UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech at NAHT Annual Conference

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, on 30 April 2016.

    Thank you, Kim [Johnson, NAHT President], for that introduction.

    I want to start by saying thank you – to all of you. Thank you for your hard work, your commitment and your exceptional ability to bring about excellent educational outcomes for young people. You, together with your dedicated staff, are at the forefront of our education system and it’s thanks to your collective efforts that education in England has taken huge leaps forward, with 1.4 million more children and young people in ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools since our reforms began in 2010.

    And let me be clear that, while we may not always agree, I have enormous respect for the work you do, leading your schools to success and ensuring that every child is encouraged and enabled to reach their potential.

    Primary assessment

    I recognise the pressures this term brings in terms of assessments, but it’s because we, like you, want to continue raising standards for young people that we made changes to primary assessment.

    Let me take this opportunity to apologise again for the recent incident where a section of the key stage 1 final test was published early, alongside the sample papers. I have received a personal assurance from the Chief Executive of the Standards and Testing Agency that she and her team will be taking every possible step, working closely with my department, to ensure that such a mistake can never happen again.

    We all agree it’s critical that we get primary assessment right, with tests fit for purpose, because mastering the basics in primary school is vital to the future success of young people.

    But in terms of evaluating school performance, the primary school floor standard has 2 parts: attainment and, crucially, progress. We are increasing the emphasis on the progress pupils make, because it’s a fairer way of evaluating school performance, particularly for those schools making great progress for pupils from a low starting point.

    Although one part of the floor standard is more challenging this year, with the new expected standard, we are really clear that schools will be judged on their pupils’ progress as well as their attainment.

    As you know, if a school meets the progress standard it is above the floor altogether. We have made sure all who hold schools accountable are aware of this too, and we will continue to do so.

    Historically, the floor standard has identified only a small proportion of schools every year which are below that standard – and this year I can reassure you that no more than 1% more schools will be below the floor standard than last year.

    To get primary assessment right we have to make sure teachers have the time and resources to prepare, so we appreciate that we have to make primary assessment run more smoothly, with as much support as possible.

    But I don’t accept the claim from some outside this hall, that the higher expectations embodied in the new national curriculum are somehow ‘inappropriate’. Virtually all children have the potential to become properly literate and numerate and I am unwilling, as I know you are, to settle for anything less.

    In countries like Korea and Singapore, the proportion of functionally literate and numerate pupils aged 15 is over 90%, according to the 2012 PISA survey. In Ireland the proportion of functionally literate pupils aged 15 is more than 90% too, but in England it’s only 82%, and only 77% are functionally numerate.

    According to the materials used by PISA, this means that one year prior to leaving school, just under a fifth of our pupils cannot read and understand the moral behind one of Aesop’s fables. And more than a fifth are unable to work out how many people on average climb a mountain each day, when given the annual figure – while more than 90% of their peers in Korea and Singapore can do so.

    ‘Will more rigorous tests at key stage 2 actually address this gap?’ you might ask. My answer is yes. These new key stage 2 assessments give a better picture of whether a pupil has the reading and mathematical ability, to prosper at secondary school. Because literacy and numeracy are not just 2 subjects among many, they are the foundation on which all other subjects rest.

    And to those who say we should let our children be creative, imaginative, and happy – of course I agree, both as a parent and as the Education Secretary. But I would ask them this – how creative can a child be if they struggle to understand the words on the page in front of them – they certainly can’t enjoy them? What are the limits placed on a child’s imagination, when they cannot write down their ideas for others to read?

    That is why the campaign being led by some of those who do not think we should set high expectations, who want to ‘keep their children home for a day’ next week, is so damaging.

    Keeping children home – even for a day – is harmful to their education and I think it undermines how hard you as heads are working. I urge those running these campaigns to reconsider their actions.

    The case for every school as an academy

    I realise some of you have concerns about our plan for every school in England to become an academy, so I want to take this opportunity to explain why I believe it’s the right step for our education system.

    The autonomy academy status brings means putting power into the hands of school leaders, because we improve outcomes for young people by ensuring the teachers who teach them, and the heads who lead their schools, are given the freedom to make the right decisions in the interests of those children.

    The status alone doesn’t raise standards, it’s the framework of collaboration and support it provides that does. Far from creating a system of survival of the fittest, we want to build the scaffolding that will make it easier for swift action to be taken to support struggling schools with a range of solutions, facilitating excellent leaders to have a positive impact where they are needed most.

    Academies make it easier to spread the reach of the best leaders over several schools; recruit, train, develop and deploy better teachers, incentivising them to stay in the profession through new career opportunities; and ensure teachers can share best practice on what works in the classroom.

    On current projections, around three-quarters of secondary and a third of primary schools would convert to academy status by 2020. Before the white paper was published I was constantly being asked, at events like this one, whether this government wanted all schools to become academies. So I wanted to give you all a clear sense of direction and a 6-year time frame, so that all schools including those who had not yet considered academy status, can make the right choices, planning effectively for a sustainable future in the model – standalone or multi-academy trust – that works for them, keeping in place local arrangements that work and looking at new arrangements aimed at driving up standards.

    We believe that most schools will choose to work in local clusters, which will enable you, our most effective leaders, and your best teachers to extend your reach locally, in order to support one other to succeed, as many do already.

    Rowanfield Junior School, which I visited just 2 days ago, is a great example of how local schools can group together. A single converter academy, Rowanfield has expanded to form a MAT cluster in the Cheltenham community. Through this partnership it extends professional development, career opportunities and provides school to school support. Children benefit as teachers develop best practice and model excellence to develop the skills of colleagues within the trust.

    Most multi-academy trusts are small and 80% are entirely based in a single local authority area – because collaboration works well. But I should be absolutely clear that there is a place for successful, sustainable, standalone academies.

    For local authorities we envision a new role, continuing to provide special educational needs services and acting as champions for SEND young people, making sure every child has a school place, and offering excellent local services, which academies can continue to purchase – as many do now.

    I know there are concerns about the costs of this policy but it is fully funded, and we have set aside more than £500 million to build capacity in the system, including the development of strong local trusts, so that no school will be left behind.

    And as I know this is a particular concern for some members here, I want to be clear that no good rural school will close as a result of this policy.

    ‘Educational excellence everywhere’ white paper

    But actually, despite what you might see in the media, or hear from the opposition, every school gaining academy status is only one chapter of a much bigger story told in the ‘Educational excellence everywhere’ white paper. In fact, much of it addresses issues raised by the teaching profession itself.

    Our white paper is about great leaders, great teachers, intelligent accountability, fair funding and targeted support in challenging parts of the country – it’s about building the framework of school-led working and collaboration that will allow all schools to succeed.

    We know that NAHT believes in the impact collaboration can have. The Aspire project demonstrates the potential of what can be achieved when schools work together to share expertise and drive up standards, and as we move towards a more school-led system that collaboration will soon be commonplace across the country.

    Great leaders

    We know that the leaders in our education system have an enormous impact on educational outcomes, with effective leadership shown to raise achievement, in some cases by the equivalent of many months of learning in a single school year.

    So we need to make sure there is a healthy pipeline of leaders, and schools will take the lead on this. And through the new Foundation for Leadership, led by NAHT, ASCL and the NGA, we will be working with the best leaders and other experts, to develop a new suite of voluntary national professional qualifications for every level of leadership.

    Through our new Excellence in Leadership fund we will encourage the best providers and multi-academy trusts to look at innovative ways of developing leadership in system cold spots, and through the new National Teaching Service we will put the very best leaders and teachers into the schools where they are needed most.

    We envisage a dynamic new approach to collaborative system leadership with up to 300 more teaching schools and 800 more national leaders in education, targeted so that no part of the country misses out. And with new achieving excellence areas we will focus intensively on driving up standards where they have been too low for too long.

    We want to ensure that accountability does not discourage excellent leaders from working in the most challenging areas, so as I’ve already said we are putting more emphasis on progress in accountability, which is fairer to schools with lower attaining intakes.

    And we are introducing improvement periods, during which schools won’t be inspected, where a new headteacher is brought into a challenging school, so they can be given enough time to turn a school around before being judged by Ofsted.

    And we’re doing it because you told us that you had concerns about taking the leap to schools in challenging circumstances, without sufficient time to make your mark and the potential career implications.

    Excellent teachers

    The white paper outlines our plans to get excellent teachers into the profession, recognise their proficiency in the classroom, and deploy them where they are needed most.

    You have made it clear that recruitment is a challenge, so we have taken steps to help, like putting in place bursaries and prestigious scholarships for the subjects most difficult to recruit for.

    But now we must go further, so we will reform the National College for Teaching and Leadership to plan and execute targeted incentive programmes, teacher recruitment campaigns, and opportunities that will attract the best graduates and entice back those who have left the profession.

    We are continuing to drive up quality in initial teacher training, giving schools a greater role in selecting and training great teachers, and ensuring that there continues to be a clear role for high-quality universities, recognising the strengths they can bring to teacher education.

    Crucially, we are replacing the arrangements for awarding qualified teacher status with a stronger accreditation that recognises consistently high standards of practice in the classroom. It is vital that school leaders and parents have confidence in the quality of teachers so the new accreditation will only be given to those demonstrating real proficiency in the classroom.

    And we want the people best placed – leaders like you – to decide what good teaching looks like, and when a teacher should be accredited. And we want you to have the freedom to bring in subject experts who can have a positive impact on the lives of young people, developing and supporting them so they too can achieve accreditation.

    Workload review reports

    This government wants to make the school-led system a reality and we need your input to do that, as we develop the policies outlined in the white paper, so we will continue engaging with the teaching profession, as we do on things like workload.

    The teacher workload reviews carried out by 3 outstanding school leaders – one of whom, Dawn Copping, is here today – with input from teachers and unions – including the NAHT’s very own Kathy James. The reviews were launched because of the concerns you highlighted.

    I am committed to rising to the challenges set for the government and I hope you will consider the impact the recommendations have on the way you work, because reducing workload is not about one single policy from Whitehall, it’s about us in government, you in schools and Ofsted delivering on the report’s recommendations.

    As I said at the beginning of this speech, for everything on which we disagree, we continue to be united in our desire to do better, be better and achieve more for children and young people in this country.

    So let me say thank you once again, for everything you do already to bring about excellence in our system, let me reassure you that my door is always open and I always want to hear your views on how together we can achieve educational excellence everywhere.

    Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech on the EU at Caterpillar Factory

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Caterpillar Factory in Peterborough on 28 April 2016.

    Thank you very much for the welcome, great to see so many of you here. I think this is probably the biggest one of these I’ve ever done so thank you for coming. It’s great to be here at Caterpillar. You are a huge employer in our country; 9,000 people. You’re a massive investor in training with something like 300 apprentices being hired every year. You’re a huge exporter from our country and something like 50% of what comes out of this plant goes into other European countries so you’re doing all the things that we want great British businesses to do. So it’s good to be here with you today. And it’s good to be here too with the former head of the Trades Union Congress, Sir Brendan Barber. It’s not often you find a Conservative prime minister and the leader of a trade union movement standing together, but we both think this issue about Britain and Europe is so important that we put aside our other disagreements, put aside party political arguments, in order to say very clearly we think Britain should remain within a reformed European Union.

    Now, as I’ve said, I think this is the biggest question for our country that we’ve faced in 20 or 30 years. It’s much bigger than a general election. When you vote in a general election if you think you’ve made a mistake 5 years later you can throw them out again. I obviously don’t like that bit, a bit uncomfortable, but nonetheless that’s what happens in a general election. This is a choice for a generation, possibly a choice for a lifetime. When you vote on June 23rd, you’re voting for the sort of country and the sort of relationship you want with the rest of Europe for your children and your grandchildren. It is incredibly important. Now I want to take as much time answering your questions as possible, but let me just tell you the 3 things that I think are crucial in this debate.

