UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2012

  • Rachel Reeves – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the Labour Party conference on 2nd October 2012.

    When Ed Miliband calls for an economy that works for working people, some people ask what that means in practical terms.

    Well now we’re going to talk about a very concrete example: the campaign for a Living Wage – that’s been built by trade unions, community groups, our own Labour Students who have been fighting for it alongside staff in universities in colleges, and increasingly taken up by far-sighted employers – gives us a great example of the kind of change we want to see and the kind of difference it can make to people’s lives.

    The argument for a living wage is moral and economic.

    It’s based on the belief that work should bring the dignity of a decent wage – enough to keep a family out of poverty and debt.

    And as we’ll hear this morning, it can mean stronger business models, based on better skilled, better motivated, more productive employees.

    Those employers that have implemented the policy, including an increasing number in the private sector, report that the extra money put into the pockets of their employees is more than made up for by the savings they make as a result of improved recruitment and retention and the benefits to their business of the boost it gives to staff morale and engagement.

    But if that’s what we really believe, then we should be looking to put it into practice wherever we can.

    That’s why Ed Miliband and I wanted to do whatever we could to support those Labour councils who wanted to make this commitment to their employees and communities.

    It’s a bold ambition, and a very big ask for councils who have are bearing the brunt of budget cuts and unprecedented pressure on services, resulting from the recession, rising deprivation, and an ageing population.

    You might be forgiven for thinking that a Living Wage was a nice idea for another day, but not a practical proposition at a time like this.

    But you’d be wrong.

    Earlier this year, Labour councils in Lewisham and Islington became the first accredited Living Wage authorities in the country.

    And today, it gives me immense pride to announce that, thanks to the commitment and creativity of Labour councillors, as well as the work of trade unions like UNISON, the GMB and Unite, and community organisations like Citizens UK and the Living Wage Foundation, the following councils are now on their way to becoming accredited Living Wage Employers:

    Camden;

    Birmingham;

    Preston;

    Oxford;

    Lambeth;

    Southwark;

    Hounslow;

    And Cardiff.

    In total, around the country, we can now point to over 12 Labour councils, from Glasgow to Hackney, showing that a fairer economy isn’t just a noble idea, it’s something we can start building right here, right now.

    Even in opposition, even in times as tough as these.

    And I know of many other councils up and down the country who are now looking at whether this is something they can deliver.

    So to tell us a bit more about how it can be done, I’m delighted to be able to introduce:

    Fran Massey, a UNISON member who works at Manchester College;

    Steve Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham, the first council to become an accredited Living Wage employer;

    And Alan Buckle, Deputy Chairman of KPMG International, one of the first private sector employers to take up the call for the Living Wage.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2012 Speech to the Resolution Foundation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the Resolution Foundation Conference on 28th June 2012.

    How a Labour government would raise living standards for those on low to middle incomes in the decade ahead

    I want to thank the Resolution Foundation for inviting me here today, and to thank Gavin and his brilliant team for all the work they have been doing to put the issue of living standards for low and middle income families so firmly on the political agenda.

    When Ed Miliband first started talking about the “squeezed middle”, many in the political and media establishment professed confusion. But it didn’t take long before the phrase began to appear in newspaper headlines, with the Oxford English Dictionary pronouncing Ed’s coinage their new “word of the year” in 2011.

    Why has this phrase gained such currency in such a short space of time? It’s because household incomes and living standards are under pressure in a way that is historically unprecedented and this is being felt particularly sharply by those around the middle and bottom half of the income distribution.

    As a constituency MP, and in my role as Shadow Chief Secretary, I see the way this slow, remorseless squeeze is wearing people down.

    Ed Miliband has called it “a quiet crisis that is unfolding, day-by-day, in kitchens and living rooms in every town, village and city up and down this country”.

    It’s the worry about keeping up with the rent or the mortgage, or keeping on top of bills or credit card debt, or the worry that you won’t be able to properly provide for your children.

    This doesn’t just put strain on people’s self respect and immediate relationships. It is corrosive of a broader sense of social solidarity and shared responsibility, especially when people hear of other groups in society who seem to be able to rise above it all, untouched by the tough times the majority are living through.

    This is why Ed Miliband has dedicated the Labour Party to the task of building a different kind of economy for Britain: an economy that works for everyone, not just a few at the top.

    As we’ve just seen some of the trends have been in evidence for as much as thirty years.

    The deep causes of the cost of living crisis are complex, but the key factors include a hollowing out or polarisation of the labour market, driven by a combination of technological and institutional change, and the operation of increasingly globalised market forces reducing the availability of reasonably paid, semi-skilled manual or clerical work and leaving too many workers trapped in low-skilled, low-paid, often casualised segments of the labour market.

    Coming on top of these trends, the global financial crisis and recession have taken a heavy toll on the earnings and employment rates of British workers.

    We can debate where the responsibility for that crisis lay and I certainly think it’s right that we in the Labour Party take our share for failing to challenge the fashion for “light touch” regulation that other countries (and parties) espoused. But there’s also no doubt that Labour did much in government to protect hard-pressed families from its harshest effects.

    The tragedy we are seeing today is that the legacy of that crisis, and the long running trends I have touched on are being compounded and exacerbated by the mistakes and the choices of the Conservative-led government.

    Families with children are, on average £450 a year worse off as a result of last year’s VAT rise and, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, another £511 worse off this year because of further cuts, freezes and restrictions to benefits and tax credits.

    But this morning I want to highlight something that is arguably even more important:

    the effect the government’s decisions are having on the state of the economy and what that means for people on low and middle incomes – now and for the future.

    As Ed Balls warned, and has now been confirmed, abandoning the balanced plan for deficit reduction that the Labour government had put in place, by raising taxes and cutting spending too far and too fast, has choked off the recovery and taken the economy back into recession.

    The unemployment figures tell one part of the story, but in many ways understate the full effect of the economy’s weakened state on people’s living standards.

    For one thing, the headline figures for employment and unemployment conceal deeper weaknesses in the labour market. Analysis of the data reveals a growth in part time and temporary work, with the latest figures showing 600,000 people who want permanent positions but can’t get them, and 1.4 million working part time who want to be working full time.

    And for those who are in full time work, and indeed, for many who work extremely long hours, sometimes with two or more jobs, the blunt reality is that the wages they earn are not nearly enough to cover the costs of a decent standard of living.

    Unemployment, underemployment, and stagnant or falling wages are weighing heavily on the incomes of most households today.

    Indeed, new analysis that I commissioned from the House of Commons Library shows that the deterioration of the economic outlook since George Osborne’s Spending Review in November 2010 has led the Office of Budget Responsibility to revise down projections for real household disposable income:

    – by £800 per household last year;

    – £1,100 per household this year;

    – £1,700 next year;

    – and another £1,800 and £1,700 for 2014 and 2015.

    That’s the real disposable income of the average UK household £1,700 lower in 2015 than the Chancellor expected when he first set out his plans, and a permanent loss to households over the life of this parliament of £7,100.

    Economic weakness and the double dip recession are taking a heavy toll on living standards. Even these figures are based on the OBR’s March forecasts that don’t fully reflect the depth of the double dip recession that we have now entered.

    And the truth is – every month our economy stagnates, every month of lost growth is another hit to the incomes and living standards of ordinary households not just now but for years into the future.

    The longer this goes on, the harder it will be to turn the situation around. The Conservative MP Nick Boles gave a thoughtful speech earlier this year, the argument of which I’m sure he’ll develop when he comes to the Resolution Foundation next month, in which he pointed out that the key to sustainable wage growth for British workers is rising productivity for the hours they work.

    Critical to this is investment in new technologies and innovative work processes. As he said then:

    “without a sustained increase in business investment, Britain can kiss goodbye to any increase in labour productivity”.

    He is right on this.

    But today, confidence in our economy is so low, businesses are holding back investment, and banks are cautious about lending to firms. The OBR’s projections for the Chancellor’s hoped for renaissance in business investment has been repeatedly postponed and pushed back and the recent worsening of the economic outlook is likely to have set back prospects even further.

    An 8 per cent increase in investment was promised for 2011, but it actually fell by 2 per cent. A further 10 per cent increase had been projected for this year, but less than 1 per cent growth is now forecast. And the role of investment in driving growth for future years has been significantly written down.

    Every investment delayed or deferred is a permanent setback to the ability of UK plc to raise productivity and raise competitiveness in the years ahead.

    There is also compelling evidence that the economic slowdown and recession are eroding the productivity and future earnings potential of the UK workforce.

    There are now worrying signs that investment in skills is under pressure. With the latest data from the UK Commission for Employment and Skills showing that the proportion of employers providing no training for their staff jumped from 32 per cent in 2009 to 41 per cent in 2011.

    And the “scarring” effects of joblessness translate directly into lower lifetime earnings and living standards. Analysis undertaken for the ACEVO Commission on Youth Unemployment chaired by David Miliband showed that people who experience unemployment in their younger years are not only more likely to suffer spells of unemployment in later life but also, even in work, suffer an average wage penalty of more than 15%.

    So the 407,000 young women now unemployed will, a decade from now, be earning on average £1,700 a year less as a result of being unemployed today. And the 607,000 young men now unemployed will, on average, be earning £3,300 less.

    These effects worsen the longer someone is unemployed. Work by Paul Gregg at the University of Bath and Emma Tominey at the University of York suggest that the 264,000 young people who have now been out of work for more than a year are, on average, likely to spend another two years either unemployed or economically inactive between the ages of 28 and 33, and the men will, by age 42, be suffering a wage penalty of more than £7,000.

