The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Clegg on 2016-04-28.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what discussions his Department has had with Sheffield City Council on the assets of community value scheme.
Mr Marcus Jones
Sheffield City Council has not approached the Department for any discussions on the Assets of Community Value scheme.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Clegg on 2016-02-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what guidelines have been issued to GP practices on the safe ratio of patients to doctors in GP practices.
Alistair Burt
NHS England is statutorily accountable for ensuring that patients have access to a general practitioner (GP) practice. In the event of a practice closure, NHS England will assess the need for a replacement provider before dispersing a list when a GP surgery closes. A decision to disperse a list will be made on the basis that there is capacity in neighbouring practices to absorb the additional patient numbers.
To assess GP service provision in an area, NHS England works with the Care Quality Commission and local clinical commissioning groups. The Primary Care Outcomes Framework is published nationally and is derived from data submitted by individual practices on service levels and outcomes alongside national patient survey data on patient satisfaction. In terms of overall strategy, the provision of primary care will be part of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) which is published in each local authority area and reported through the local Health & Well-being Board. The JSNA will identify any gaps and risks in the provision of primary care to the local population which, in turn, will then inform commissioning strategies for that area.
There is no national guidance on the ratio of patients to doctors in GP practices. In recent years, the development of the wider primary care teams (with nurses, healthcare assistants, pharmacists and therapists) means that a focus on the ratio of patients to doctors has less meaning than in previous years. The national workforce survey allows NHS England to benchmark individual practices in terms of the staffing to patient ratio.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Clegg on 2016-05-20.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of planned budget reductions for community pharmacy on patient and health services in (a) Sheffield and (b) Yorkshire and the Humber.
Alistair Burt
We are consulting the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, other pharmacy bodies and patient and public representatives on our proposals. An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course.
NHS England has a statutory duty to ensure the adequate provision of National Health Service pharmaceutical services across England and will ensure that duty continues to be met in Sheffield.
Community pharmacy is a vital part of the NHS and can play an even greater role. In the Spending Review, the Government re-affirmed the need for the NHS to deliver £22 billion in efficiency savings by 2020-21 as set out in the NHS’s own plan, the Five Year Forward View. Community pharmacy is a core part of NHS primary care and has an important contribution to make as the NHS rises to these challenges. The Government believes efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of services or public access to them. Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive and so we are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population.
The Government’s vision is for a more efficient, modern system that will free up pharmacists to spend more time delivering clinical and public health services to the benefit of patients and the public.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Clegg on 2016-02-19.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many GP surgeries have closed in (a) Sheffield, (b) Yorkshire and the Humber and (c) England in the last three years.
Alistair Burt
Comprehensive data is not held centrally. Practices may close for a variety of reasons, including mergers with neighbouring practices or the retirement of general practitioners from single-handed practices.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Clegg on 2016-05-20.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the contribution of community pharmacies to (a) local minor ailments services, (b) needle exchanges and (c) local commissioned services; and what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the closure of such pharmacies on (i) such services, (ii) patient care, (iii) GP practices and (iv) hospitals.
Alistair Burt
The Department has not made a specific assessment of the contribution of community pharmacies to local minor ailment services, needle and syringe exchange services and other locally commissioned services. However, information available from the Health and Social Care Information Centre shows that during 2014/15, 1,863 community pharmacies were commissioned to provide local minor ailment services and 29 were commissioned to provide needle and syringe exchange services, as National Health Service pharmaceutical services. Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and local authorities are, however, able to commission local services and it is very likely that local authorities commission needle and syringe exchange services from community pharmacies and CCGs commission minor ailment services. However, this information is not available nationally.
Community pharmacy is a vital part of the NHS and can play an important role in delivering services such as management of minor ailments locally, needle and syringe exchange services and other locally commissioned services. The Government’s vision is for a more efficient, modern system that will free up pharmacists to spend more time delivering high quality clinical and public health services to the benefit of patients and the public.
