Tag: Speeches

  • Justine Greening – 2013 Speech on Tanzania

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, in Tanzania on 5th November 2013.

    Introduction

    I’m delighted to be here in Tanzania addressing this audience, and I would like to start by thanking Prime Minister Pinda for bringing us all together today, and the Capital Markets and Securities Authority for co-hosting this event.

    This is my second visit here as the UK’s Secretary of State for International Development.

    On my last visit, five months ago, I saw a country that can, and will, graduate from aid and deliver prosperity for its people.

    Thanks to a stable government, growth levels of nearly 7% this last decade, exports of goods and services tripling, and the recent discoveries of off-shore gas: Tanzania is on the verge of an economic transformation.

    The challenge is to keep that momentum going, to accelerate growth even faster and to ensure that everyone reaps the benefits of that growth.

    The UK is determined to help Tanzania to realise its enormous potential and in doing so lift everyone out of poverty. The key to this will undoubtedly be investment, trade and jobs.

    This isn’t news to anyone here. We know it’s jobs that help people lift themselves out of poverty for good. You need investment and trade for economic growth and jobs. And you need a thriving private sector, alongside a proper tax base, to support the health services, education system and infrastructure that everyone relies on.

    This is really the lesson of the last 30 years – it is growth and jobs that defeat poverty, aid by itself is not enough. Which is why since becoming Secretary of State for International Development, I have ramped up my Department’s, DFID’s, focus on driving global economic development, making it a top priority to bring down the barriers that stand in the way of businesses and entrepreneurs creating wealth across the developing world. And in our country programmes, challenging ourselves to do more on the ground directly working with government and the private sector.

    Tanzania is very much one of our flagship countries when it comes to this new approach, I believe things that work here can be replicated across Africa and other developing nations.

    Today, and over the course of this visit, I will be announcing new DFID economic development initiatives that will see us work collaboratively with the Tanzanian Government, and the private sector, to plot a path for accelerated growth and jobs.

    Mutual prosperity

    This is in Tanzania’s interests – and it’s also Britain’s best interests. We share this common ground. As Tanzania develops, our relationship will increasingly move from aid to trade.

    The UK is already the leading investor in Tanzania and there are 35 FTSE companies operating here.

    But I know both our countries want to strengthen those commercial links even further and I’m delighted today, to be formally launching a new economic partnership between Tanzania and the UK.

    Tanzania is one of five African countries, along with Ghana, Mozambique, Cote d’Ivorie and Angola, to be forming High Level Prosperity Partnerships with the UK.

    These partnerships cover sectors where UK expertise matches the partner country’s needs. In Tanzania for example we’re hoping to double the number of UK companies doing business in the renewable energy and agriculture sectors by 2015.

    I know Prime Minister Pinda and the Tanzania Government are determined to make a success of this high level partnership – and so are we. Across the UK government, DFID working with our Foreign Office and UKTI, we will be focusing resources on strengthening economic cooperation between our two countries.

    And DFID will be stepping up work to improve the investment and trade environment for domestic and international investors – as evidenced by my second visit here in six months.

    Business Delegation

    This visit is the first time DFID is leading a high-level business delegation to Africa, reflecting our new market-making approach to development.

    I’m delighted to be joined here by 18 companies, large and small, from Britain and around the world and all active in sectors key to Tanzania’s development, agriculture, capital markets, transport and logistics, renewable energy and construction.

    Some of these companies have already won contracts here. For example Asco, an oil and gas company based in Aberdeen, has won a major contract to provide Supply Base services to BG in Tanzania. This will be operated out of the port of Mtwara and will employ over 100 local people.

    Some businesses joining me are interested in expanding their investments in Tanzania and a number who are exploring opportunities for the first time.

    As a British Minister I’m pleased that so many UK companies have come with me on this trip. I want to see far more British businesses joining the development push and working collaboratively with DFID.

    I should be absolutely clear that this is not about bringing back tied aid. The onus will continue to be on British companies to show Tanzania, and other developing countries, why their offer is the best one – and I believe they are well placed to do this. The UK has been amongst the international leaders in corporate governance, and I know the Dar Stock Exchange is keen to learn from other corporate governance approaches, and disseminate to companies already listed, or planning to list.

    At the same time DFID is committed to working with the Tanzanian Government, and with Tanzanian, British and international businesses, to help overcome the barriers that can stop businesses from investing, growing and creating jobs: whether that’s a difficult business environment, information gaps that hold back investment decisions or financial challenges.

    Co-investment models

    There are a number of ways we can do this. Key areas of partnership include the G8 land and tax initiatives which will see us work hand in hand with the Government of Tanzania. The G8 land partnership will put in place a Land Tenure Unit in the Ministry of Lands which will collect and publish data relating to current and future land deals, and develop a road map for land reform by June 2014. The G8 tax partnership will lead to a more efficient, effective, and fair Tanzania tax administration, and bring experts from the UK’s HMRC to advise on customs modernisation. The Government will also see more UK support to Trade Mark East Africa, which is reducing the barriers to trade.

    But often the last, most difficult barrier to overcome will be getting the lifeblood of enterprise and entrepreneurship flowing – finance.

    On my last visit here I spoke to businesses, including Agrica in Kilombero and Unilever, about how DFID could help collaborate with the private sector to unlock financing projects with clear development outcomes.

    The clear ask from them was for DFID to not just look at traditional grants, but to invest in commercial partnerships on sensible business ventures that would also benefit thousands of farmers, employees, and consumers.

    In this way DFID would share some of the risk that would otherwise stop investment from taking place – and we would also share the reward if the venture was a success.

    Today I’m announcing that DFID is going to trial this new approach of working with the private sector here in Tanzania.

    We’ve selected four local projects, which, following due diligence, will likely see us co invest with commercial and not-for-profit partners using returnable loans and equity, rather than traditional aid grants.

    The first of these projects will see us co invest in a tea project, through a broader partnership with Unilever, and UK based philanthropic organisations, the Wood Family Trust, and the Gatsby Foundation.

    This project is part of the Tanzania Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania programme. SAGCOT, as most of you will know is an innovative public-private partnership, driven by the Government of Tanzania, that aims to catalyse $2.1billion of private investment over twenty years and triple the area’s agricultural input.

    DFID is already investing £36 million in the SAGCOT initiative. We’ve now earmarked up to a further £7.5 million to support this specific project, which aims to boost the incomes of more than 3,600 potential tea farmers spread throughout 27 villages. Importantly the funding will be returnable for subsequent investments with the Wood Family Trust that will generate development outcomes.

    We are also set to co invest in three further projects, through the Africa Agricultural Development Company, AgDevCo, which aims to raise rural incomes and increase food security, and also reinvests all profit generated into further agricultural development in Africa.

    Through AgDevCo, DFID will co invest in Equity for Africa, a UK based organisation that provides leasing finance to SMEs in the agriculture sector. This funding will allow small businesses to scale up, initially in the Mbeya region and in due course throughout Tanzania.

    We’re also looking to finance Tanzanian Tea Packers Ltd who want to develop a site as a £ 1.5MW hydro power plant to directly benefit 430 smallholder households working for the Wakulima Tea Company, and to help raise the incomes of 15,000 further smallholder farmers supplying the tea company. The new plant will end the existing reliance on very expensive diesel generators, and will provide excess power to the TANESCO grid.

    Finally we’re planning to co-finance with Kilombero Plantations, East Africa’s leading rice producer, to help finance their rice husk gasification plant – a potential first for Africa. This will allow the business to increase its land under irrigation and therefore its yields. KPL already works with over 5000 smallholder outgrowers and plans to further expand this These are all important projects for supporting Tanzania’s agriculture sector and ultimately feeding millions of Tanzanians. Furthermore we estimate that over 80% of the proposed funding will be returned to AgDevCo by 2021 and used for reinvestment in further agricultural projects.

    DFID will be monitoring the progress of these projects and watching their success.

    If we’re sharing the risk of launching or expanding a business venture, it’s right that we should also share the rewards. And by adopting new methods of financing, we will be able to redeploy our aid money many times over, multiplying the development impact.

    I hope this innovative, self-sustaining, job-creating investment, which generates a return that can itself be reinvested, can be a major part of how DFID works in the future and complement the investment that CDC already undertakes.