    First is, I believe Britain will be stronger if we stay inside the European Union. If you think of the things we need to get done in the world, whether it is standing up to Vladimir Putin, whether it’s fighting terrorism, whether it’s making sure Iran can’t get a nuclear weapon. We’re not weaker inside the European Union, we’re stronger. Working with our allies there’s strength in numbers to get things done. So I believe the bigger Britain choice, the patriotic choice, the way to get things done in the world choice to enhance the power of this great country will be stronger inside the European Union.

    Second thing is I think will be safer. There’s no doubt in my mind about the scale of the terrorist threat that we face today. We saw those terrible attacks in Brussels, in Paris. We’ve had attacks before in London. And I know from being your prime minister from the last 6 years that, of course, our safety depends on the work of our police force. It depends on our intelligence and security services. It depends on our relationship with the United States of America and other close allies. But it also depends on our relationship with other European Union countries. We now exchange information about criminals, about terrorists, about passengers on aeroplanes, vital information that helps to keep our country safe. And if we were to leave, we’d have to work out how to get back into all those things that we just left, so we are safer inside the European Union.

    But the third argument I think is the most important and the most crucial which is that we are better off as an economy, better off for jobs, better off for investment if we stay inside a reformed European Union. Why? Well, because the European Union and Britain together is a market of 500 million people. It’s the biggest single market anywhere on our planet. And we are in it. We have a say over it. And we can trade freely into it. As I said, I understand the 50% of what you make here goes into the European Union. Three million jobs in our country depend on trade with the European Union. Now I’m not saying that if we left the European Union all of those 3 million jobs would go, but the people who want us to leave can’t tell us what our trading relationship would be with the biggest market that we’re now a part of. One minute they say we’re going to be like Norway and have full access to the market. But then you discover if you have that position, you still get the free movement of people and you still pay into the European budget so there’s no point in that relationship. Then they say let’s have a trade relationship like Canada. Well that’s a good deal for Canada, but they’re thousands of miles away from the European continent. We’re just 20 miles away.

    And that trade deal doesn’t cover services. It doesn’t cover all of agriculture. It would even mean for some manufactured goods, like what you make here, there wouldn’t be automatic access and tariff-free access to the European Union. That would be bad for our country. So then I’ve given up saying they want a trade deal like Canada, but they can’t tell you what we’d get. And I say that is a risk too far. I don’t think we should risk jobs. I don’t think we should risk our economy. We shouldn’t risk the investment that a company like this brings into Britain. So I think the most important argument in this debate is the one about our economy.

    Now you’re going to hear lots of arguments. There’ve been lots of debates. And I want to take your questions. But I just want to leave you with one other last thought because I sit in this European Council with the 27 other member states and, yes, sometimes it can be a bit maddening. Sometimes you don’t get your way. Sometimes it can be frustrating, but however frustrated I get, I never forget that 70 years ago the countries of Europe that we sit round the table with were fighting and killing each other for the second time in a century. So for all its imperfections, we shouldn’t lose that idealism that we have found a way in Europe of settling our differences through discussion and negotiation rather than all the things that happened in the past.

    So I have no hesitation in saying to you after 6 years as your prime minister that we will be stronger, we’ll be safer, we’ll be better off inside the European Union. It is your decision. I’m your prime minister. Whatever you decide on June 23rd, I will carry out. But I have no hesitation in saying I think the right outcome is to vote to stay in. And I hope that’s what you’ll do. Thank you.

    Question

    Hello Prime Minister, at one stage, you wanted us to go in the euro but we stopped in the pound so surely that decision at that time was worked out right that we stopped in the pound. So surely if we come out the EU, could that be the same effect?

    Prime Minister

    Right, very good question. I never supported Britain joining the euro. And I never will. I think we should keep our own currency, the pound. We’re the fifth biggest economy in the world. We can sustain and work with our own currency, and it gives us certain flexibility. And what we have now if you like is a special status in the European Union. Britain is in the single market which is what we want for the trade and the jobs, but we’re not in the single currency and we don’t have to join the single currency. And through my negotiation, we made sure we can never be asked to bail out other eurozone countries. And crucially, one of the things I secured in the negotiation is that the eurozone countries, 18 of the 28, they can’t gang up and try and disadvantage countries inside the EU that have their own currency.

    Why does this matter so much for Britain? Well, because financial services are a big industry for us, and we want to make sure that, in Britain, we can do euro business and dollar business, and yen business, and all the rest of it, without the eurozone trying to take away our jobs. And we secured that, that they cannot discriminate against us. So in my view, we’ve got the best of both worlds: in the European Union; in the single market; out of the eurozone; and, crucially, out of the Schengen no-borders system. Some other countries in Europe have taken down their borders to ease the flow of people between countries. We’ve kept our borders; we are able to stop and search, and ask people questions at our borders, and we’ll maintain that throughout.

    So the people who say, you know, joining the eurozone would have been a bad idea, and so staying in Europe is a bad idea, I think they’ve got the wrong argument. We’ve got the best of both worlds; in the market for the jobs, out of the currency to give us our own flexibility. And it’s that best of both worlds we should maintain.

    Question

    Thank you. Good afternoon Prime Minister. Everyone who works here at Caterpillar is familiar with the word ‘accountable’. We’re all held accountable for delivering in our roles, as are you as the prime minister of this great country. Why, therefore, should I vote for an organisation which is fundamentally unaccountable?

    Prime Minister

    Well, I would argue it is accountable. It is accountable to the 28 prime ministers and presidents who sit in the European Council. And I think it’s wrong to think that we don’t ever get our way in Europe, we do. The single market, which I was talking about; the 500 million people that we can sell our goods and services to, that was a British idea, that was a British proposal. So I don’t accept that it’s not accountable.

    The European Union consists of these 28 countries. We are the sovereign ones, and if you don’t like what your prime minister’s doing or your government’s doing, you can get rid of them. So we’re all accountable, and the European Union has to account for itself by the things that we agree in that European Council.

    So it goes to this argument, as well, about sovereignty. The people who want us to leave, one of their arguments is if we left, we’d have greater sovereignty and a greater ability to write our own laws. Now, that’s true in a technical sense, but is it really true that we’d become more powerful; that we’d be able to get things done? And I think the answer to that is no. Let’s take Caterpillar, let’s take this great business, right? You’re making engines, for instance, which are governed to some extent by single market rules in Europe. If we were to leave, if you want to sell your engines to Europe you’ve still got to meet those rules. The only difference is, today I’m sat round the table helping to write those rules. I can listen to you here at Caterpillar and make sure the rules are written in a way that will help British business. If we’re outside the EU, you’ve got to meet all those rules, but you have absolutely no accountability for what they are.

    So I think we would be less sovereign; we’d be less in control of our destiny. We’d be subject to all these rules and regulations, but without a say on what they are. I think that would make us less powerful; less great, if you think of Great Britain; and less in charge of our own destiny. It’s the same in life. Just because an institution isn’t perfect, just because a relationship isn’t perfect, it doesn’t mean you walk away from it. It means you stay and you fight to get the outcome that you need, and that’s what we should do in Europe.

    Question

    Prime Minister. I believe that immigration is a good thing for the country, but uncontrolled immigration is damaging this country vastly. Only a few weeks ago I took – I had to take my boy to the hospital, to A&E. After an hour of waiting, a nurse came out begging people to leave A&E because there was too many people there. More than half of those people in there were from – not from the UK.

    My daughter, at school, was – she was sat at home crying because of her homework. Her homework she got 100.0%; she was upset because she knew some of them answers were wrong. I have a friend – I have 2 friends who work at that school as teachers and they have told me that the reason they cannot mark the work correctly is because they spend too much time with the non-speaking – non-English speaking children. If we stay part of the EU, how will you control immigration?

    Prime Minister

    Very good question. Alex, I think it’s a very good question. First of all, I agree with the premise of your question, which is we benefit as a country from people coming here to work hard and contribute, but we don’t benefit from uncontrolled immigration; people want to know we have a control over it. Now, half of our migration comes from outside the EU and we’ve taken steps to bring it under better control. We’ve set a cap on the number of people that can come for economic reasons; we’ve closed down dozens of bogus education colleges; and tightened up some of the rules. But there’s more we should do, I would completely accept that.

    When it comes to migration within Europe, there is the free movement of people; the ability that anyone in Britain has to go and live and work, and study, in another country, and people can come and study and work here in Britain. Now, what we’re going to do to control it better is to say if you come to Britain – and we’re putting these changes in now – and you don’t have a job, you can’t claim unemployment benefit. And after 6 months, if you haven’t got a job, you have to go home. If you come here and get a job, you do not get access in full to our welfare system, and tax credits and universal credit, and the top-ups and the rest of it. You don’t get full access for 4 years. You have to pay into the system before you get out of the system, and I think that is a very important change that I secured through this negotiation. But I do accept that we obviously need to make sure, as a country, that we continue to put money into our health service, into our schools, to make sure they are there for hard-working people who pay their taxes and work hard, like you do.

    But you do have to ask yourself, if we were to leave the European Union, what would that mean, not just for our economy, but what would it also mean for immigration? If we chose the Norway option and said we’re going to stay in the single market because it’s so important for our jobs, we’d have to accept free movement of people. In fact, Norway doesn’t even have the deal I’ve got to make sure people have to pay in before they get out on welfare. So that’s the choice. If you leave but want the access to the single market that’s good for Caterpillar, that’s good for jobs, you don’t have the control over the free movement of people. If you decide to leave the single market altogether and you try and do some trade deal, it could be years of uncertainty, years of lost jobs, years of lower incomes, years affecting wages and prices, as the former head of the TUC said today.

    So I think the right choice is to stay in; better control immigration from outside the EU; introduce our welfare changes inside the EU; and make sure we keep growing our economy and generating the jobs that pay for the hospitals and the schools that we need for our children.

    Let’s have Faisal Islam from Sky.

    Question

    Thanks Prime Minister. Could you respond to the idea from Bernard Jenkin that you have done a deal with the unions to water down the Trade Union Bill for the sake of this EU referendum?

    Prime Minister

    For the issue of the trade union legislation, which I now hope is going to pass through Parliament, in the House of Lords, Lord Burns and a cross-party group suggested an amendment and voted on it, and defeated the government. We’ve accepted that amendment, but the Trade Union Bill, which I think is a very important piece of legislation, will pass. Am I talking to the trade unions and are my team talking to the trade unions about how to campaign to help keep Britain in a reformed Europe? Yes, I am, because although we have many disagreements, including over the Trade Union Bill, we’re putting aside those disagreements and saying, on this issue, we should stand alongside each other and say to people in Britain, ‘If we want jobs, if we want investment, if we want a successful economy, we should stay in.’

    And the interesting thing is this, you can now add the TUC to the CBI, to the IMF, to the OECD, to President Obama, to just about every friendly government anywhere in the world or any reputable set of economists looking at this issue, that the best answer for Britain is to say in a reformed EU. Now, you can say that this is all some grand conspiracy. The establishment are all getting together. Well, it’s a pretty great conspiracy that can get a Tory leader standing next to the former leader of the TUC to say this is in our country’s interest. And it may just be possible that when we have all those people saying the same thing effectively, even though we have deep disagreements in other areas, it’s because we believe passionately this is the right answer for our country. For jobs, for investment, for livelihood and we worry about the leap in the dark and the uncertainty that would be involved in Britain leaving a reformed European Union.

    Question

    Thank you, Prime Minister, and welcome to our facility. As you can see, we’re so proud of it. I’ve worked here for 39 years. I’ve got a regional sort of concern, Lincolnshire. I live in South Holland and The Deepings, got a massive housing development programme over the next 20 years but I feel there’s a – a lack of infrastructure. Could you tell me what level of euro funding goes into that infrastructure?

    Prime Minister

    Right. Well, in terms of the – the money that the east of England gets from European grants I think it is something like, from memory, £400 million over – between the period of now to 2020. Some of that money can go into things like infrastructure or other projects like science and research and our universities. But the crucial thing we need to do is make sure that the decisions about housing are made more locally. And that’s why we’re saying to every local council, ‘Draw up your own local plan and when you’ve set out how you’re going to meet the demand for housing and when you’ve set out where you want the housing to be and where you don’t want the housing to be, you will then have far greater powers to say yes to things that fit with your plan and no to the things that don’t fit with your plan.’