    So it’s pretty clear that the first thing we need to do to improve the living standards of these people over the next decade, and beyond is to get them into work as a matter of urgency.

    So the economic slowdown and recession this government’s policies have resulted in doesn’t just create extra costs and hardship today it’s also doing permanent damage to our productive capacity and long term growth potential.

    Because the longer businesses postpone investment, losing their edge in competitive global markets; and the longer people are unemployed or underemployed, missing opportunities to gain experience or develop new skills, the less productive and competitive our economy will be in future and the lower our trend rate of growth making it even harder to maintain or improve incomes and living standards.

    So George Osborne’s years of lost growth mean lost opportunities to improve our ability to pay our way in the world that we will never recover. Britain’s businesses, working families and young people will be paying the price of this government’s economic errors for years and decades to come. And the longer we go on like this, the heavier that price will be.

    As the failure of the government’s economic plan becomes clear with the years of austerity and uncertainty stretching on into the future and no sign of light at the end of the tunnel people are asking if we just have to accept all this or if there is an alternative.

    And that poses a real challenge to Labour. We need to show that there is much more that could be done by an active government that is in touch with what life is like for ordinary people and determined to find a fair way through the tough times we are living through.

    There are three broad areas I want to highlight where government could be doing more:

    – first, urgent action to get our economy out of recession

    – second, a fairer approach to deficit reduction

    – and third, long term reform and rebalancing of our economy.

    First: an absolute precondition for real improvement in living standards for most families is economic growth. It’s right, as the Resolution Foundation, has stressed, that growth is not sufficient but no one can be in any doubt that it is necessary.

    That’s why we have been urging the government to take action to restore business and consumer confidence, stimulate investment, and tackle the crisis of joblessness and underemployment which, as we’ve seen, will extract a heavy and rising toll on living standards in Britain for decades to come as well as making it harder to get the deficit down and our public finances onto a sustainable path.

    Second, as Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have both stressed: although we need a growing economy to deliver the rising tax revenues and falling unemployment that will help us get the deficit down, tough decisions on tax, spending and pay cannot be avoided.

    When money is tight, our values and priorities matter all the more and we have been clear that a Labour government would be asking those who can to bear a heavier burden which would allow us to do more to protect the living standards of those on low and modest incomes.

    For example: We have said we would repeat the tax on large bank bonuses, to fund a major youth jobs programme. We would hold back pay rises for public servants on the highest salaries, so we can guarantee increases for those on the lowest pay. And we would crack down on tax avoidance, and reverse tax give-aways to the richest one per cent of the population, so that we can better protect those who are most feeling the squeeze by, for example, reversing the withdrawal of Working Tax Credit from couples with children unable to meet the government’s new higher working hours threshold to make work pay and support working families.

    Defending the tax credit system from the government’s onslaught is important, because if you listen to the Tories, you might get the impression that the tax credits were a costly and complex folly.

    But you get a very different picture if you listen to independent, objective observers such as Professor Lane Kenworthy, an international expert on income trends who cites tax credits as the key reason that the UK’s record on low- to-middle incomes has been better than most comparable countries in recent years; or Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University, who has held up Labour’s anti-poverty drive as an example for other countries to learn from.

    There are also areas of spending where the impact on employment, earnings, and by that token, economic growth and the public finances can be even more directly demonstrated.

    As part of Labour’s new commission on childcare I am working with Stephen Twigg, Yvette Cooper, and Liam Byrne to look at how we can build on the successes of Sure Start and childcare to get more help to parents who want to work, which the Resolution Foundation has identified as a critical frontier in the drive to defend household incomes.

    And with Liz Kendall I am looking at how we can deliver the radical reform of social care funding we need – so that people can look forward to a dignified life in old age, without fear of spiralling costs or a funding lottery – but also because, as I know from my work as Shadow Pensions minister, and from my own family, improving the availability and affordability of good care services could be a huge help for those who struggle to remain in work when they find themselves first in line to look after older family members.

    Finally, tax credits and support for families have been critical to reducing poverty and rewarding work over recent years. But a Labour government could achieve far greater leverage over social and economic outcomes at much lower cost to the taxpayer if it found ways of addressing what Jacob Hacker has called the “predistribution” of income and opportunity: rebalancing and restructuring our economy to improve the availability of good jobs paying a decent wage as well as regulating and reforming markets to contain the costs that families face.

    That way we don’t have to just rely on redistributing the proceeds of growth to compensate for the outcome of market forces but also look to tackle these dynamics at source with structural reforms that get our economy working in a way that benefits everyone, not just a few at the top.

    This is an enormous challenge, but it is opening up exciting new frontiers for policy development.

    For example, a bold government ready to challenge powerful providers could do much to cut the cost of living that families face:

    – ensuring energy providers offer cheaper and fairer tariffs;

    – preventing rail companies from exploiting loopholes in fare regulation;

    – improving the availability of affordable housing, for first time buyers but also in the rental sector; and

    – empowering savers and regulators to root out excessive fees charged by banks and pension providers.

    We must also do everything we can to improve opportunities for workers.

    So as well as giving businesses the confidence to invest, we need an active government strategy to encourage investment in high value sectors and high quality jobs.

    I am working with Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna to identify the levers we could use: from a more strategic use of government procurement powers to promote apprenticeships and incentivise innovation; to examining the role that a British Investment Bank could play in increasing the flow of finance into productivity-raising infrastructure, or small businesses with high growth potential.

    But raising living standards isn’t just about the high productivity traded sectors such as high tech manufacturing or business services. It’s also about raising standards and investment in high employment sectors like retail or social care.

    In the German retail sector, for example, 8 in 10 employees have completed vocational qualifications lasting two-to-three years, and are therefore more likely to progress to managerial careers. In the UK only three in ten have comparable qualifications.

    Also in Germany, care workers are trained to a level comparable to that of general nurses, whereas in the UK only one-third of care workers and two thirds of senior care workers hold NVQ level 2 qualifications.

    It may be neither feasible nor desirable to recreate the semi-skilled, routine jobs that have been displaced by technology or trade. But we must make it our mission to turn the lower-status, low-paid jobs that for too many have taken their place into jobs that properly valued, better paid, and offer a real chance of career progression and personal development.

    Finally we need to take steps to ensure that the proceeds of rising productivity are broadly shared. The work of the Resolution Foundation shows that we can’t take it for granted that the gains will trickle down and that productivity and pay can and have been decoupled for large parts of the workforce if wages aren’t set in a way that is responsible, accountable, and equitable.

    The fact that one in four British workers are paid less than the living wage and workers at the median have seen their wages stagnate or fall has as much to do with their power as their productivity.

    The public sector can take a lead in this, setting an example for the rest of the economy.

    As Shadow Chief Secretary, I will be pressing the government to follow through on Will Hutton’s recommendations for monitoring and managing high pay in the public sector; including the publication of ratios between top, middle and bottom pay in every department.

    And I am working with Ed Miliband to encourage and support more Labour councils to become living wage employers and use their procurement power to promote the same standard among their private contractors.

    Lewisham and Islington councils have already become accredited Living Wage employers and we hope that more will soon be able to join them.

    A Labour government could also build on the success of the National Minimum Wage by introducing stronger checks on excessive remuneration at the top, such as binding shareholder votes and employee representation on remuneration committees; and looking at how we can bring greater transparency, and a stronger voice for employees to bear at every level of the pay scale.

    But we know we have a long way to go, and we know we don’t yet have all the answers. That’s why the work of the Resolution Foundation, and its Commission on Living Standards, is so valuable.

    What’s most important at this stage is that we shift the parameters of political debate so that that the challenges facing households on low-to-middle incomes are at the forefront of politicians’ and policymakers minds.

    Since I entered politics, I have often been struck by how skewed our public conversation can be, and how people doing ordinary jobs for modest incomes are bound to feel ignored when we talk so much about university education, but so little about those who never get to university. When restricting child benefit for higher rate taxpayers creates more of a media storm than cutting tax credits for millions of workers paid below the average. And even when fairness and inequality is the issue, there’s far more moral concern about how much companies are paying their top executives than whether they doing enough to improve pay for those at the middle or the bottom of the scale.

    The Resolution Foundation is beginning to change this. And it’s for the Labour Party to take up the cause. The greatest danger of all is of people losing hope and giving up on the idea that any government can do anything to make things better.

    Labour’s job is to give people reason to believe again that we are in touch with their lives, in tune with their hopes and fears, and relentlessly focussed on doing everything we can, from the moment we win power and even from opposition, to get immediate relief to hard-pressed households now facing unprecedented challenges and put the economy on the path to a fairer future.

  • Mark Prisk – 2012 Speech on Ending Rough Sleeping

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Housing Minister, Mark Prisk, given at Arlington House in London on 11th December 2012.

    Introduction

    At this time of year, when the cold weather bites, it’s natural that people are concerned when they see people sleeping on the streets.

    But as you know better than most, this is not just an issue at Christmas; it’s a year-round problem.

    So, it is not enough to offer a helping hand just during the season of good will. To really make a difference, we need to tackle the causes of rough sleeping, all the year round.

    Government action

    At the heart of the problems we face today, is a lack of affordable homes in the housing market. A market in which, for 15, maybe 20 years, we have seen just half the homes we actually need.

    That’s why, when this government came to power, we committed to building more homes, and more affordable homes.

    That means unlocking substantial investment of £19.5 billion so we’re able to deliver 170,000 new affordable homes over this Parliament.

    It also means a significant expansion of the private rented sector, to give tenants much greater choice.