    Capital markets

    These co investment ventures could be the short-term future for helping businesses to grow and create more jobs. However the long-term future for financing business growth at scale needs the development of capital markets.

    It is capital markets that mobilise long-term finance for the public and private sectors. They also drive improvement in corporate, environmental, social and governance standards. And they give people, through owning shares, a stake in economic growth.

    Tanzania’s capital market is at an early stage, with seventeen companies listed on the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange, but we’re seeing rapid expansion.

    And it came across clearly from my discussions with CSMA, Dar Stock Exchange and others on my previous visit, that this capital market, when properly developed has the potential to transform the Tanzanian economy.

    I believe the UK, which is a global centre of financial expertise, can play a key role in working in partnership to develop Tanzania and Africa’s capital markets.

    We have already established strong links with Africa. There are 103 sub-Saharan companies listed on London Stock Exchange markets with a market capitalisation of over $70 billion. Since 2007, African companies have raised over $9.9 billion on LSE markets from international investors. But true success lies in having a vibrant capital market right here in Tanzania, in Africa, to meet the rapidly growing demand for investment.

    And DFID, together with other development partners, is funding financial sector development organisations in Tanzania and across the region.

    But we can do more to ensure African capital markets share in UK expertise.

    I am delighted to announce today that DFID will form a strategic partnership with the London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) to support capital market development in East Africa.

    As a first step, we will look at addressing the very real skills shortages that our country partners have identified as a critical constraint on market growth. We will be providing bespoke training for financial sector professionals, regulators and government officials, in partnership with the world-class LSEG Academy. Our experience, your entrepreneurship should make for a powerful combination.

    Of course we’re not only concerned with financing big business in Tanzania. It is often smaller enterprises that hold the key to creating more jobs in communities across this country and more prosperous economies. But 69% of smaller-sized Tanzanian businesses have no access to finance, and only one in six Tanzanian adults has access to formal financial services.

    The Enterprise Growth Market, that Prime Minister Pinda will shortly be launching, is an incredibly exciting initiative for providing much needed finance for smaller growing companies. The UK, alongside some of Tanzania’s other development partners have supported this initiative through the Financial Sector Deepening Trust of Tanzania.

    Finally, I’m also announcing today that DFID will invest £4.4million in Women’s World Banking, a global network of financial service providers dedicated to achieving women’s economic empowerment by increasing their access to financial services, assets and resources.

    And this investment, in a partnership with three commercial banks in the region including NMB in Tanzania, will provide over one million women across Africa with access to financial services.

    Investing in women in this way is hugely powerful – we know that when a woman generates her own income she re-invests 90% of it in her family and community. Women are an engine of growth and no country can fully develop unless women are economically empowered as well as men.

    Conclusion: Improving the business environment

    Today I’ve outlined a number of new projects that will see the United Kingdom government and my Department, DFID, work with government, with business to help get finance flowing in Tanzania, giving existing and emerging businesses the economic lift-off they need to grow. Of course finance is one of the ingredients for success. There are more. If there isn’t the right kind of climate for trade and investment then businesses won’t prosper.

    Over the next two days I will hope to hear more from businesses on the ground about how the UK can further support the Tanzanian Government to move up the Doing Business ranking – I know there are particular concerns around the complexity of the tax regime and availability of power and electricity.

    Improving the business environment will be a key part of our Prosperity Partnership, and over the course of this visit I will be announcing measures to boost infrastructure in Tanzania and speed up trade across the region.

    The World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference next month will be a very important moment for Tanzania. The UK is strongly supporting an ambitious outcome including an agreement on Trade Facilitation to cut unnecessary bureaucracy at all borders, which is costing business and ultimately the public.

    This will benefit all those who trade, especially SMEs and firms in developing countries who currently have the least efficient customs procedures.

    If agreed, we estimate this deal would deliver $100billion each year to the global economy – with $10bn of this going to Sub-Saharan Africa. So let’s all do everything possible to shout about the benefits of this deal and make sure we get the right outcome next month. 100% of a 60% perfect deal is better than a failed outcome which gives no benefits to anyone.

    The UK Government will work with Tanzania, building on our new prosperity partnership, developing our commercial links and pushing down the remaining barriers to growth.

    There is no doubt in my mind that with the right support and the political will, Tanzania can complete its success story to a middle income country, a major market and economy of the future, and in doing so, improving the day to day lives and prospects of millions of Tanzanians and generations to come.

  • Justine Greening – 2013 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening to the 2013 Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.

    I’m proud to be a member of a party and a government that is cracking on with the job of turning this great country around.

    Like everyone else in this room – I would have preferred a Cabinet that was a lot more blue and Conservative and a lot less yellow and Lib Dem.

    We all know that Labour left our country in the worst possible state.

    I was with George Osborne in the Treasury team when came into Government in 2010 – so I know as well as anyone the state in which Labour left our nation’s finances.

    We’ve come a long way since then, and we are turning the corner. This Conservative led government is getting things back on track –  we have cut the deficit by a third, capped benefits, businesses have created 1.4 million new jobs, we’ve cut taxes for 25 million people, and more besides.

    And as someone who fought and won a seat off Labour in 2005 I know that what comes up on the doorstep is generally what’s happening at here in the UK.

    But I also know what we are doing overseas matters hugely in today’s complex world.

    I’ve never looked at that world through rose tinted glasses but I believe what we do in development is crucial for a successful Britain.

    We are a nation that’s always engaged with the rest of the world, in every sense: culturally, commercially and politically. Britain has always been a country that matters. That’s in our interest. Doing this role I’ve had the chance to see us from the outside, as others do. They have an overwhelmingly positive view of Britain. We have a standing in this world that is unique. It counts for something. It means always being heard in a crowded world, always being listened to. And critically, as I know from my time in industry before I came into politics, the UK is the ultimate brand that our companies rely on, to open doors to new markets for them.

    How do we maintain that vital advantage? Well, international development is a practical part of that approach – alongside a strong defence policy, which we heard about just now from Philip, and skilled diplomacy, which we’ll hear about next from William.

    Last week, William and I were representing Britain at the United Nations. While we were there, we met the US secretary of state John Kerry.

    If John Kerry didn’t know the Rotherham Yorkshire accent before that meeting, he did by the end of it.

    And we talked about our humanitarian work in Syria.

    It’s our biggest ever response to any humanitarian crisis and it reflects the scale, despair and brutality of the situation.  The face of this Syrian crisis is a child’s face.  Out of school, traumatised.

    Our humanitarian work for Syria is about helping ordinary people – who led lives we’d recognise but have now lost everything.

    When I’ve had the chance to meet Syrian refugees, in camps and communities in Lebanon and Jordan, I’ve met proud people – they don’t want handouts, they just want their lives back. And we should support them to make that happen.

    We’re not a country that just stands by or looks away as people have their lives shattered through no fault of their own.

    When people in need call out to the international community, to the world for help, Britain is one of those countries that they can count on. And I am proud about that.

    I’m also proud of what we’re achieving when it comes to tackling the three big killer diseases: AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Our investment in the Global Fund is saving literally millions of lives with the help of the British people. One life saved every three minutes over the next three years.

    And for developing countries, healthcare is about economic productivity.

    In a country like Ghana, if you get malaria during the year, and the rest of your family does too, it’s like being badly laid up with flu, only not just once during the winter, but every other month – you get it, your children get it. It can be fatal. And aside from the strain on the health system, a family in Ghana will spend 30% of their entire household income on the medical costs of treating malaria.

    For businesses with a workforce that’s often sick, it’s a big productivity issue too. So if we can reduce malaria, we increase economic productivity. That’s why the UK announced last week that we are stepping up our Global Fund investment in malaria, AIDS and TB with people like Bill Gates. He’s not someone who invests for the sake of it and neither am I – we invest, because we both know this pays back.

    He expects results and so do I.

    As a former Treasury minister I’m not interested in schemes or programmes that fail to make a long term dent in extreme poverty. And I’ve taken decisions to exit aid programmes in countries that are successfully developing and able to invest for themselves, like India and South Africa

    That’s also why one of my top priorities is investing in girls and women. That investment delivers some of the best returns of any development programmes – when a girl gets education she marries later, has fewer children, and the children she does have will be healthier. When she can earn extra income, a woman will reinvest 90% of it in her family and community.