    The next thing we’re doing which I think helps, is to make sure that councils keep the council tax that they raise but crucially all of the business rates that they raise. So you restore the link between a council encouraging industry and development and enterprise and business and people living in the area. They keep the money so are better able to spend it on the infrastructure and the services that the area needs.

    So I’m not arguing for a minute that Europe is absolutely vital for our infrastructure but I think it is vital for our economy. And the fact is if we leave, I think we’ll have a smaller economy, we’ll have lower taxes – tax revenues coming in and less ability to fund the vital infrastructure as well as the vital services that we need. And that’s not just my view. You’ve had in the recent weeks the Treasury, the OECD, the IMF, all saying the same thing. Our economy would take a hit if we leave. And if the economy takes a hit tax revenues take a hit. And if tax revenues take a hit you’ve got less money to spend on the things that we need.

    Question

    Prime Minister, do you believe it’ll be easier to change Europe from within or from without?

    Prime Minister

    Well, a very good question but I think the truth is absolutely it is easier to change from within. Indeed, if we leave, you lose your voice. I don’t believe as some say that if Britain leaves the European Union, the whole thing will collapse. I don’t think that will happen. I think what would happen is I think Europe will become more protectionist, more inward-looking, less engaged in the world, more of a political union, because the British voice wouldn’t be there. Our voice is about saying we should be trading with the rest of the world. We want Caterpillar to be able to sell products from here to countries all over the world. And Europe should be using its might of 500 million people to drive those trade deals all over the world, including the Far East because that’ll be good for us.

    If we go, that’s the end of reform in Europe. I think it would slip backwards and we would be left outside. And, as I said, in an answer to an earlier question, we might have the impression of greater sovereignty but we wouldn’t have the ability to get things done. Now, I know some people look at what’s happening in Europe today and they worry about it. You look at the crisis of migration because of the Syrian conflict and people flooding through Turkey and into the European continent. You look at the problems with the eurozone and think, ‘Look, their economies aren’t doing very well because of the euro. Wouldn’t we be better off if we separated ourselves from this?’

    Well, my answer is, no, we wouldn’t. Because we’d still be affected by those things. The migration crisis doesn’t go away because Britain leaves. The eurozone problems don’t end because we’ve exited the European Union. We’re still affected by those things. The thing that changes is we don’t have any say over how Europe is responding to those crises. Now, because Britain’s been there making a strong argument that you have to return people from the Greek Islands to Turkey to break the model of the business of the people smugglers and demonstrate they can’t keep bringing people to Europe. Because we were there making that argument, and that’s now happening, the migration crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean is getting better. And the same with the eurozone. If we weren’t in the room talking about how Europe can try and expand and improve its economies, we’re still affected by the eurozone crisis but we have no say.

    So we’re better off there. As I said, it’s not a perfect organisation and it can be incredibly frustrating but you maximise your influence by staying in and fighting for the things that you want rather than walking away.

    Question

    Thank you very much. You mentioned just a few months ago, you kept referring to the European referendum. Today you have a number of times mentioned the reformed European Union or Union membership. One, I’d like to understand why you’ve changed your wording slightly to reformed. I think – personally I think it’s because you recognise it needs reformation because of the strength of feeling. I welcome your comment on that. And secondly, after the 23rd what will you do to reform this membership?

    Prime Minister

    Yes. Sure. Why I say the reformed European Union is because I’ve always believed it needs reform and that is what my renegotiation was all about. Now, I will not stand here and say, ‘I’ve solved all of Europe’s problems or indeed all of Britain’s problems with Europe.’ It is still an imperfect organisation but there were a set of things I thought needed fixing from Britain’s point of view. And I think we’ve gone a long way from fixing them. It was too much of a political union and a sense that people were being pulled into a political union against their will. And it now says very clearly in this legal document that I have negotiated, that Britain will not be part of a political – further political union and integration. So I think that – that helps.

    The second thing is I think it was too much of a bureaucracy, too many rules being generated. So we have now got, for the first time, targets for cutting the amount of bureaucracy in Europe, to help businesses, to help farmers, to help those most affected. The third thing I think was wrong was there wasn’t enough emphasis on economic growth and generating possibilities for the future. And so I got in this document guarantees that we’re going to complete the single market, not just in goods such as you produce but in digital services, in energy and in services like legal services and financial services and the rest. And we’re going to sign more trade deals. It’s too slow at signing these trade deals. We want trade deals with India. We want trade deals with China. We want trade deals with other countries in the Far – Far East so we can sell our products to them and grow our economy.

    And the fourth thing I wanted changed was this issue about immigration that I think while this free movement of people is something that is part of the single market, you can’t be in the single market without having it. And of course many British people choose to work or live or retire in other European countries. I think this issue about welfare needed to be addressed. And so for the first time ever people coming from Europe to Britain they cannot get full access to our welfare system, the tax credits and all the rest of it. They cannot get that until they’ve worked here for 4 years. They’ve got to pay in just like everyone in Britain does. They’ve got to pay in before they get out. And I think that is a very important change because I think people really feel that, yes, if you come here and work hard, you’re making a contribution, you’re paying your taxes, you’re – you’re contributing to our country but you shouldn’t get out of the welfare system until you’ve paid in.

    So those were 4, I think, significant changes and that’s why I call it a reformed European Union. But is the job done? Should we go on with reform after 23rd June, if we vote to stay in? Yes, absolutely. And I think the right way to do this is make sure we continue to build on the special status that Britain has, not in the eurozone, not in the no-borders system, out of the political union. We shouldn’t be embarrassed about the fact that Britain is different. We are a very special country. You know, we’ve had our own successful political institutions. We haven’t been invaded for 1,000 years. We’ve helped to bring democracy and free trade and arguments about human rights, all over the world.

    So our membership isn’t like the French membership or the German membership or the Italian membership and I wouldn’t want to be in Europe if it was. Our membership is special. And I want to make it more special. But if we vote to leave on 23rd June, that’s it. No more special membership, we’d be out of the EU and I think probably then thinking how do we get back in to things like the single market and the cooperation over terrorism and the work we do to keep our defences strong. How do we get back into those things we just got out of? So I say stay in and fight for the special status and for the values that our country rightly holds dear.

    But time for a couple more. Let’s have – I think we’ve got some local newspapers and television.

    Question

    Emma Hutchinson, ITV News Anglia. Prime Minister if leaving the European Union was as risky as you say for the economy – could potentially cost 300,000 jobs in this region, could be bad news for businesses like this – haven’t you taken a huge gamble with people’s jobs, family finances, and businesses by having this referendum at all?

    Prime Minister

    I think it’s right for our country to make a decision about this. The last bunch of people who were able to vote on this were people back in 1975. And so I think you can’t hold a country in an organisation against its will. So what I decided was the right thing to do is not have a simple in-out referendum but to go and negotiate a better deal for Britain, sort out some of these problems that we have and then fulfil our manifesto commitment to let people choose in a referendum. I have great faith in the common sense and rationality and good sense of the British people that I think that being offered a choice of maintaining and enhancing our special status or leaving altogether, we’ll choose to stay in.

    But at the end of the day, these decisions are actually too important simply for your government to take on your behalf. This is about our relationship with Europe, our trade with Europe, our place in the world, the way we’re governed, the sort of country we are. We should determine all sorts of things in Parliament, representing you on your behalf. But when it comes to a question as fundamental as this, I think it’s right to hold this referendum and I’m very happy to accept the verdict and the judgement passed down by the British people.

    Question

    Andrew Sinclair BBC East. Welcome to Peterborough. The Leave campaign’s been talking today a lot about cost of EU red tape, most businesses in this region are small businesses. Do you accept that for them that EU regulation can be an expensive business?

    Prime Minister

    I accept that all regulation can cost money and we should be trying to reduce unnecessary regulation where possible. But I’d simply make 2 points: first of all, if you are a business that trades with Europe, or if you are a business that trades with a business that trades with a business that trades with Europe, you have to meet the regulations. And if we were to leave, you have to meet the regulations when you sell into Europe even though you have no say as to what those regulations are. And I fear, let’s take this great plant and great business and the small suppliers that supply into it, if we’re not there and you’ve got the Germans and the Italians and the French writing the rules about diesel engines and emissions and environmental constraints and all the rest of it. Wouldn’t they write those rules thinking let’s support our own manufacturers rather than British manufacturers? I fear they might. We need to be round that table. So, if you’re a small business in any way connected to Europe, you need to make sure we have a say over those rules.

    Second thing I’d say, is actually within Europe, because of my renegotiation, we are now setting targets for taking unnecessary regulations away from business. If we’re not there, I’ll tell you it wouldn’t be happening. This is very much a British initiative that we drove through because of our negotiations. And I was quite struck this morning when one of the people wanting us to leave the Europe Union was on the radio and asked, ‘Well which regulations is it you want to get rid of in Europe?’ He actually couldn’t come up with a good example. Sometimes we over-regulate in this country. So, I’m in favour of getting rid of unnecessary regulations whether it’s done by Britain, whether it’s done by the government, whether it’s done by the council, or whether it’s done by the European Union. That’s the right approach.

    Question

    Mr Prime Minister, you’ve mentioned on 2 occasions today about taking out the pot – you know, you can’t take out the pot what you don’t put in. How does that go on for the smaller member states of the EU because to the man on the street and to myself, we read in the papers, we hear on television it’s costing us X, Y, Z to be a member of the European Union, these smaller states are now coming in after we’ve joined, so the goalposts have moved, but we don’t see a lot coming in from them but we see a lot allegedly being taken out. For example, Greece, only this morning. It’s there for all to see, I’ve got news for you, you’re not going to get your money back. Nobody’s going to get their money back. That was on the television this morning, now let’s be honest about it –

    Prime Minister

    Luckily we never gave them any money so we don’t have to expect any back. That’s the good news.

    Speaker

    You never gave them any money but the debt could be written off.

    Prime Minister

    Those are very fair points, so let me answer, a very fair point. First of all, with bailing out the eurozone, one of the first things I did as Prime Minister was get us out of those eurozone bailout funds. So we are not bailing out other eurozone countries we’re not owed money by that. So we don’t have to worry about that and in my renegotiation I put that beyond doubt. It is now written into the rules, written into the law as it were, that we don’t bail out other countries.

    But you are right sir, we do pay into the European Union. We get money back for farming. We get money back for science and research. We get money back for regional development. But yes, we do put in more than we get out. I would argue that we benefit though because of the single market making our economy bigger, creating jobs, creating a bigger economy and more tax revenues, we get back much more overall than we put in. I think our membership fee is worthwhile, and the good news is that in a budget negotiation I have made sure that the European Union budget is on a downward trajectory, not an upward trajectory, so we know if we stay in what we have to pay and what we get out.

    But let me just say this, the fact that yes, some of these smaller, much poorer countries get much more out of the European Union than they put in, I don’t actually think that’s bad thing. Look at our continent and remember how recently it was that Balkan countries were fighting each other. Remember how recently it was that Spain and Portugal were dictatorships rather than democracies. Remember how recently Greece wasn’t a democracy. Remember how poor those counties were behind the Iron Curtain after decades of communism.

    And the point is this, the single market of 500 million people, it’s a single market that enables us to trade, to move, to work, to provide our services, but it’s also a single market in which we have agreed to help each other and to help these poorer countries raise their living standards. Now I would argue that is obviously good for them, but actually it’s good for us. If we can create a new middle class of customers in Poland or the Czech Republic or Slovakia, if we can see their housing industries grow, they are going to buy more Caterpillars, they are going to buy more of our goods. Our single market gets richer.

