continue to do, that’s the public money that goes into it, and that is actually more than we invest in Primary or Secondary education per child. Now the reason we put this up here is to say surely it is fair therefore if you are going to increase University funding, to ask for a balance back from the student after graduation because otherwise that set of figures that already means that we put a higher investment as taxpayers into University students than we do into Primary or Secondary schoolchildren, then that imbalance would be even greater. And that’s why I say in the end it is fair, particularly in circumstances where 80% of the taxpayers in this country have not been to University, that we do ask from graduates a bigger proportion of the investment back. It doesn’t mean to say that the government and the taxpayer is still not going to make a major investment in their education. We are going to do so, but we will balance the contribution so that it is not just from the general taxpayer, it is also from the University student.

    One final point I would make as well, and that is that the interesting thing is if you look round the world today those countries that are making the biggest improvements in their higher education systems are ones with schemes similar to the one that we are proposing here. And that’s why I think this debate is important. It’s important for the future of the country because University education is of increasing importance. It is important to the reform of public services because we are showing how public services can be reformed in a modern progressive way for today’s world – not 30 or 40 years ago – and it’s important because in the end it allows us to put together the two essential concepts which is to meet future challenges in a way that is fair for all people, not simply a few, and for that reason I think whatever the difficulties in the coming weeks I believe that we will win this argument, but I believe that as each day passes it is more obvious how important it is that we do win this argument for the future of the country.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, we are as you have just shown us into the detail of this argument now. So could you possibly tell us your own view about the idea of switching £1,200 towards the maintenance grant for poorer students from the discounted fees that the money is used for at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You mean that you roll up more of the fee remission into maintenance grant?

    QUESTION:

    For poorer students you are able therefore to give them an extra £1,200 up front. It’s something Charles Clarke’s been talking about?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I would express it in exactly the way Charles did when he did his package. We are now going to give a £3,000 per year support package to poorer students. As Charles rightly says however it may be that some of those students would prefer to take this money more in maintenance than in fee remission. Now he said that over time we will look at how we move to that. At the moment what we’ve got is a £1,500 maintenance grant for poorer students and then the rest of it in fee remission. But yes it is perfectly possible to move towards a different system in the future.

    QUESTION:

    You wouldn’t be against that yourself?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no on the contrary I think there is everything to be said for it.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if the case that you’re setting out for a new system of University funding is as powerful as you say it is, why are so many of your own MPs refusing to accept it? Could it be that they are just being cussed, or could it be that they want to undermine your authority and get rid of you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s a big reform and these reforms are always difficult, and if you look back on the history of big social, economic, political reform in the past 20 or 30 years, they have always caused controversy because we’re asking people to think anew and there are two elements of argument against us at the moment. One is to say, look University education should be free and therefore the whole concept of fees is wrong. Now I believe it is not fair to put all the burden on the general taxpayer, and I think the country will understand that as you expand higher education places it is fair to ask for the graduate to make a contribution back into the system once they graduate, but we have got to win that argument. And the second argument is on the variability of the fee and there I think it is important to stress that to force all Universities to charge the same for every course and every University to be treated the same is just not either realistic or fair. There will be 2-year foundation courses that Universities will want to charge less for, than say a 3 or 4-year science or engineering degree, and I think that’s perfectly sensible. Or a law degree. And I think to encourage that diversity is a good thing, not a bad thing.

    Now the battle is still there to win. It is true the argument is moving our way, but the battle is still there to win. We need to make sure that people understand that this is a genuine attempt to get a fair solution to a problem that is of huge importance to future prosperity in Britain. These reforms are always difficult, but it’s interesting, isn’t it, that when you see today the reports on specialist schools and how well specialist schools are doing, and two or three years ago I was told that they would be elitist, that they would end up with a system that would return to selective education. Actually what has happened is these specialist schools are making huge improvements in results, with mixed ability intake, because they are teaching in a different way and because the system is working better. Now, that reform argument today has been won. But two years it was highly controversial. And I believe the same will be here for University finance, but I don’t underestimate it, it’s always a difficult call.

    QUESTION:

    But what about the motivation of those who are opposing? Are some people fighting other arguments using this as a cloak?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is probably not wise for me to get into speculating about people’s motives and just try, whatever their motives are, to shift the vote the right way.

    QUESTION:

    On Andy’s point, just a point of detail, you talked about it in terms of the future this question of converting the remission into an up-front payment. Is it something that you would contemplate doing at the start of student loans, or do you see that much further down the track? And just going back to Robin’s point, do you now regret having made this such a confrontational argument, having put your authority on the line as you did at the last press conference, and in fact if you did lose the vote, would you feel you could continue to lead a Party that clearly didn’t want to go along with the kind of market reforms you have in mind?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point that Andy raised – and incidentally there has actually been some wrong speculation in the papers about what this involves this morning – actually this is precisely what Charles was talking about when he launched his package. When we could do it. I don’t know. I can’t be sure at this stage. But there is merit in at least giving people the option as to whether they want to take more in fee remission or more in maintenance grant.

    QUESTION:

    It is reported this morning that the Chancellor is against that because of the cost implications.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it actually reported the other way round, but I don’t know.

    QUESTION:
    Well which way round is it?

    PRIME MINISTER:
    Whatever way it is reported isn’t actually correct. It has not been a discussion between the Education Secretary and the Chancellor. This has been something that the Education Secretary actually set out right at the beginning. And what you find in this is a constant running sore about who is agreeing with who and who is disagreeing …..

    QUESTION:
    What is the position then?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The record is exactly what I have just said which is that as Charles said when he announced the package we are at the moment doing this. We are splitting it up into some fee remission and some maintenance grant, though you can use the maintenance grant to put towards the fees, but as Charles said when he launched the package, there is merit in moving over time to a situation where you could take more of that in maintenance if that’s what you wanted, and it all depends on what you think is the problem for poorer students. Is it the fee, or is it the maintenance? Now, I have some sympathy with the view that actually it is the maintenance that the poorest student worries about. How am I going to pay my way through University, because after all the fee is deferred, and the repayment of the fee is not a function of the family income from which they came, but the income that they will earn after graduation. So I think there is merit in moving towards this. This has not been a bone of contention at all within government. Everybody wants to move in that direction but we need to work out …. not so much cost issues actually, it is work how you manage to do that, how you make that system work, and also how you do it without maybe taking the choice that some people may decide they would prefer to put that money into fee remission. Do you see what I mean.

    Now, in relation to the other point. Why is this so important? You’ve got to take a decision as Prime Minister about what the purpose of being in government is, and the purpose of being in government is to take difficult decisions that you believe to be right in the interests of the country and to see them through, and the reason why I have put so much effort into University reform is that I genuinely believe in the future the only economic course for this country is to get a better and better educated workforce and we have to pay for that in a fair way, and whereas 6 or 7 years ago when I was elected and said education is the number one priority I meant, and everyone believed I meant, schools. If you talk about education today, you have also got to talk about adult skills, University education, and educating children even before they get to Primary school. And therefore this is part of trying to meet future challenges in a different way. And that’s why it’s important and I actually have a great confidence in this argument. I think the more the argument has gone on, the more people have seen that this is a bold reform, yes, but also an important one and a right one. And there’s no point in doing the job unless you carry these things through, and that’s why we will do it.

    QUESTION:

    Where would you go? You say there’s no point in doing the job if you can’t do these things. Would you go if the Party say we are not prepared to do it? We don’t share your view.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I’ve often said that it is not intelligent really to speculate on what might happen, but I believe that we will win the vote. There’s a lot still to do mind you, but I believe that we will win it.

    QUESTION:

    What do you say today to Samantha Roberts, whose husband was killed serving in Iraq after he had been told to hand over his body armour, after he had complained that he was going into battle without the correct equipment? He believed, and she clearly believes, that British soldiers like her husband were going to fight in Iraq without the proper equipment. Is she right, and if she is, should Geoff Hoon resign?

    PRIME MINISTER:
    First of all let me express my sympathy and condolences to Mrs Roberts and to say to you I totally understand the concerns that she has expressed. As you will know, there is an inquiry being conducted now by the Ministry of Defence and I know that they are keeping Mrs Roberts closely in touch with the process of that inquiry, and of course they will with the outcome as well. And when we have all the facts before us then I think we can comment on it.

    QUESTION:

    I know that if I ask you about the substance of the Hutton Inquiry you will say wait for the report to be published.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Or indeed the process.

    QUESTION:

    I think, if I may, there are some important questions on the process. The first is that the whole question what you said to us on the plane, bearing in mind that you are telling everyone else not to comment on the Hutton Inquiry until it is published, do you accept that in principle you were wrong to make that categorical denial on the plane, whether it was true or not? The second question is you said at a previous one of these news conferences that after the Hutton Inquiry was published that would be the opportunity then for us to question you on what it contained. Will you give us a guarantee that you will hold this next news conference within a week or the publication of the Hutton Report? And thirdly, the whole question of other people getting access to the Hutton Report under embargo. In the interests of equity, will you join in the various appeals being made to Lord Hutton to allow the press and the opposition limited pre-access to the report before it is published so that spin operations don’t dominate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is important first of all that we wait for Lord Hutton’s Report and then people can make their judgments, not on the basis, to put it frankly, of speculation by parts of the media or party politics on any side, but actually on the basis of the facts that the judge finds. We should await the outcome of that. As for the process, I think that is entirely a matter for the judge and I am content to let him do that, and I think it is right that he does do it.

    QUESTION:
    Why is it different from Scott then?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well for the very reason that I have just given you, that I think the judge should be allowed to decide these things and we would be very happy to abide by whatever decisions he takes.

    QUESTION:

    But you objected the last time round.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well let’s wait and see what actually happens Adam before we criticise. I think the most important thing with this is to understand that we set up this inquiry, I actually set up the inquiry with an independent judge because I thought it was important that the public be given the facts, not speculation by this part of the media, or that part of the media, or as a game of party politics, but actually the facts, and I think he should be allowed to make his judgment and I am not going to comment further on it until he makes his judgment.