In the Spending Review the Government re-affirmed the need for the NHS to deliver £22 billion in efficiency savings by 2020/21 as set out in the NHS’s own plan, the Five Year Forward View. Community pharmacy is a core part of NHS primary care and has an important contribution to make as the NHS rises to these challenges. The Government believes efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of services or public access to them. Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive and so we are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population.
Our proposals are about improving services for patients and the public and securing efficiencies and savings. A consequence may be the closure of some pharmacies but that is not our aim. The community pharmacy proposals for 2016/17 and beyond, on which we have consulted, are being considered in respect to the public sector equality duty, the family test and relevant duties of the Secretary of State under the NHS Act 2006. An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course.
Local commissioning and funding of services from community pharmacies will be unaffected by these proposals.
NHS England has taken account of the potential impact of a pharmacy minor ailments service on general practitioner services and other parts of the NHS. The findings of the Minor Ailment study (‘MINA’ study), conducted by the University of Aberdeen, in collaboration with NHS Grampian and the University of East Anglia, on behalf of Pharmacy Research UK in 2014, were considered. In addition, evaluations of local minor ailments schemes have continued to inform decision-making about local commissioning of such schemes.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Clegg on 2016-03-17.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate his Department has made of the number of people using cannabis in the UK for medicinal purposes; and if he will make a statement.
George Freeman
We have made no such estimates.
Herbal cannabis is not licensed as a medicine and, under section 7(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, a pharmacist would need to obtain a licence from the Home Office if they were to dispense cannabis.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nick Clegg on 2016-09-02.
To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, what assessment he has made of the (a) financial and (b) other resources required by (i) the Government and (ii) his Department in the next 12 months related to the process of the UK leaving the EU.
Mr David Jones
Detailed work is underway to establish the budget required for the Department for Exiting the European Union to fulfil its set-up and responsibilities. This budget will be voted on by Parliament at the Supplementary Estimate. Individual Secretaries of State will undertake an assessment of the requirements relevant to their own Departments.
Below is the text of the joint press conference held with David Cameron and Nick Clegg on 12 May 2010.
Prime Minister:
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. On the steps of Downing Street yesterday evening, I said that Nick and I wanted to put aside party differences and work together in the national interest. Since I set out that aim, both our parties have given their full backing to our coalition agreement, a Liberal Democrat-Conservative Government that we have negotiated.
This is the first coalition Government in Britain for 65 years. It will be an administration united behind three key principles: freedom, fairness and responsibility. It will be an administration united behind one key purpose. That is to give our country the strong, stable and determined leadership that we need for the long term.
In the days and weeks ahead, we will together be setting out in greater detail the aims and the values of our partnership and the full policy programme of our coalition Government. Today, we want to say just a few words about how we plan to work together and the significance of what we have achieved in coming to this agreement.
This morning, as part of the process of establishing the new Government, I have been working to appoint the Cabinet. Later today, I will be chairing the first meeting of our National Security Council and Nick Clegg will be at my side. There are five Liberal Democrat Secretaries of State in Cabinet working hand in hand with Conservative colleagues to address the big challenges that Britain faces. Starting with Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister, Liberal Democrats will be represented at every level of government. I think this is a sign of the strength and depth of this coalition and our sincere determination to work together constructively to make this coalition work in our national interest.
We have a shared agenda and a shared resolve to tackle the challenges our country faces, to safeguard our national security and support our troops abroad, to tackle the debt crisis, to repair our broken political system and to build a stronger society. We understand that we are not going to beat these problems overnight. In particular, no Government in modern times has ever been left with such a terrible economic inheritance. Today’s unemployment figures are another sign of the human cost of the economic mistakes of the past decade. So we know there will be difficult decisions ahead but, working together, I know we can take the country through those difficult times to the better times that I believe lie ahead.