    It may sounds boring to non-accountants out there, but I’m proud that in procurement, last month up against competition from the public and private sector, my department won the annual award for the Best International Procurement from the Chartered Institute for Procurement and Supply

    This is the kind of stuff I’ve been getting to grips with, driving up value for money and driving out waste.

    But it’s not just about a value for money approach to Britain’s commitment to being there for humanitarian crises and being part of the effort to defeat the global diseases that hold countries back.

    We also target our efforts to reduce conflict, and boost the rule of law, which helps make Britain safer at home.

    That’s why I sit with William Hague, Theresa May and Philip Hammond on the Prime Minister’s National Security Council. Because aid has a role in making us safer.

    What the Prime Minister has called the Golden Thread is about building good governance and the institutions that make fairer, more productive and more stable countries.

    In other words, countries where people can go about their business in peace without having to flee violence or poverty.

    Our work in Somalia is a case in point. It’s a country that’s been under siege from the terror group Al Shabaab – a group that the Government of Somalia has been fighting with our help. It’s closely affiliated to Al Qaeda. If you didn’t know of Al Shabaab before the recent atrocity in Nairobi, you sadly do now. It shows you just what they’re up against and why they need our help.

    We are helping train their police force, rebuilding Mogadishu’s crumbling prison and developing their criminal justice system to contain that terror threat as much as they can.

    Similarly in Yemen, my Ministerial colleague Alan Duncan has led the way working with that country’s government to keep their country stable and secure.

    Of course it’s good for those countries, but it’s good for us too.

    It can’t ever make sense to allow terrorists to flourish overseas, and to reach our shores before we do something about it.

    It’s sensible to tackle these risks at source.

    Its overseas aid with a tough objective. In this case, being involved early so that our soldiers don’t have to be.

    In fact about half of our budget now goes on helping countries to have a better chance to remain stable, so in turn we have a better chance to keep safe.

    And key to a stable, successful country with prospects is a thriving private sector, jobs and businesses, trading with Britain and the rest of the world.

    I don’t want countries to continue indefinitely being dependent on our aid. I never have. I want the opposite – an end to aid dependency through jobs.

    That’s why we’re helping developing economies grow faster but can we be smarter about the UK locking into the business opportunities those emerging economies present? Yes. That’s why the work I’m now doing with British industry – the retailers, infrastructure companies, London Stock Exchange, oil and mining companies to name a few – has the chance to be a real win/win situation, helping developing economies grow, but with responsible investment from our British companies aswell.

    Seven of the 15 fastest growing economies in the world today are in Africa.  And while Africa may still have immense challenges, it is a continent now in transition. Development is happening.

    China has already transitioned significantly, lifting millions out of extreme poverty on the way – their purchase of our cars, built here, is one of the reasons why our car industry is a net exporter for the first time since the 1970s.

    So development doesn’t just develop their economies, it develops ours too.

    28 chief execs of some of the UK’s biggest companies wrote to the Financial Times earlier this year to make this very point. As they know, relationships count in business. We can be building those relationships early in the next wave of emerging economies, or we can start building them late after others are already there.

    So yes, we spend 0.7% of our National Income on international development and of course it means that 99.3% isn’t spent on international development.

    But I can assure you that in meeting this manifesto promise, it’s a 0.7%, that’s 100% in our national interest.

    The easiest thing would be to do nothing. To turn our face away from extreme poverty and hardship, to ignore the instability, ignore the effects until they reach our shores, to not worry about getting into emerging markets until after everyone else, but that’s not sensible.

    And in an ever more joined up world – To those who say “stop the world I want to get off” that’s not an option. So reaching out, shaping our world has never been more important.

    We are a country that looks out to the world and shapes it. We don’t just sit back and wait for events to shape us.

    Britain is great because our values, our institutions do stand for something that is real that others want to share, we have a history that means we’re unique in having our Commonwealth.

    And at the end of the day, we’re helping people provide for themselves, building opportunity, growing trade markets, keeping Britain safe and getting a headstart in the global race.

    That sounds like a Conservative agenda for international development to me, and that’s exactly what this Government is committed to delivering.

  • Justine Greening – 2012 Speech on International Aid Transparency

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for International Development, Justine Greening, which was held on 6th December 2012.

    Sustained growth and poverty eradication around the world have been underpinned by what the Prime Minister has called the golden thread of development: open societies and open economies where everyone can participate and use their skills and maximise their potential. Transparency is one of the building blocks of the golden thread. Transparency helps to create the basic conditions that people need to lift themselves out of poverty.

    The Prime Minister has challenged us all to get our house in order, including in the developed world. Driving greater aid transparency is a critical part of this. I made it clear in my first few weeks in this job that I will continue to focus on getting value for money from our aid programmes and will do it transparently. UK taxpayers will demand no less from us.

    But it is not just citizens in Britain who need more transparency of aid budgets. Transparency means that recipient governments can plan and manage the resources coming into their country. It empowers citizens and parliamentarians in these countries to hold governments and donors to account.

    In India DFID supported the Government of Bihar to develop the Right to Public Services Act 2011 and implement a public awareness campaign to improve services for the poor. Establishing this as a right and raising awareness of it, led to a big increase in application for services. The first 5 months saw more than 9 million applications and there was an associated improvement in service delivery with more than 80 per cent of applications successfully processed.

    So transparency is important. I’m speaking to the converted here. Today I want to talk about two things. Firstly, I want to commend the UK aid sector for the progress that we have made together.

    And secondly, I will announce new work that means my department will be pursuing even faster progress.

    Progress

    The UK has played a leading role on aid transparency amongst the major donors.

    The Prime Minister’s commitment to transparent public servicesand open data has enabled DFID to lead and drive a similar agenda in the aid world. DFID has made great strides over the last couple of years. We were the first development organisation to publish data according to the International Aid Transparency Initiative’s standard.

    We redesigned project documents to make them more accessible to the public. Transparency featured heavily in DFID’s Country Operational Plans and in the Multilateral Aid Review. We have continued to put more new and detailed information on our aid spend into the public domain. And we are continually working to improve the quality of this data.

    All organisations receiving DFID Partnership Programme Arrangement funding will now publish data in line with the International Aid Transparency Initiative standard this year. UK Civil Society Organisations, such as CAFOD, Oxfam GB and Save the Children UK, are leading the world in this area. DFID is promoting greater transparency and accountability in the countries with which we work – encouraging work towards more open government and fiscal transparency.

    These efforts have borne fruit – we saw DFID jump from 5th place to 1st place in the space of a year in the Publish What You Fund Aid Transparency Index. It was great recognition of our achievements and the effort put in by DFID staff all over the world.

    Even so, this also needs to be an international effort. Transparency was one of the four key principles that countries agreed in Busan.

    The International Aid Transparency Initiative agreed a common standard for aid transparency in February last year. This is now a shared objective of 35 major aid providers. It is endorsed by 22 partner countries. And in November UN Women became the 100th organisation to publish their data.

    DFID has a bold and ambitious vision on transparency.

    We believe it should be possible for anyone, anywhere to track our aid spending right through the aid system – from the taxpayer to the beneficiaries. Increasing the traceability of aid will help beneficiaries feed-back on its impact, increase transparency of governments, and reduce waste, fraud and corruption.

    At the Open Up! conference, DFID shared the Department’s new Open Aid Information Platform. I think this is really exciting. The Platform will give line of sight on our programmes from start to finish. But the Aid Information Platform will only work if organisations and intermediaries down the aid chain provide information about what they are doing with DFID’s funding. What more do we need to do?

    So we are launching what I’ve called an Aid Transparency Challenge to ourselves and our partners to deliver this vision.

    Firstly, we will require organisations receiving and managing funds from DFID to release open data on how this money is spent in a common, standard, reusable format.

    They will need to require this of sub-contractors and sub-agencies – right through the aid chain. This will include the unique identifiers that will make it possible to follow the money.

    We will support our partners in this process and we’re going to make sure it is not an unreasonable barrier to accessing DFID’s aid. But we are very serious about making aid more traceable.

    Secondly, we recognise that making aid information open is the just the start. For transparency to be transformational we need to encourage the use of this aid data. So to do this we will establish an Aid Transparency Challenge Fund to stimulate work by developers to create tools promoting the use of open aid information, supporting the traceability of aid, and improving results reporting.