    Indeed, it’s a sector that has often been overlooked, which is why we asked Sir Adrian Montague to carry out an independent review of the sector.

    And we’ve now adopted his excellent report with a clear commitment, to provide a £10 billion debt guarantee and a £200 million equity finance fund, so that we can deliver more new homes for rent.

    There’s often a debate about whether to focus on owner occupied homes, or the private rented sector, or affordable housing. But we need to deliver in all 3.

    To put it simply, we want there to be a bigger, better housing market, capable of providing people with more quality and more choice at affordable prices.

    That’s why we are building more homes, but we’re also determined to address all the issues that drive people towards homelessness.

    That’s why we protected £400 million of funding, for tackling and preventing homelessness, over 4 years.

    And because homelessness is caused by the convergence of different problems, my predecessor Grant Shapps established the Ministerial Working Group that, for the first time, regularly brings ministers together from across Whitehall – from Health and Welfare, to Justice and even Defence – because we need to look at all the links between homelessness and for example, mental health, as well as some of the unique challenges which people face if veterans or former prisoners.

    Homelessness prevention

    So, we’ve put the right building blocks in place, and today I want to discuss how else we’re moving forward, not least by focussing on prevention.

    In particular the new approach, through StreetLink to stop people slipping through the net.

    That means tackling the underlying problems. And, (if people do turn to sleeping rough), early intervention to ensure they are swiftly helped off the streets.

    It’s why, (on top of the £400 million funding for tackling homelessness), we announced an additional £70 million last year.

    This extra cash is ensuring vulnerable single people, (a high risk group), get early access to good housing advice, to prevent them becoming homeless.

    No Second Night Out

    It’s also looking to boost hostel provision, and supporting the national roll out of ‘No Second Night Out’.

    Now after a really encouraging pilot in London (which we were able to support), this initiative is proving essential in ensuring people do not become caught up in a pattern of sleeping rough.

    It’s proved effective at providing a rapid response to new rough sleepers, by ensuring that no one has to sleep out for a second night.

    Indeed, tackling problems early is fundamental to the scheme’s success.

    So I’m pleased that the momentum for ‘No Second Night Out’ is growing, with several more authorities adopting the model.

    Merseyside was quick off the mark, being the first area outside London to introduce their own initiative last February. 6 local authorities are now working in partnership, to really put an end to persistent rough sleeping they’ve had to endure right across the Liverpool city region.

    It’s a commendable achievement and an example to other authorities – and you will hear more about how they delivered this when Councillor Anne O’Byrne speaks later.

    StreetLink

    But there are many people beyond government (and the professionals) who also want to help. Often they see people sleeping rough, but they are not quite sure what they can do.

    They’re concerned that giving money isn’t the best solution, but don’t know where else to turn.

    That’s why, as a government, we decided to support your sector to develop a new approach, with the launch of StreetLink today.

    So how will it work?

    First, for the general public StreetLink provides a central point of contact, that people who want to help rough sleepers can call.

    The minute anyone sees someone on their local street or town centre sleeping rough in their neighbourhood, they will be able to contact StreetLink and provide details on a confidential and secure basis, so vulnerable people can be found and connected to local services.

    The strength of the new approach is that it’s easy to use. StreetLink will be contactable by phone on 0300 500 0914, by using the website, the mobile website accessible by smartphone, or by using the StreetLink ‘app’, available for iPhones and android devices.

    You maybe concerned that it’s difficult to do, but if I can get it on my mobile (and my wife will confirm), anyone can.

    But, it won’t just be about reporting problems: members of the public will also be able to see what action has been taken.

    They’ll be able to ask for email feedback from local services about the outcome of the information they’ve provided, and see the outcomes of their referrals on the StreetLink website, on a Google map that they can search by location.

    So, for the first time, the public will be able to judge for themselves whether rough sleeping is being taken seriously and tackled effectively in their locality.

    So what does it mean for service providers – local authorities and your sector?

    By involving the public, it will mean your outreach teams can help more people, because you will have better intelligence about what’s happening.

    Homeless Link tell me that every local authority has agreed to accept referrals, with some already receiving and acting on the details provided by the public through the website, which has been live for over two months.

    It also supports your approach to helping rough sleepers. You, more than anyone, know that they need a hand-up, not just a handout.

    Members of the public will now be able to turn their concern into practical, effective action, and take a direct step to help vulnerable adults change their lives for the better.

    Finally – it will help link up the different services helping rough sleepers. Callers in an area with a ‘No Second Night Out’ initiative or other rough sleeping helpline will be transferred directly to that scheme. In other areas StreetLink will refer the details to the local authority or local outreach team for action.

    This is a smart, joined-up way of tackling the problem, and will have truly national coverage.

    So I’d like to pay tribute to Homeless Link and Broadway for its development, using the support from government. It’s real partnership in action.

    Conclusion

    To conclude, most of us will struggle to understand what it is like to sleep on the streets. That’s why, when people see rough sleepers, they want to reach out and help them.

    As a government, we are determined to engage with this issue, and ensure the right intervention is made, as early as possible. We need to break the habit to help people to turn their lives around.

    But this must be a collaborative effort – including local authorities and the voluntary and charity sectors.

    So let me say a big thank you to all of you for the vital work you do. It’s tempting for the media to think it’s just a Christmas issue, but it’s 365 days a year. You are part of the reason we have one of the best safety nets in the world, to prevent and tackle homelessness.

    I’m particularly delighted that, from today, StreetLink will strengthen this safety net. Everyone will now have an easy and effective way of helping change the lives of those who have been on the fringe, for good.

    There’s much more to do, but I’m confident that, together, we can make a real difference to thousands of people, who are real in need.

  • Owen Paterson – 2012 Speech to the Women's Institute Food Event

    owenpaterson

    Below is the text of a speech made in December 2012 by the Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, to the Women’s Institute Food Event.

    I want to start by thanking the Women’s Institute for inviting me to speak. I enjoy coming to events outside of London and getting a broader perspective on the issues that my department deals with.

    The history of the Women’s Institute makes it particularly fitting that the WI should be playing a major part in the debate of food security.

    The WI were set up in Britain in 1915 and promptly got on with helping women get involved in food production in the First World War.

    Then in the Second World War the WI played a key role on the Home Front growing and preserving over five thousand tonnes of fruit between 1940 and 1945, which otherwise would have been wasted.

    With all the practical experience the WI are bringing to the problem and their partnership with the Institute of Public Policy Research, I am sure the WI’s report will be a valuable addition to the food security debate.

    By 2050 we’re expecting the world’s population to hit 9 billion. That’s 9 billion mouths to feed in a world with increasing competition for land, water and energy.  We may need as much as a 70% global increase in food by 2050. Before we get depressed by this, let’s celebrate the fact that technology has dramatically improved our ability to feed ourselves.

    The World’s population has grown from 2.5 billion in 1950 to just over 7 billion today. New technologies for food and agriculture are helping us to keep pace with the growing population. As the WI set out in their report, between 1967 and 2007 crop yields increased by 115 per cent but land use only increased by eight per cent. Indur Goklany has calculated that if we tried to support today’s population using the methods of the 1950s, instead of farming 38% of all land, we would need to use 82%.

    There is still a massive challenge but also an exciting opportunity to rethink the way our food production works. This is a chance for us all to improve food production from farm to fork. Technology and innovation will help us to increase production while improving the environment.

    The UK is already a world leader in food security issues. In 2011 we published the Foresight report, which set out how to deal with growing world population and changing climate. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Caroline Spelman, for her work on this and thank her for her achievements.

    The Prime Minister gave me clear instructions upon my appointment. I need to find ways to increase growth while improving the environment – the two are not mutually exclusive. The work the Government is currently doing on food production and food security is a key part of making this happen.

    One of my first events was a meeting at No 10 with farmers, producers, distributors and exporters.  I understand that Government needs to work in partnership with industry.

    The Green Food Project is looking at how to produce more food while simultaneously improving the environment. We’re working with partners from across the food supply chain, from farmers to retailers, to develop solutions that ensure UK food security. We need to design and implement policy that works for businesses, consumers and the environment.

    Innovation has a key role to play in food security. There are some really innovative businesses like Intake Farm in Skipton that introduced a bedding recovery unit using money from a Rural Development Grant. This will save them thousands of pounds a year and reduce the risk of lameness in their livestock.

    I am currently working with David Willetts, the Science Minister, on the Life Sciences Agri-Tech Strategy to help encourage innovation and new technologies. We want to use the UK’s world class science base to increase the competitiveness of the agricultural sector. We need to be able to translate research into new products, processes and technologies, and this should include serious consideration of GM. In 2011, 16 million farmers in 29 countries grew GM products on 160 million hectares. That’s 11% of the world’s arable land.

    The Agri-Tech Strategy will build on the world leading scientific expertise in the UK. The Government invests £400million in agri-food R&D. We need the best research, technology and knowledge transfer that we can get.  An inspiring example is the Driffield based Beef Improvement Group. Earlier this year they successfully secured a £1.2m grant from the Technology Strategy Board. They are using this to carry out an inventive project to measure Net Feed Efficiency, which will help beef producers drive down production costs and compete in the world market.

    When I was in Hong Kong three weeks ago I went to a reception promoting our new agreement to sell beef on the bone to Hong Kong. I can’t resist mentioning that the centre piece of the event was that I carved a prime piece of Yorkshire beef from Whitby.