But today, we are not just announcing a new Government and new ministers; we are announcing a new politics. A new politics where the national interest is more important than the party interest, where cooperation wins out over confrontation, where compromise, where give and take, where reasonable, civilised, grown-up behaviour is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. One of the major problems of the last few years has been a chronic short-termism in government. With this coalition Government and this coalition agreement that we have for five years, we can act for the long term and make the major decisions for our country’s future. That is the true significance of this coalition. It can be an historic and seismic shift in our political landscape. It can demonstrate in government a new progressive partnership, believing in enterprise, markets and fiscal responsibility, committed to civil liberties and curbing the power of the state, passionate about building a green economy, determined to build the Big Society where families and communities are supported and strengthened and eager to make sure that the Big Society is matched by big citizens, where power is taken from the politicians and put in the hands of people as we embark on a recasting of our political system.
Our Liberal-Conservative Government will take Britain in an historic new direction, a direction of hope and unity, conviction and common purpose. I am delighted to be standing here with the new Deputy Prime Minister. The two of us together leading this historic, Liberal Democrat-Conservative administration. I would like, now, to invite him to speak to us on what I think is a remarkable and very welcome day. Nick.
Deputy Prime Minister:
Thank you, David. We have just been through an election campaign and now we have a coalition. Until today, we were rivals; now, we are colleagues. That says a lot about the scale of the new politics that is now beginning to unfold. This is a new Government and it is a new kind of government, a radical reforming Government where it needs to be and a source of reassurance and stability at a time of great uncertainty in our country too.
David has spoken about many of the challenges we all face: the economy, still struggling to get to its feet; the public finances, in a mess; our troops, engaged in a difficult and lasting conflict that requires resolution; our society, still scarred by too much unfairness and inequality; our politics, not yet recovered from the hammer blows of recent months. At a time of such enormous difficulties, our country needed a strong and stable government. It needed an ambitious Government determined to work relentlessly for a better future. That is what we have come together in this coalition to provide.
This is a Government that will last, not because of a list of policies, important though they are, not because it will be easy. There will be bumps and scrapes along the way. We are different parties and we have different ideas. This is a Government that will last despite those differences, because we are united by a common purpose for the job we want to do together in the next five years. Our ambition is simple and yet profound. Our ambition is to put real power and opportunity into the hands of people, families and communities to change their lives and our country for the better.
For me, that is what liberalism is all about: ensuring that everybody has the chance, no matter who they are or where they are from, to be the person they want to be and live the life they want to live. You can call it ‘fairness’. You can call it ‘responsibility’. You can call it ‘liberalism’. Whatever words you use, the change it will make to your life is the same. You will have the opportunities you crave: fairer taxes; better schools; a fair, green economy with growth that lasts; clean, open, plural politics that I hope, once again, you can put your faith in to deliver the help and the change you need.
I want this to be a bold, reforming Government that puts fairness back into Britain, a Government that restores our faith in what a healthy, strong society can achieve, a Government that takes power away from politicians, as David said, and gives it back to you, a government that hands back your liberties and your privacy, building a nation where parents, pupils and patients can shape our schools and hospitals, where fine words on the environment are finally translated into real action, where social mobility becomes a reality for all where the great British traditions of tolerance and fairness are restored. I came into politics to change politics and to change Britain for good. Together, that job starts today. Thank you.
Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the then Deputy Prime Minister, on 3 March 2011.
Today I want to talk about the UK as an open, confident society. It is by being confident – confident in ourselves, in our communities, and in our values – that we can remain an open, liberal nation.
I am pleased to be delivering this speech in Luton. Luton has had to endure being associated in the national consciousness with some very grim imagery indeed. The ugly public posturing of Al Muhajiroun and the English Defence League. Memories of the train station where the 7/7 bombers boarded a train for London, before detonating horror in our capital.
But I hope today to draw attention to a different Luton; Luton as the home of some of the most vibrant campaigns against racism, extremism and Islamophobia.
In particular I would like to thank the members of the Luton Commission on Community Cohesion, which is a superb example of the way in which a community can work together. The town has remained true to its original vision of ‘sticking together’, working across age, religious and ethnic boundaries to promote a tolerant, strong, vibrant community. That is why I think Luton is the perfect place to set out my vision for an open, confident Britain.