    Such tools may also help us answer critical questions on traceability of different delivery chain models; making data relevant to different users whether they are aid data experts in Kenya or activists in Britain; and relating aid data with other datasets, such as development indicators.

    We believe this is a public good so we will require that all tools developed through this Fund are made ‘open source’ so that others can use and further develop them. To go alongside this we will also bring developers together to build awareness of the business opportunities open aid data creates.

    New International Development Sector Transparency Board

    DFID will also seek challenges from the people who produce and use this data through establishing a new International Development Sector Transparency Board by March next year. This Board will have representatives from DFID, civil society, aid contractors, open data experts, partner countries, privacy experts and other government department representatives.

    Finally, we will improve our data through geocoding aid, showing on maps where DFID aid is spent at the local level. And we can make it compatible with partner country budget classifications, enabling government and citizens to see where aid is supporting their own priorities increasing accountability. We will improve our data by publishing feedback of those directly affected by aid.

    To conclude, we are at a critical juncture in development with discussions of a new framework for international development. Now is the opportunity to build on our progress in driving a more transparent aid system and look forward to the opportunities we now have to work together to embed the principles and practice of transparency in the heart of development cooperation.

  • Justine Greening – 2011 Speech to the Economic Research Council

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of a speech made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Justine Greening MP, at the Economic Research Council, held on 15th March 2011.

    Introduction

    Thank you.

    It’s a pleasure to be here this evening and it’s always nice to see a few familiar faces.

    Although I think it’s fair to say that today’s event is a little more complicated than I originally thought it would be.

    The week before a Budget is not usually the best time for a Treasury Minister to be out delivering lectures on what the Government is doing.

    If last year is anything to go by, we’re usually holed up in Westminster; pouring over submissions; and weighing up rather difficult decisions.

    In fact, that’s largely how the last month has been.

    So this is something of a welcome reprieve.

    Yet that doesn’t distract from the fact that now really isn’t the time for discussing domestic policy.

    Which is why I’ve had to think quite hard about what I what I want to talk about today.

    Initially, I thought I should review some of the Government’s ongoing initiatives.

    For example, our strategy for updating Whitehall’s accountancy frameworks.

    But just by mentioning this as a possibility, I can see that some of you are already starting to nod off.

    Which is why, in the end, I thought better of it.

    Instead, I’ve decided to deliver my own Budget speech, 8 days before the Chancellor.

    Unfortunately, I’m afraid I won’t be giving anything away.

    For today I want to talk about my own experiences in negotiating the EU Budget.

    The difficulties I’ve faced when trying to reach an agreed position.

    And how I’ve found working with Minister’s from across the European Union.

    Because there’s sometimes a perception that venturing across the Channel is quite a fun and carefree pastime.

    I often read about Ministers ‘going off to Brussels’, and I think ‘if only you knew’.

    I’m afraid it’s nothing like a relaxed jaunt around mainland Europe… taking in a few sites… and seeing a few old friends.

    It’s more of a test of endurance.

    Where you rarely venture outside your conference chamber.

    And sleep becomes something of a luxury.

    I’m sure this hasn’t always been the case.

    But things have certainly moved on since the early days of the economic union.

    History

    Which is where I’d like to start, by giving a very brief history lesson.

    The Second World War clearly demonstrated the costs of a divided Europe.

    No one wanted to see a repeat performance.

    And in the wake of all this turmoil, what people needed was to know that this could never happen again.

    Closer economic and social ties seemed a very good starting point.

    And so it proved.

    In 1950 the first seeds of a united Europe were sown… as the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community drew the continent closer together.

    By 1957, the Treaty of Rome had been signed.

    This created the European Economic Community (EEC), allowing Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands access to a ‘Common Market’…

    …One without the tariffs, subsidies and other protectionist measures that may seem politically attractive, but make no economic sense.

    And in the 60 years that followed, things have really gathered momentum.

    The EU has grown at an astonishing pace.

    It’s now a far more complex organisation, with greater policy powers, and a lot more countries to boot.

    From the original 6, we now have close to 30 Member States.

    Where the focus is firmly on free trade and the free movement of labour and capital – something I’m sure you all understand the value of.

    But with greater economic cohesion comes the need for more standardised European policy.

    This is inevitable, but how you go about it is the subject of huge debate.

    Which is why we have the EU Budget, that has also evolved over time.

    In the 1980s for instance, the whole budgetary process pretty much ground to a halt.

    Why?

    Well, the main reason was that the annual negotiations lacked structure.

    No basic parameters were set… which meant, in theory at least, there were an infinite number of possible budget solutions and permutations.

    And, increasingly, Member States were so far apart in terms of an agreed position that reaching a resolution became impossible.

    It was clear, therefore, that the process for settling annual expenditure had to change.

    Which is why the EU adopted a completely new EU Budget Framework, covering consecutive seven-year periods.

    I’m afraid this is where it gets a little more complicated, so bear with me.

    I won’t bore you with the detail, but essentially, every seven years, Member States have to agree on the maximum amount of money that can possibly be spent on each pre-defined policy area.

    And by policy area I mean quite broad categories like security, citizenship, or agriculture.

    Broad enough at least to leave significant room for manoeuvre when it comes to the more itemised annual Budget discussions.

    This sounds simple enough, as these are only high level European discussions after all.

    They don’t involve you actually committing any money to anything.

    You’re just setting the boundaries for later years.

    But the thing is, every member of the Council has to sign-off every separate policy area within the seven-year framework.

    With over 80 of them to sort out, all needing unanimous agreement, this can take anything up to a year-and-a-half…

    And some things do tend to dominate these discussions – if only due to their size and the difficult way they’re managed.

    The CAP and Structural Funds alone represent almost three quarters of the entire Budget.

    And then you have broad themes like improving EU competitiveness – which swallows up another 10%…

    …external spending on things like foreign aid – which is about half that amount again…

    …as well as more general administration costs – that have a worrying habit of increasing with each consecutive year.

    Yet that’s not the end of the story.

    Far from it in fact.

    Once you’ve agreed the seven year limits, you then have to concentrate on how this translates to the annual Budgets.

    The framework may have set the highest amount that can be spent in any given year – in any specific area- but these are just the basic principles.

    Now you have to negotiate within these limits on every item of expenditure.

    To make matters even more complicated, this is agreed on a Qualified Majority basis – which makes pinning down the details rather challenging.

    And last year was no exception.

    Current economic position and Budget success

    Now the point I’d like to make here is that when, back in 2005, the last seven year Financial Perspective was agreed, Europe was in a rather different economic position.

    We had growth, investment, employment, prosperity.

    People were living under the impression that this would never change.

    And the seven year framework had a similar air of optimism that doesn’t really reflect the situation we now find ourselves in.

    The global financial crisis of 2008 hit the EU incredibly hard, and Member States are still feeling its impact today.

    Banks had to be bailed out, countries had to be bailed out too, and even the IMF got involved.

    Yes, Europe had its own rules that were meant to provide a buffer in such circumstances.

    But these were not always adhered to.

    The Stability and Growth Pact, for example, was meant to keep Member States’ finances in check.

    Like the EU Budget, it was meant to show prudence, caution, restraint… and ensure that Member States had something to fall back on should something unfortunate arise.

    And like the EU Budget, it hasn’t always worked as it should have done.

    The Stability and Growth pact has sanctions in place for any Member States who fail to play by the rules.

    In theory, they should have to keep deficits below 3% of GDP, and debt levels below 60%.

    The idea was always that if you failed to keep your end of the bargain – if you let things slip – then you could face fines as well as other sanctions.

    But in over a decade of monetary union, quite a few Member States ran unsustainable fiscal policies… and nobody ever forced them to tighten their belts.

    Sanctions were never used.

    Not even once.

    Which meant that when it came to dealing with the financial crisis, we were all a little out of shape.

    And this is a valuable lesson that needs to be learnt…

    …That responsible finances are vital to preserving the strength of the EU.

    This is the message we took to last year’s EU Budget talks.

    Where we wanted to break the usual pattern of these negotiations.

    With Parliament always asking for more.

    Council advocating for slightly less.

    And the result being somewhere in the middle.

    In this respect, we were quite successful.

    I remember clearly when the Commission first proposed an EU Budget increase of 5.8%.

    This seemed rather out of kilter with the austerity measures we –and other Member States – were taking forward back home.

    But not to be outdone, the European Parliament called then for a 6% rise.