    QUESTION:

    If I can turn to another subject and ask for your views on the current status of European integration. Europe can’t agree on a constitution, Europe is split down the middle on Iraq, France and Germany are flouting budget limits, there is talk of a two speed Europe. What is going on? Has integration run out of steam?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that the process of European cooperation has run out of steam at all because Europe is expanding to 25 and there is still an awful lot that Europe can do, and you just had recently agreements reached on European defence that are very important. But there are tricky issues to resolve in respect of the constitution I don’t think it is any surprise that it is taking time to resolve. My own judgment about this is that of course we have to resolve these constitutional questions, but it is also important to have a forward political programme for Europe that demonstrates to the European citizen what Europe at its best should be about, which is better jobs, better economic performance, higher living standards, improved security for our citizens. And that is why part of the discussions that I will be having, not just with France and Germany but with others in the weeks to come will be focusing of course on how you resolve some of these outstanding constitutional issues, but also will focus on how we make Europe genuinely more relevant to the citizens of Europe, and that I think is the biggest task that we face.

    QUESTION:

    You say there is an agreement on European defence, but Germany has just planned to slash its defence budget.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it is for countries to decide their defence budget, and we are increasing ours here, as you know. But I think there are two quite separate issues: one is the overall level of defence spending, but the other is frankly how efficient is the defence capability that we have for the money we spend in Europe, and even within existing defence spending there are many, many efficiencies that I think could be got into the system. Now without me commenting on German defence or anyone’s defence, but if you look around Europe and see the number of troops that are actually able to conduct and mount effective operations, certainly fighting operations, they would be a lot less, a lot fewer than the numbers in uniform. So I think there are issues there that are very important too.

    QUESTION:

    Returning to fees, Ron Dearing last week estimated that the funding gap between what is raised from general taxation and what the universities say they need has now risen to £11 billion. If I understand it correctly, and I think Charles Clarke accepted that figure, the new proposals will raise about £1 billion, where are the other £10 billion going to come from?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You can argue about where the funding gap is going to be over the years to come as you expand student numbers, but what we can for a certainty say at this point is that universities under our proposals will be able to increase funding per student by about 30%, and you can see from the chart I put up earlier, that will be the first effective increasing in funding per student for many, many years. Now there is all sorts of speculation on funding shortfalls, there is an infrastructure backlog that has to be improved, but that can be done over time. The most important thing however is to get in place a system that allows the universities to know that they are going to be able to increase significantly the amount of funding available to students.

    QUESTION:

    And increase their fees, after the end of the next parliament …

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have made two things very clear, James, on this. The first is that these fee levels are maintained for the next parliament; but secondly, and more important than anything else, that there will be no increase in fees without explicit parliamentary authorisation. So I think that is very, very important.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask in the wake of the Kilroy affair, do you share the growing public concern about the erosion of freedom of speech? Is investigating Mr Kilroy Silk really a sensible use of police time? Is the government still wedded to the notion of a poll tax as the best way to fund the BBC, and does not such a funding system place a duty on the corporation to incorporate a wide array of views?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mark, would you like to answer that one on behalf of the BBC? Look I think it is important that obviously people take care in what they say, but it is important to have freedom of speech as well, and I think people can work out in their own minds what the balance of those things should be, and I think this is one controversy, if you don’t mind, that I will not enter into. And as for the BBC’s future, that is being looked at under the discussions of the BBC Charter and that will happen on the basis of what is good, not for the BBC simply, but for the public as well. So make what you will of that one.

    QUESTION:

    Will Gordon Brown make a good Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For God’s sake, Nick. You have been sitting there thinking about this all the way through. I have been through these questions and those types of questions so many different times and I think at the moment if you will just let me get on with the job.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you one on tuition fees now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You can ask me one on tuition fees, Nick, as a reward for the ingenuity of your first question.

    QUESTION:

    I just wanted to give you a chance to give a better answer.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Which I failed to take the opportunity of, but never mind.

    QUESTION:

    We will both go to the back of the class. You have just given once again a promise that the cap on tuition fees won’t be raised. Given people heard you promise that tuition fees wouldn’t be introduced at all when they read your manifesto, wouldn’t they be wise to be a little suspicious about that promise?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    First of all just let me make it clear, we will not have this new system in this parliament, this new system will be in the next parliament. Now I agree we are legislating to do it, but an election comes inbetween. And secondly, and this is very important to emphasise, what was being talked about was the idea of variable fees in the existing fees system. What we are introducing now is a graduate repayment system in place of university fees paid as you go through college. Now in any event the legislation will have in that legislation a clause expressly making it clear that raising fees has to be done by parliamentary approval, and that is why I think and hope and believe people will accept that.

    QUESTION:

    But MPs hearing you know that the people who persuaded you of the case for increasing fees simply don’t believe in this £3,000 cap. Every single one of them says it will have to be lifted and it will be lifted. So people will be deeply suspicious that in your heart you know it will have to be lifted too.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, because I think that what has happened is that we have introduced a system, it is not true that everyone has been saying to us you have got to lift the cap and have no cap at all. You look around the world today at the other systems I am comparing us with, in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, there are often caps in those countries too, I think I am right in saying that all of those three countries have a cap on it. And it is not true to say that all universities have told us to have no cap, some of them have been very, very specific they would want one. And what I am saying to you is that we have set this for the foreseeable future, and remember this system doesn’t even come into effect until after the next election, but it is also the case that we will be making it clear in the legislation that it needs explicit parliamentary approval, and I think and hope that that is enough for people. And the reason why it has been important to deal with this is because unless we give the universities some clear certainty about the system that is coming forward in years to come, they can’t plan for it, and in the end the important thing is to do the right thing for the country. And I hope people understand that the system we are putting forward is not simply “top-up fees”, it is a different system altogether, it has completely different elements from the system we have in place at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    But some of those potential rebels, and indeed some people who like the policy, say part of the problem is what is happening now. Two weeks away from the vote and you are intensively explaining it that concessions are being made, and they feel this was a policy dropped on them from Downing Street without going through the proper procedure. Do you think mistakes were made?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you can always look at how you present these things better, although my experience of these difficult reform issues is that they always begin with a difficult context, and then you have to get into the argument, and then as the argument unfolds people start to get persuaded. And certainly the MPs I have talked to in the past few days are increasingly saying well actually now that we see the whole package we do understand that it is not a bad package, on the other hand we have said that we are going to vote against it, so they are looking for a way to get out of that situation. But it is very important as well to recognise, sometimes I read that we have made concessions to get this package through. We have made no concessions. The package of student support is right in its own interest and right, it is not right simply because it helps to get the package through. I think it is important that we reintroduce support for poorer students, and it is important that we relieve all families of the burden of finding money for university education as their children go through college. And the fact is if you are a middle income family, so you don’t qualify as a poorer family that gets the support, if you are a middle income family in middle Britain and you have got one, perhaps two children going through university at the same time, at the moment you are having to find over a three year period maybe £6,500 out of taxed income to get your child through university. That is a lot of money to people on incomes that are actually still …

    QUESTION:

    It was your decision originally, the upfront fees?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course, I totally agree with that, and the fact is we would have been unable even to sustain universities in the position they are in unless we had taken that decision. That is why, remember how this all began, it didn’t begin under this government actually, it is a programme of change that has been going on for probably 15 – 20 years because people have recognised that more and more people will go to university, we first of all then had maintenance loans introduced by the previous government. Then you had before the 1997 election an understanding that universities were in dire trouble still, so Ron Dearing was then commissioned to do his report with cross-party support at the time. He came forward and said you are going to have to introduce tuition fees, and so we did and we were the government that did that. But I said straight after the last election, I said that one of the things that did impress me and worry me on the doorstep was people saying to me if you are from, you know not a poor income but a middle income family, it is a lot of money to find out of your taxed income to put your children through university. And that is where we came, not arising out of a few people in Downing Street, we came to the conclusion that we were best to move to a situation where you don’t have to pay any fees going through university but the graduate makes a repayment afterwards. And when you look round the world and see the countries doing best in higher education – Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America – this is the system, with variants, that they have got and that is why we have done it.

    QUESTION:

    You met with Mariano Rajoy on Tuesday and you told him that you were prepared to continue conversations about Gibraltar after if Party au Popular came back to victory. That has caused a lot of excitement in Spain because people understand that you are committed to restarting conversations that are “dead” since the summer of 2002. Can you confirm that please?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well they have never been dead at all. We have continued to discuss the issues relating to Gibraltar, it obviously forms part of the conversations I have had with President Aznar over the past few months. But it is important that we carry on – Britain and Spain – trying to reach agreements that of course in the end have to be subject to the consent of the people of Gibraltar, but it is important that we carry on trying to reach agreement on this issue because I think that relations between Britain and Spain are immensely important and we need to do everything we can to try and resolve this in a sensible way. And therefore what I said to Mr Rajoy is exactly what I have said to President Aznar, and that situation will continue.

    QUESTION:

    To return to the death of Sergeant Steve Roberts, looking back to this time last year when you were sending troops to fight in Iraq, did you know, or did Geoff Hoon know then that there were some of them facing problems they characterised as disgraceful over the kit? And now do you accept or agree with that that indeed those problems were, to use Sergeant Roberts’ words, disgraceful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have to wait for this inquiry to report to the MOD because they are looking into the specific case. I know it is unsatisfactory in a sense to have to say this, but it nonetheless is really the only proper thing to do. And in a situation like this, particularly when someone has died in circumstances where there is this issue over whether they had the proper equipment or not, I would prefer to make a comment to you once we get the report back from the inquiry.