    So yes we pay in more than we get out and some others get more out than they pay in, but is this market of 500 million people in our interests? Yes. Is this organisation that has helped to keep the peace in Europe worthwhile for us to be a part of? Yes. Has joining the European Union for some of these former communist countries that don’t have our history of democracy been good for their societies, their democracies and their economies? Yes. Does that make all of us stronger as result on the continent that we share? Yes. Winston Churchill said, “We are not of Europe, but we are with Europe.” Britain is special. We are an amazing country. The fifth largest economy in the world. A country that’s given so much to the world. And my view is we will not be smaller by staying in, we will be bigger, and that is the patriotic big Britain case that I believe in and I hope you’ll back on June 23rd.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • Justine Greening – 2016 Speech on the EU Referendum

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, at the London Business School on 29 April 2016.

    I am delighted to be back here at the London Business School. Although I’ve been a Member of Parliament for over 10 years, even now, most of my career has been spent in business.

    And some of that time was spent here doing an MBA in this very lecture room.

    In fact it was in the sandwich shop over the street that another student, who was more involved with the Conservative Party than I was then, suggested I go on the Parliamentary Candidates list.

    So it wasn’t just my business career that got a kick start at LBS, it was my political career too.

    All of which means, I know from first-hand experience that this is a place that builds people’s future. It’s a place that builds opportunity.

    And the decision we make on 23 June will either open doors, or close them on, opportunity for Britain’s young people.

    And it will be a decision of profound importance to not only our country but much wider in the world.

    It is unlike any vote this country has had in decades.

    For many people, myself included, it will be the first time we get the chance to have our say on Britain’s relationship with the EU.

    The consequences of those millions of votes cast in just 8 weeks’ time will be as long-lasting in the decades to come as the result of the 1975 referendum.

    There will be no election in 5 years’ time to change our mind if we get this wrong.

    Generations of people growing up in our country will have to live with the consequences of our vote.

    In fact the younger you are, the longer you have to live with the consequences.

    So for young people this is no vote to leave to others.

    Those who advocate us leaving the EU make an argument about sovereignty, and being able to choose the people who take the decisions that govern our lives.

    I agree…. those issues – sovereignty….and choosing those who take the decisions, being in control of our own destiny – they are vital.

    But I disagree that this means Britain should leave the EU.

    People say our decisions should be made in Westminster. I agree. And they are.

    But quite simply, we are part of a wider world that takes decisions that affect us too.

    We are not insulated from them.

    Europe is our continent. It’s not a choice, it’s a geographical fact.

    What happens across Europe affects us, first and foremost because of proximity, not politics.

    We can’t just ignore this.

    This isn’t a vote to abolish the EU, it will still be there.

    As a group of nations, the European Union will still be taking decisions that affect Europe’s single market.

    To me, it’s an odd concept of sovereignty and influence…that sees our country walk away from being a voice around the table where decisions are taken that affect us.

    That somehow we are a more powerful voice all on our own.

    It flies in the face of common sense, and of basic diplomacy.

    Staying in the EU is smart diplomacy and smart economics.

    Smart economics because we keep access to the European free trade area we call the single market.

    A single market of 500 million people, and we keep a say over the rules of doing business across Europe. That means more jobs, lower prices, and more financial security for British families.

    And it’s smart diplomacy because we can influence more widely by staying within the EU. As President Obama said, this amplifies Britain’s influence.

    Britain can no more successfully insulate itself from the EU and Europe than Sheffield could declare itself a “Nuclear Free Zone” in the 1980s.

    Some say we will embark on a new British “internationalism”.

    But de facto, on our own, it will be a unilateral internationalism.

    And if that sounds like an oxymoron that’s because it is.

    The reality is that Britain’s and Europe’s common future is as surely bound up together as our past has been.

    Europe is our continent. A continent that our country has shaped as much as any other country that is part of it.

    I’m proud of Britain’s history standing up for freedom and liberty.

    Europe wouldn’t even exist in its current form if we hadn’t.

    But are we really to reach the conclusion that those days of influence are over?

    That those arguments on the future course of the EU are ones our country does not have the wherewithal to win?

    I believe that those who advocate leaving Europe are wrong in substance and wrong in strategy.

    They are wrong in substance because whether you take your economic analysis from the IMF, the OECD, the IFS, or the Treasury, to name a few, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear.

    The choice in this referendum is: economic security as part of the EU free trade area that we are already in, or a leap in the dark.

    A Britain outside the EU will be worse off by comparison.

    £36 billion, or maybe even more.

    Annually.

    That is a huge dent in our public spending on the very things our country depends on for its success: education, health, transport infrastructure, all of it put under pressure if we leave.

    The central estimate from the Treasury analysis is that in the long run GDP would be lower and Britain would be worse off by £4,300 per household, every year.

    So this affects us all.

    Look at Albania…as I understand it, that’s the current Brexit destination of choice.

    A country with a deal that the Prime Minister of Albania has pointed out this week, took 6 years to negotiate, one that still doesn’t give it full access to Europe’s single market and keeps tariffs on certain goods.

    A deal that sees it have to comply with EU regulations to sell into that single market, getting checked up on by EU institutions so they follow the rules, but with no seat around the table.

    I said those advocating leaving were wrong in substance and strategy.

    Leaving is wrong in strategy too, because it is illogical to make an argument that we shape the EU more from being outside than in.

    Why? How would we do that? Again, it flies in the face of common sense.

    It would be like getting divorced, moving out, then still expecting to pick what colour curtains you have in the front room.

    There’s not a lot of post-Brexit referendum strategy out there to analyse. Maybe a plan is coming.

    But it seems to me that as it stands, leaving the EU is a one-way ticket, with no clear destination.

    As far as I can see, we want to leave Europe’s single market, to then immediately attempt to rejoin it, but on better terms?

    There is no evidence for that being possible all, in fact quite the reverse if you look at Norway, Canada, Switzerland…

    Why would any club or membership organisation give non-members a better deal – people who are outside it?

    It’s like cancelling your gym subscription and expecting to get upgraded access to all the fitness machines.

    But of course, this is no joke.

    This is worse than wishful thinking because it comes with a cost.

    As I said, that cost is our economy – a £36bn hit to tax receipts every year – it won’t just be public services squeezed, it will be our jobs, especially the livelihoods of people on lower incomes.

    When I go back to my childhood I was surrounded by people.

    They were adamant about their vision of a better Britain, why it was right… It was also one that somehow didn’t want to confront economic reality….

    These were the same people who thought it was sensible to declare Sheffield a Nuclear Free Zone.

    But I learnt that it’s never them that pay the price for misplaced idealism, the unwillingness to deal with reality.

    It’s other people, generally on much lower incomes.

    People like my father. They’re the ones who actually lose their jobs when idealism unravels in the face of hard practicalities.

    And if you’re someone already fed up of this EU referendum, well if we vote to leave, then you’ll have a lot more Europe in the coming years.

    This referendum debate will be just the start as the big Brexit renegotiate kicks off.

    It’ll be on our TVs every night for ever. Gogglebox will get really boring.

    As we leave the EU…to then start our renegotiation to get back in to the European single market.

    We would get 2 years to negotiate a new agreement with the EU – that’s how long the grace period is.

    Otherwise we end up with a WTO country status which is worse than the Norway model, worse than the Canada model and it would cost us £47bn – annually.

    In addition, there are 53 markets we have free trade with through the EU that we would leave and have to renegotiate.

    With more on the way, including with some of the world’s biggest markets such as the US, India and Japan. These would lapse the day we left the EU and would have to be renegotiated. How long would it take to negotiate trade deals with over 50 countries?

    And this argument that on exports the EU needs us more than we need them is also wrong in fact.

    44% of our exports are with the EU, but just 8% of theirs are to us. The EU exports more to the United States than it does to us.

    So as well as being back of the queue for the US, as President Obama pointed out, there’s a danger we’ll be back of the queue for the EU too.

    So queues, lines, whatever you call them, we’ll be at the back.

    And these renegotiations, taking years, would be an unwanted, frustrating source of diplomatic friction across the board on our international relationships.

    In practice, the danger is that there would be little space for us to work on anything else.

    It would take all of Britain’s diplomatic bandwidth. At a time when we can least afford it.

    In this job I have had to confront some of the most intractable problems that our world faces: from Syria, to South Sudan, to Yemen….

    … to the recent outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, …..

    …..the progressive impact of climate change,…..

    …. and dramatically changing demographics in Africa.

    And we have the challenges of economics as we see commodity price falls and the knock on effects of global instability.

    These global shifts are there irrespective of the EU, and whether we’re in it or not.

    We either face them together, or alone.

    Our best chance of rising to those challenges is by working in partnership.

    It was Britain, sat around the EU table, making the case that there needed to be more support in the region for Syrian refugees…

    …That the smart response to the refugee crisis last summer was to take people direct from the camps. Something the EU is now doing.

    It was Britain, sat around the EU table, making the case for education for Syrian children, for jobs and livelihoods for Syrian refugees to better support themselves…

    ….working with Germany so that we could both lobby the EU and other member states directly at a European Council meeting in December last year….

    And that gave us the platform for our successful London Syria conference earlier this year.

    We just wouldn’t have had the network or the sheer lobbying clout to do that outside of the EU.

    This is an example of what we mean when we say being around the EU table “magnifies” Britain’s influence.

    We have always been a country that has taken a lead, taken the world’s priorities and made them ours to deal with too.

    I was at the World Bank two weeks ago. Not one person I met wants Britain to disengage from Europe.

    We are the country that has not only shaped Europe’s response to the Syria humanitarian crisis, but the world’s.

    And to walk away from our own near neighbourhood would be taken by others around the world as a step of isolation, not “internationalism”.

    At the very moment our views around the table are most needed and can make the most impact.

    Britain pulling up the drawbridge doesn’t stop the world out there from having these problems. It just makes it a lot harder for us to make sure the global response is a smart one, tackling problems at source.

    It’s a bit like arguing you should get rid of police tackling crime and just put all your money into putting more locks on your front door.

    It’s an unwise choice in today’s world and the future world.

    And it’s a false choice.

    We need to do both.

    The world isn’t more secure with Britain isolating itself from Europe, it’s less secure…

    …just as surely as if we left NATO, or the UN Security Council. Which would of course also be nonsensical.

    And fundamentally, if Britain has something to say, why would our great country not be around the EU table to say it?

    And that’s why in the end this is a vote not just about Britain’s place in Europe…

    … but about Britain’s place in the world.

    Together, working as partners, shaping events,

    Or,

    Isolated, lobbying from the sidelines.

    And I wanted to finish by saying that I think Britain’s young people understand this better than any of us.

    They are the most connected generation ever.

    For them, the world feels like a much smaller place, and they understand it’s only going to get smaller still in their lifetime.

    The young volunteers we have on DFID’s International Citizens Service understand that you address today’s challenges by working constructively with others, not by turning your back.

    My message to young people is – this is your country.

    This vote is about your future.

    This vote is about what you want Britain to stand for in the 21st century. Part of the wider world, or apart from it.

    This vote is about whether your voice will be at the EU table of the future.

    I believe that winning those arguments about Europe’s future….

    ….about how we collectively rise to the global challenges my department grapples with every day….

    …..that starts with being in those debates in the first place.

    This referendum will produce a result.

    A result that will have to be accepted by everyone. Including you.

    So as a young person, if you’re not even voting in this referendum, how can you make your voice count?

    Yet your view matters as much as anyone’s.

    We know each new generation is less likely to vote than the one before. Nearly 80% of over 65’s vote, but well under half of 18-24 year olds vote.

    That works out at 2 million missing votes of young people, compared to if they voted as much as their grandparents.

    It’s a powerful voice. But it’s not being heard.

    2 million missing votes

    So it’s time for a new generation to have your say.

    This isn’t about party politics, if that’s what’s switching you off voting.

    It’s about taking care of our country’s future – of your future.

    Your country has never needed you to vote more than it will do on 23rd June, 2016.

    Our democracy is precious, but it only works when everyone has their say.

    That has to include you.

    This referendum can be an opportunity – a watershed moment for Britain, and it can be a watershed moment for a new generation of voters.

    If you’ve never voted before, give yourself the chance to take a first step towards building the country that you want and making our democracy work for you.