    Needless to say, both positions were miles away from where we’d placed ourselves… and, fortunately, many other countries agreed.

    What we wanted to see was more of a focus on where the EU can add value.

    Asking questions like, when it comes to intervention, what are we trying to achieve?

    And is spending money really the best way to go about it?

    But, at all times, it’s worth remembering the many other policy tools that the EU has at its fingertips.

    Things like regulation – which I understand comes with its own costs – but if applied correctly can be of great benefit.

    There are also initiatives, such as the European Investment Bank, which could be used more widely to achieve some of Council’s ambitions.

    In a sense, this all about good financial management.

    As someone with a background in audit, I know all too well the importance of sound book-keeping.

    That every pound – or Euro – spent needs to be scrutinised.

    That if something represents poor value for money, then we need to look again at our approach.

    And when times are hard, when spending comes at a premium, then we simply can’t afford to carry on with business as ususal.

    Which is why, last year, we pushed so hard for a Budget freeze for 2011.

    We certainly weren’t alone in our thinking.

    But the majority of members opted for an overall increaseof 2.9%.

    This led to the Prime Minister and 12 other EU leaders making a public statement that they wouldn’t accept any increase beyond that level.

    Which is not the usual way things are done in Europe… but it worked… so maybe there’s a lesson to be learnt there too?

    This broke the usual dynamic ahead of brokering a final deal.

    And made sure that 2.9% was where we settled.

    Yet no sooner had one year’s negotiations finished, then next year’s positioning began.

    Now it’s no secret that we intend to remain tough when it comes to EU spending.

    Only last December we agreed a joint letter on the EU Budget size with Germany, France, Finland and the Netherlands…

    Calling on Europe to step up its efforts…

    …to limit growth in the next two Budgets…

    …and from that point onwards ensure that any increases are, at most, in line with inflation.

    In this respect, we’ve managed to take a firm stance, and to do so jointly with other similarly minded countries.

    As there’s always strength in numbers.

    And the EU – with its intricate network of alliances – is no exception to this rule.

    Importance of relationships

    Like in any organisation, you’ve got to build relationships.

    And these are far more complex than any soap opera I’ve ever seen.

    Where at times it can seem like everyone has competing objectives.

    Vested interests.

    Or a point to prove.

    Knowing who your friends are becomes vitally important.

    It’s these relationships that make or break deals.

    Build trust, or generate suspicion.

    And either give you the confidence to push for your priorities. Or make you sit back and watch as events unfold.

    There are undoubtedly bigger players in the game, but there is not a set dynamic in EU negotiations.

    And it’s important that we don’t oversimplify the situation.

    Let’s be clear, there’s a lot more to Europe then the UK, Germany and France.

    Everyone, from Lithuania to Cyprus, plays their part.

    Although it’s certainly the case that new Member States face an obvious dilemma.

    Where they have huge potential.

    Vast quantities of untapped resources.

    And who rightly deserve to be a part of the economic union.

    But when it comes to building allegiances, they face a difficult decision.

    Would they be better off teaming up with their neighbours?

    Taking a safety in numbers approach?

    Or, alternatively, just going it alone?

    Because a popular misconception is that the newer members – the Accession 8, and those who followed in their footsteps – are some sort of collective.

    This couldn’t be further from the truth.

    These countries have a strong sense of identity.

    Varied cultures.

    And distinct sensitivities.

    They certainly don’t want to be lumped together.

    And when it comes to the EU Budget, they’re just as likely to have differences of opinion as we are.

    The whole dynamic is very complicated.

    Where I’m sure many of you are familiar with the complicated nature of office politics, well Europe is not too dissimilar.

    It’s also the case that the relationship the EU has with the rest of the world has an important bearing on Budget discussions.

    Where there’s a real need for Europe to be seen as a success.

    A source of investment, employment and growth in its own right.

    Which is why, the general feeling across the Union is that Europe needs to show a degree of strength after a period of weakness.

    And, in the case of the European Budget, this couldn’t be more apparent.

    Where the perception is that the bigger the Budget, the better the EU is doing.

    Which politically is understandable.

    But economically is a little dangerous.

    There’s a difficult balance to strike.

    Conclusion

    In fact, if there’s one message I want to leave you with it’s that the whole EU Budget process is incredibly complicated.

    It’s something of a rubix cube of a conundrum.

    Where you’ve got to try and align the national, European, political and economic interests to deliver the right result.

    And once you’ve successfully negotiated each of these obstacles…

    …Once you have a completely signed-off Budget…

    …You then have to repeat the game all over again.

    And look ahead to next year’s discussions.

    So I hope that my little speech has made the process a bit clearer – or at least as clear as it can be.

    That on the one hand, you can see why we’re calling on our neighbours to show restraint.

    To rein in European spending.

    And work together to consolidate Europe’s financial position.

    And on the other, why this can be difficult given the nature of the European game.

    That everyone wants to see the EU succeed.

    But that we sometimes differ in opinion when it comes to how to achieve this.

    At times this can be quite testing.

    But, as a Government, we’ve made good progress in Europe since coming to office.

    And I’m sure this will continue.

    So now that I’ve spoken for almost half an hour, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

    What you feel should be Europe’s priorities going forward.

    And what you believe is the right way to approach these complicated issues.

    Thank you.

  • Justine Greening – 2011 Speech to the CIPFA/ HM Treasury World Class Performance Symposium

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Justine Greening MP, at the CIPFA/ HM Treasury World Class Performance Symposium 2011, on 17th March 2011.

    Introduction

    Thank you.

    First of all I’d like to thank you for inviting me to speak, and I’d like to welcome everyone, particularly the international delegates, who have come here to be with us today.

    Treasury fully supports this event, and as Whitehall’s central finance department, we have a real stake in what you discuss here.

    Because today is all about how we can improve the way Government manages its budget.

    How we can deliver the best possible value for money.

    And how you, as finance professionals, will help make this happen.

    Because any accountant looking at the balance sheet we inherited could see that things need to change.

    The books just didn’t balance.

    Expenditure dwarfed income.

    And borrowing levels risked spiralling out of control.

    Which is why, as a Government, we’ve set out a clear strategy to deal with this mess.

    To put the economy back on track.

    And deliver more efficient public services.

    But setting out a business plan that’s got the backing of the OECD and the IMF is one thing.

    Delivering on it is quite another.

    To be successful, we need to have three things in place:

    Across Government, we need the right people in charge – making the decisions and driving efficiency.

    We need the right systems in place – to produce clear, consistent data that’s easily digestible.

    And we need the right processes to make this happen – to control what we do and challenge conventional practice.

    Without these, it becomes difficult to make judgments on how we should be spending taxpayer’s money.

    So let me talk a little about each of these things in turn.

    Starting with the most important – people.

    People – Managing taxpayers money wisely

    It goes without saying that if you want something done properly… then you need to have the right people, with the right tools, who can get the job done.

    Which is why the first thing I want to see is more effective leadership.

    Where performance is driven from the top…

    …and having more finance professionals in senior posts will help us achieve this.

    Secondly, we need to create a more cost… conscious… culture.

    As when times are hard, when resources are being squeezed, every decision should be based on detailed financial analysis.

    The factual, not the anecdotal.

    Thirdly, we need greater finance professionalism across Government as a whole.

    Where all public servants have – at the very minimum – some degree of financial awareness or business savvy.

    So that they understand the basic concepts of accounting and financial management and can apply them when making judgements on spending.

    And finally, we need expert central functions.

    What I mean by this, is that we have to be more joined up in our thinking.

    Not just across departments, but also within them.

    This is about having a financial management culture and processes that are as robust as you’d find in the private sector.

    And a good first step is to adopt more of the disciplines of a business group finance function.

    Departmental business plans and Spending Review have helped focus minds. So, like any successful organisation, we want our finance teams to ask themselves a few simple questions:

    How has your department performed generally in recent years – and how has it performed financially?

    What’s been spent to achieve this level of performance?

    And, going forward, what are your priorities, and the risks you face in delivering them?

    Again, this something I believe we can do better.

    Systems – Clear line of sight / Oscar

    But it’s no use having the right people in place if the systems they have to deal with – that they need to rely on – aren’t up to the task.

    Having been a private sector accountant myself, I can see that we have a big job ahead of us when it comes to getting our financial architecture right.