    QUESTION:

    Gerry Adams is saying this lunchtime that he believes the forthcoming review will end in a stalemate, and he is talking about the government taking the initiative and bringing about some other process outside the review to break the deadlock. Is that viable? And secondly, could I ask you, considering that we now know that Judge Corrie has recommended four inquiries into his findings, when do you intend to publish the Corrie Report and what sort of inquiry do you eventually envisage considering the considerable cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the issues to do with Corrie, we will publish it as soon as the outstanding legal issues are resolved and then we can make decisions about inquiries and the nature of them at that stage. In respect of the first point, well I hope everyone goes into the review with the idea of making it work. But let’s be quite clear what the two issues are going to be. The two issues are going to be: one, is it clear that on behalf of the Unionist majority there is a willingness in principle to share power and to work in the executive, together with all parties that are abiding by the Belfast Agreement; and two, in respect of the Republican Party – Sinn Fein – is there a clear understanding that we cannot have a situation where any party that is in government is associated with active paramilitary organisations. Now those are the two issues that the review has got to resolve, and I hope that rather than people predicting there is going to be a stalemate, that on the Unionist side they go in resolved to share power provided everyone is in accordance with the Good Friday agreement, and on the other side, the Sinn Fein side, a recognition that we do have to be clear that peaceful and democratic means is what is going to be used.

    QUESTION:

    It is 13 months since your speech in Belfast at the Harbour Commission and we are still waiting on these acts of completion.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, exactly.

    QUESTION:

    How long? Do you go ahead without Sinn Fein? It is hard. The Irish government are saying that they wouldn’t have Sinn Fein in government at the moment because of paramilitary activity. Is it fair, for example, they ask the DUP to go into government, into executive with Sinn Fein in the same circumstances?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is precisely the reason, the reason why we have been in this position for the past 15 months is because we haven’t had the acts of completion. And the reason why the executive was not up and running at the time of the Assembly elections is because it was impossible to satisfy, not just Unionism I have to say but a broader swathe of opinion than that, that all paramilitary organisation and activity had ceased. And we cannot have a situation where people are expected to sit in government with political parties attached to active paramilitary organisations. When people say to me, well you said people wouldn’t be in government if they were linked to active paramilitary organisations, that is precisely the reason we have not had a functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland, because we have not been satisfied about that. Now on the other hand I do believe that the Sinn Fein leadership are committed to making this process work, I do believe they have come a very, very long way, but we have got to have no ambiguity about it. What I said 15 months ago I repeat now, there was a time when ambiguity in Northern Ireland was our friend, a necessary friend. It is now the enemy, an opponent of this process working. It has got to be clear, you cannot expect after five and a half years of the Good Friday agreement, you cannot expect people to sit down in government unless they are all playing by the same rules, and there is no way round that.

    QUESTION:

    To return to Europe for a moment, what is your reaction to Bertie Ahern when he says that any understanding on parts of the deal reached between EU leaders before the constitution talks collapsed in Brussels last December, any understanding that you had of a deal is now irrelevant and that all those so-called red line issues, like foreign policy, taxation and defence, that you thought you had some agreement on, will go back into the melting pot if the Irish EU Presidency can get the talks going again?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think people are making a little bit more of this than need be. It is a statement of fact, as we said at the time, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. But on the other hand, the fact that there was a summing up by the previous Presidency that indicated that areas like foreign policy, and tax and defence should remain intergovernmental, unanimous, I think is very persuasive and obviously our position remains the same. And I would be quite surprised if the broad understanding that we had before was overturned. But of course the Irish Presidency is absolutely right, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and the negotiation has to be agreed on all points and I wouldn’t expect them to say anything different from that.

    QUESTION:

    Could I take you back to the case of Sergeant Roberts and the inquiry, I know there is an inquiry. What his widow, Samantha, wants to know is a guarantee from you that this inquiry will be genuinely thorough-going, that if it finds that there were severe equipment shortages then there will be resignations at a high level. And isn’t there frankly already enough evidence to offer her not just your sympathy but an apology as well?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think really what I would say is this, that an inquiry has been appointed to look into this case. I am sure it is going to be a thorough inquiry and it is really for them to say what has happened and to apportion blame out of it. And it is a question of wanting to wait until we have that before I start not simply prejudging it, but maybe saying things that the inquiry says aren’t actually the case. So I think it is best that we do it in the way I have described, really.

    QUESTION:

    Yesterday at Prime Minister’s Questions you trumpeted the latest fall in national levels of unemployment, when at the same time regional unemployment in the north east has risen yet again, and today we have had confirmation by Samsung on Teeside, that it is to close its plant with a loss of 425 jobs. What is your reaction to the Samsung decision and the wider problems facing manufacturing in regions like the north east?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    First of all, Gerry, I deeply regret the loss of jobs at Samsung, this will have an impact on my constituency and others in the area, and Samsung employment was good employment, skilled employment, and we can badly afford to lose it. What I would say is, as we did when Fujitsu closed some years ago, we will work with the company and with the employees concerned to make sure that they will get other job opportunities. And I am pleased to say that Fujitsu a few years ago, and actually to an extent in Siemens, that was achieved, and that this a part I am afraid of the world economy in which we live. We are lucky that in this country we have some I think 130 Korean companies operating, we have a third of all European Union investment, Korean European Union investment here in Britain, but there will be occasions when companies will close plants. The only honest way of spelling this out to people is that we remain ready then to help them get new jobs, but this is part of a series of changes happening in the economy the world over. And it is true that there has been I think a rise in the claimant count in the north east, but overall unemployment is way down from where it was a few years ago, and I think as the economy picks back up again, and there are significant signs that it is, then the outlook will be better.

    QUESTION:

    Scottish universities are increasingly concerned that your plans for England and Wales are going to have a detrimental effect on Scottish education, and today Peter Hain, your Cabinet colleague, has said that devolution is detrimental to the Scottish economy. Have you abdicated all responsibility for Scotland, and if not what are you doing to address the concerns of the universities in Scotland, the economy in Scotland and people in Scotland that actually voted for you as their Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They also voted for devolution, Catherine, and people in Scotland wanted devolution, and it is important that we maintain devolution. Actually the Scottish economy has done extremely well over the past few years and there are problems there as there are in any other part of the UK, but I certainly wouldn’t want to disturb the devolution settlement, on the contrary I think what has happened with devolution is that whereas in 1997 we were warned that would lead to the break-up of the UK, the opposite has happened, nationalism is on the defensive and actually devolution on the whole has worked well. There will be an impact of course. University finance is an area where there is bound to be an impact between what happens in Scotland and what happens in England, and it is an interesting reflection actually of in a sense the generosity of the package that we are putting forward for universities here that people, whereas a few years ago were saying well the Scottish system was better than the English system, those arguments are turning round. But I think in the end devolution works precisely because there is an element of diversity there and I don’t think that is a bad thing at all and I wouldn’t want to disturb it.

    QUESTION:

    Having just come back from Israel, there is incredulity in Israel at the fact that the Syrians have yet to recognise the new changed order in the Middle East. I know the British government, amongst others, have been attempting to persuade the Syrian government to face new realities, but there is still sponsorship of terrorism within Israel itself, there is still a flow of weaponry going through from Iran to Israel to the terrorist groups, and there are the overtures which have been made by Israel in recent days to renew the peace process. Nothing has been done, what can be done?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The only thing that can be done is to restart the process, but after key security steps are taken to limit terrorism insofar as it is possible to do so, and to have a sufficiently robust security plan for the Palestinian authority that will allow not just Israel but the outside world to judge that every effort is being made to suppress terrorism. But as you know, I have been critical of certain aspects of Israeli policy, but I do honestly believe that it is impossible to get this process restarted unless there is a credible security plan that allows people to believe genuinely that every attempt is being made to stop the support of terrorism, the flow of terrorists into either the Palestinian Authority or into Israel, and to give a clear message that terrorism is the enemy of progress for the Palestinian people. And that is just so obvious, and what you see right round the world at the moment is that I think there was an argument that terrorists mounted that used to have some support within certain sections of the community, it is not one I ever agreed with myself, but terrorists used to say look without the terrorism people will never listen to our argument. There was something of that that used to go on in Northern Ireland too. In today’s world, particularly post-11September, terrorism is the obstacle to political progress, and it is the obstacle to political progress whether it is in Northern Ireland, or it is in the Middle East, or it is out in Kashmir, or it’s in Chechnya, or it is any of the difficult trouble-spots of the world. And that is why, you ask what can be done, the only thing that can be done is get a sufficiently robust security plan under way that allows people to say not that all terrorism is going to stop, but that everything possible is being done to stop it and that states that have got an ambivalent attitude towards sponsoring terrorism are states that are way out of line with the rest of the international order.

    QUESTION:

    What about the Syrian dimension though?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is important, as we have always said, that Syria understands its international responsibilities and keeps to them.

    QUESTION:

    The government set a target four years ago in GCSE results that no school should be spending more than 1 in 5 of its pupils out into the world with fewer than 5 good GCSEs. The tables of results published today suggest that there are still 135 schools in that position and that the target looks now likely to be missed. Is it a mistake to be setting targets that then get missed? And isn’t it a case that tens of thousands of children particularly in inner cities in inner London are being let down by schools with low standards?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a mistake to set targets. I think it is entirely sensible to set targets. I hope we will meet these targets incidentally. But without setting targets I think it would be a lot harder to raise standards. Now you have got to have not too many of them, they have got to be sensibly worked out in line with people in the particular professions operating in a particular area. But let’s be quite clear about this, there has been in London significant improvement in some of the worst schools. If you look at London’s secondary schools there has been very substantial improvement in many of those schools, but we need to do far more. But I don’t apologise for setting targets, I think it is important because they keep the system up to the mark and they make people focus on raising standards. And you know sometimes people say well it is a scandal, you have got 25% of 11 year olds in this country who still don’t pass their literacy and numeracy tests. I agree, we have got to get those figures down, but when we came to office it was almost 50% that didn’t. And the numbers of failing schools have been round about halved. Now I think as we develop specialist schools and the city academies which will be very, very important in London and are already massively over-subscribed, we will get to the right set of reforms and changes along with the investment that will make a difference. But I think we have got to carry on very much focusing on raising standards and I think that if you look at today’s secondary school tables, yes we have got very challenging targets to meet, but what is beyond doubt is that there is improvement now happening year on year and the fastest improvement has been with some of the schools that were the worst performers a few years ago.