    Shaping our politics away from a divisive, negative debate about what we don’t want towards an agreement about what we do want.

    Make it a vote about setting out what our country stands for, what our place is in the 21st century.

    Even if you don’t get involved with the formal campaign, if you care, get out there and persuade your friends, your family. Make the difference in this referendum.

    To those 2 million missing young voters and all young people.

    Don’t leave this referendum to others.

    So much of what is ahead of you and Britain will turn on referendum day on the 23rd June.

    Everything is at stake.

    And it’s time for you to start setting the agenda, to start setting our agenda.

    This is about your country, your future.

    It’s about your vote. Use it.

    Thank you.

  • Ken Livingstone – 2016 Comments on Antisemitism

    kenlivingstone

    Below is the text of the comments made by Ken Livingstone on 28 April 2016 which led to his suspension from the Labour Party.

    She’s a deep critic of Israel and its policies. Her remarks were over-the-top but she’s not antisemitic. I’ve been in the Labour party for 47 years; I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemitic. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the state of Israel and its abuse of Palestinians but I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemitic.

    It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.

    The simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians; and there’s one stark fact that virtually no one in the British media ever reports, in almost all these conflicts the death toll is usually between 60 and 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Now, any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes but it’s like we have a double standard about the policies of the Israeli government.

    As I’ve said, I’ve never heard anybody say anything antisemitism-Semitic, but there’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic. I had to put up with 35 years of this.

    Let’s look at someone who’s Jewish who actually said something very similar to what Naz has just said. Albert Einstein, when the first leader of Likud, the governing party now in Israel, came to America, he warned American politicians: don’t talk to this man because he’s too similar to the fascists we fought in the Second World War. Now, if Naz or myself said that today we would be denounced as antisemitic, but that was Albert Einstein.

    After Jeremy became leader I was having a chat with Michael and he said he was very worried because one of his friends who was Jewish had come to him and said ‘the election of Jeremy Corbyn is exactly the same as the first step to the rise of Adolf Hitler to power’.

    Frankly, there’s been an attempt to smear Jeremy Corbyn and his associates as antisemitic from the moment he became leader. The simple fact is we have the right to criticise what is one of the most brutal regimes going in the way it treats the Palestinians.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Statement on Justice and Home Affairs Council

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2016.

    A meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 21 April. My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister and I attended on behalf of the UK.

    The Council began with an adoption of the A items, including the formal adoption of the passenger name records (PNR) directive, which the Government welcome. I have always been clear of the importance of PNR and strongly believe that this directive will enable all members of the European Union to work even closer together to tackle terrorist threats.

    The Commission then presented its smart borders proposals and communication on “stronger and smarter information systems for borders and security”. On smart borders, the Council agreed to work towards achieving political agreement by the end of the year. Given that the UK does not participate in the borders aspects of Schengen, we will not take part in these measures.

    On the information systems communication, the focus was on improving interoperability of data systems. The majority of member states agreed with the position I set out, prioritising improving data quality in existing systems and ensuring that appropriate data sets could be easily “washed” against each other. I also emphasised the need to further strengthen co-operation between member states on two important areas: first, non-Schengen states, including the UK, need to be able fully to share important removal and entry ban data with Schengen states; second, the need for more proactive and systematic sharing of criminal records data of people convicted of offences relating to terrorism and serious organised crime.

    Member states also agreed on the need to ensure the right quantity and quality of information is provided to EU systems, such as the second generation Schengen information system—SISII. I supported these calls, while noting that provision of this information remained a matter for member states.

    The presidency reiterated the importance of the political commitment to data sharing and concluded that the next step would be the development of a “roadmap” on improving information sharing, which it intended to present for adoption to the June JHA Council.

    The Commission then introduced its communication on security. The Commission stressed that this would not in any way affect member states competence for security matters and highlighted the need for effective implementation of existing initiatives, including on tackling firearms, and for better data sharing and threat analysis. I welcomed the focus on making better progress on practical initiatives and underlined that responsibility for national security lies solely with member states.

    Over lunch, Ministers discussed the Commission communication on the reform of the Common European asylum system, in particular options for changes to the Dublin system.

    There was considerable opposition to any radical change to the Dublin system and no consensus on the preferred option for change. Views among member states were diverse and several opposed relocation being a part of any new system. The Immigration Minister set out the UK’s clear view that the existing principles of the Dublin system should be retained and shared the concerns of many others about relocation: any crisis relocation mechanism must be kept separate from the existing Dublin system. The Government do not support relocation as it is the wrong response to the migratory pressures the EU faces. It undermines the important principle that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country and does not address the causes of illegal migration.

    After lunch, there was a progress report on the proposed European Border and Coast Guard Agency. Given the UK’s position in relation to Schengen we will not participate in this measure. However, we support the efforts by member states to improve management of the external border of the EU. The presidency would now open “triologue” negotiations with the European Parliament and reaffirmed its intention to reach agreement with the Parliament by June, in line with the deadline set by the European Council.
    Discussion then turned to EU-Turkey migration. The presidency reaffirmed the need to speed up the implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement of 18 March. The Commission stressed that they were working on securing guarantees for non-Syrians returned to Turkey.

    A number of members states stressed the need for strong security checks on individuals coming to the EU. Frontex highlighted its role in returning 325 irregular migrants from Greece to Turkey on 4 and 8 April. The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) reiterated the request for longer deployments and stated that they needed 50 or 60 people to facilitate relocation from Greece and Italy.

    The Immigration Minister announced a new package of support for Greece, in particular 75 personnel ready to be deployed. The UK would also launch a new scheme to resettle children at risk from the middle east and North Africa. Several hundred would be resettled in the first year with a view to resettling up to 3,000 by the end of the Parliament.

    The Immigration Minister set out that making the EU-Turkey deal work was vital and the inadmissibility procedures needed to be applied appropriately to avoid undermining the agreed approach. The EU needed to ensure that it was possible to return all nationalities to Turkey. Helping to develop the Turkish asylum system was also a top priority.

    The presidency concluded that there was agreement to increase the quantity and quality of pledges to EASO and Frontex, and that attention would need to be given to the possibility that migratory routes may shift, especially towards the central Mediterranean.

  • David Lidington – 2016 Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council

    davidlidington

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister of State for Europe, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2016.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 April and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence attended the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) on 19 April. The Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) were both chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meetings were held in Luxembourg.

    Foreign Affairs Council

    A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa. eu/en/meetings/fac/2016/04/18-19/

    Iran

    Ms Mogherini briefed the Council on her recent visit to Iran. The context for this visit was the lifting of EU nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions against Iran in the wake of Iran’s implementation of measures set out in the joint comprehensive plan of action. Ms Mogherini and a number of EU Commissioners who also participated in the visit explored the possibilities for future co-operation between the EU and Iran in a number of areas. In addition to areas for economic co-operation they also announced the intention to establish EU-Iran political and human rights dialogues. A joint statement by Ms Mogherini and the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, can be found at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-1441_en.htm

    Colombia

    The Colombian Government’s High Commissioner for Peace, Sergio Jaramillo Caro, briefed Ministers on the Colombian peace process, prompting a discussion on transitional justice. The risk of organised crime groups stepping into any power vacuum and the importance of a joined-up approach within the Colombian system was highlighted. The EU Commission confirmed continued support to the process through initiatives on local justice, education and demining. I offered strong support for the peace process, and underlined that we would be happy to share the UK experience of peace building. Mr Jaramillo confirmed that the Government of Colombia remained committed to a popular referendum on the agreement.

    EU external migration

    Ministers discussed the external aspects of the migration crisis, and the need for the European Union to maintain focus on both the Aegean and the central Mediterranean migration routes. The importance of full implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement on migration, concluded at the European Council on 17-18 March 2016, was noted; as was the ongoing work to tackle irregular migration from Africa to Europe, including through the action plan agreed at the Valletta summit on migration on 11-12 November 2015.

    Lunch with UN High Commissioner for Refugees

    Over lunch, Ministers exchanged views with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr Filippo Grandi, on global challenges posed by mass migration, and on implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement on migration.

    Eastern Partnership

    Ministers exchanged views on recent developments in the six Eastern Partnership countries and on preparations for the forthcoming EU-Eastern Partnership ministerial meeting on 23 May.

    Topics discussed included reform programmes in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and the work of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs and the OSCE Chair-in-Office to de-escalate the recent violent clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh.

    EU Iraq/Syria/Daesh strategy

    Ministers agreed to Ms Mogherini’s proposal to discuss counter-Daesh at the May Foreign Affairs Council and to agree Council conclusions. This would complement a planned discussion on Syria. In response to my call for a detailed assessment of progress, Ms Mogherini also agreed to task the EEAS and Commission to produce an assessment of implementation of the EU’s Syria/Iraq/Daesh strategy to help prepare for next month’s discussion.

    Libya

    The EU welcomed the arrival of the presidency Council in Tripoli on 30 March, and expressed its support for the Libyan political agreement which considers the Government of National Accord (GNA) as the sole legitimate Government in Libya. The EU reiterated that it has a package of immediate support totalling €100 million to the GNA, making clear that areas of support will be defined and prioritised in close co-ordination with the GNA and the UN. Council conclusions on Libya made reference to a possible civilian CSDP mission to support the Libyan security sector, and consideration of enhanced support that could be provided through EU Operation Sophia, for example through potential capacity building for the Libyan coastguard.

    Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:

    The Council approved the agenda of the 41st session of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states (ACP)—EU Council of Ministers, which will take place in Dakar (Senegal) on 28-29 April 2016.

    The Council adopted a decision extending the mandate of Fernando Gentilini as the European Union special representative for the middle east peace process until 28 February 2017.

    The Council adopted a decision extending the mandate of Peter Burian as the European Union special representative for central Asia until 28 February 2017.

    The Council adopted a decision extending by 24 months, as of 31 January 2016, the validity of national permits for entry and stay granted by member states for the temporary reception of certain Palestinians.

    The Council adopted a decision supplementing the statement of reasons for its restrictive measures against Bank Saderat Iran.
    Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)

    Countering hybrid threats

    The Council adopted conclusions, welcoming the publication of the joint communication on countering hybrid threats, underlining the need to mobilise EU instruments to prevent and counter hybrid threats to the EU, its member states and partners, such as NATO. EU-NATO co-operation was highlighted as essential, with EU tools well placed to complement those of NATO to support member states and allies. Member states will reflect on the document further before considering next steps, including implementation.

    Central African Republic

    The Council adopted conclusions that approved the establishment of a new military training mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA), to contribute to the country’s defence sector reform as led by the UN. The mission, based in Bangui has a mandate of two years. EUTM RCA will build on the work of the EU military advisory mission (EUMAM RCA), working towards a modernised, effective and democratically accountable Central African armed forces.

    Capacity building in support of security and development

    The Council discussed the EU’s efforts to find options for funding instruments for capacity building in support of security and development in order to enable partner countries and regional organisations to prevent and manage crises themselves. Defence Ministers noted that a public consultation was currently underway on the wider initiative. The European Commission also detailed progress towards a security sector reform framework, the adoption of which was anticipated in mid-2016.

    EDA steering board

    Defence Ministers also met in EDA steering board format. Ministers were updated on the implementation of key taskings and next steps, which included: the policy framework for defence co-operation; hybrid threats; preparatory action for common security and defence policy-related research; and the European Commission’s upcoming European defence action plan.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Speech on Digital Records in the NHS

    Below is the text of the speech made by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown in Westminster Hall, the Houses of Parliament, on 28 April 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered use of digital records in the NHS.

    I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, and grateful to you and Mr Speaker for the opportunity to debate this matter. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) in his place.

    The issue of data is of transformative significance for the NHS. The health service has so many interactions with patients on a daily basis that it creates an enormous amount of health data that have a huge number of practical applications for those who know how to analyse the data correctly. With more patients being treated, more work being done on access to drugs, and massive breakthroughs in genomics and the study of rare diseases, the NHS must use IT effectively to digitise patient records and allow clinicians to harness the power of such valuable data. That is the essence of this debate.