    Government is also determined to do everything possible to improve food production. That’s why I’m so supportive of the Food and Drink Federation’s 2020 strategy: 20% sustainable growth by 2020. The Food industry contributes nearly £90 billion a year to the economy and is a key area for growth. We celebrated food exports of £18.1 billion last year.

    We need to recognise the role that exports play in our food and drink sector. My recent trip to China showed me how much things have changed there. The middle classes are aspiring to a more westernised diet that includes high-end imported goods, including dairy products.  Russia has just lifted their ban on the import of British beef and lamb, opening up a huge new market, potentially worth £80million over the next three years.

    British food is becoming increasingly popular abroad thanks to its excellent reputation. We have high quality ingredients and raw materials. We have rigorous food production standards. We have totally reliable traceability. There are great examples of internationally recognised foods from this part of the world like Wensleydale cheese and Yorkshire pudding. It’s these types of food that help to make British food popular.

    I have to mention some of the wonderful entrepreneurial UK companies that I went to China with, including Pukka and Imporient tea. Can you believe that they are selling tea to China?

    I came across all kinds of exciting business prospects while I was out there. Visiting one of Tesco’s growing number of stores, I saw for myself the opportunities for some products that there’s no market for in the UK. Like chicken feet for example. One UK company alone produces 9 million chicken feet a week. Currently, disposing of poultry heads and feet costs £17.6 million a year. The estimated market value of UK chicken and turkey feet sold to China could be £300million. Taking up an opportunity like this could reduce waste and be good for the industry.

    Incredibly in 2011 the UK threw away 15 million tonnes of food and drink waste. For an average family that is £500 worth of edible food that’s chucked out each year. At least 60% of our household food waste is avoidable. We are already making progress. Since 2006 food waste has been reduced by 13% but there’s more to do. That’s why Government introduced clearer food date labels on products.

    We have been drawn into a cult of beauty and perfection, which has no bearing on nutritious or economic value. There’s nothing wrong with ugly veg. There’s no need to throw it out.

    We all have a responsibility to do something about this. As an organisation with a diverse membership of 210,000 and a can do attitude, I would like to encourage the WI to help us as a nation cut down on food waste.

    While Government can do a lot of things, I think a big part of what Government needs to do is get out of people’s hair and let them get on with doing the things they are good at. That’s why we’re getting rid of so many regulations.

    Government can’t do this alone. I need the industry and consumers to tell me what more we can do, what other regulations we can get rid of, what processes we can improve.

    We are introducing a Groceries Code Adjudicator to even out the balance of power in the supply chain and make sure farmers get a fair deal for their hard work.

    We are continuing to support the UK dairy industry through the Code of Practice. I would like to pay tribute to Sir Jim Paice, the previous Agriculture Minister, for his tireless efforts to get this agreed. The Code means that in future, contracts between farmers and dairy processors will be freely negotiated, fairer and more transparent.

    I know that the dairy industry is a particular interest for the WI. We can all do our bit to help the industry. We have a £1.2 billion trade deficit in dairy products. Each year we bring in 115,000 tonnes of ice cream – more than double the 50,000 we send abroad. 150,000 tonnes of yoghurt – six times the 25,000 we export. We have a dessert deficit. If we all reached for dairy products with made in the UK on the label, we could make a massive difference. This includes Muller yogurts that are made in Market Drayton in my constituency.

    Farming and the food industry are now an international industry. Food prices are impacted by the global market.

    In the European Union I’m pushing other Member States hard on CAP reform. I have a clear end point that I’d like European agriculture to arrive at. Decisions on what food to produce should be left to the market, so farmers alone decide what crops to grow and animals to raise. Tax payers’ money should be used to support the environment through our excellent agri-environment schemes, so that farmers and landowners are compensated for the public goods they provide and for which there is no market mechanism.

    At the Agriculture Council in November I made it clear that sugar quotas need to go. The price of sugar is 35% higher than it needs to be; it adds an unnecessary 1% on to the weekly shopping basket. This is ridiculous when China imported £1.2billion worth of raw and refined sugar in 2011, more than double what it was the year before. We should be able to export our sugar to them.

    We produce just over half of the food we consume. We can’t produce all our own food, mangoes don’t grow well here. 22% of the food we do eat could be produced here. We should back it.

    What I want to do is create the conditions for the food industry to grow and at the same time to improve the environment.

    The food and farming industry is an amazing success story. It employs 3.6 million people in the UK. The Government has helped to secure 6000 apprenticeships in the industry presenting a great opportunity for innovative young people.

    Food security is the responsibility of us all, whether it’s Government, industry or consumers. The Government is working to capitalise on the opportunities offered by the growing global demand for high-quality British products. Industry is investing in science to keep Britain at the cutting edge of food technology. Consumers are voting with their money by demanding sustainable products and clearer labelling.

    In the UK we are well equipped to rise to the challenge of food security.

    The WI’s discussion paper has kicked off a national debate on how to achieve food security. I know it will make an important contribution and I look forward to working with you.

  • Owen Paterson – 2012 Speech to the Food and Drink Federation

    owenpaterson

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, to the Food and Drink Federation on 12th December 2012.

    This time last year the FDF launched its 2020 vision for growth. This is a shared vision for the UK food and drink industry to deliver sustainable growth of 20% by 2020. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor Caroline Spelman who played a key role in its launch.

    I fully support the FDF’s work on this. It chimes well with the instructions the Prime Minister gave me on my appointment. He asked me and my Ministerial team to focus on growth while improving the environment. These two are not mutually exclusive; in fact I believe that we cannot have one without the other.

    One of the first events I attended in office was a meeting at No. 10 with farmers, producers, distributors and exporters.  I understand that Government needs to work in partnership with industry if we are to get the best from the food and drink manufacturing sector.

    This sector is a great success story. The food and drink manufacturing sector employs 3.6 million people and agricultural work employs a further half million. The manufacturing side is worth £9 billion to the UK economy. Last year exports hit £12 billion

    The Government is investing in the future of the industry. We spend over £410million on agriculture and food research annually. I know that as an industry you invest £1 billion each year in R&D. That enables a staggering 1,500 new products to be launched each quarter. Innovation has a key role to play in ensuring that the sector continues to grow and that we can expand into new markets.

    Recently I was in Shanghai to open the Food and Hotel China trade fair. Incredibly there were UK Companies who were selling tea to China. They were creating a market by offering innovative high-quality products.

    The Green Food Project is looking at how to produce more food while simultaneously improving the environment. We’re working with partners from across the food supply chain, from farmers to retailers, to design and implement policy that works for businesses, consumers and the environment.

    I am currently working with David Willetts, the Science Minister, on the Life Sciences Agri-Tech Strategy to help encourage innovation and new technologies. We want to use the UK’s world class science base to increase the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and address the global food security challenge. We need to be able to translate research into new products, processes and technologies, and this should include serious consideration of GM. It is reported that in 2011, 16 million farmers in 29 countries grew GM products on 160 million hectares. That’s 11% of the world’s arable land. To put it in context that’s 6 times larger than the whole surface area of the UK.

    We need to discuss this at national level and unblock it at EU level. Above all we need to make the case to the public. That will require government, industry and the science community to work together. I agree with Jim [Mosely] that the UK risks becoming a “food museum” if we fail to embrace new technologies such as GM, so it’s crucial we get this right.

    The Agri-Tech Strategy will build on our world leading scientific expertise in the UK. We need the best research, technology and knowledge transfer that we can get, so that the industry can continue to develop. This is a great opportunity for UK economic growth and a way to continue to increase exports. We also need to educate the public sentiment so consumers understand the possibilities that new technologies offer.

    The FDF have had a great success in achieving their pledge to double the number of apprenticeships by the end of 2012, there are now over 4,700 in the sector. The industry is really leading the way both for growth and delivering for wider society. The Graduate Excellence Scheme is exactly the sort of thing we need. It will encourage young people into this exciting, innovative industry. They will be rewarded with a fulfilling career. My sincere congratulations to all the companies who have pledged their support.

    The Food Supply Chain Skills Action Plan will help us to continue to deliver on improving the perception and image of the food and drink sector. I would like to pay tribute to Sir Jim Paice the previous Agriculture Minister for the excellent work he did on creating this plan. I discussed the issues of improving skills and improving the image of the sector when I met with the FDF Executive Committee in October this year.

    This plan is important because, as the FDF is clearly already aware, improving skills is fundamental to sustainable growth of the sector and of the economy.

    As well as investing in the future of the industry through research and skills, the Government is evening out the balance of power in the supply chain to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal for their hard work.

    We are introducing a Groceries Code Adjudicator to make sure that direct suppliers to major retailers are treated fairly. This will also mean that consumers get a good deal; they shouldn’t lose out because of unfair contractual practices. I would like to thank the FDF for their support on this initiative.

    We are continuing to support the UK dairy industry through the Code of Practice. The Code means that in future, contracts between farmers and dairy processors will be freely negotiated, fairer and more transparent.  Yesterday we made another great step forward for dairy farmers with the Dairy Package that David Heath launched on the Isle of Wight.

    We can all do our bit to help the industry. We have a £1.2 billion trade deficit in dairy products. Each year we bring in 115,000 tonnes of ice cream – more than double the 50,000 we send abroad. 150,000 tonnes of yoghurt – six times the 25,000 we export. We have a dessert deficit. If we all reached for dairy products with made in the UK on the label, we could make a massive difference.

    Increasing exports is widely seen as one of the largest opportunities for growth in the UK food and drink sector. Look at the recent deal with Russia. There’s a market just opened up worth potentially £80 million over the next three years exporting beef and lamb.