    QUESTION:

    Your government has been silent as the pound hit a 12 year high against the dollar. Do you share the concerns of the German Chancellor and the French Prime Minister that the strength of the euro, the weakness of the dollar, is going to hurt industry and the economy here in Europe? Or are you in the Alan Greenspan camp expressing optimism that it will be no problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I am certainly in the camp that says that so far as Prime Ministers speculating on the levels of the currency, it never seems to be a great idea. And I think in the end the most important economic issue – this is not the answer you really want from me, but the answer I will give – I think the most important economic issue for us here in Europe is economic reform, to be honest, and I think the currency will vary according to market perceptions, but the most important thing for us to do as a group of countries in Europe is to concentrate on becoming highly competitive vis the outside world, and that means taking seriously economic reform.

    QUESTION:

    I want to ask you about the Delivery Summit tomorrow, no doubt an opportunity for you to give some lovely more powerpoint presentations. Which area of delivery are you personally most disappointed by? I don’t think the Transport Secretary is going, is he?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Transport Secretary I will be seeing next week, and this is an opportunity for us to review the plans that are being drawn up by departments for the forward programme. Obviously the problems of transport are clear, which are partly to do with the aftermath of rail privatisation, under-investment in the infrastructure, and to do with the fact that all that has happened at the same time as you have had a massive increase in usage. So the transport problems are very particular and of course we would have wanted more progress, but there have been very particular reasons for the difficulties there. In respect of the other areas, I do say to you we now have a situation where in the National Health Service there is not a single national indicator that is not in a better place than in 1997. Cancer and cardiac services are probably the fastest improving in Europe with cancer deaths down by 9% and cardiac by almost 20%. We have in our school system, as you see from today, specialist schools but also schools generally performing far better than they did 7 years ago, and crime according to the British Crime Survey is down, not up. Now that is not to say there aren’t still big problems, but I think there are also big changes happening. And I will just tell you I had a meeting on the criminal justice system the other day when several of the practitioners were telling me that for the first time in years they actually felt the system was starting to work together properly. And so I think there is a long way to go, but we are further ahead than sometimes we are given credit for.

    QUESTION:

    I asked you which ones you were personally disappointed by, not …

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I know you did, and I answered about transport first, didn’t I, and explained the reasons why there wasn’t as much progress as we would like to see. But I think in the interests of balance and fairness, whether you would like me to or not, I would also like to say that there are areas where we have made significant progress too, and actually there are areas of transport where that is the case. The Channel Tunnel rail link is one very obvious example.

    QUESTION:

    Almost 600 pensioners in Devon and Cornwall are refusing to pay council tax because of the levels, they say it is too high. They could well be demonstrating on Saturday. What is your message and how concerned are you about this grass roots revolt in the south-west?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are concerned about levels of council tax last year. The average rise was about 13% and it is difficult to justify that in circumstances where government is actually increasing its support centrally to local government. This year we have made available even more cash and we have lifted some of the ring fencing, which should make it easier for local authorities, and there really is no justification for high council tax rises, absolutely no justification at all. Now in the end central government doesn’t set the council tax, but we have made it clear we are prepared to use capping powers if necessary if there are unreasonably high levels, and I hope that local authorities, given more money from central government, will listen to the concerns of pensioners and others, and I do understand the problem that you have if you are a pensioner and a big rise in council tax takes away the rise in your basic state pension. I understand that, it is precisely for that reason, because we listened to that, that we took the measures that we did.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask two questions. The Syrian President called last month for starting again negotiation with Israel, and now the Israelis are calling for the same thing. However at the same time the government of Sharon announced something very provocative, which is the expansion of Jewish settlements in the Golan Heights which is going to be a big problem. What do you think of this issue? And the second one is about the British soldiers in southern Iraq, they have been a model for taking care of the security issues there, but lately they have been reacting quite a little bit more like the Americans in the Sunni triangle. Are there changes in the rules of engagement in that area?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there are no changes at all, but it is important that the troops keep order. And I would just emphasise to you that the demonstrators are a small minority of the local Iraqi population. Now they now have the freedom to demonstrate, they never had it under Saddam but they have got it now, but from my experience in Basra a few days ago, I can assure you I think there are very significant improvements to the living standards of Iraqi people down in the south. Where there are particular issues that people are worried about, we have to take care of them, but in the meantime it is important that we do keep order. And I was just hearing a report this morning actually that Jack Straw gave to Cabinet that a lot of local Iraqis feel very strongly that the British troops should maintain order and that people of course can demonstrate that that does not mean to say those demonstrations, if they become violent, should not be properly dealt with, and I think you will find that that is probably supported by most of the Iraqi people down in the south. And certainly I can tell you that all the Iraqis that I spoke to when I was in the southern part of Iraq were fully behind the efforts to rebuild their country, they want us to go as soon as it is right and safe to do so, so that they run their own country, they want to run their own country, but we are going to make sure they get the chance to do that with some stability and prosperity and democracy. In respect of the first thing, I think the only thing I would say to you about this is that obviously I would welcome any attempt to restart negotiations in any of the tracks of the peace process, but I think it is better if you allow me to let the parties try and resolve their differences without entering into that particular argument.

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

    davidmiliband

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

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

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

    A Social Democratic Settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Andrew Smith – 2004 Speech at Age Concern Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Smith, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, at the Age Concern Conference on 10 February 2004.

    Good afternoon.

    I welcome the research you have published today. It demonstrates the huge contribution that older people make to society and the economy.

    Too often in politics and the media, images of older people are negative. They’re accompanied by doom and gloom warnings about a potential health care or pensions crisis.

    And while I’m clear that we face challenges if we are all to have the income in retirement that we expect – living longer should not be seen as a problem. We’ve spent most of the last century trying to ensure that people can do just that.

    Today I want to talk to you about what the Government is doing to extend choice and opportunities for people in how they plan for retirement, and in particular about promoting the employment of older workers.

    I’ve been asked of course to speak about the state’s responsibilities, but whatever the state does there will always be a need for the voluntary sector – a vital part of a plural and strong society.

    I am interested to hear your views, so I will leave some time at the end for questions.

    The policy context

    Better healthcare, better hygiene, better living standards and more wealth means that people are living longer than ever before.

    Increasing life expectancy means that people can spend a third of their life in retirement – roughly now equal to the length of a person’s youth.

    Retirement used to be seen as the twilight phase of a worker’s life – and pensions policy used to be about providing for the last few years.

    We now find ourselves facing a much bigger policy challenge – one for a third age.

    Our pensions and employment policies need to reflect this.

    To adapt an old cliché – life should begin at 50. We should be looking to open doors, not close them.

    Our first priority when coming to power was to alleviate pensioner poverty. Since 1997 we have raised the incomes of the 2 million poorest pensioners by more than £20 a week, narrowing the gap between them and society as a whole.

    We have also taken action to help people build provision for the future. For example, we have introduced changes to the State Second Pension, so that for the first time those without earnings with caring responsibilities have the opportunity to build up pension rights.

    And through Pension Credit we are rewarding saving, for the first time.

    The forthcoming Pensions Bill is a major step forward in our drive to improve pension security and restore confidence in the pension system. The Bill will set up a Pension Protection Fund – so that as we move forward people can be much surer that a pension promised is a pension honoured.

    A layer cake of regulations surrounds pensions.

    This Bill will cut through this complexity – making it easier and simpler for firms to run pensions, helping cut costs and increasing choices for those who want to work for longer.

    Underpinning all this – the Bill will also establish a new, proactive pensions regulator will focus on tackling fraud, bad governance and poor administration.

    And last week we published our proposals to help people take control of their retirement planning, including regular “pension health check-ups”.

    We have achieved a lot, but there is still more to do to tackle the stereotypes that persistently surround ageing and open up choices and opportunities for people to genuinely plan for their retirement.
    There are around 10 million pensioners in Great Britain. Over the next forty years or so this number will increase by around 50 per cent – even when you account for the State Pension Age for women being equalised to 65 by 2020.

    I don’t need to tell you that this represents a major shift in the make up of the population.

    It’s a well documented fact that not only is the number of older people increasing, but people are living longer at a time when birth rates are falling.

    Some people have made arguments to move to a higher state pension age, releasing resources for use elsewhere in the pension system.

    These arguments can seem persuasive – with apparent easy savings for the Exchequer – and some may argue fit well with the trend towards people living longer, healthier lives.

    But we are clear that this is not the solution. And a quick look at some underlying statistics show why. For example, in Manchester the life-expectancy for a man is 71 years – that’s nearly 5 years below the national average.

    Not to mention that fact that in some local labour markets over half those aged between 50 and state pension age are not working.

    We are clear that the state pension age should remain at 65 – any change to raise it would disproportionately affect the poorest workers, most dependent on the state pension. As well as being forced to work for longer they would, because of lower life expectancy, see a bigger than average slice of their retirement taken away.

    I believe work beyond 65 should be a matter of choice.

    A choice that will become increasingly attractive to more people as outdated ideas about a one size fits all retirement give way.

    That’s why we are taking action to get rid of outdated inflexible rules – so people have the option to draw their pension whilst working part-time.

    And that’s why we will bring forward incentives to encourage people to continue working by offering them a choice if they defer their state pension – to receive either an enhanced pension or a lump sum.

    [For a single person (drawing their pension 5 years later) this would be a one-off payment in the region of £20,000 on top of their normal pension, or £30,0000 for a couple.]

    Working a few years longer can not only make a huge difference to retirement income – but also provide individuals with the opportunity for a second or third career.

    And for business, it promises access to a more experienced, skilled workforce – generally better motivated – at a time when the labour market is increasingly tight.