    My involvement in this subject area began through my late constituent, Les Halpin, who was diagnosed with the dreadful motor neurone disease in 2011. Les was one of the country’s foremost statisticians by profession, and a gifted mathematician with an inquisitive brain. He quickly realised that the numbers were stacked against him—when I first met him, he was absolutely clear that he had between a couple of months and a couple of years to live, about which he was absolutely stoical—and furthermore that the money spent on new drugs was widely out of kilter with the output.

    Rather than take on the treatment of and research into MND directly, as that was already catered for by a number of non-governmental organisations, Les set his sights on tackling the system more widely. Understanding that the system he wanted to change was governed by the regulatory and political world, he began the Empower: Access to Medicine campaign. As a statistician, he knew better than anyone that it is information that furthers medical research. Empower taking on this debate is therefore the logical extension of his original work. Les died while on the waiting list for new treatments, for there had been no new treatment for MND for more than 20 years.

    Through comprehensive engagement across Government, industry and the academic world, Empower helped to secure a major positive change for patients, known as the early access to medicine scheme. Working with a number of patient and medical campaign groups—Joining Jack, the Duchenne Children’s Trust and the Genetic Alliance UK, to name just a few—Empower hosted a summit in the House of Commons, at which the Department of Health launched its new early access scheme, with Empower’s support.
    On 23 February, I hosted the parliamentary launch of Empower: Data4Health—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) was present; perhaps other Members were as well—which is the next stage of this work and falls under the subject of this debate. The new campaign brings together politicians, clinicians and patients and calls for an NHS that uses state-of-the-art IT to collate and analyse health data to improve outcomes for patients. The campaign is a natural continuation of Les’s work, because it seeks to create an NHS that uses anonymised patient data to identify new treatments, effective new drugs and even repurposed drugs that can have major benefits for sufferers of rare or life-limiting diseases.

    To my mind, there are three ways of deploying this IT effectively in the NHS—this is part of a wider debate, but it is worth mentioning here. First, with the right technology, data can be analysed for particular cohorts of disease sufferers to look for trends, monitor the effects of new drugs treatments and therapies and, ultimately, improve patients’ information about their own conditions, patient outcomes, and access to medicines or other treatments that are right for them.

    Incidentally, we are seeing growing evidence of repurposed drugs being used to treat a variety of diseases that they were not originally intended for, with some success. For example, recent research suggests that some statins—drugs generally used to control cholesterol—can affect the treatment of brain tumours. Before such research can be turned into real treatment options for patients, we need to be able to use modern technology and digital records to flag where patients are receiving that treatment and look at the effects across a much larger cohort.

    The potential offered by using IT to identify new treatments and trends could fundamentally change how the NHS operates. Indeed, the Science and Technology Committee recently reported that the value of big data to the health sector will equate to £14.4 billion by 2017. In fact, some consultants have found that efficiency savings between £16 billion and £66 billion could be generated in the NHS were the data deployed properly.

    Once we start to use data, we can leverage the value of the intellectual property, which is created in a number of ways, by using it to incentivise GPs or clinicians to pursue certain treatment paths; by funding patient interest groups and other bodies; and, ultimately, by selling the IP to drug companies to speed up the development of new drugs. The whole thing then becomes a virtuous circle.

    The second key benefit of IT and digital records is that they enable us to address the lack of co-ordination in the NHS. Clinicians will be able to monitor what is happening to a patient cohort for a particular disease across the country, rather than re-invent the wheel when approving treatment. Digital records will enable different teams to co-ordinate across one or a number of hospitals, synchronise appointments and ensure that all clinicians are fully informed of how their treatment is interacting with a patient. That should lead to the best possible outcomes for patients, and enable co-ordination across the health service.

    Thirdly, patients will have more control over their own health information. In an age in which the use of medical self-diagnostic tools is on the rise, patients will be able to control—possibly remotely or at home—the data produced by the diagnostic machines; view it in whatever form they like; use it to inform their self-care; and feed it remotely, through IT, back to clinicians, who if necessary can modify the patient’s treatment. Treating people remotely will prevent unnecessary hospital visits and visits to clinicians.

    Fourthly, once we start collecting data on patient outcomes, we will be able to drive processes within the NHS, identify things that are taking too long and work that is being duplicated, and ultimately save the NHS money on its day-to-day processes and tests. For example, we will be able to transfer huge amounts of data across different systems in the NHS. New patient tests are emerging almost weekly, which produce data that can be transferred across different parts of the NHS more efficiently. In those four ways, IT can transform the NHS.

    Members from all parties, members of the public and clinicians have concerns about data privacy, and I would like to tackle that point head-on. I thought that some Members might be here to speak about their concerns about privacy and data protection. Some of those concerns are serious and legitimate; it is no use pretending that they are not. We all hear horror stories from our constituents about NHS trusts mishandling data, losing records and sharing inappropriate information. When this debate was granted, a member of the public contacted me to bring to my attention his experience of massive data breaches by one NHS trust, which is alleged to have consistently failed to adhere to data protection principles and to have hidden its failings from NHS England. Make no mistake: concerns about the handling of patient data are very real.

    That member of the public highlighted that data protection breaches are regrettably already taking place. One of the purposes of this debate is to highlight the need for a national framework for digital records with built-in safeguards to protect patient privacy, and for genuine national accountability for trusts. We need to generate a debate on that subject. No patient record system is absolutely secure. Even the old-fashioned paper system is not absolutely secure, because it can leak: people can get into files, access the data and pass them on in an unauthorised way. With modern technology, we ought to be able to protect patient records.

    Digital records may ring alarm bells with some patients, such as that member of the public, so it is imperative that the Government develop a comprehensive public information campaign on the enormous treatment benefits, which I have outlined, that health data can provide. We must convince the public that the benefits of the effective use of IT in the NHS far outweigh the potential obstacles and pitfalls that there may be along the way. We have the technology to keep patient data safe. A fear of errors should not paralyse progress on this issue.

    There are some great examples of things happening across the country. For example, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust has done incredible work in putting together a patient registry of more than 99% of all cystic fibrosis sufferers. As I am sure all Members realise, cystic fibrosis is a horrible disease. Babies born with it cannot breathe properly and need continuous treatment for the whole of their often only too short lives. The first new-generation genotypic drugs are beginning to be introduced, and by using patient data to measure their effectiveness and possible side effects we can begin to make real progress on rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

    The Cystic Fibrosis Trust operates a strict evaluation process, overseen by a committee of experts, to ensure that its registry data are used in line with patients’ consent. It is interesting that those with that debilitating disease realise the effect that IT can have and have willingly given permission for their data to be used in that way. That is an example of the importance of patient buy-in to IT patient records. Thanks to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust’s determination to promote and maintain its registry, we are seeing new treatments for particular strains of CF, which completely alleviate the dreadful symptoms that I outlined in young babies, who would otherwise die prematurely, and enable them to live a relatively normal life. Proper deployment of IT in a digital NHS would enable us to develop similar drugs for suffers of all sorts of rare and debilitating illnesses.

    A shining example of what I am outlining is happening in Birmingham, where clinicians are trailblazing in this area. They are an example of what we hope will happen nationally. The University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust uses electronic patient records. Since 2011, all records have been electronic. Its commitment to innovation has allowed for some remarkable projects, such as Cure Leukaemia, which was established in 2003 to enable patients with blood cancer to access effective new treatments. In 2005, it helped to secure a £2.2 million grant to build the Centre for Clinical Haematology at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. It resulted in the development of the second-largest adult stem cell transplant programme in the United Kingdom. The impact of Cure Leukaemia and the Centre for Clinical Haematology in Birmingham is closely linked to the distinct make-up of the west midlands and the fact that they use IT in the way that we propose. With a population of 5.5 million and the most ethnically diverse catchment area in Europe, the west midlands offers access to the broadest possible data pool for drugs trials.

    Over the past decade, Cure Leukaemia has funded a network of 15 specialist nurses, who work across the west midlands and administer pioneering drug treatments to leukaemia-suffering patients. The combination of the west midlands’ unique demographic and the network of well-supported nurses has enabled us to leverage millions of pounds worth of pioneering drugs and give patients access to clinical trials for drugs not readily available in the rest of the NHS. Cure Leukaemia’s founder, Graham Silk, is also a member of the Empower: Data4Health campaign. Graham’s hope is that, one day, everyone will be able to benefit as he has from the amazing work being done with digital records in the west midlands.

    The medical community see the advantages that digital records can bring to the NHS. The Royal College of Physicians believes:

    “Fully digital patient records will bring benefits to the NHS, but to do so they need to be based on standards for the structure and content. Common standards are essential to enable interoperability between digital records in different care settings.”

    The RCP goes on to list the benefits that digital records can bring, and I will take them in turn.
    First, digital records have the potential to improve the quality of patient care. The people at the RCP believe that, with fully digital records, it will be

    “easier for care professionals to bring together a person-centred view of the patient from all the disparate records held in different settings and over time. They believe digital records will improve communication between professionals in different care settings and that it will be easier to drive timely, relevant automatic clinical alerts. They believe that digital records can improve safety by reducing errors in transcription of paper documents and they are of the opinion that it will be easier for patients to access their records for self-care purposes”—

    something I have already outlined.

    The second major benefit comes in NHS quality improvement and research activities. That is very much the key theme of my speech today. The RCP states that digital records could provide:

    “Much improved ability to carry out records-based research (with appropriate protection of confidential data and respect for those who wish to opt out)”—

    my buy-in point—

    “and support for the development of stratified medicine which enables doctors to provide patients with specific treatments according to individual needs. It requires the collection of genotype (information on an individual’s genetics) and phenotype (lifestyle and environmental information) from patients.”

    The final benefit that the RCP highlights is the potential cost saving. With the NHS under increasing pressure, because of a variety of factors, the importance of opportunities to do more for less, while protecting patient outcomes, should not be dismissed. The RCP believes that the potential cost savings could come from reduced duplication of test orders and unsuccessful treatment, fewer errors and reduced time spent on searching for missing paper records.

    I want to give a powerful example that really sums up what this is all about. Using IT and patient data to improve access to breakthrough treatments and personalised medicine is, fundamentally, about patients who are looking for answers and for some hope, not only for themselves, but for everyone in a similar situation. At this point, I want to mention a remarkable woman from my constituency, Christiana Knudsen. Christiana can explain her situation and her journey far more effectively than I ever could. If you will permit me, Mr Wilson, I will read the words she sent to me:

    “The unusual aspect of my situation is that I am relatively young, midforties, and otherwise very healthy, sporty, have a positive mindset and have no cancer in my DNA. Where the illness originates from is a mystery (I personally believe it is from emotional stress from an unusually challenging childhood) and like many cancers, it seems to have been unprovoked. Unfortunately, we do not yet have a nationwide dataset of patients with ampullary cancer that could be used to cross-reference symptoms and treatments. This would, in my case, be a vital resource. It would not only allow doctors to help pinpoint the cause, but also make an informed decision on my treatment according to what has worked well with other patients who have suffered from the disease and who have similar attributes to me.

    Ultimately, I am getting a feeling that I can turn this into something different. Perhaps I can use the situation in a positive way and be an inspiration to others. There’s no point in just going downhill with it, so I am slowly thinking that I could create a new reality around my predicament. One that would depend on my surviving this as best as possible, and showing the rest of the world that you can go through this and remain strong and positive, perhaps even overcome it. Apparently no one has beaten the particular cancer that I have, so why not try to reverse the statistics and make this into a first?”
    Extraordinary! We can all agree that the drive to turn the experience of such a terrible illness into something positive for others, as Christiana and Les have done, is the hallmark of someone truly heroic. When we think about the obstacles that we face in getting a fully digital NHS, and the potential pitfalls along the way, we need only think of Christiana and Les, and the many patients like them who will benefit.

    To conclude, effective use of digitisation in the NHS heralds the possibility of a complete transformation in how health services are delivered. This is one of those rare moments in human innovation when we could make a step change and deliver much more, for significantly less, on a permanent basis. We should, therefore, seize the opportunity with both hands, without delay.