    Currently, complexity across Government can too often disguise the real story; make even the most basic financial reports difficult to decipher; and undermine proper debate and scrutiny.

    An example I often use – many of you will be aware of this – is our current reporting standards.

    Where in the House of Commons, we discuss and vote on estimates – which is one set of numbers.

    With different departments, we negotiate budgets – a completely separate set of figures.

    And as a Government, we publish the national accounts – which are constructed using different metrics again.

    Needless to say, this is a rather inefficient way of doing things.

    It’s unnecessarily opaque.

    And it serves no one’s interests – especially not taxpayers’.

    Instead, we want to present our finances in a way that’s credible, makes them more transparent, and helps get the best possible value for money from every pound spent.

    So we’re introducing a whole new approach to financial accounting across Government.

    Through the Clear Line of Sight programme, we’re bringing together the various accounting frameworks that are used across Whitehall, and, as far as possible, replacing them with a single set of uniform standards.

    That tackles the estimates, budgets and national accounts problem I just mentioned.

    This is commonsense policy making – it will make all our lives easier; and go a long way towards making the public sector accounts more accessible.

    We’re also looking to replace the Treasury’s COINS system, which I realise has been the source of many headaches.

    In its place, we intend to roll out the new OSCAR database that will provide reliable financial and non-financial information.

    This will make it easier for permanent secretaries to manage the money in their budgets.

    It will enable us to drive value across Government.

    And it will also create a system that is simpler; more coherent; and ultimately, one that generates greater accountability.

    Because, if we’re to deliver on our other policy reforms, we have to improve the way we manage taxpayers’ money.

    And everyone will have to get on board.

    Proceses – Individual departments

    This is why one of the first things we did after the Spending Review was to ask every department to come up with its own business plan.

    Where each plan sets out how the department will deliver more, for less.

    How public services can be run more efficiently.

    And in the interests of transparency, what’s being spent to deliver these objectives.

    Whether it’s staff, capital, or facilities – all this information needs to be in the public domain.

    We are also working towards greater disclosure of Government transactions.

    It’s for this reason that Government bodies will now publish all expenditure over twenty-five thousand pounds, any IT contracts over ten thousand pounds, and all tenders over the same amount.

    And why, from this summer, we’ll be asking departments to publish a quarterly scorecard, charting their performance.

    Challenges for implementation

    Yes, this will place certain demands on public servants.

    It will be challenging.

    Not only due to increased reporting requirements, but also in terms of being more openly accountable for the services you deliver.

    Yet we shouldn’t fear this.

    More openness and accountability will lead to vastly improved management of resources.

    And, by focusing only on the most useful data for judging performance and value for money, we will also bear down on data burdens.

    This will make the public sector a better place to work.

    And it will thrust the accounting profession into the limelight – demonstrating why finance professionals in the public sector have such an important role.

    Conclusion

    I know it’s nothing new for a Government to say that it needs to alter the way it operates.

    That we need to learn a few lessons from our private sector partners.

    And that the status quo isn’t going to deliver the level of financial management we need.

    And it’s a real priority of ours to deliver the Finance Transformation Project that we have now set in train.

    We’re committed to improving the way we manage our money.

    We know if we’re to deliver on our plans, we have to get a firm grip on our finances.

    Better numbers will mean better decisions.

    And only by working together can we ensure that the nation’s finances are run more efficiently, more transparently, and more prudently in the future.

    Thank you.

  • Damian Green – 2014 Speech to APCC

    damiangreen

    Below is the text of the speech made by Damian Green, the Home Office Minister, to the APCC on 21st January 2014.

    PCCs are vital in driving reform

    It’s been a challenging first year in office for everyone. We asked a lot of you. We asked you to empower communities and hold the police to account – at a time when the economic climate meant we had to make some very difficult decisions about police budgets; and at a time when the reputation of the police has been challenged by the unacceptable actions of a small minority of officers.

    But you rose to the occasion. Many of you are tackling these challenges head-on.

    You worked hard on behalf of the local communities that elected you. In terms of public awareness and their understanding of your role, undoubtedly you have had a bigger impact in a single year than police authorities did in the decade before that.

    Improving services through reform

    And we asked you to join us in radically transforming the police– embracing new technology, exploring new ways of collaborative working and driving new ideas to improve policing and increase efficiency. And that is what I want to talk about mostly today – collaboration.

    There have been some great success stories so far.

    To use an example from my local force, Kent is using Predictive Policing, which combines historic data with predictive algorithms, to identify areas most likely to be affected by crime to help allocate resources and target officers according to demand. So far this seems to have worked well.

    Northamptonshire and Cheshire, two forces separated by geography but united in collaboration, have created a joint shared service providing 24 hour HR advice, uniform ordering and admin functions. The two forces had already centralised these functions independently but recognised that joining together and sharing the investment cost would be more cost effective.

    West Midlands Police used ‘Priority Based Budgeting’ to re-examine services and challenge ways of working identifying savings of £48.7 million in the process.

    And as we have seen recently forces are making increasing use of Body Worn Video. We welcome the use of camera technology to protect the public and to support the police in discharging their duties. Body worn video is a powerful tool and can be used by the police to gather evidence to investigate crime. That evidence could also be used to investigate complaints and hold the police to account, but also evidence I have seen is that it affects behaviour. Officers have said to me that by saying this interview is being filmed then behaviours change. One example mentioned to me was of an individual who was upset at being stopped and his friend started filming the incident on his camera phone. The officer said good I am filming you as well. I hope to see more of this happening.

    There are national initiatives also. The National Procurement Hub will enable forces to make purchases at the best prices. Its management information will allow you to judge value for money. The Hub is not yet fully rolled out, but we are ensuring you can access the latest full year information on procurement spend which has been collected for all forces. I would urge you very strongly to use these tools to the fullest extent.

    PCC have played a vital role in driving this transformation – working with Chief Constables to ensure services are delivered more effectively and efficiently to the public.

    Progress is encouraging. HMIC’s assessment is that the vast majority of police forces are rising to the challenge of reducing budgets while protecting service to the public.

    But everybody in this room understands that 2014 is going to be difficult too.

    Central government funding for policing will need to reduce by a fifth over the spending review period. And as the Chancellor indicated earlier this month, further spending cuts will be required after the election. We published our provisional grant report before Christmas and, in line with the usual process, we are consulting on it. We will publish our final report early next month.

    Let’s be clear though. The sort of transformation we are talking about here is not about this year’s or next year’s budget settlement. It is not about trimming a little fat and hoping that another era of plenty comes along. It is about fundamentally re-thinking how policing is configured so it is efficient and effective for years to come.

    We know this can be done. Because it is being done.

    Collaboration, blue light integration and rehabilitation

    Collaboration

    I am pleased so many of you attended the ‘Innovation through Collaboration’ event at the Home Office last month, which gave you and chief constables an opportunity to learn from one another’s experiences of collaboration and to discuss bidding for the Police Innovation Fund.

    There is clearly no one-size-fits all approach with collaboration. Equally there is no reason why some forces should be planning less than 10% of their savings from collaboration. That may well be an opportunity missed.

    Collaboration is not just about saving money. It is about providing a more effective service. HMIC are reviewing the extent to which forces are meeting the Strategic Policing Requirement in relation to key national threats such as organised crime. On these and other crime threats forces need to collaborate with each other and with the wider public and private sectors.

    Emergency services integration

    By enhancing accountability you are driving greater effectiveness and efficiency. If it works for policing, it should work for other emergency services, like the fire service. In finding significant scope for reform, Sir Ken Knight’s independent report was clear that fire services could not, by themselves, achieve the required transformational change. The vast majority of fire and police boundaries are co-terminus and over half of police stations in England are within 1km of a fire station. The two services work closely together in more ways than one.

    Emergency services collaborating will deliver efficiencies. In Hampshire, fire, police and the county council are joining up corporate services and expect to save around £4 million a year. In Merseyside a joint police and fire command and control centre is being built.

    I know that many of you are exploring integration of police and fire.

    I want to see more of this. The government will set out in its response to the Knight Review shortly, but I want to be clear now that we want to work with you to build on what is already happening and to drive this forward by removing barriers and unlocking opportunities.