    But people won’t be able to exercise this choice unless we tackle the discrimination that all too often affects employment opportunities for older people.

    We need to encourage more and more businesses to respond positively – challenging stereotypes and discrimination – highlighting the benefits of an age diverse workforce.

    Research shows that workers over state pension age are more likely to be working for smaller firms – that is companies with 1-10 employees.

    In some ways we should expect this. Many smaller firms are amongst the most flexible, responsive and innovative in other respects – so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that they include entrepreneurs who see the sense in making more of what older employees have to offer.

    We need to look at why this is the case. What are they doing that other firms should learn from?

    We have consulted on a whole range of issues, including mandatory retirement, pay and non pay benefits, recruitment and training, and are currently considering the responses.

    Much of this builds on the work we’ve already done since I first launched the Code of Practice in 1999 – with the support of our partners to promote age equality in employment.

    And that’s why the Government are introducing new legislation which will bring into sharper focus the need for all of us to change culture and attitudes to older workers.

    The message is that discrimination isn’t just unfair it’s bad for business and society as a whole.

    And evidence shows that it’s working. The number of firms including an age restriction in recruitment ads is falling – showing that we are already changing attitudes.
    Moving forwards we need to take a tough look at age discrimination and as part of that learn from the best practice of the increasing number of employers who are doing without mandatory retirement ages.

    And of course our labour market programmes are crucial.

    We’ve got a good base to build from – since 1997 – employment has risen by over 1.7 million to a near record level of over 28 million. Both youth unemployment and long term unemployment levels are at their lowest levels for over 25 years.

    Older people have benefited from these improvements – the gap between the over 50 and working age employment rates has narrowed.

    In fact the number of people aged 50 or over in work has increased by over a million since 1997. This is in marked contrast to the 1980s and 1990s when the proportion of jobless men between the age of 50 and state retirement age doubled.

    We are determined to do more. I am pleased to see that your report highlights the need to provide more help for disabled people or poor health to move back to work.

    This is a priority that we in Government share. Last October we launched Pathways to Work – to challenge beliefs that people with health conditions are incapable of doing any work.

    Indeed more than a million disabled people tell us that they want a job – and we are determined to help them.

    We have designed a package to tackle the barriers they face in getting back to work – covering early intervention and support, specialist rehabilitation services, greater financial incentives.

    Early feedback is very positive. The success of the pilots will revolve around how effectively we manage to join up services and support at a local level – and make sure that they are targeted on the needs of individuals, so that they actually get jobs.

    Conclusion

    To conclude my remarks today – I firmly believe that the strategy we are putting into action is the right one.

    It is vitally important that we all – Government, employers, trade unions and the voluntary sector – work together to help change attitudes to planning for retirement and open up new opportunities for working longer.

    A great deal of progress has been made, but we still have some way to go to make sure that people build up the retirement income they expect.

    I will take some questions, and have asked the organisers to pass on to me the key points that have been made today. I hope you have had a successful day and look forward to continuing to work with you all in the future.

  • Chris Mullin – 2004 Speech on Africa

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Mullin, the then Foreign Office Minister, in New York, USA, on 4th February 2004.

    There are a number of reasons why Africa should matter to us. The first, of course, is moral. The war, famine, disease and unspeakable barbarity that have haunted that tragic Continent for much of the twentieth century are simply unacceptable in a civilised world. Some years ago Prime Minister Blair described the condition of Africa as ‘a scar on the conscience of mankind’. And so it is.

    There are also, however, sound practical reasons why we cannot afford to ignore the state of Africa. The most immediate of these is terrorism. It is a little known fact that there have been more Al Qaeda attacks in Africa than anywhere else in the world. The fact that in parts of Africa such as Somalia entire societies have imploded makes them a ready breeding ground for terrorism.

    It is also not widely realised that there are more Muslims south of the Sahara than in the Middle East, most of them, fortunately, are moderates. If we want them to stay that way, we cannot neglect Africa.

    Africa also has oil and gas resources to rival those of the Middle East. We need to work together with Africa to make sure Africans benefit from this resource. This is an important strand of efforts to bring prosperity to the region.

    Then there is HIV/AIDS. Of estimated 42 million people living with AIDS about three-quarters are in Africa and the rate of increase is steeper in Africa than anywhere else. Globalisation and travel means that AIDS is exported ever more easily. The USA and Europe are not immune.

    These then are sound practical reasons why we should be interested in Africa, but as I said at the outset the primary reason – for decent people of all political persuasions – is moral.

    A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY

    The good news is that for a variety of reasons, some man-made, some fortuitous, a window of opportunity now exists that will enable us – if we demonstrate the necessary political will – to make a difference. To coin a phrase, a wind of change is blowing. A series of venal dictatorships is giving way to elected governments; countries like South Africa, Mozambique, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Uganda and even Nigeria, now have governments that care about their people. This year we celebrate the tenth anniversary of the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Who, ten years ago, would have dared predict that the transition to majority rule could have been achieved without a bloodbath? What has happened in South Africa is a great achievement and ought to serve as an inspiration for the rest of the Continent.

    Elsewhere – in Angola, the Congo, Sudan – civil wars which have wracked those countries for decades and generated slaughter and barbarity on an unimaginable scale – appear to be coming to an end.

    There is also a growing recognition among African leaders that they, too, have a part to play in resolving their Continent’s problems. Witness the South African-led peacekeeping forces in the Congo and Burundi. Witness the role Nigeria and Ghana are playing in helping to resolve the West African conflicts. Witness, also, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) in which Africans are taking the lead in spreading sound economic management, democracy and good governance.

    So, there is a sound basis for partnership between the G8 and Africa. The United States and Great Britain share common priorities in Africa. Last November in London President Bush and Prime Minister Blair re-affirmed their commitment to Africa. They agreed to strengthen co-operation in a number of key areas and provide support through the G8 Africa Action Plan. Both our countries have key roles to play in our respective G8 Presidencies this year and next to take forward those commitments. Today I want to set our how Britain and the US, together with our other partners, can work together in support of Africa.

    THE G8 AND AFRICA

    With leadership from President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, the G8 responded to NEPAD over two years ago by agreeing a series of commitments under the G8 Africa Action Plan. These included increasing and improving development assistance, tackling debt, liberalising world trade and helping developing economies and developing a new partnership with Africa.

    One of the main objectives of the Plan was also to define a new way of working with Africa as well as addressing the main constraints on Africa’s development. The G8/Africa partnership is based on the principle of mutual accountability – that if Africa is to make progress, both the G8 and African governments must live up to their commitments. This represents a fundamental shift in the development relationship between the international community and Africa. It is not a case of quid pro quo, it is a partnership based on the need for both sides to make progress. In the G8, we must live up to our commitments to increase the volume and effectiveness of aid, and improve the coherence of policies – such as on trade – with international development goals.

    The partnership between the G8 and Africa has galvanised efforts on both sides to deliver. It also keeps Africa on the agenda. It provides a regular opportunity for leaders from African and major industrialised countries to sustain political efforts and attention needed for change. The fact that President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and other G8 leaders sat down at last year’s G8 Summit with President Mbeki, President Obasanjo and other African leaders was important in itself.

    But the principle value of the G8 lies in its ability to give high level political attention to issues where political weight is essential to progress. It is important that we, in the G8, focus our efforts where they will have most impact. A concerted effort by G8 and African leaders to tackle key issues including conflict, HIV, trade and education is essential if we are to get on track for the Millennium Development Goals. With our support, the G8 engagement with Africa has recently broadened to an extended Africa Partners Forum, which includes 19 African countries. It is important that the Forum maintains the high level political engagement that African Heads of government have emphasised as being key to G8 engagement with Africa. We do not see the Forum as a channel for deciding or bidding on sector projects. The Forum has a strategic role to play, one which should put a political spotlight on issues.

    Our objectives for the Forum are for a frank and open dialogue which will maintain high level political commitment; review priorities; promote coordination and policy coherence; and track progress against commitments made on both sides.

    THE UK AND AFRICA

    Underlying everything we do in Africa is our belief in a relationship with African countries as equal partners. We expect issues affecting Africa to remain on the G8 agenda this year, under the US Presidency. The Prime Minister is committed to making Africa a key part of the UK’s 2005 G8 Presidency. We have made a bilateral commitment to £ 1 billion a year in development assistance to Africa by 2005, an increase of over 50% in the last three years alone. The funds will be used in the countries that need them the most – the poorest. We will focus development assistance on the areas that can best reduce poverty – health, education, and building accountable and effective governments.

    AREAS FOR GREATER INTERNATIONAL AND AFRICAN COOPERATION

    I would like to highlight next some areas where I think the international community and African partners need to continue to focus their efforts:

    CONFLICT

    Progress in Africa, and improvement in the lives of its people, has been undermined or destroyed by conflict and insecurity. Scarce resources needed to fight poverty have been wasted. Conflicts in one country have fuelled insecurity and instability in its neighbours. In all, some 200 million people in Sub Saharan Africa have been affected by conflict.

    I therefore see peace and security, and tackling the underlying causes of conflict, as top priorities. We must support African efforts to resolve armed conflicts. We need to provide assistance so that African countries and regional and sub-regional organisation are able to engage more effectively to prevent and resolve violent conflicts and to undertake peace support operations.

    The new African Union peace and security architecture presents an opportunity for us to engage. The AU is now leading the first African mission in Burundi with Ethiopian, South African and Mozambican troops to which the UK has contributed nearly £4 million. And the AU is developing a plan for an African standby peacekeeping force. We are seeking to support this through the implementation of the joint Africa/G8 plan to enhance African peace and security capabilities in close collaboration particularly with the African Union, ECOWAS, the US, France, Germany and Canada. A peace plan for training and operational support has been developed and agreed between the G8 and African countries.