  • David Lammy – 2016 Speech on Mental Health Services

    davidlammy

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lammy in the House of Commons on 28 April 2016.

    I am grateful to have the opportunity of this debate on this very serious subject. I am pleased to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who stands with me on this debate and also wants to speak about our mental health services in Haringey.

    Let me state from the outset that I have the utmost respect for and gratitude towards all the staff working within Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust, who tirelessly care for some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Not least among those is the trust’s chief executive, Maria Kane, who has been recognised by the Health Service Journal as a top NHS chief executive who was shown to be doing a stellar job in the recent BBC “Panorama” film, “Britain’s Mental Health Crisis”. They have all been asked to do, frankly, an impossible job in the constituency and in the London borough of Haringey, which has 12 of the most deprived wards in the country where 2,284 people are receiving personal independence payments, over 270 different languages are spoken, 1,334 people have had their benefits sanctioned, and 826 households have found themselves homeless in the past year. Social tensions are high, funds are tight, and there is an ever-increasing need for urgent help, from mental health services for children and young people to dementia services for the old.

    I bring this debate to the House today because it is unacceptable that, despite the fact that mental health problems cost the economy £100 billion per year, three out of every four people with mental health problems in England receive little or no help for their condition. I suspect that that figure is far higher in my constituency, given the high level of need. Today in this country mental health problems are not just some form of rare disease. The truth is that one in every four people will suffer from mental health problems during the course of this year.

    For the most greatly affected, mental health problems are fatal. It simply cannot be right that in our country in 2016 those who suffer from the most severe mental illnesses die, on average, 15 to 20 years earlier than the general population. I have already brought to the attention of this House the fact that, on average, an adult male in my constituency can expect to live to just under 75 years of age. It is a sobering picture, then, that the average age of a male suffering from a severe mental health problem in my constituency may be under 55. But premature death is not the only complication for my constituents suffering from mental health problems. The Mental Health Taskforce commissioned by NHS England in February this year found that men of African and Caribbean heritage are up to 6.6 times more likely to be admitted as in-patients or detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, indicating a systemic failure to provide effective crisis care for these groups. The taskforce’s draft report also revealed that men from these groups are, on average, detained for five times longer.
    As mental health problems affect so many lives, 23% of the UK’s burden of disease is mental health. That figure is higher than the burden of disease in cancer or in cardiovascular disease, which stands at 16.2%. Why then do mental health services receive only 11% of the NHS’s budget? It is clear that institutional bias against providing proper care for people suffering from mental health problems persists in 2016.

    It was as far back as February 2011 that the coalition Government published their strategy for improving the nation’s mental health, which stated the now much-trumpeted concept of parity of esteem—an idea that began with a Lords amendment from Labour peers in the other place. Then, the very first section of the coalition Government’s infamous Health and Social Care Act 2012, which contained the central duty imposed on the Secretary of State in relation to our treasured national health service, was amended to put these services on an apparently equal footing. However, the reality already facing mental health patients across the country in 2014 was something different: mental health funding was cut for the first time in 10 years, and there were fewer services for children and young people, fewer beds, and more people on acute psychiatric wards.

    Many other strategies and documents were published, promising an improvement in services and repeating the mantra of parity of esteem, until the Prime Minister himself returned to the issue at the beginning of the year and finally announced some funding. However, given that the budget had previously been cut, I find it difficult to see how it was a net increase, not least given the pressures of an ageing population. The Prime Minister announced that those particular funds would be targeted towards helping new and expectant mothers with poor mental health and towards liaison between mental health services, A&E departments and crisis teams, but that is not what I am seeing on the ground.

    As demonstrated so vividly in BBC’s “Panorama”, the truth on the ground could not be more different. Far from the level of funding being equal between physical and mental health services, or the gap decreasing, mental health hospitals have had far deeper cuts imposed on them. The reality is that 3,000 mental health beds have been cut across the country in the past five to six years.

    However bleak the national picture, it does not get anywhere close to the gaping holes in funding for mental health services that face the patients of Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust. Despite the obvious and ever-increasing need, that trust, on top of the vast inequality between physical and mental health services, receives a lower share of income proportionately than any other mental health provider in London. It is hard to understand how an area that includes Tottenham gets the lowest level of funding in London.

    The trust has already done so much cost-cutting over the years that it is the most efficient NHS mental health provider in London. It already has the lowest number of acute mental health in-patient beds in London and higher productivity than other providers. It has also been proven to be underfunded over the course of not one or two, but three independent reports. The first of those reports was back in early 2014, the second in late 2014, and the third in October 2015. The independent evidence is that the trust needs £4 million a year, but it has not received a penny extra in funds, and no firm plan has been established to address the funding gap, which means that the trust now anticipates a deficit of £12.9 million in 2016-17.

    The reality locally is that St Ann’s hospital in my constituency has lost a third of its beds in the past eight years alone, and this is a hospital that is obliged under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to find a bed for every patient detained under that section because they pose a risk to their own life or to the lives of others. We are not talking about varicose veins or wisdom teeth; losing beds in these circumstances has a dire impact.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will be aware of a recent case in the constituency. A young man whom I have known all his life attempted suicide and it has had a life-changing physical effect on his body. My hon. Friend might say a little more about that case, but it happened directly because there was no bed for him.

    St Ann’s hospital is constantly running at over 100% capacity, while other mental health providers in London run at 85% to 90%. With each new admission, St Ann’s wards each have to nominate their “least ill patients” for discharge back into the community. Despite the efforts of staff, does that really present a safe outcome for those vulnerable patients and their families? Is that really a safe outcome for the community that requires the trust to serve it as best it can?

    The shortfall in income is not the only problem the trust faces. Far from the Government’s rhetoric of parity of esteem, the truth in Haringey is that patients are condemned to treatment in a hospital that was designed to meet the needs of 19th-century fever patients, long before the discovery of antibiotics, rather than the delivery of therapeutic interventions appropriate to current patients’ needs.

    Indeed, the most recent Care Quality Commission inspection found that

    “the physical environment of the three inpatient…wards”

    on the St Ann’s site was

    “not fit for purpose due to its age and layout. This impacts on the trusts ability to deliver safe services within this environment.”

    That is a problem that the site has tried to resolve on the 28-acre St Ann’s site over the last decade.

    Finally, the trust submitted plans to develop the site last year. It hopes to fund a new hospital and other health services on one third of the site by building homes on the remaining land. I have to say that I oppose those proposals, because they include only 14% affordable housing, even though London has a housing crisis. Despite my objections, the trust was granted planning permission in March last year.

    There is an alternative proposal—it is a great proposal, which needs support—to build a community land trust. That is exactly what successive Mayors of London have said they want to see. It would result in affordable homes being built on the site, it would be holistic and it would fit with the mental health plan. I hope that the Minister might take an interest in it and that the next Mayor of London, whoever that is, will also take an interest.

    The trust’s plan would not require any capital from NHS England. I have to ask why, on this site and in this constituency, and given the circumstances in which the trust finds itself, no capital is forthcoming from NHS England. It seems that the decision about whether to build a new hospital has, once again, been pushed by the Government into the long grass, and we have been given no date at all.

    This debate about mental health comes on the back of a debate that I secured about the situation of primary care in the borough. I have raised both those subjects because I am seriously worried about health in the London Borough of Haringey and in my constituency. Despite myriad problems, only 16 months ago the independent Carnell Farrar review of the affordability of mental health services provided by the trust found that there was no compelling evidence to support merging the trust with any other organisation; that the trust is relatively efficient; and that there is a clear case for clinical commissioning groups to invest in it.

    I had hoped that that would mark the end of the speculation about the trust’s future, but the CQC report, published in March this year, of the routine inspection conducted in December 2015 gave the trust an overall rating of “requires improvement”. It is no surprise to me that that is the case, despite the efforts of staff and leadership, when funding is so tight and the level of need is so high. The CQC report stated that out of 11 areas, five required improvement, five were good and one was outstanding.

    The report concluded that mental health admission wards for adults required improvement, community-based mental health services required improvement, child and adolescent mental health required improvement, specialist community health services for children and young people required improvement and crisis mental health, including home treatment teams, required improvement. Many detailed recommendations have been made by the CQC to improve services, but no extra money has been put on the table to enable the trust to comply.

    I am grateful to the Minister for last week agreeing to my November request for a cross-party delegation of local MPs to come and discuss our concerns about the trust. Let me put on record what I call on him to do to help the trust, to ensure that the services that it provides are safe and that work begins to ensure true equality between physical and mental health services in Haringey. The context is important, not just because of the suicide rate in England—the number of suicides recently soared to 4,881 in 2014—but, most disturbingly, because the draft version of that report stated that had just £10 million extra been spent on services for people who were suicidal, 400 extra lives would have been saved. For the sake of £25,000, which is less than the national average salary, each of those lives could have been saved.

    I call on the Minister urgently to look at the plans for the redevelopment of the St Ann’s site. I understand that the north London estates plan will be finalised by the end of June, and I seek an assurance that a decision, including consideration of the community land trust’s proposal, will now be made. I ask the Minister to visit the St Ann’s site to see the problems for himself, and I ask him to earmark appropriate funding for the crisis team and children’s mental health services.

    I must warn the Minister that we have seen some terrible cases in my constituency. A young boy was injured and died outside his secondary school as he left with three friends. Police officers were assaulted with a machete. We have seen suicide and attempted suicide, with catastrophic consequences, in the recent past. I trust the Minister will ensure that the trust receives the funding it needs, and that he will recognise the CQC recommendations. By having this debate, I am putting him on notice of the real concerns about the development of the St Ann’s site and the real need to bear down on the pressures that the trust is under, in this pretty tough part of north London.

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on Open Data

    Matt Hancock
    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in London on 28 April 2016.

    The reign of Edward II saw the development of the first postal system. Handwritten notes were added to letters that gave instructions to messengers.

    The earliest known example simply said “Haste. Post haste”.

    Over the next 200 years, these notes became more detailed instructions about who to deliver the message to, and where to find them. By the mid-15th century, the word ‘address’ had new meanings – it was a location and something written on the outside of an envelope.

    But sending mail was expensive, and the number of letters very small, until Charles I created the national postal service in 1635 – for the first time, anyone could send and receive mail. And suddenly everyone needed an address.

    So by the time of the first census in 1801, the UK had the comprehensive address system of street names and numbers that we recognise today.

    Addresses are now part of our lives, our culture and our history. We know that the Great Fire of London started in Pudding Lane. We know who lived at 221b Baker Street and are familiar with the significance of 10 Downing Street.

    I have a personal interest and connection to addressing and its importance.

    My first job was in my family’s software company, which wrote software to put postcodes on addresses, and helped you find an address from a postcode. I have an intimate knowledge of the Postcode Address File. I can vividly remember loading magnetic tape reels of address data into the computer to be processed. My first job involved putting postcodes on addresses and fixing the Y2K bug in COBOL.

    But times have changed. I’ve changed career, and addresses are big data, not on big rolls of tape.

    In government we are committed to open data and have demonstrated its value in the now 24,000 datasets published as open data.

    This is a revolution in attitude and has sprung a revolution in services, improving the lives of the citizens we serve.

    And addresses are the bedrock of our nation’s data infrastructure, of our digital economy. It is extremely important that a modern, digital economy has access to high quality, precise and open address data.

    High quality, precise, and open. Let me go through these in turn.

    High quality

    I want to talk first about high quality address data.

    Addresses are invaluable to our economy and our public services. Addresses help make sure that emergency services get to our door as quickly as possible; addresses help confirm our identity, they help us to access products and services.

    It is true that everything happens somewhere, and as a result, high quality address data is fundamental. And this is the reason why I am so excited to be here today.

    Because it is the people in this room that ensure we have high quality address data.

    I want to pay tribute to the work local authorities do in creating accurate addresses across Britain through the role of the Local Land and Property Gazetteer Custodian, which is invaluable to the process of querying and matching addresses – driving up accuracy and improving the frequency of updates.