It is quite clear that this vision faces serious challenges. Most obviously, the grave threat of home-grown terrorism. One of the most important tasks for the Coalition Government is to guard against this danger. But we also face the potential rise of racist groups like the BNP – not only on the streets but in our democratic system too. The Prime Minister has recently argued that we need to assert confidently our liberal values. I agree. Politicians have a huge responsibility to lead by example, and engage in the often difficult arguments around immigration, multiculturalism and liberty. That is why I think the PM was absolutely right to make his argument for ‘muscular liberalism’.
I also think the Prime Minister was right to make a sharp distinction between religious belief and political ideology. Religious devotion is completely separate from violent extremism. The overwhelming majority of devout people of all faiths reject violence and terrorism. There is some evidence that those Muslims who do turn to violence have a shallower understanding of Islam than Muslims who may have radical views, but reject violence.
The enemies of liberty are those people who have closed their minds, closed off the possibility that there may be other valid ways to live, other than their own. They believe they have discovered the prescription for how to live – which everyone should follow. Closed minds can lead to closed communities, to extremism, and in some cases to violence.
There are nationalistic or racist extremists, like the members of the English Defence League, or the BNP. There are black extremists like the Nation of Islam. There are Muslim extremists like the members of Islam 4 UK. Very often these groups have a symbiotic relationship with each other, maintained by the media: extremist Muslim groups giving birth to extremist white hate groups, and vice versa.
My point is this. We need a perfect symmetry in our response to crime and violent extremism. Bigots are bigots, whatever the colour of their skin. Criminals are criminals, whatever their political beliefs. Terrorists are terrorists, whatever their religion.
This means that those of us who want to live in a liberal society must confront hateful views and practices regardless of who expresses them. The Government is committed to tackling hate crimes against any group – gay people, Jews, women, black people or Muslims.
Let me say something here about the specific issue of Islam and violent extremism. There is a corrosive tendency, not least in some parts of the media, to confuse the tenets of Islam with the actions of terrorists.
As my colleague in the Coalition Government, Sayeeda Warsi has argued: ‘a worrying argument that forms the basis for justifying Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred is the idea that Islam is a particularly violent creed.”
The core liberal values – freedom of speech and worship, democracy, the rule of law, and equal rights regardless of sex, race and sexuality – are as compatible with Islam as with any other religion.
It is better to be a citizen of present-day Turkey – a Muslim majority country – than in one of the Communist-era countries that crushed both these values and religious life in equal measure.
Of course, there are issues that many Muslims in this country feel strongly about: issues like Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir and Guantanamo Bay. I understand these concerns. And the Government takes them very seriously indeed.
But let us be absolutely clear. No matter what criticism anyone has of British foreign policy, the way to express that criticism is through the ballot box, by raising your concerns with your MP, and by taking a public stand – never, ever, by violence.
I would also like to pay tribute today to Shahbaz Bhatti, the Pakistani Minister for Minorities, who was murdered by violent extremists in Islamabad yesterday. Mr Bhatti was fearless in his pursuit of tolerance, and liberty, continuing to argue for freedom of religious expression even though he knew this would put his life in danger. A reminder, if one were needed, that liberty can extract a much higher price than most of us are likely to pay.
We need to deepen our understanding of the roots of violent extremism. It is a difficult task. In a moment I will address the interaction of individual, community and ideological influences. But I want to deal first with the specific question of economic insecurity.
As I have said, openness and confidence go hand in hand: remaining open to different cultures and attitudes is easier for people, communities and nations that are confident of their own position.
This means that fear and insecurity are among the most dangerous enemies of openness and liberalism.
There is also no question that insecurity – whether economic or social – creates more fertile ground for violent extremism. During these challenging economic times, we will have to work even harder to fight violent extremism in all its forms.
Recent research by the Searchlight Educational Trust on attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism shows that there is a minority at both ends of the scale with either straightforwardly positive or negative views about immigration and multiculturalism.