    Our engagement in Sierra Leone is an example of where Britain, working alongside others, can make a difference in Africa. By deploying UK forces, creating a more effective and accountable Sierra Leonean army, and helping to tackle the root causes of the conflict, we have played a part in bringing peace to Sierra Leone. But this would have been nothing without the UN, ECOWAS and Government of Sierra Leone’s commitment to make it work. Much remains to be done, but we have demonstrated that the international community can work together to bring an end to seemingly impossible conflicts.

    The support of the international community has been vital in helping to resolve the conflicts in the Great Lakes region – Africa’s equivalent of the first world war in which millions died. We are doing all we can to ensure that peace is established in that region – a region the size of Europe.

    In Liberia the partnership between the US and ECOWAS has bought tentative peace to a country ravaged by years of conflict. While the numbers of US troops deployed were small, their effect was great; an example of the importance of international engagement in African conflict resolution. We welcome the leadership role the US has taken in Liberia.

    In Southern Sudan, for the first time in more than a generation, there is a prospect of peace. A chance to end Africa’s longest-running civil war in Africa’s largest country. After decades of conflict, the challenges are enormous. Former combatants, amongst them child soldiers, need to be persuaded to give up their weapons and helped to return and re-settle into their communities. The displaced people will want help returning home and rebuilding their lives. Schools and hospitals must be built. And the foundations for democracy have to be laid to give a voice to those who have been marginalised for so long. And of course an international peace-support operation will have to be set up to monitor the peace. The UN is already making plans, but the support of the international community in all these areas will be crucial if peace is to hold.

    TACKLING TERRORISM

    Terrorism. Africa has a track record of serious terrorism including the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2002 Kenya hotel bombing and attempted shooting down of a holiday jet carrying Israeli passengers. The failed state of Somalia, and undoubtedly other weak states in Africa, present terrorists with space in which to plan and export attacks. These are not anomalous incidents but symptoms of a problem in Africa which poses a serious, direct and continuing security threat to us, and poses a fundamental threat to Africa itself.

    We are of course pursuing terrorists in Africa in collaboration with our partners there, and are doing so with great vigour. But that is only part of the solution. Irrespective of operational success, the factors which sustain and feed terrorist networks and activity also need tackling. These factors stem from a complex relationship between geography, institutional weakness, corruption, poor borders, economic and social issues, radicalisation and alienation, and simple opportunity. So to that extent the problems of terrorism are inextricably connected to Africa’s other problems, and the solutions are likewise interconnected. And we cannot wish the problem away: on the contrary the signs are that, if unchecked, the terrorist problem in Africa could grow.

    ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TRADE

    The current trade system doesn’t work for Africa. Africa’s share of world trade is declining. In 2002 it produced only 2% of global exports compared to 6% in 1980. We need to reverse this trend and facilitate Africa’s integration into the global economy by making our markets more accessible to African exports.

    We therefore welcome the moves here to extend the coverage and duration of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to 2015 which has opened up new markets for African exports in the US. In Lesotho for instance, the Act has attracted significant foreign direct investment and increased garment exports to the US by an average of 24% a year, creating almost 30,000 new jobs.

    The UK Government is determined to do all it can, working with the US and other international partners, to get the Doha Development Round back on track and deliver real benefits for African countries and their poorest citizens.

    We should pay special attention to critical areas such as agricultural market access and reducing trade distorting subsidies particularly for key commodities for Africa such as cotton.

    HIV/AIDS

    Supporting African partners to fight HIV/AIDS is a high priority for both the US and the UK. Indeed we are the two largest bilateral donors of HIV/AIDS assistance. Both our countries have substantial bilateral country-based programmes and are major contributors to a number of relevant global initiatives, including the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and malaria.

    Last November when they met in London, President Bush and my Prime Minister agreed to enhance our collaboration on the ground in five African countries (Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Zambia) in order to better support their national HIV/AIDS plans.

    This enhanced collaboration, when harnessed to the efforts of all other contributors, should help improve overall donor harmonization, an aim both our governments are keen to pursue. Better coordinated and better funded support is clearly an important means to reach the key international targets of: three million people – two million in Africa – receiving treatment by the end of 2005; 25% fewer young people infected by 2005; and slowing the progress of HIV/AIDS by 2015.

    GOVERNANCE

    We must work to strengthen governance in African states. Effective institutions, representative democracy and accountable government are essential conditions for growth, development and poverty reduction. African governments are increasingly taking poverty reduction seriously, improving governance, economic and political performance. We are supporting them through our engagement with and support to NEPAD and country owned poverty reduction strategies.

    The African Review Mechanism, developing under NEPAD, is a bold commitment, establishing a process for monitoring good governance. We support it as well as the work currently in progress in the OECD to develop a mutual review of donor performance in Africa.

    MORE AND BETTER DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

    There is an urgent need to increase the quality and quantity of development aid. We are taking a lead role in working with our international partners and with international organisations to do this. Improving aid quality means making sure that donors adopt common practices for the disbursement of aid and that country programmes reflect the recipient’s priorities.

    We also need to maintain momentum on meeting our commitments for substantial new development assistance. This includes ensuring that 50% of new commitments go to Sub-Saharan Africa, providing predictable levels of resources to those countries who can best use it.

    We are exploring with partners how best to do this, for example, through the UK’s proposal for an International Finance Facility (IFF) which aims to double resources for development assistance up to 2015 by leveraging in additional resources from the private sector. The IMF and World Bank are carrying out detailed work ahead of reports to the Spring and Annual Meetings of the Fund and Bank. We welcome the potential of the US Government’s Millennium Challenge Account to make more resources available for development in Africa. It is important that this initiative succeeds, both in terms of the volume of funding delivered through the mechanism, but also as a new approach to deliver aid. We look forward to seeing the Millennium Challenge Account up and running and to working with it in any way we can.

    CONCLUSION

    Africans are increasingly recognising their responsibility to tackle the problems on their Continent. Our role is to help Africa help itself.

    The UK is strongly committed to the G8 Africa Action Plan and the Africa partnership. They offer a new framework for long-term, constructive engagement with African people and their leaders to ensure that a stable, democratic and successful Africa takes it rightful place in the global economy.

    We look forward to continuing to work with our American friends to realise that goal.

  • David Miliband – 2004 Speech on the Future of Teaching

    davidmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Schools Minister, David Miliband, in Cambridge on 3rd November 2004.

    It is a pleasure to be here today.  Your focus on the future of teaching is appropriately timed.  We have more teachers than for a generation; they are better supported by 100 000 more support staff than seven years ago; and Ofsted say that standards of teaching have never been higher.

    But we also know that while test and exam results suggest a rising tide of educational achievement, including in our toughest areas where achievement is rising faster than the national average, there remains significant untapped potential in our younger generations.  Charles Clarke has said he believes in recognising achievement by quality not quota, and on that basis we cannot rest:

    – 25% of 11 year olds do not read, write and do Maths well;

    – 45% of 16 year olds fail to get five GCSEs at grade A-C;

    – 25% of 16-18 year olds are neither in full time education nor in training.

    So we have challenges ahead, and their resolution depends on good teaching.  That is why this conference is important.

    The American educationalist Lawrence Downey has captured the nature of the challenge very well.  He says: “A school teaches in three ways; by what it teaches, by how it teaches, and by the kind of place it is.”

    Today I want to talk about “How we teach”.  Admittedly dangerous territory for a politician, but one that is vital.  My contention is that your title – “the future directions of teaching” – buries rather than unearths the key issue.  We cannot talk about the future of teaching unless we think about the nature of learning.  They are two sides of the same coin.  And thinking about the nature of learning requires us to do more than shape teaching around the needs of the learner; that is important as we debate new ideas on multiple intelligence; but thinking deeply about the nature of learning requires us to mobilise the energy, ideas and motivation of the learner to exploit the power of teaching.

    In all the debates about school improvement, in all the discussions of productivity in the education system, this key factor of productivity is too often sidelined. The engagement of the pupil – the heart of active learning – is not an alternative to good teaching. It doesn’t mean the displacement of the teacher. It does make teaching a different process to one based solely on the transmission of knowledge from the mind of the teacher to that of the learner.

    My argument is simple:

    – Personalised Learning is the big idea in education today, and has at its core the idea of the active learner;

    – The goal is for all pupils to have a real sense of shared ownership of their school experience; for that, teachers and learners need to work together in new ways;

    – And to deliver such an entitlement on a universal basis we need to extend principles of flexibility and empowerment in our education system.

    Personalised Learning 

    Personalised Learning is for me the way in which a school tailors education to ensure that every pupil achieves the highest standards possible. It is educational provision shaped around the needs, interests and aptitudes of every pupil. It is not new for our best schools; but it is a new frontier for many.

    There are five key elements to Personalised Learning. Each one has at its core the contribution of the active learner.

    First, assessment for learning uses data and dialogue to diagnose every student’s needs, interests and aptitudes. Pupils have shared ownership of this process because they participate actively in the dialogue. They have a voice and their voice is heard.

    Ofsted tells us that just four out of ten secondary schools use assessment for learning well. Staff at Seven Kings School in Redbridge vouch for the power of assessment for learning. They use assessment for learning to provide structured feedback to pupils, to set individual learning targets, and to help plan lessons according to individual needs. This is personalisation in schools and the improved results are one of the rewards. In 1997, only around half the students achieved 5 GCSEs A* – C. In 2004, this number had risen to almost 85%.

    The dialogue helps to highlight the strengths that would profit from further stretch, to identify the weaknesses that would benefit from further support and to determine the most appropriate learning pathways.

    St Bonaventure’s is an 11-18 boys’ comprehensive with a mixed sixth form. It uses assessment for learning strategies to tackle underachievement head on. By carefully monitoring pupil progress each term and regularly reporting to parents, potential under-achievement can be picked up at an early stage. Ofsted has commended its achievements with Afro-Caribbean pupils and the school is now sharing its good practice throughout the education community.