    And I would like collaboration to go further. Working closely with ambulance services will bring real benefits. In London, the Met and London Ambulance have created joint response units which are reducing average waiting times for the police from 36 minutes to just 5 minutes. That may not sound like a lot of time, but it has transformed their operations. In Surrey, there is a programme of collaboration between the police, fire and ambulance. Their collaboration will see the three services join forces to find ways of streamlining operations, sharing more premises and delivering joint safety campaigns. It would be good to see you driving similar joint working across the country.

    Transforming Rehabilitation

    Rehabilitation is another area where reform is urgently needed. For too long there has been a lack of real action on finding sustainable ways to reduce reoffending rates.

    It is not good enough that more than 148,000 criminals convicted or cautioned over the last year had at least 15 previous convictions or cautions.

    It is not good enough that over half a million offenders had at least one previous conviction or caution.

    And it is not good enough that the group of offenders most likely to reoffend – those sentenced to short sentences – are currently ignored by the system and receive no statutory rehabilitation.

    That’s nearly 85,000 further crimes committed by a group who walk out of prison with £46 in their pocket, and get little or no support to get their lives back on track and turn away from crime.

    That’s why we’re launched the Transforming Rehabilitation programme. This will provide more effective rehabilitation at better value to the taxpayer in a way that is sustainable. We want to draw on all the skills and services that can be offered by practitioners across the public, private and voluntary sectors.

    Opening up the market to a range of new suppliers will see innovative ways of working whilst giving the Department the financial flexibility to extend supervision and support to every former offender.

    I know that many of you have concerns about the changes, particularly the implications for the existing key local partnerships and accountability.

    To achieve their objective of reducing reoffending, providers will need to work closely with local partners – including yourselves.

    I want you to have a strong role in the reforms. I welcome the fact that many of you have actively engaged with the Programme to ensure your priorities are understood. We have listened to the concern, raised by many of you, that for the evaluation of bids to fully reflect key local priorities, it needs to include the views of those who have with the expertise and awareness at a local level.

    While there can be no formal role for PCCs or any other stakeholder in the evaluation process, the Programme has developed a proposal to establish a forum through which key local stakeholders with the expertise and awareness of local issues can provide advice to the local competition teams.

    The local competition teams will be in touch with all PCCs to discuss arrangements for this proposal and I hope this will make it easier for us to work closely with them to make the reforms as innovative and successful as possible.

    Innovation and technology – Innovation Fund

    Last year we announced an innovation fund worth up to £50m a year to incentivise collaboration, transformation and innovative delivery to improve effectiveness and efficiency of policing. The fund starts in full from 2014/15. But there was the need and readiness to press ahead now with transformation. So we introduced a £20 million precursor fund in 2013/14.

    We received, unsurprisingly, a fantastic response. There were 115 bids, for which I would like to thank you all. I was delighted to be able to announce last week that every police force in England and Wales will receive a share of that £20million. And £3.8 million of that funding will be used by six forces to collaborate on proposals to share buildings and infrastructure with the fire and rescue service, saving millions of pounds of public money in the process. A number of other themes emerging from the bidding process for the innovation fund included:

    – six forces who will receive funding to enhance public protection and support by investing in body worn camera technology;

    – a 24-force consortium who will move public-facing services such as incident reporting, Freedom of Information requests and impounded vehicle release payments online; and

    – nine forces who will be using the funding to roll out use of mobile data equipment so officers can access intelligence, take statements and update crime records without having to return to the station – obviously allows them to spend more time on the streets and in communities rather than sat behind their desks.

    We were able to approve 65 of the Innovation Fund bids in this round.

    Unfortunately we could not approve them all. In a number of cases there were positive ideas with potential to bring about transformation. But further work was needed to understand and articulate the impact of those changes. I hope you will feel encouraged to build on these bids and re-submit as part of future bidding rounds.

    We will be announcing the timetable for bidding to the 2014/15 fund in the very near future. In the meantime, we are conducting a review of the precursor fund. In particular, we are considering where the process, communications and criteria might be strengthened to ensure that the fund prioritises bids that truly reflect innovation and collaboration.

    I hope the feedback we have provided will help you prepare your bids for next year.

    Innovation through technology

    And when you are thinking about your bids, or indeed about future ways of working in general, think about the best ways to use the new technology that is available. You may have indulged in the New Year sales. According to the British Retail Consortium there was a 19% growth in internet purchases from a year earlier, the fastest increase in four years. Clearly this has a lot to do with convenience. And avoiding the bad weather! But it is more than that. This amounts to a change in mindset.

    Technology is shifting people’s behaviour and expectations of public services. Policing is responding to this. But are we responding fast enough? The re-launched police.uk website gives the public detailed local crime maps. It is a great tool. But in a world of apps that allow you to book your taxi, find out when your bus is coming and do your banking – all on your mobile, having access to data about crimes in their area on line is perhaps regular rather than remarkable. And if people can’t do relatively basic things like report crime on-line, as is the case with the majority of forces, then it is disappointing. There are exceptions like Sussex which allows the public to report crime online and Avon and Somerset which allows the public to track the progress of reported crimes online. In general, I think we would all admit that more could and should be done

    There are good foundations. All forces provide information via their website and Twitter. Nearly all forces (95%) provide information via Facebook; and two-thirds via YouTube. In many forces, the public can contact individual officers or specific neighbourhood teams.

    These are good examples. But I do not want to limit our ambitions to doing old things with new tools. We want to harness this potential to bring about transformational change. That is what digital policing is about.

    Neighbourhood policing illustrates this challenge. Neighbourhood policing improves public confidence and supports crime reduction, by tackling anti-social behaviour right through to national threats like organised crime. And neighbourhood policing is key to building and maintaining police integrity.

    HMIC has previously raised concerns that neighbourhood policing is being put at risk by changes driven by cost-cutting. But more recent findings from the College and HMIC suggests that budget cuts need not lead to a withdrawal from neighbourhood policing. So long as you and senior officers remain committed to supporting innovative approaches to delivery, neighbourhood policing can continue to go from strength to strength – and I know many of you are indeed strongly committed to this. The whole point of the new policing landscape is that the Home Office and the Policing Minister does not tell the police how they should operate. But it can play its part. We are giving PCSOs new powers to enhance their ability to support effective neighbourhood policing, and we have consulted on whether any further powers are needed. If you think there is more we can do I will be interested in hearing from you. In the meantime, HMIC will be looking again at this as part of its next Valuing the Police inspection.

    Here too we need to think about technology. For example, how does the traditional neighbourhood policing method serve a generation of young people immersed who are immersed in social networks, whose experience of crime might more likely be on-line than in their physical neighbourhood?

    More widely, is policing configured for the 86% of people in the UK who, according to the Office for National Statistics, use the internet, or the 14% who do not?

    It is not just the public and the police taking advantage of technology. Of course criminals are too. Which is why we are improving law enforcement capabilities to tackle cyber crime, including through developing cyber skills in mainstream policing.

    Embedding a culture of innovation in policing

    Innovation is vital. But it must become part of business as usual. As you know, the College is working to improve knowledge about effective crime-fighting interventions by developing networks so forces and academics can collaborate. Many of you will be having conversations with universities about potential new approaches. You should also work with the College to share good practice.

    I am also keen for the Home Office to support your emerging thinking on the form and function of a Police ICT Company to support forces to use technology in new ways.

    A new contract which the Home Office has just awarded for the provision of Evidence Based Decision Support will also help. This is founded on partnership across industry, SMEs and academia. This enables the right team of IT experts to focus on your specific problems before you make critical decisions to invest significant resources so they can support your forces transformation agenda and ensure it is set-up to succeed.

    The concept has been proven at the MoD and in Australia. I am looking forward to seeing what it can do for us.

    The team is here today and ready to answer your questions over lunch.

    A culture of reform has to encompass police leadership. I very much welcome the APCC’s timely review of ACPO. I look forward to working with you and the College to ensure we have the right police leadership structures to fit in with the new policing landscape.

    Challenges: integrity, undercover policing, the Fed review and FNOs

    I have set out how reform and innovation are tools to enable us to get on the front foot. But some elements of policing will always be about identifying and responding to challenges. I want to talk about some of them. But my point is that a policing profession that is constantly innovating will be better placed to deal with these challenges that emerge.