    And any data cannot be high quality unless it is definitive. We cannot have different versions of the truth. I am extremely glad that we have a National Address Gazetteer and Geoplace to collaborate across local government, Ordnance Survey and the wider public sector.

    And I have to say this: we have barely scratched the surface of the potential of this data.

    The challenge and the opportunity that lies ahead is to ensure that high quality, precise address data anchors the UK’s digital economy and the transformation of our public services, and is used to improve the lines of the citizens we serve.

    Precise address data

    That brings me to my second point: precision.

    In the past, address data primarily served local needs. Addresses connected people and place. The local postie knew exactly where the letterbox was, so could handle a bit of imprecision.

    But in the last few decades, the uses of addresses have expanded exponentially. Addresses are not just for mail: addresses help connect us to the digital world.

    We rightly demand immediate access to location-based services through our phones.

    We expect to have our journey to work instantly mapped, and expect an Uber to find our exact address, not arrive halfway down the street. And for the millions who have ever put a rural postcode into a sat nav and ended up in the middle of nowhere, they know the importance of precision.

    For digital services, too, to verify your identity, register to vote, get a driving licence, buy broadband, the uses of addresses are countless, from our emergency services, welfare provision, social care, council tax charging, and fraud prevention. The address is the point of reference that anchors people throughout these services and across geographical boundaries.

    So precision is vitally and increasingly important. And this brings me to the Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN). Just as modern 21st century technology has replaced the magnetic tape reels of the past, we now have new needs and new uses for addresses that cannot be met with imprecise identifiers.

    The UPRN is the jewel at the heart of the addressing system. It links address data across a diverse range of systems and services. The UPRN facilitates greater accuracy and immediate data sharing and matching – delivering better services and better outcomes for citizens.

    In short, it links an address in human form to a specific place on this earth. The name of a place in the language of Shakespeare to the longitude and latitude that can drop a package on your doorstep.

    And as we look to the future – if we want to live in smarter cities and smarter homes then we need to exploit the benefits of precise interconnected data. It is difficult to imagine a world of driverless cars, of drone delivery, and truly integrated public services, without realising the benefits of high quality, precise data.

    The case for ensuring we have accurate and precise address data has never been so acute. And it is the UPRN that provides the precision that 21st century users demand.

    Open address data

    So third I want to talk about openness. If we make things open, we make things better.

    Since 2010, the UK has led the world on open data. Just last week it was confirmed that yet again we are ranked first in the world on the World Wide Web Foundation’s Open Data Barometer.

    On data.gov.uk we have record numbers of datasets for citizens and businesses to re-use, boosting the UK economy and driving positive disruption in fields such as transport, financial services and retail.

    But we cannot rest on our laurels.

    We need to remove licensing barriers and paywalls. We need to improve the quality and reliability of government’s data infrastructure.

    And we need to continue to make data open. If we make data open, the quality of that data is improved. Errors are spotted, new solutions are suggested and standards are raised.

    If we put restrictions on data, we restrict its quality and its use. Data should be allowed to flow. Data should be used and re-used.

    It is critical that businesses have the ability to create new and innovative products without being hampered by cost, by licensing conditions, or the inertia caused by uncertainty and doubt.

    This will substantially reduce friction in the public sector and wider economy, thereby encouraging data-driven innovation and public service transformation.

    The evidence for opening up data assets is overwhelming.

    Recent research commissioned by the Open Data Institute found that opening up core public sector data assets will contribute an additional 0.5% of GDP every year.

    UK companies using, producing or investing in open data have a combined annual turnover of over £92 billion, employing over 500,000 people.

    A global market powered by open data from all sectors would create an additional $3 trillion to $5 trillion a year.

    Budget announcement

    So let me link my three themes: high quality, precise, open data.

    In the Budget we set aside £5m to develop options for an authoritative address register that is open and freely available.

    This is extremely exciting. It is critical that address data is made open. The potential benefits are enormous.

    Just as the release of GPS data in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan kick-started a multi-billion dollar proliferation of digital goods and services, and GPS and mapping services now contribute to an industry worth over $90 billion a year in value to the US economy, so open addresses have huge potential now.

    When Denmark created an open address register the economic impact represented a return on investment in excess of 3,000%.

    I want the UK to be the best place in the world to set up and grow a data business. But in order to achieve this, we need to make future innovation simpler and remove the barriers that stifle progress.

    Innovation is impossible without being open to new ideas and new solutions – without being prepared to be bold.

    So we are working across government, with enthusiasm at the highest levels, to explore options for an open address register. There is lots of work for us still to do but we are ambitious and excited by the potential impact that an open address register could have.

    And I pledge today that we want to work with you, hear your thoughts and harness your creativity to make this happen.

    Conclusion

    I believe that countries that find ways to offer their businesses and public services reliable, trusted access to high quality data – will reap similar benefits to countries that led on the provision of access to roads, transport and water in previous centuries.

    During Edward II’s reign – there were just a few thousand letters being distributed around the country each year. It took the establishment of the national postal service in 1635 dramatically to expand that market and to create the need for every property and place to have an address.

    Let us take the next step now and build Britain’s place as the most vibrant, innovative place upon earth, to help fulfil our mission of improving the lives of the citizens we serve.

  • Andy Burnham – 2016 Speech on Hillsborough

    andyburnham

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andy Burnham, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 27 April 2016.

    I thank the Home Secretary for her powerful statement and her kind words. At long last, justice—for the 96, for their families, for all Liverpool supporters, for an entire city. But it took too long in coming, and the struggle for it took too great a toll on too many. Now, those responsible must be held to account for 96 unlawful deaths and a 27-year cover-up.

    Thankfully, the jury saw through the lies. I am sure—to repeat what the Home Secretary said—that the House will join me in thanking the jury for their devotion to this task and for giving two years of their lives to this important public duty.

    When it came, their verdict was simple, clear, powerful and emphatic, but it begged the question: how could something so obvious have taken so long? There are three reasons: first, a police force that has consistently put protecting itself over and above protecting people harmed by Hillsborough; secondly, collusion between that force and a complicit print media; and thirdly, a flawed judicial system that gives the upper hand to those in authority, over and above ordinary people. Let me take each of those issues in turn, starting with South Yorkshire police.

    Can the Home Secretary assure me that there will be no holding back in pursuing prosecutions? The CPS has said that files will be submitted by December. While we understand the complexity, can she urge it to do whatever it can to bring that date forward?
    Of course, the behaviour of some officers, while reprehensible, was not necessarily chargeable, but, through retirement, police officers can still escape misconduct proceedings. In her Policing and Crime Bill, the Home Secretary proposes a 12-month period after retirement where proceedings can be initiated, but one of the lessons of Hillsborough is that there can be no arbitrary time limits on justice and accountability. Will the Home Secretary work with me to insert a Hillsborough clause into her Bill, ending the scandal of retirement as an escape route and of wrongdoers claiming full pensions? Will she join me in making sure that that applies retrospectively?

    The much bigger question for South Yorkshire police to answer today is this: why, at this inquest, did they go back on their 2012 public apology? When the Lord Chief Justice quashed the original inquest, he requested that the new one not degenerate into an “adversarial battle”. Sadly, that is exactly what happened. Shamefully, the cover-up continued in that Warrington courtroom. Millions of pounds of public money was spent retelling discredited lies against Liverpool supporters. Lawyers for retired officers threw disgusting slurs around; those for today’s force tried to establish that others were responsible for the opening of the gate. If the police had chosen to maintain their apology, this inquest would have been much shorter. But they did not, and they put the families through hell once again. It pains me to say it, but the NHS, through the Yorkshire ambulance service, was guilty of the same.

    Does the Home Secretary agree that, because of his handling of this inquest, the position of the South Yorkshire chief constable is now untenable? Does she further agree that the problems go deeper? I promised the families the full truth about Hillsborough. I do not believe they will have it until we know the truth about Orgreave. This force used the same underhand tactics against its own people in the aftermath of the miners’ strike that it would later use to more deadly effect against the people of Liverpool. There has been an IPCC report on Orgreave, but parts of it are redacted. It has been put to me that those parts contain evidence of direct links between Orgreave and Hillsborough.

    This is a time for transparency, not secrecy—time for the people of South Yorkshire to know the full truth about their police force. So will the Home Secretary accept the legal submission from the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and set up a disclosure process? This force has not learned and has not changed. Let me be clear. I do not blame the ordinary police officers—the men and women who did their very best on that day and who today are out there keeping our streets safe—but I do blame their leadership and culture, which seems rotten to the core. Orgreave, Hillsborough, Rotherham: how much more evidence do we need before we act? So will the Home Secretary now order the fundamental reform of this force and consider all potential options?

    Let me turn to collusion between police and the media. The malicious briefings given in the aftermath were devastatingly efficient. They created a false version of events which lingered until yesterday. No one in the police or media has ever been held to account for the incalculable harm they caused in smearing a whole city in its moment of greatest grief. Imagine how it felt to be my constituent Lee Walls, who came through gate C just before 3 pm with his friend Carl Brown. Carl died but Lee survived, but days later he had to read that he was to blame. Given the weakness of the press regulatory system back then, the survivors of this tragedy had no ability to correct the lies. But is it any different today? If a tragedy like Hillsborough were to happen now, victims would not be able quickly to undo the damage of a misleading front page. Leveson recommended a second-stage inquiry to look at the sometimes unhealthy relationship between police and press. I know the Hillsborough families feel strongly that this should be taken forward. So will the Government end the delay and honour the Prime Minister’s promises to the victims of press intrusion?

    I turn to the judicial system. I attended this inquest on many occasions. I saw how hard it was on the families: trapped for two years in a temporary courtroom; told to show no emotion as police lawyers smeared the dead and those who survived—beyond cruel. I welcome Bishop James’s new role in explaining just how cruel this was to the House and to the country. The original inquest was similarly brutal, but that did not even get to the truth. Just as the first inquest muddied the waters after the clarity of the Taylor report, so this inquest, at moments, lost sight of the Hillsborough Independent Panel report. One of the reasons why it produced a different outcome, though, is that this time the families had the best lawyers in the land. If they could have afforded them back in 1990, history might have been very different. At many inquests today there is often a mismatch between the legal representation of public bodies and those of the bereaved. Why should the authorities be able to spend public money like water to protect themselves when families have no such help? So will the Government consider further reforms to the coronial system, including giving the bereaved at least equal legal funding as public bodies? This, the longest case in English legal history, must mark a watershed in how victims are treated.

    The last question is for us in this House. What kind of country leaves people who did no more than wave off their loved ones to a football match still sitting in a courtroom 27 years later begging for the reputations of their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and fathers? The answer is one that needs now to do some deep soul-searching. This cover-up went right to the top. It was advanced in the Committee Rooms of this House and in the press rooms of 10 Downing Street. It persisted because of collusion between elites in politics—on both sides—police and the media. But this Home Secretary stood outside of that. Today I express my sincere admiration and gratitude to her for the stance she has consistently taken in righting this wrong.

    But my final words go to the Hillsborough families. I think of those who did not live to see this day: of the courageous Anne Williams; of my constituent Stephen Whittle, the “97th victim”, who gave his own ticket to a friend on the morning of the match and later took his own life. I think of people like Phil Hammond, who sacrificed his own health to this struggle. I think of the many people who died from outside Merseyside, recognising that this was not just Liverpool’s but the country’s tragedy. I think of Leigh lad Carl Brown and his devoted mum Delia who still visits his grave most days. I think of Trevor and Jenni Hicks and their heart-breaking testimony to the new inquest. But I think most of my friend Margaret Aspinall. She did not just sacrifice everything for her own son James: she took on the heavy burden of fighting for everyone else’s loved ones—and, by God, didn’t she do them proud? It has been the privilege of my life to work with them all. They have prevailed against all the odds. They have kept their dignity in the face of terrible adversity. They could not have shown a more profound love for those they lost on that day. They truly represent the best of what our country is all about. Now it must reflect on how it came to let them down for so long.