    Embed these practices in all schools and we will achieve a step-change in achievement. That is why the Pupil Achievement Tracker is at the heart of our drive to ensure critical self-review of performance in every school.

    Second, personalised learning demands effective teaching and learning strategies that develop the competence and confidence of every learner. High quality teaching delivers these strategies.

    It does so because it immediately engages the pupil and gives them a sense of shared ownership in the learning process by recognising and building on their individual needs, interests and aptitudes.

    From this sound base, the teacher moulds their repertoire of teaching skills to meet the diverse needs of individual pupils. As a result, they continue to actively engage the pupils, to stretch and support them as appropriate, and to accommodate different paces of learning.

    In such a learning environment, pupils acquire the skills to fulfil their own potential. Sound pedagogy has increased their knowledge, but it has also given them the capability and the belief to take more responsibility for and control of taking forward their own learning.

    Cramlington Community High school, a 13-18 mixed comprehensive in Northumberland, is an example of what is possible. First years take L2L, “Learning to learn” as a core course. It has a specific slot on the timetable because it’s felt that both pupils and the school gain from the course. It even has its own suite of 3 rooms with interactive white boards, 4 laptops on each table and a large flat screen PC to encourage collaborative work, and audio and video facilities. The course teachers from a wide range of curriculum areas are chosen because of their excellent understanding of a variety of teaching methodologies. Their teaching seeks to develop the 5Rs (resilience, resourcefulness, responsibility, reasoning and reflectivity). Questionnaires and journal entries create a constant dialogue to assess changes in motivation and perceptions of learning, which can then inform the learning environment. The aim is to give pupils the competence and confidence that they can use across the curriculum, throughout their school years and beyond.

    With the proportion of pupils achieving 5 or more grades A*-C (GCSE/GNVQ) up from 63% in 2001 to 73% last year, this is a good school striving to be even better.

    Third, curriculum entitlement and choice is needed to engage students, with clear pathways through the system.

    In primary schools, it means students gaining high standards in the basics allied to opportunities for enrichment and creativity. In the early secondary years, it means students actively engaged by exciting curricula, problem solving, and class participation. And then at 14-19, it means significant curriculum choice for the learner.

    This is where the vision of the Tomlinson report on 14-19 education is powerful. It sees the long-term goals for all students of stretch, incentives to learn, core skills and specialist vocational and academic options. It is a future already being charted by diverse groups of schools, colleges and employers across the country.

    An exciting innovation in curriculum development is happening at Preston Manor School in Brent, a school that achieves very high standards in pupil performance with an ethnically diverse pupil profile.

    The school looks to develop pupil self esteem by encouraging pupil participation and actively promoting pupil voice. Starting in October 2003, a team of students from Preston Manor and 3 other schools in Brent have been working with Blaze Radio and the National Youth Theatre to produce “The Manor”, a radio soap opera and website designed as a learning resource for the PSHE and Citizenship curriculum.

    Their teachers talk of the range of personal and interpersonal skills that have been developed by raising and dealing with issues through drama. The website, the performance at the Lyric Theatre Hammersmith and the upcoming roadshow will mean that this effective practice can then be shared with an even wider audience.

    We will be coming forward in the New Year with a detailed and positive reaction to the Tomlinson Report.

    Fourth, personalised learning demands a radical approach to school organisation. It means the starting point for class organisation is always student progress, with opportunities for in-depth, intensive teaching and learning, combined with flexible deployment of support staff. Workforce reform is absolutely crucial. The real professionalism of teachers can best be developed when they have a range of adults working at their direction to meet diverse student need.  It means a school ethos focussed on student needs, with the whole school team taking time to find out the needs and interests of students; with students listened to and their voice used to drive whole school improvement; and with the leadership team providing a clear focus for the progress and achievement of every child.

    A radical approach to school organisation also recognises that other well-established strategies have a role to play.

    Students of all ages have long used peer tutoring as an assessment revision strategy for example – working together and testing each other. It is a strategy that we should exploit further, because recent examples from peer-tutoring practice in schools indicate that when it is applied across the pupils’ school experience, there are marked gains in pupils’ achievement across a number of measures. Pupils use one another’s knowledge and skills so that they can both do better. But the role of the teacher is still crucial. They ensure that children learn how to work most effectively in this way, organize pupils into the most appropriate groups, and set the tasks which offer the right level of challenge.

    In Cornwall LEA for example, they have made the “thinking together” teaching strategy a key part of their in-service training in their drive to implement the primary strategy “Excellence and Enjoyment”. Their evidence from ten years of data is that pupils in schools that have adopted the strategy have achieved significantly higher SATs scores in Maths and Science than pupils in control schools who have not used the strategy.

    At Eggbuckland Community College, pupils are taught the skills which make peer tutoring more than just a conversation between two pupils. Ofsted has described the strategy as one where “pupils help one another with topics that they’ve struggled to master and readily share the fruits of their research or other ideas.”

    Fifth, personalised learning means the community, local institutions and social services supporting schools to drive forward progress in the classroom. Every school needs a strong sense of itself, but must also look beyond the school to make the most of these potential partnerships. The reason for doing so is because every pupil deserves the best opportunities, wherever they may be found. By focussing on the best deal for their pupils, schools show pupils that they do have shared ownership, because schools show that their pupils’ interests matter. There is already real innovation.

    For example, Shireland Language College in Sandwell is building stronger partnership with parents. It’s working with its six primary school partners to use ICT to provide parents with more and better information about their children’s progress. Every family has been given a computer on loan, and parents have been trained to view their children’s homework online. The next stage of the project will enable parents to access their children’s achievement and attendance data, so that they can work with schools to identify and respond to each child’s individual learning needs.

    Millfield Community School in Hackney has integrated services and developed a wide range of provision. Its offer to students includes a breakfast club that opens at 7am, play centre provision until 6pm, and a Saturday school that teaches an accelerated learning curriculum for Key Stage 2 pupils. The school is also proactive in educating parents on how best to support their children, providing guidance on the education system and the curriculum, as well as family learning courses in literacy, numeracy and ICT.

    The challenge of delivery

    Our goal must be a strong and confident learner at the heart of the teaching process. This agenda will promote excellence and equity. Our challenge is to deliver this in every classroom in the country. It can’t be achieved by central control. The role of Government must be to create the most conducive conditions for creative and informed professional decision-making. I see three aspects as critical.

    First, there is no substitute for schools leading reform. Professional collaboration and networking help to generate excellence. By supporting collaboration and networking, we can enable our best schools to become locomotives of progress in others; with our best teachers helping the rest; and our best departments sharing their best practice. The hard edge of this collaboration is improvement, with schools developing the capacity to deliver personalised learning. That is the purpose of:

    – the 4000 strong network of Advanced Skill Teachers, with over 300 focussing specifically on ICT, who spend the equivalent of one day a week helping other teachers outside their own school improve their offer.

    – the Leading Edge Programme, in which 100 schools work with 600 partners to tackle some of our toughest learning challenges – including efforts to increase achievement amongst pupils from disadvantaged and / or minority ethnic backgrounds.

    – the Excellence in Cities programme, that develops school partnerships and shared responsibility for, amongst other things, opportunities for gifted and talented students, Learning Mentors, and City Learning Centres that give pupils better access to the latest education technology.

    – and the online communities of professionals, who are debating reform, discussing what works in their own classrooms, and helping to chart the future of education.

    Second, there is no substitute for sponsored innovation. That is the evidence of the Academies programme. Academies are demonstrating that radical innovation can transform the structure and culture of schools beset by endemic underperformance. They do things differently to raise attainment: like a five term year, an extended day, longer learning sessions, better use of ICT, a bigger role for governors.

    – Innovative teaching of ICT is happening at the City of London Academy. Rather than the teacher leading pupils through a menu of software, learning takes place through guided discovery.  The laptops have a variety of applications and the students are encouraged to experiment and find for themselves the potential of the software. The whole curriculum builds on this by allowing students to use their ICT skills in other settings and to solve a range of problems.

    – Innovation in school organisation is happening at the Walsall Academy. The school day is organised into two sessions per day, with students spending the whole morning or afternoon in one curriculum area. The novel structure to the day is working well, particularly with year 7 students, who sometimes struggle with the transition to secondary school.

    – Sponsored innovation is not confined to schools. Government can also promote innovative partnerships between school, colleges, Higher Education and Business, which are important for putting a wider pool of skill at the service of young people. Our national partnership with Cisco is broadening their opportunities to engage with new technology. There are now over 600 Cisco Network Academies that reach about 24,000 students across the country.

    Third, we need to have the right accountability framework in place. On that score, there is real progress on the way:

    – We are introducing the school profile. This will be one short, accessible document that brings together the key information about a school’s performance, the school’s view of what makes it special, and what its priorities are for the future;

    – We are reforming the inspection system. Visits will be shorter and sharper, and intervention will be in inverse proportion to success;

    – We are developing a New Relationship with Schools. The relationship will be based on the 3 principles of legal and financial flexibility, smarter accountability, and hard-edged collaboration. These principles will enable our schools to deliver reform. To help deliver reform, there will be a single conversation with a school improvement partner to assess performance, set improvement priorities and identify support needs.

    Conclusion

    These are the nuts and bolts. But teaching and learning are about culture as well as technique. On this front, we all have a job to do.

    There’s an old culture that has had its time and we need to sweep it away. It says that more will mean worse; that public services cannot deliver excellence; that poor children will always get poor results.

    There’s a new culture that we need to promote to take its place: high aspirations for all; a willingness to take risks; a commitment to excellence for the hardest to reach as well as the easiest to teach.

    The future of teaching and learning is about this new culture in schools and a new culture in our wider society. They nurture each other. I want all schools in the future to engage with pupils and the wider community in such a way as to achieve lasting change. That is the potential of education and that is the potential we have to fulfil.

    Step 1 is to recognise achievement. Step 2 is to articulate the vision. Step 3 is to mobilise the community. That is our task now, and I look forward to working with you to achieve it.