    There have been seven consecutive years of record growth in exports in the food and drink sector. This demonstrates the opportunity for exports in this sector to have an even greater impact on the UK economy.

    That’s why I am focusing so much of my energy on getting exports moving. I’ve already mentioned the trade fair in Shanghai where there was the largest ever delegation of food and drink companies to China. I also went to a highly successful reception promoting our new agreement to sell beef on the bone to Hong Kong.

    British food is becoming increasingly popular abroad thanks to its excellent reputation. We have high quality ingredients and raw materials. We have rigorous food production standards. We have totally reliable traceability. This is what the research for the FDF’s Vision for Growth showed. The research also showed that branding and new product development were particularly good.

    We’re continuing to work on this through our action plan “Driving Exports Growth in the Farming, Food and Drink Sectors”. We aim to open markets and remove trade barriers, encourage SMEs to explore overseas opportunities and build a business mindset about exporting as a key route to growth.

    If you have any problems with technical or regulatory issues please come to us. In China we found that the UKTI can offer practical advice on the ground. I want to get the message out; we are here to help.

    As well as looking at what we’re doing in the UK, we also need to look at the wider conditions we are working in.

    In the European Union with the other Member States I‘m pushing the Commission hard on CAP reform. I have a clear end point that I’d like European agriculture to arrive at although we might not get there this time. Decisions on which food to produce should be left to the market, so farmers alone decide which crops to grow and animals to raise. Tax payers’ money should be used to support the environment through our excellent agri-environment schemes, so that farmers and landowners are compensated for the public goods they provide and for which there is no market mechanism.

    I am seriously worried that some countries are looking to reverse the long-term destination set out in the MacSharry and Fischler reforms. These countries want us to continue to subsidise food production with public money. For instance the EU has agreed that sugar quotas should end in 2015. At the Agriculture Council in November I made it clear that sugar quotas need to go. The price of sugar is 35% higher than it needs to be; it adds an unnecessary 1% on to the weekly shopping basket. This is ridiculous when China imported £1.2billion worth of raw and refined sugar in 2011, more than double what it was the year before. We should be able to export our sugar to them.

    Growth is not enough on its own. As well as finding ways for the sector to continue to expand we also need to improve the environment.

    We are already making progress, since 2006 food waste has been reduced by 13% but the UK still threw away 15 million tonnes of food and drink waste in 2011. That’s £500 worth of edible food the average family chucks out each year.  As well as household waste we should think about industry by-products that have other uses, for example agricultural waste in Anaerobic Digestion plants.

    I welcome the FDF’s leadership in developing the Five-Fold Environmental Ambition. It has targets for five areas of environmental sustainability: achieving an absolute reduction in emissions by 2020, sending zero food and packaging waste to landfill by 2015, reducing the carbon impact of packaging, reducing water use, and embedding environmental standards in transport.

    I also congratulate the FDF on taking part in voluntary agreements, such as the Federation House Commitment for water saving. I thank the FDF for continuing to drive the sustainability agenda forward. Through the efforts of the members of the FDF sustainable behaviours are now the norm for the sector. This is an excellent achievement.

    My colleague Jeremy Hunt in the Department of Health has asked me to thank the FDF for its commitment to the Public Health Responsibility Deal Food Network. The FDF has done much this year to enable people to eat more healthily and we need to keep building on this success.

    I am delighted to be the Secretary of State working with the industry at such an exciting time. I am looking forward to continuing to work closely with you all.

    I want to thank all of you for the contribution you are making to increasing growth while improving the environment. Next year the FDF celebrate their centenary, they should rightly celebrate 100 years of championing the industry and supporting innovation.

    I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a most successful New Year.

  • David Laws – 2012 Speech to the LGA Education Conference

    davidlaws

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Education Minister, David Laws, to the 2012 LGA Education Conference on 4th December 2012.

    First of all, thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.

    Local Government has a massive and crucial role to play in delivering education.

    It does now. It will in the future.

    I want us to stay closely in touch, for two reasons.

    Firstly, because I want to hear from you about any problems or issues at “ground level”, so that we can deal with these together.

    Secondly, because we need to work together if we are to secure the best outcomes for young people in this country. The Department isn’t able to deliver our ambitions without your support and participation.

    The Department’s communication routes with the Local Government sector are changing, as some of you know.

    But I want to ensure that our contact is just as productive, indeed more productive, than in the past.

    That will include a new, small, and focused “reference group” which will meet with me on what I envisage being a quarterly or bi-monthly basis.

    And the Secretary of State and other Ministers will also of course engage regularly and through their own mechanisms.

    I have been asked to speak today on the subject of “Raising Ambition; Achieving Potential.”

    Whether intentionally or not, this choice of subject has a double meaning for me.

    Firstly, because it is obvious that we need to work together to raise our ambitions about what young people, including from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, can achieve in their education.

    We need to ensure that every young person can meet his or her potential.

    We know that this is not presently the case.

    Until recently, only 40 per cent of children secured good grades at GCSE. It is now 60 per cent. Improvements are always good news. But moving from a 40 per cent to 60 per cent system remains completely unacceptable.

    We now need to move to a system in which 80 or 90 per cent of children can reach their potential. That includes stretching the most able.

    But the key element of this must involve closing the appalling gap between the outcomes for disadvantaged children and the rest.

    It is intolerable that in this country life chances are being so determined by social circumstances rather than innate ability and commitment.

    Local authorities in inner London have helped transform the opportunities of disadvantaged young people over the last decade.

    That is great. But it also highlights how badly we are failing these same young people in other parts of the country.

    Young people only get one real chance to get their education right. That is why school improvement must be all about what both Martin Luther King and Michael Gove refer to as “the fierce urgency of now.” That is why Government Ministers are intolerant of failure and impatient for dramatic change.

    Local Government must not only be our partners in delivering these changes.

    You must be Leaders and innovators.

    Local Government is so used to being dictated to by successive central governments that there is a risk that, at best, we just turn you into a delivery arm of central government.

    But this risk is much, much, greater if you simply wait for us to dictate to you.

    My message is this: identify the impediments to success in your area; work to demolish them; tell us what we can do to help. Bang on OUR doors. Do not wait for us to bang on yours.

    In that sense the title of this speech is not just about children.

    I want Local Government to have a greater ambition for its own role in improving educational outcomes. And I want all of Local Government to achieve its potential, not just a few flagship councils.

    Local authorities have a key strategic oversight role in education. It is local authorities which have the legal responsibility to ensure that there is a school place for every child in their area. This is an important role, particularly in areas with rising pupil numbers.

    Local authorities not only have to ensure provision, but they are vital in making the school admissions process work. It is local authorities which help deliver fair access for all.

    There are many other strategic areas where local authorities are and will remain important. Take school transport, for example. It may not be glamorous, but those school buses are of critical importance for many pupils.

    Local authorities can and must do much more than fulfilling their statutory duties.

    Critically, they can and must support schools, challenge schools, and – where necessary – intervene in schools.

    The Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, made it clear in his most recent report that more children than ever before are in good schools. That is fantastic news.

    He has been clear that there are areas of the country where almost all schools are excellent or good. That, too, is fantastic news.

    But progress and performance are not uniform across the country. Sir Michael has been equally clear that there are areas of the country where only a minority of schools are good enough. That is both tragic and unacceptable.

    According to Ofsted, two million school children are in schools that are not good enough. No-one should be willing to accept that.

    This, surely, is the biggest challenge of all.

    And if local authorities want to retain their important role in schools then they must act when schools in their areas need to improve.

    Too often in the past local authorities have failed to act to deal with failure or mediocrity.

    Too many local authorities have felt that it is their job to champion “their” schools, regardless of whether these schools are delivering for their children.

    But your job is to be champions for parents and pupils, not apologists for performance which isn’t good enough.

    For sure, more schools are now Academies than ever before. And for sure, the relationship between local authorities and schools is different when a school becomes an academy. But the overwhelming majority of schools are still part of the local authority family of schools.

    These schools need your support and, sometimes, your challenge.

    Ofsted, as you know, is now raising the bar on inspections.

    “Satisfactory” is no longer good enough. It now “requires improvement”.

    Bluntly, there is no way my Department has the capacity to intervene in the number of schools which may now need intervention and support.

    That is why you are so important.

    If you did not exist, you would need to be invented.

    And you do not need re-inventing as Schools Commissioners or some regional arm of my Department.

    You just need to deliver.

    You all need to do what the best councils are now doing.

    I do not want to use this speech to single out those who are at the bottom of Sir Michael’s local authority list.

    You all know who they are. Rather I want to concentrate on those at the top, places like Camden, Sefton and Trafford. I want to challenge those places to work with other local authorities who need assistance.

    And I want you all to learn from the most successful local authorities.

    Local authorities are stronger when they work together and can achieve more when they co-operate. Learning from each other is a necessity, and not a choice, if schools are to improve, and if local authorities are to remain an important part of the school system.

    There are many ways for local authorities to intervene.

    They can offer school support directly. They can encourage schools to form self-improvement clusters. They can find suitable sponsors for underachieving schools.

    There is not one single option for delivering change.

    But nor should there be an option for tolerating failure and mediocrity.

    The Secretary of State, Michael Gove, has recently written to some local authorities highlighting problems in school performance in their area. Those letters have provoked strong reactions. Some people have welcomed them, and described them as fair. I admit that such comments have largely been private, but I assure you that they have been made.

    Others have been upset, or even angry to receive them. Two groups have made representations along those lines. The first do not believe that Ministers should write such letters. I disagree. It is perfectly proper for the Secretary of State for Education to write to local authorities about the standards of education in their area.