But in the middle are groups who are either culturally fairly conservative or who are concerned mainly with the economic implications of immigration. This last group – labelled ‘identity ambivalents’ by Searchlight – is the most worrying in the current climate. Economic difficulty could tip some of them into the negative camp.
At this point, the question becomes one of economic judgement. I strongly believe that acting decisively on the deficit is the surest way to restore economic confidence, relieve people of the burden of debt and put the country back on track. Delay will carry more cost, and more risk, than decisive action. Prevarication on the deficit will worsen economic insecurity, not alleviate it.
But a turn to violent extremism cannot be explained simply in economic terms. There are much deeper and more complex forces at work. The scholar Louise Richardson describes the causes of terrorism as ‘a lethal cocktail containing a disaffected individual, an enabling community and a legitimizing ideology’.
This is right. And it means that our response to violent extremism has to engage at all of these levels, too. So an open, confident society is made up of free, responsible individuals; strong, resilient communities; and a muscular, liberal ideology.
At all three levels – individual, community and society-wide – it is vital to pursue ‘smart engagement’. This means calibrating Government action in the following ways:
targeting resources in a way that clearly promotes liberal objectives
maintaining a clear distinction between social policy and security policy
distinguishing between violent and non-violent extremism
supporting free speech, but taking the argument to the bigots; and
implacably confronting violent extremism
Let me start with the rights and responsibilities of individuals. In an open, liberal society, individuals are free to live in the manner of their choosing, so long as they do not harm others.
And in today’s world, individual identity is much more fluid. With advancements in communications technology, more freedom of movement and greater economic interdependence between nations, there is a much wider palette from which identities can be drawn. The increasing complexity of questions of identity makes it even more important to balance individual liberty and collective responsibility.
Freedom for individuals is one of the core values of the Coalition Government. That is why we have ended the injustice of 28-day detention without trial; why we have crushed the ID database; why we are ending the house arrest of Labour’s Control Orders; why we are giving people not charged of crimes the right to get their DNA off police databases; and why we are curtailing arbitrary powers of police to ‘stop and search’.
We are, in short, rebalancing the relationship between the state and the individual citizen. But we are clear that individuals need to take responsibility, too. Freedom not only comes hand in hand with responsibility, it requires it. As the liberal leader Jo Grimond said: ‘Freedom entails the acceptance of responsibility. Responsibility is meaningless without freedom.”
So while we will support the freedoms and human rights of individuals, we also insist that individuals meet their obligations towards wider society, and take their share of responsibility for the maintenance of liberal societies.
And while we have an unquenchable commitment to individual liberty, we have an equal commitment to safety and security – and I think the results of our recent counter-terrorism review struck the right balance.
Of course individuals do not live in a vacuum. We must always recognise that we are, in Bikhu Parekh’s words, “a community of citizens and a community of communities”.
The role of peers and communities in acting against or cultivating violence is clear. So we need an approach that empowers individuals – but builds communities too.
The former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, said earlier this week that “we need to build the resilience of local communities to reject the politics of hatred.” I agree with him.
That is why this government is working so hard to help build stronger communities. At times, national security considerations will still require national action. But unlike the previous Government, we do not believe that strong communities are built from Whitehall. That’s why we have removed the ring fences around Local Authority budgets, allowing for local discretion; why we are introducing elected police commissioners so that policy can be locally accountable; why we are, through community budgets, giving power to localities to determine their own priorities; and why we are putting public health in the hands of local authorities. Strong communities are communities with more power over their own destiny.
But it is also crucially important to maintain a clear distinction between initiatives aimed at combating extremism and those focused on the broader task of community cohesion. The last Government’s conflation of social policy and security policy was damaging. It resulted in Muslim communities feeling stigmatised, and money being wasted.
That is why the Government is currently reviewing the Prevent programme, to ensure that money to curb violent extremism is targeted in the right way, and on the right groups. By treating Muslim communities and organisations as homogenous lumps to be variously hectored, preached at, showered with praise and money, or ignored, the previous Government created negative perceptions among British Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
We should ensure that public funds do not support any organisations promoting violence. We must engage with religious organisations in a smart way focusing our attention on those that support our essential liberal values.