  • David Miliband – 2004 Speech on Educational Achievement

    davidmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Schools Minister, David Miliband, at Alton Towers on 16th November 2004.

    Thank you for the invitation to speak to you this morning. Since becoming Schools Minister I have met representatives of the GSA on a regular basis and it is good to get the chance to meet more of you. The Association does a diligent, determined job on behalf of you and your schools, and I would like to use this public occasion to thank Sheila Cooper, the general secretary, and Cynthia Hall, the president, for the way they have worked constructively with the Government. The education system is better for that constructive engagement, and long may it continue.

    Today I want to make a simple argument: that across our country there has been a revolution in educational achievement over the last 30 years, that girls have been primary drivers and beneficiaries of that revolution, and that now is the time to learn the lesson of that progress in planning for the future.

    In the early 1970s, for the country as a whole:

    – Only 150 000 pupils got the equivalent of 5 good GCSEs

    – Only 80 000 got the equivalent of 2 A levels

    – Only around 70 000 went on to university

    For girls, the figures were more depressing:

    – Less than half the pupils getting 5 good GCSEs were girls;

    – Only 45% of those getting 2 A levels were girls;

    – Only a third of those going on to university were girls; that means only about one girl in 25 made it to university, not because they lacked the brains, but because they lacked the opportunities.

    The problem was not that we could not identify or produce educational excellence; it was that the excellence was extremely restricted, and the opportunities for pupils, especially girls, to demonstrate their achievement were capped.

    Today, excellence is not universal. Too many young people do not fulfil their educational potential. But there has been a transformation in achievement and it has been led by girls:

    – Over 340 000 pupils achieving 5 good GCSEs, almost 60% of them girls;

    – 240 000 students achieving the equivalent of 2 A levels, 55% of them girls;

    – 375 000 accepted into higher education in 2004, over half of them girls.

    There remains a stubborn gender gap in the labour market, but that is for another occasion.

    This education revolution is a tribute to teachers, and single sex girls’ schools have played their part. The GSA has over 200 member schools, and in the maintained sector, we have just over 200 girls’ schools, educating about one in seven girls in state schools.

    Today I want to set out what I believe are the lessons, or at least some of the lessons, of this advance. There are six lessons I want to highlight. I believe they have relevance across the public/private divide; in fact one is related directly to it; and they have relevance to girls and boys education, separately and together.

    The first lesson is that nothing is more important than the quality of teachers and teaching. Across the public/private divide we have a shared interest in making teaching an attractive profession, and ensuring that our teachers are teaching in the most effective ways.

    The omens are good:

    – a record number of people want to be teachers, with over 40,000 trainees this year;

    – there is a burgeoning market in mid-career switchers into teaching, 7000 on the GTP alone;

    – in the state sector the National Strategies at KS1-3 have established an international reputation for best practice;

    – schemes like Teach First are bringing outstanding undergraduates into teaching;

    – And OFSTED say we have the best generation of teachers ever.

    The foundation of good teaching is clear awareness of pupils’ diverse needs and then the skills to deploy a repertoire of teaching strategies to meet these needs. In the state sector the National Agreement on Workforce reform sets the basis for every teacher to focus on their own teaching.

    Across the public/private divide I would like to see professional development benefit from a shared dialogue about how to meet pupil needs. I think this can be of benefit to all, whether helping pupils with stretch for specific talents or with support for special needs. The Government’s Five Year Strategy sketched out our ambitions for professional development, and this is an area we want to take forward.

    The second lesson is that we must combine rigour in setting standards with flexibility in developing the curriculum and absolute determination to recognise achievement for the standard it reaches.

    The decision by a Conservative Government in 1984 to move away from quota systems to the allocation of grades, and to establish in its place standards of quality as the benchmark for grading, was in my view right. It is not just inequitable, but is in my view perverse, to penalise one candidate because of the quality of work of another; and it is equally perverse to upgrade one candidate because another has an off-year. Quality not quotas is the way forward.

    The Tomlinson report challenges us as a country to develop a 14-19 education system built around the interest and aptitudes of individual pupils. His report discusses the best of international practice; it seeks to address the concerns of employers and higher education; it recognises that different students will want a different curriculum menu; he suggests incentives for participation and progression. His proposals for a common core at each level of achievement and then a series of options are designed to meet the needs of all young people. It is important that his proposals seek to build on strengths in the current system.

    The Government has committed itself to respond in detailed and positive fashion in the New Year. We will do so and seek to build enduring consensus to improve stretch, tackle dropout, and promote high quality vocational studies.

    We are determined to ensure that in the breadth of curriculum and in the qualifications’ structures we give all pupils the chance to show what they are capable of.

    The third lesson is that we need to ensure that in our teaching, school organisation and out of school support we tailor provision around the needs, interests and aptitudes of individual pupils. This is Personalised Learning – not children learning on their own, not child-centred theories, but real recognition of the diversity that exists in our student population.

    In this context, there is a particular gender issue.

    Many girls’ schools have a fine record. Almost 75% nationally of girls in girls’ schools get 5 good GCSEs. They get support, confidence and tailored teaching. Girls’ schools have their own pressures, but they avoid others.

    I believe there is a bright future for our single sex schools, but I also believe that the debate about whether single sex or co-education is the right approach is ultimately sterile. No one seriously proposes abolishing single sex schools or co-education. Instead of debate on structure, we should learn the lessons of single sex education and apply them in the co-education sector. These lessons are about recognising the differences between pupils, as well as the similarities. Let me give two examples.

    First, we need to recognise that in mixed sex schools girls and boys can prosper being taught separately for part of the time.

    Mike Younger, Director of Teaching at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education, and his colleague Dr Molly Warrington are about to complete a 4-year research project into raising achievement that looks at this issue.

    They looked at a co-educational comprehensive school, where single sex teaching was used in subjects where gender is sometimes seen as influencing underperformance, such as Languages for boys and Maths for girls. The number of boys who got 5 good GCSEs went up from 68% in 1997 to 81% in 2004. The number of girls went up from 68% in 1997 to 82% in 2004. Both boys and girls did better, and the gender gap usually common at GCSE was negligible. When interviewed, some of the reasons that pupils gave for the improvement were that they felt more confident to participate in the lessons, there were fewer distractions and they didn’t feel the need to show-off.

    Of course, there are also examples in the maintained sector of boys and girls helping each other. At Notley High School in Essex, a girl-boy seating arrangement was seen as a way to improve boys’ performance. Yet in seven years, not only has the number of boys achieving 5 good GCSEs jumped from 40% to 60%, but girls’ achievement has also improved.

    I want to see schools learning from this record and this good practice. They are good examples of personalised learning.

    I have therefore agreed with the Secondary Heads Association that they should carry out a survey of their members on best practice in tailoring school organisation to girls’ and boys’ different needs. We can then disseminate the results to promote informed professional dialogue about the best way to replicate the successes of single sex education in the maintained sector.

    The fourth lesson I draw from the last 30 years is that while poverty and disadvantage present barriers to achievement, they can be overcome. Mulberry School is a girls’ comprehensive school in Tower Hamlets; 99% of students have English as a second language; over 70% of pupils are on free school meals. Yet the disciplined leadership and committed teaching in that school has taken exam results to 56% getting 5 GCSEs A*-C from less than 40% ten years ago.

    When I asked the head teacher about the message she wanted me to take to this conference, she argued that state schools’ experience of ICT, raising pupils’ self-esteem and collaborative activities should be of interest to the independent sector.

    We want to see educational change in all our most deprived communities, and the private sector can help. The Academies Program targets educational underachievement in our poorest areas, and with the educational and organisational expertise of outside sponsors to help lever significant change.

    I hope many of you will follow the lead of the Church School Company, set up in the 19th Century with a charitable mission to extend education to girls – it now has eight independent girls’ school but now believes it can only fulfil the charitable mission of its founders by using the educational expertise to extend education to pupils from deprived communities. The Queen opened the first of several CSCO Academies last month, and I look forward to more.

    The fifth lesson is that schools teach by their values and ethos as well as their subjects and pedagogy. That is why we believe every school needs a strong sense of its own provision and why we put strong emphasis on the values, norms of behaviour and community role of schools. I know this is something you take seriously. At a time when young people are challenged from many sources, it is our responsibility to ensure that schools set the right example, and give the pupils the chance to show the community that the next generation can be more than the best educated, but also the best prepared for the challenges of the future.

    I see schools fulfilling their social mission in part by the pupils they produce, but also the role they play in the wider education system. This is the sixth lesson: we need to bridge the public/private divide in order to mobilise all educational resources for the benefit of the country’s future. Academies are one way, but there are others:

    – The Leading Edge programme, in which 100 schools work with 600 partners to tackle some of our toughest learning challenges including efforts to increase achievement amongst pupils from disadvantaged and/or minority backgrounds, uses best practice to lead the rest; there will be 600 such leading edge schools by 2008, and I hope more will participate;

    – We set up the independent/state school partnerships (ISSP) scheme in 1998 to promote collaborative working between the sectors, widen educational opportunities, raise standards in education and foster a climate of social inclusion.  Since 1998, 280 partnerships have provided benefits for over 80,000 pupils in 1,100 schools across the country. Such links, wherever they exist, help to identify and disseminate the effective practice that can really drive change. I thank you for your support, which I believe has been of mutual benefit. Appropriately enough the 8th round of the scheme is launched today and you can find out more about it at www.teachernet.gov.uk/buildingbridges.

    In these six areas, I believe public and private sector can take forward the educational revolution together. It is a revolution of aspiration as well as provision, and it has shown its worth in the progress of the country over the last thirty years.

    The girls’ school movement has a big part to play, not just for the girls in girls’ schools, but in ensuring that the lessons of its priorities are spread right across the education system. There are challenges wherever one works, public or private, single sex or co-educational; the truth is there is no one right answer, but instead different right answers for different pupils. Our job is to find these answers for those pupils; I believe that together we can do it.