    The second group of people protested because they felt that the particular letter that they received was not a fair letter. Where that is the case, you should indeed tell us. Just as it is fair for us to write to you, so it is fair for you to reply. We will take your letters seriously – just as we expect you to take our letters seriously.

    But in the interests of the children of this country, we need to set aside bruised egos and get on with working to ensure that the laggards come up to the standards now being delivered by the best. And quickly. Because each child has just one chance.

    Ofsted will continue to shine a strong light on local authority performance in this area. And I will fully support them as they do this. Sir Michael Wilshaw has rightly said that he will hold Academy chains to account as well. This is not about picking on local authorities. It is about tackling failure – wherever it is occurring.

    That leads to me on my next theme: the relationship between national and local government.

    I want to highlight three legitimate expectations that you can have of us.

    We should offer you the financial support that you need, we should be fair, and we should trust you, while ensuring that you are held properly to account.

    Let me start with financial support. The Coalition Government took the decision at the start of the parliament to ring-fence the schools budget.

    That spending is, therefore, protected come what may.

    Not only that, but we also created the pupil premium that will deliver around £6bn of funding for children from poorer backgrounds over this parliament. That money can and must have life changing effects for those children.

    But let me say this: all Ministers in my Department are aware of the basic need pressures in many parts of the country.

    We know that there is a rise in the number of children, and we know that there are implications for school capital requirements.

    We are also aware that schools need maintaining – that is why we are looking at the quality of the school estate at the moment.

    We have fought hard to make sure that Treasury understands all these needs just as well as we do.

    The Government has a responsibility to treat you fairly.

    The Department has recently concluded its consultation on the future of LACSEG. Clearly reform is needed, and we are striving to be fair to maintained schools, Academies and Free Schools.

    We are listening carefully to what you have to say.

    We are also working hard on a national funding formula for schools.

    The current system is hard to defend, and that is why we are working on a new approach.

    But equally we know that we cannot move quickly from the current system to a new formula, for any new formula will create both losers and winners.

    It is fair that we move to a national formula, but equally it is fair that we move carefully, and protect the losers. As you know, we already have a minimum funding guarantee in place at the moment, and we will want to build on this approach as we move to a national formula.

    Fairness has many attributes, and financial fairness is only one of them. The Department also needs to be fair in the way that it treats different types of school.

    Make no mistake, as I said earlier, we will hold all schools to account, whether they are maintained, Academies or Free Schools.

    There are challenges ahead, for both of us.

    There are delivery challenges in providing the relevant number of places for two-year-olds, and ensuring that they are of good quality. Those challenges are particularly intense in the second year of delivery, when 40 per cent of children will be eligible for a place.

    There are challenges ahead in terms of raising the participation age. We have a duty to fund places for every person who takes them up, whether they want to stay at school, go to college, or take up an apprenticeship. We will fulfil that duty.

    You, in turn, have a legal duty to ensure that people of relevant age are in full time education or training. We expect you to fulfil that duty.

    Already the best local authorities in the country have impressive programmes in place. They identify young people at most risk of becoming NEET, and develop programmes to engage them. They work with schools, colleges and children’s services, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable. This includes referring those who are eligible to the new Youth Contract.

    In such areas the number of young people who are NEET is very low. That is what we should all want to see, and again, local authorities should work with central government and learn from each other.

    In other areas of the country there are still far too many young people who are not engaged in education or training. It is essential that the lower performing areas learn from the best and close this gap.

    Let me conclude.

    The relationship between local authorities and national government has not always been a good one. I regret that. Of course there will be points of tension, and points of disagreement. I understand that.

    But equally, I believe strongly that we can and must create a new working relationship.

    This new deal will be based on honesty, fairness, trust and accountability. And above all it will be based on both sides working together towards a common goal. That goal, of course, is to raise ambitions and achieve the potential for each and every child in our country.

    To do that we need to raise the ambitions in Local Government and ensure that the potential of Local Government is realised in every part of our country.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Lansley – 2012 Speech on Smoking and Health

    andrewlansley

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, on the subject of ‘Smoking on Health’.

    I’m very glad to be here today.  I’m grateful to the RCP for your work and this opportunity.

    Smoking remains one the biggest public health challenges. And it has been for a long time.

    Historical context

    When the NHS started in 1948, 82% of men smoked.

    Fourteen years later, in 1962, there was the RCP’s ‘Smoking and Health’ report. It set out an agenda for controlling tobacco that doctors and governments followed for decades to come.

    So in 1965, after calls from the RCP, all TV adverts for cigarettes were banned.

    In 1984, smoking was banned on tube trains, and banned on stations a year later.

    In 1995, Virgin and United Airlines banned smoking on transatlantic flights.

    Then of course, there was the smoke free legislation of 2007 which I was Conservative health spokesperson at the time.

    I said it should be a free vote for MPs. By making sure it was a free vote in our Party, we pushed Labour to give a free vote to their MPs too – knowing that this would mean a full ban, not the partial one the Government had sought.

    It turned out to be one of the most successful pieces of legislation any of us can remember. MPs voted for it, not because we were told to by the whips, but because we believed in it, because the evidence was there and because we knew we had a chance to reduce the cases of respiratory diseases and cancer, and also to reduce the number of heart attacks caused by secondhand smoke..

    And now, I think our health reforms have the potential to be the next step on that path.

    By devolving more power to doctors, nurses and health professionals, more influence will be given to those who know the harms of smoking, and are determined to reduce it.

    Health professionals know their communities, they know their patients. They know the areas, they know the shops, they know the temptations, they know the pressures. And because they know all this, they also know something else – they know how best to get people to stop.

    Our plans, for the first time, will place a legal duty on the NHS to reduce health inequalities. And when you think how smoking disproportionately harms people in the poorest areas, you begin to realise the opportunity these reforms create.  To focus resources and attention on what is a deadly habit and such a significant source of inequalities.

    We’re not going to tell health professionals how to do their jobs. But I do want to see clinical commissioning groups working with local groups and their local authorities specifically to deal with problems like smoking.

    And I do expect to see Health and Wellbeing Boards and leadership of Directors of Public Health backing them up, guiding priorities and providing advice and research, with a particular focus on public health issues like smoking.

    This is a huge opportunity. And it’s one we have to grasp.

    Because despite the medical consensus, the shift in public opinion and even progressive legislation, people still smoke.

    And overall, smokers appear to be less motivated to quit than they were a few years ago. A survey by the Office of National Statistics in 2009 showed that only 63% of smokers wanted to stop altogether, compared to 72% at the turn of the millennium.

    So we need to up our action.  As Healthy Lives, Healthy People set out, successful public health campaigns rely on cumulative interventions over time.  A constant push for positive change.

    And that is what we will do. With central government, NHS and local government all helping people make healthier choices.

    Tobacco cannot now be sold from vending machines inEngland.  That removed, at a stroke, a source of cigarettes that underage smokers could access as often as they liked.

    It was estimated that inEngland, about 35 million cigarettes were being sold to people under age of 18 every year. That is why vending machines had to go.

    It’s not window dressing, or fiddling around the edges. That’s a real development that will stop people, particularly young people, from smoking.  We went to court to fight the tobacco companies that didn’t want the laws, and we won.

    And the tobacco industry was defeated on tobacco displays too. We were gearing up for another court case but they dropped their action just a few days before Christmas.  So in a month’s time, tobacco displays in supermarkets will end. And displays in other shops will end in 2015.

    Of course we have some of the highest priced tobacco inEuropeand we will carry on with a high tax policy.  In the last budget, the Chancellor significantly increased the tax on rolling of tobacco.

    And of course, we’re helping those who want to quit.

    Since January, over a quarter of a million Quit Kits have been distributed.

    Our local stop smoking services are amongst the best in the world.  It’s a fact that smokers trying to quit do better if they use them.

    We will continue to work with clinicians, so every time a smoker sees a doctor, nurse or any other member of the NHS they should be encouraged to kick the habit. Making every contact count.  At the moment, clinicians in some parts of the country are already doing this, I want to see it adopted throughtout the NHS .

    And the Tobacco Control Plan, published just a year ago, set out our strategy for comprehensive tobacco control.

    It set out how tobacco control will be delivered as part of the new public health system. How decisions will be taken locally to target the particular problems that particular communities have. We know very well that smoking rates  do vary dramatically between communities.

    And we will try especially hard to help two particular groups.

    Firstly, we want to dramatically cut the number of pregnant women who smoke. Reducing rates of smoking at time of delivery from 14% to 11% by the end of 2015.

    Secondly, children. Smoking is an addiction largely acquired by young people, so if we can make progress in this group then people’s health will benefit through their entire lives.

    We have already reduced smoking rates among 15 year olds from 15% to 12%, four years ahead of schedule.

    But we’re not going to let up. We can and will do more to stop young people taking up smoking in the first place.

    So for example, we’re putting the finishing touches now to the consultation to come on tobacco packaging, which will be published soon.

    We are the first country inEuropeto be giving that idea serious consideration, and that’s something I think we can be very proud of.

    Obviously it’s only a consultation at the moment, so nothing’s set in stone. But that also means it’s a great opportunity to shape policy from here on in.

    When it comes out, I want to see responses from everyone with an interest. From tobacco control experts, shop owners, to smokers to ex smokers, and even the manufacturers themselves.  But make no mistake – everyone who responds will be asked upfront about any links they have with the tobacco industry.

    We will listen to the arguments and opinions people have, and we will not taking any options off the table just yet. It will be a real opportunity to make sure your opinion is heard.