We will also challenge extremism across the board, ending the previous Government’s exclusive and unhelpful focus on Islam. It does not matter if you are a far-right extremist, someone who perverts a religious faith, or someone who uses violence in support of other ideological ends – we will challenge you, take you on and defeat you.
The third battleground against violent extremism is at the level of ideas, values and ideology. The dangerous ideas that underpin violent extremism must never be allowed to go unchallenged.
That is why I thought the PM’s argument in favour of ‘muscular liberalism’ was absolutely right. Liberalism is not a passive, inert approach to politics. It requires engagement, assertion. Muscular liberals flex their muscles in open argument. There is nothing relativist about liberalism.
If we are truly confident about the strength of our liberal values we should be confident about their ability to defeat the inferior arguments of our opponents.
Smart engagement means engaging in argument at public events, where appropriate and at the right level. Of course these are always difficult decisions to make. But to take one example, the Global Peace and Unity conference attracts around fifty thousand British Muslims each year and is an important opportunity to engage in argument – and so Andrew Stunell, the Government’s Communities Minister did this year. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader, also spoke at the event.
Now there may well have been a small minority of organisations and individuals at that event with deeply unpalatable, illiberal views.
But you don’t win a fight by leaving the ring. You get in and win. The overwhelming majority of the people attending this conference are active, engaged and law-abiding citizens. We don’t win people to liberal ideals by giving ourselves a leave of absence from the argument.
Equally, smart engagement means being extremely careful about decisions to proscribe individual organisations. There are occasions when that is the right course of action. I have to say that, for me, agreeing to the proscription of the Pakistani Taliban was a straightforward decision.
But proscription must always be a last resort, never a knee-jerk reflex. That is why the Pakistani Taliban is the only organisation we have proscribed since entering Government. And that is why, consistent with our agenda for smart engagement and as part of the Government’s review of Counter Terrorism powers, we decided against increasing the government’s powers to proscribe.
Because of the requirement to engage in argument, liberal democracy means hard work. Open, liberal societies are not self-creating, or self-maintaining. Democracy, free speech and human rights have to be won – and tragically, often paid for in blood. We need only look to North Africa to see proof of that.
Once established, liberal societies still need to be renewed and re-established, generation after generation. It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But it is also eternal labour – working to maintain the culture and institutions of liberal democracy.
Liberal societies do not expect everyone to live in the same way, or believe in the same things; conformity can crush liberty. But in liberal societies, all of us must defend the freedoms of others, in exchange for freedom for ourselves. In an open society, values compete but do not conflict.
This is the background against which we have to consider the issues of multiculturalism. We have to be clear what we mean here. Where multiculturalism is held to mean more segregation, other communities leading parallel lives, it is clearly wrong. For me, multiculturalism has to seen as a process by which people respect and communicate with each other, rather than build walls between each other. Welcoming diversity but resisting division: that’s the kind of multiculturalism of an open, confident society.
And the cultures in a multicultural society are not just ethnic or religious. Many of the cultural issues of the day cut right across these boundaries: gay rights; the role of women; identities across national borders; differing attitudes to marriage; the list goes on. Cultural disagreements are much more complex than much of the debate implies. If you will forgive the phrase, they are not quite so black and white.
So: smart engagement in defence of an open society. An unending determination to keep doing the hard work of maintaining our liberal society at home. Encouraging the birth and growth of liberal societies abroad. Smart engagement, appropriate and proportionate, to take on extremist ideas, alongside a ruthless determination to find and punish those who promote or take to violence.
Maintaining a liberal, open nation also demands a fierce allegiance to shared values. The values of liberal citizenship. The values of responsibility, tolerance and openness.
In the end, these values are the only weapons that can defeat the terrorists and hate-mongers, at home and abroad.
Violent extremists of all kinds are the enemies of open societies. We will wage an unceasing battle against them. And we will win.
Thank you.