    So I do encourage everyone, when the consultation opens, to get involved.

    Smokefree homes and family cars

    Another thing we’ll be doing from the centre is running a marketing campaign about the dangers of secondhand smoke, to encourage people to take action voluntarily to protect the health of their families, particularly children.

    This is one of the areas that we can all agree needs further action.

    When the smokefree legislation came in, people used to make spurious arguments about how it would affect the atmosphere in jazz clubs, as if everyone had a better time if there was a pall of smoke clogging up the trombones.

    Funnily enough, those same people didn’t mention the cars full of smoke that children have no option but to breathe. Or in their front rooms. Or the kitchens. Or anywhere children can be forced to inhale someone else’s smoke. That’s the reality of secondhand smoke, and it’s why smokefree environments are so important.

    Even though more people are making their own homes smokefree, as the college’s 2010 report described, far too many children are still exposed to secondhand smoke.  We have to change that. We have to encourage as many smokers as possible not to expose their families to their smoke.

    And in the next year, that will be one of the things our television-led campaigns will focus upon.

    Harm reduction

    We’ll also be looking at the best ways to reduce the damage that tobacco does to smokers’ bodies, even if they can’t or won’t break their addiction to nicotine.

    As you know, although nicotine is an addictive substance in cigarettes, the damage  mostly comes from the inhalation of the smoke itself.

    Anything we can do to reduce that damage is well worth doing, even if some smokers can’t kick the nicotine.

    NICEis drawing up guidance on how that might happen.

    And the MHRA has supported using nicotine patches, gum, inhalators and lozenges as alternatives to smoking, making it safer for the smoker themselves but also reducing secondhand smoke.

    We are also encouraging manufacturers to come up with new types of nicotine replacement products that are cheaper, more socially acceptable and easy to get hold of and use.

    That last point I think is an important one. For nicotine replacement treatments to be really effective, the safest forms of nicotine should also be the most straightforward to buy in the first place.

    In that respect I would especially like to recognise the leadership of Professor John Britton, the Chair of the RCP’s Tobacco Advisory Group and co-chair of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, for his leadership in this and other fields.

    International reputation

    It’s helping cement our reputation as a world leader on stopping tobacco use.

    In 2010, theUKwas ranked as having the most effective tobacco control policies across the 30 European counties that were surveyed.

    And we are recognised as leading the world in helping people to quit smoking as well.

    According to this month’s issue of Tobacco Control, we are at the top of the international league table when it comes to the WHO’s MPOWER approach to tobacco control – one of only four countries in the world to get score of four out of five.

    I’m also very proud that we’re active members of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

    We have made a big contribution, including supporting the development of guidelines on secondhand smoke, tobacco ingredients, packaging and labelling, and we led the development of guidelines on smoking cessation.

    Those guidelines will help governments across the world improve their own tobacco control strategies.

    And both at home and internationally, we will continue to act against the vested and commercial interests of the tobacco industry.

    As Secretary of State for Health, I haven’t met with those companies. Not now or when I was in Opposition as the Conservative’s health spokesman.  Their interests are not my interests.  My objective is to achieve smoke-free communities; theirs is to make a profit from selling intrinsically harmful products.  We don’t have common ground.  This is not like alcohol, where there is a level of responsible drinking and potential shared campaigns between Government and retailers.  That’s why there is no place in the Responsibility Deal for tobacco companies.  There is no responsible level of tobacco consumption.

    Conclusion

    So let me conclude, the foundations for our current ambition for reducing smoking were laid 50 years ago with the RCP’s report.

    After that, with cause and effect laid out so clearly, the tide of public and political opinion shifted dramatically.

    So while celebrating the 50th anniversary of that report, we should also celebrate what’s happened since then, both inside and outside the RCP and look to the future.

    Government, healthcare professionals, health charities, academics, employers and individuals themselves have all contributed to 50 years of progress.

    Sometimes it’s been frustrating and slow, sometimes we’ve made real progress quickly. But if I compare the number of smokers I see when I’m walking down the street today, compared to when I first started off onWhitehallas a Civil Servant in the 1970s, the shift has been dramatic.   We do not have the lowest levels of smoking in the world, but we have come a long way and I am ambitious that we can go further and faster.

    Promoting good health; preventing ill-health, reducing health inequalities.  All of these will be the result of the implementation of our Tobacco Control Plan and with your leadership here at the RCP and the opportunities given by the new Public Health service, to improve health, to reduce health inequalities, to support Healthy Lives and Healthy People.  That will be our objective.

  • Andrew Lansley – 2012 Speech to the World Health Association

    andrewlansley

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, to the World Health Association on 21st May 2012.

    I am delighted to be here today to talk on the vital topic of universal health care.

    Universal healthcare has been at the heart of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom for over 60 years. And it will remain so. Universal access to a comprehensive health service – free, based on need, is part of our social solidarity and an essential basis for improving the population’s health.

    When we came into government two years ago we made two very clear commitments. Firstly that we would increase the budget of our National Health Service in real terms, and secondly that we would increase our spending on development to meet our historic 0.7% commitment. I am proud of our performance on both of those commitments.

    Across the Globe, each year, tens of millions of poor people fall ill and die due to diseases and conditions that are preventable and treatable. Out-of-pocket costs stop many of these people getting the help they need. The solution is efficient and effective healthcare that does not exclude or impoverish the poor. Governments have a duty to manage this.

    In July, the UK government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with the United Nations Population Fund, and others, will host an international family planning summit in London. The aim is to launch a global movement to give 120 million extra women in the world’s poorest countries access to contraceptive information, services and supplies by 2020. I am sure many of your governments will wish to participate. And I am extremely pleased that our Director General will be playing a key role in the event.

    Back home our investment in the National Health Service is strengthening our universal primary care infrastructure. We are focused on developing preventative services, on early interventions and minimising unnecessary hospitalisation. We are reforming the National Health Service to empower clinical leaders to deliver outcomes for patients which are amongst the best in the world.  We are giving more autonomy to healthcare providers; but we are making them increasingly accountable for the results they achieve.

    We are reforming our public health system, to ensure we are able to tackle the social determinants of health. Nationally and locally, improving the health of the population is a government-wide responsibility. We are recognising and acting on the effects which employment, education, housing and the environment have on health outcomes.

    Our approach to tackling public health issues, is to maximise our impact at key moments in people’s lives, for example through support in maternity and the early years of children. We are also focused on the major risk factors such as obesity, tobacco, drugs, alcohol and sexual health. We will be strong and effective in tobacco control. With food, drink and retail industries we are forming a partnership, based on a shared understanding that public health is everyone’s business and that by co-operation we can achieve more progress, more quickly, towards an environment which enables consumers to lead a healthier lifestyle.

    We have a busy week ahead of us. Our agenda here underlines the importance of the WHO being the best it can be. We need the WHO to facilitate the sharing of ideas and strategies for member states to build strong universal healthcare systems. We need continued action to tackle emerging and continuing public health threats. When these things happen, we must be ready to act collectively.

    The reform of WHO, supporting these objectives, will enable us to make more progress in improving the health of all our peoples.  A strong WHO, ready to face these challenges in the 21st Century is vital.  It is in all our interests to ensure the reforms of WHO are advanced this week.

  • Johann Lamont – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Johann Lamont, the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, to the Labour Party conference on 2nd October 2012.

    Conference, I have the privilege of addressing you as the first ever Leader of the Scottish Labour Party.

    After what happened in the Scottish parliamentary elections in May of last year we knew we, as the Scottish Labour Party, had to change.

    And I want to thank Ed Miliband and everyone in the Party at Scottish and UK levels for helping turn the desire for change into reality.

    We know we still have a long way to go. But the work has started. And the revival has started as we showed in this May’s elections where the Scottish Labour Party made gains throughout Scotland, and none was more stunning that Gordon Matheson’s victory in Glasgow where we won again, an overall majority in a proportional system and where all but one of our candidates was elected.

    Conference, we need to rebuild Scotland and rebuild Britain.

    And we need to rebuild a Scotland which has a Government which isn’t seeking to protect us from Tory cuts, but an SNP Government which is making them worse.

    When George Osborne cut the budget, Alex Salmond cut it deeper for Scotland’s local authorities. Even when the Scottish budget went up, he cut funding for vital council services, while heaping more responsibility onto local authorities.

    Don’t be fooled by the slogans. Salmond trying to claim more things are free in Scotland as a way of building up resentment with our partners elsewhere in the UK.

    The people of Scotland know that nothing is free. And every day we see more clearly that the costs of Salmond’s slogans are being borne by hard working families struggling to make ends meet, borne by the elderly and vulnerable seeing their care slashed, borne by the student who can’t get a place in further education.

    Now last week, when I pointed out that Scotland’s families are paying for Salmond’s unsustainable tax break for the rich, I was accused of being a Tory.

    I’m not sure if the cap fits with someone who campaigned against Thatcher’s cuts to Scotland in the eighties.

    Not sure the cap fits with someone who campaigned for a Scottish Parliament to protect Scotland from future Tory Governments.

    And I am not sure the cap fits with someone who sees in surgeries, in meetings and in everyday life the consequences of a Tory Government cutting too far and too fast while we have an SNP Government content to amplify the cuts rather than protect people from them.

    It was Alex Salmond who said that Scotland didn’t mind Thatcher’s economic policies. It was Alex Salmond who relied on the Tories to put through four budgets while in Government. It was Alex Salmond who cheered David Cameron into Number 10 because it suited his political argument, in full knowledge of the consequences.

    This SNP Government claims to be a progressive beacon but took George Osborne’s cuts, doubled them and handed them to Scottish councils, impacting on our elderly care, our schools and our chances of growing local economies.

    This SNP Government is making the poor pay for the election bribes that benefit the better off, but won’t tell us this side of the referendum where he will go to find another £3.3 billion of cuts.

    Anyone still want to argue the SNP’s left wing credentials? Let me read you this:

    “It is likely that the Barnett formula, far from starving Scotland to death as is often asserted, is actually fattening us to the point of dangerous obesity. Bizarre as the thought may be, could the UK actually be killing us with kindness?”

    Not the words of Norman Tebbit. Not the words of George Osborne. But Mike Russell, the man Alex Salmond has put in charge of our schools.

    Let me give you another insight into the world of Mike Russell:

    “Put bluntly universality now drags down both the quality of service to those most in need, and the ability of government to provide such services. However, our political parties do not have the courage to address the issue for fear of losing votes.”

    Conference, Scottish Labour is not afraid to be honest with the people of Scotland, and not afraid to expose Alex Salmond and his Tartan Tories who try to wear our clothing while punishing the people they should be protecting.

    The SNP might not have the courage to be straight with the Scottish people but we do.

    What Alex Salmond is doing with Scotland’s finances is the equivalent of putting the gas bill in the drawer. We’ve all done it. Not opened the bill because we feared the consequences. So we stuff it away. And the reminder. And the final notice.

    But we all know, Conference, that never ends well.

    Salmond hopes we won’t ask the tough questions about independence. And he is desperate we don’t ask the tough questions of the here and now. He knows that every Scottish family is bearing the cost of his slogans. We all know that his budget will go bust.

    But he hopes that somehow he can keep the truth from the Scottish people until after the referendum.

    I won’t wait until after the referendum to be honest with the people of Scotland. We need an honest debate now about how we protect the most vulnerable from the cuts.

    Not everyone is going to like the solutions – that is unavoidable. But I will be straight with people now about what is to come, and I will be true to Labour values – that we will not allow those who most need our support to pay the price for populist slogans.

    If we are to ensure that the elderly get the help and support it is our duty to give, then we are going to have to ensure that those who have, give to the have-nots.

    If we are to make sure that the potential of not one of our children is lost, that means that those who have plenty must share for the common good.

    If Scotland stands for anything it is community. And we in Scottish Labour will pull that community together, to stand as one, and reject Alex Salmond’s attempts to divide our society.

    Conference, the Labour Party fights for the poor and the vulnerable. The Labour Party fights for the strong. And together, the Labour Party in every part of the UK will fight to rebuild our nations and rebuild our communities.

  • Norman Lamb – 2012 Speech to King's Fund

    Below is the text of a speech made by the Health Minister, Norman Lamb, on 11th September 2012.

    A reshuffle is a strange thing.

    I’ve followed the health reforms pretty closely so I’m relatively up to speed.

    But often, new ministers find themselves in departments where they know only the bare bones of the policy. And they’re expected to turn themselves into experts overnight.

    I’ve been an MP long enough to hear my fair share of new ministers read out speeches in the Commons and clearly have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. The crueller members of the opposition can sometimes make it a bit of a trial for them.

    But the machinations of government can’t just creak to a halt as the new people find their way around. So new ministers rely on ever-present civil servants to guide them. They rely on ministers who haven’t been reshuffled to keep a hand on the tiller. And they rely on their fellow new ministers to be conscientious, decisive and creative about their own parts of the portfolio.

    In other words, for reshuffles to work, every part of government needs to be supportive of all the other parts.

    The same is true if we want to make people healthier and improve local services.

    The difference, of course, is that poor integration in reshuffles mean ministers looking a bit stupid.

    But in the wider world, it is a lot more important.

    Disjointed care can and does impact on people’s lives in a big way. Whether it’s:

    • The girl with cerebral palsy who has to start using completely different services when she turns 16,
    • The man with bipolar disorder who sees a different community psychiatrist each appointment,
    • Or the elderly lady who dies in a strange hospital because there’s disagreement over who should provide the services to allow her to die in her own home.

    At the moment, those sort of situations are all too common.

    To put a stop to them, all parts of the system have to work together.

    That’s when things really get better. Not just with health and social care, but with other factors that affect health, like housing, work and education.

    One of the reasons I was so eager to be a minister is so I can push that hard.

    The consensus behind integrated care is pretty universal. In government, in think tanks, in patient groups everyone sees it as A Good Thing.

    But that’s not enough. We need to transfer it from the academic papers and into the health & wellbeing boards, hospitals and community centres.

    It takes a lot of political oomph to do that.

    I want to provide that oomph.

    From my first day in my new office, I was asking to talk to the Department of Health’s experts on integration. Reading the latest research.

    And the first thing on my agenda is to arrange a roundtable with the Kings Fund and a wide spread of other groups, to work out a way of translating consensus into results.

    One thing we can be sure of is that there is funding to really get things going.

    As announced in the Care and Support White Paper Caring for our future, over the two years from 2013/14, an extra £300 million will go from the NHS to local authorities to get health and social care services working better together. That’s on top of the £2.7 billion transfer to local authorities that was announced in the 2010 Spending Review.

    And there will be an extra £200 million over the next five years spend on better housing options for older and disabled people.

    On top of that, there is more money for priority services, like January’s one-off £150m to reduce delayed transfers of care.

    That sort of money opens doors. But because of the financial situation that we all know about, that money – and people’s existing budgets – needs to produce results.

    Everyone needs to do their bit to get the most from their money. Delivering better services and better outcomes, in ways relevant to individual areas.

    That’s why I was so pleased to see that the Care and Support White Paper clearly sets out what we are going to do to further integrate services.

    One of the big issues is that ‘integrated care’ itself is a problematic phrase. Understandably, when you’re talking about such a broad concept, there’s a lot of disagreement over what it means.

    So one of our early tasks will be to try to at least agree a working definition – one that allows everyone to be clear about what we’re working towards.

    Then we want to build on some of the projects already underway that touch on issues of integration, like the four community budget pilots that are cutting red tape and reducing duplication in specific areas.

    We will take the lessons from those pilots and share them across the country, so everyone can benefit.

    To gauge our progress, we will also take heed of the Future Forum’s calls to measure people’s experience of how their care is being integrated. We want to explore how best to do that via the outcomes frameworks, so integration is given just as much importance as any other big NHS issue.

    We will use different payment systems to put money in the hands of people who can improve integration. The Year of Care tariffs, for example, which take a long-term view of people with long-term conditions. And we want to see similarly innovative payment systems across the health, care and housing sectors.

    And of course, throughout all this, in the spirit of integration, I want to make it quite clear that expert organisations like the Kings Fund, the Nuffield Trust are central to everything we’re doing.

    We have already accepted the Future Forum’s recommendation following the joint Kings Fund and Nuffield Trust report that far more work is needed to integrate all public services.

    The White Paper said we would work with the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor, and the Local Government Association to support evidence-based integration across the country.

    And we have set up a new joint unit in DH across health and social care to look specifically at how the recommendations of your report can be taken forward.

    But your input won’t stop there. I want to hear about your suggestions, your criticisms and your research. So every change made specifically to increase the integration of care is itself the product of co-operation and shared endeavour.

    That is also true for publicly funded groups like the NHS Commissioning Board and Monitor. We will work closely with them to make sure we are reading off the same hymn sheet.

    There isn’t enough time to go into all of it, but I’d also like to quickly mention some other measures in the Care and Support White Paper that will help integrate services:

    • Personal health and care budgets, so people can control their own care.

    • And more attention than ever paid to important ‘hand-off’ moments where someone’s care goes through a big transition – like when a terminal illness means someone starts using end-of-life services.

    Those are all steps in the right direction.

    But as I said earlier, for integration to work it can’t just be seen as a health issue, or a social care issue. Everyone has to buy into it and do their bit to make people healthier.

    Health and wellbeing boards

    Health and wellbeing boards will bring previously disparate people together to do just that.

    The NHS, local government and communities themselves. To understand what local needs are and work out how to meet them.

    I’m really delighted that you have all been so open with each other about your experiences of setting up health and wellbeing boards.

    Through events like this, and through the National Learning Network for health and wellbeing boards, you are coming together with your colleagues around the country to share what you’ve learnt.

    But like all ambitious changes, it won’t be easy.  A lot of ways of working will have to change. People will have to move out of their comfort zones and look at what is better for local people, not what is better for their own organisations.

    Because this is about real change, not just meetings and working groups. If health and wellbeing boards are no more than committees then we will have failed.

    The real work of health and wellbeing boards will be outside the boardrooms, with communities, providers, local organisations, voluntary and community groups, GP practices.

    Leaders in all those groups will need to get better at working together. The NHS Leadership Academy, ADASS, LGA and the National Skills Academy will all help by developing skills and supporting individual leaders.

    And the new Social Care Leadership Qualities Framework and Leadership Forum will help as well.

    But in the end, it will come down to individual leaders themselves, and how willing they are to embrace a different way of working.

    I’ve only been a minister for a week. But I’ve already got a clear picture of how grateful everyone in the Department of Health is to groups like the Kings Fund for the support they have given to projects like the National Learning Network for health and wellbeing boards.

    I hope we can continue to work together to build on that.

    So please, tell me about your experiences of how care can be brought together. What works and what doesn’t.

    My roundtable will be one place we can discuss how to progress, but to be sure, this won’t be a here today, gone tomorrow issue.

    I give you my word that I will push integration as hard as I can.