    Integrity

    You will, I am sure, share the Government’s determination to improve police integrity. It lies at the heart of the public’s confidence in policing. I know many of you are anxious about reductions to your budgets to resource the IPCC better. We believe the transfer for 2014/15 is proportionate and necessary to allow the IPCC to build capacity and take on additional cases this year. We are providing the IPCC with up to £800,000 from the Home Office budget in 2013/14 for transition costs and a further £10m in capital in 2014/15. The College of Policing also plays a key role in ensuring that all forces meet the highest level of standards in professional behaviour and is committed to delivering the package of measures announced by the Home Secretary to improve police integrity. One important step of this is.

    Undercover policing

    The alleged inappropriate behaviour of undercover officers in the past has caused concern. The two investigations into those allegations will report shortly, so I will cannot comment further. But we are working to ensure undercover work is done properly.

    We have recently introduced legislation increasing the oversight of undercover deployments by law enforcement officers.

    Law enforcement agencies must now notify the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners, all of whom are retired senior judges, of all undercover deployments. We have raised the internal authorisation level from Superintendent to Assistant Chief Constable. Deployments beyond 12 months must now be signed off by the independent Office of the Surveillance Commissioners before being authorised by the Chief Constable.

    Given the level of concern, the Home Secretary asked HMIC to conduct a thorough review of all undercover policing units. We will consider any recommendations carefully so we can assure the public that undercover operations, which are vital to public protection, are only used when necessary and do not go beyond the realms of decency. We must make sure the public have trust in this very sensitive but very necessary area of policing.

    I should also mention the Fed Review.

    As you will be aware, the independent review of the Police Federation, by Sir David Normington, published its report yesterday. The review raises some serious issues and we look forward to seeing the Federation’s response. It is important that all organisations have the opportunity to reform their functions and practices and we recognise the important step the Federation has taken in carrying out this review. It is essential that all parts of the policing landscape, including the Federation, have the confidence of the public to act with integrity and impartiality at all times.

    One other issue I want to touch on is Foreign national offenders

    The level of crime in England and Wales committed by foreign nationals is sizeable and increasing. In 2011/12 the Metropolitan Police arrested over 74,000 foreign national offenders. The scale of the challenge is less well understood outside London. But we are building that evidence for the rest of the country and will share it as soon as we can to help you deal with the problem more effectively.

    This is not about picking on people because they are not from the UK. Foreign national offenders are first and foremost criminals. The fact that they are not UK nationals provides us with other options for dealing with them.

    For example, from the beginning of this month it has been possible to take action to remove EEA nationals who are not exercising or who are abusing their Treaty rights.

    This potentially an important tool but it can only be effective if the police and immigration enforcement work together. We have been providing information to forces on steps the police can take. We will do more in the coming weeks.

    Conclusion

    There are a huge range of challenges. But just as importantly, we must maximise the opportunities. Overall crime is down to the lowest levels since the Crime Survey for England and Wales started in 1981; victim satisfaction is up and the proportion of officers on the frontline is increasing.

    But it’s all our job to ensure crime continues to fall. We want the public to feel protected by a truly 21st century police force. And we want officers to feel they belong to a proud profession.

    You PCCs uniquely placed to make sure this happens. That is because you are elected because you best understand the local people’s concerns. You have a responsibility to secure and maintain efficient and effective policing. And you have the opportunity to drive through innovative reforms. I know you are already doing this. I also know it is not going to be easy. You will encounter resistance. But many of you will find willing partners within policing, the Home Office and with policy colleagues.

  • Damian Green – 2013 Speech at College of Policing

    damiangreen

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Home Office Minister, Damian Green, on 16th October 2013 at the inaugural College of Policing Conference.

    I mostly want to celebrate the opening of the college this morning. But I should also make a short comment on recent developments in the Andrew Mitchell case. The Home Secretary has set out the government’s position on the IPCC statement, and while we wait for the CPS decision I want to comment further on the detail.

    The vast majority of police officers do operate honestly; we should also not forget that the police do a dangerous job and put their lives on the line for the public. The Police Bravery Awards, which I will be attending tomorrow, is a testament to the truly courageous and important work that the police do.

    But whilst I can say with confidence that corruption and misconduct in the police are thankfully the rare exception and not the norm, where it does occur – that is, in the small minority of officers whose behaviour is entirely unacceptable – it can have a corrosive effect on the reputation of all police officers, undermines justice and fundamentally strikes at the heart of public confidence in the police.

    It used to be said that policing was the last unreformed public service.

    I don’t think anyone could still cast that aspersion at the profession after the three years of radical reforms instituted by this government. Police and crime commissioners and the National Crime Agency are hugely significant structural changes; the reform of the IPCC will bring about ethical changes; and the empowerment of the public through democracy and transparency are massive cultural changes.

    But, as I set out in my speech to Reform earlier this year, change must be a continuous thing. And while there may be landmarks in the process of change, they must be islands along the way in the gradual flow of improvement – not destinations in themselves.

    Transform policing

    PCCs and the NCA have the potential to transform policing at all levels – from the grassroots work of the neighbourhood officer all the way to the top-level work against international drugs cartels. But that potential will be missed if policing lacks that constant flow of improvement.

    And that is where the College of Policing comes in. The most important constituent parts of the police force are, of course, the 200,000 police officers, PCSOs, specials and police staff that make up its ranks. For our structural reforms to reach the heights of which we think they are capable, we need those officers to come along for the ride, to be a part of the continuous flow of improvement, and, at the risk of extending the metaphor, to help in its navigation.

    The college will increase professionalism across all levels of policing and give opportunities for all ranks to have their say in how the work will be delivered. I hope that will give officers a new sense of ownership of the profession and a new determination to shape it for the better from within.

    But there is another crucial development that I want to see the college help bring about – and that is a transformation in the way policing is perceived by the public at large. Surveys show that public trust in policing remains high despite what has been a difficult year in terms of media headlines.

    I am sure police still retain their well-deserved reputation for bravery, dedication, public service and commitment. But is that enough? Are our sights set at a high enough level? Shouldn’t we also want police recognised for their problem solving ability, their ingenuity, their creativity, their intelligence?

    The recent flood of applications for a handful of jobs at Wiltshire Police and the 4,000 applications for 200 jobs at Avon and Somerset Police shows policing also still retains its reputation as an attractive career. I cannot draw here on any public polling, but I am guessing those applicants were attracted by the public service elements of the job, the excitement it offered and the long-term stability of the career. I wonder how many of them thought of the opportunities to develop management and leadership skills, the chance to join a dynamic and changing profession and the possibilities of developing transferrable skills that could allow them to move backwards and forwards between high-powered private and public sector jobs.

    Ambition

    Again, I would ask, are we setting our sights high enough?

    I do not think, traditionally, policing has been ambitious enough in this area. And I want the college to change that ambition, to put it on a higher plane, to build a profession that is truly attractive to all. In my constituency duties I am often called upon to speak to students in Years 12 and 13. In these discussions, we sometimes talk about their hopes for the future. In among the usual desires to be a barrister, a doctor, or, even sometimes, a politician, it would be nice to hear more of them speak of their hopes to become a detective, or a chief constable?

    We often talk about a need to make policing more representative – especially in terms of sex, race and sexual orientation – and I will return to the general theme later in my speech. But they are not the only differences that make up the rich tapestry of the diverse society that is modern-day Britain. Policing needs to become more representative in other ways too, both culturally and socially.

    A huge expansion in higher education in this country has mirrored changes in the jobs market. A university education is now seen as a staple for the career choices of many of our young people. So it is no surprise that 49% of all school leavers now go on to study for a degree. But that aspiration for more education is not being matched in the police, where levels of graduates remain way below the near-half of all young people going to university. Research shows that fewer than a third of those assessed by the police recruitment centre over the last three years had a degree. Of those who went on to pass the assessment and enter the police force, 189 had no formal educational qualifications, with 282 earning a post-graduate degree. Entry to the police is clearly not keeping pace with changes to the country’s education patterns.

    Now, some people will say that policing should be a job restricted to graduates only. I am not one of them. Policing is a huge profession which calls for a similarly large range of skills and abilities. And I would never regard academic attainment in itself to be a sufficient qualification for all the challenges that policing holds. But what I would say is that the world has changed. Two decades ago, investigating a computer crime would probably have involved arresting a shoplifter at Dixons. Now it is more likely to refer to a complex internet-based scamming operation, potentially spanning many different countries. There is clearly a role there for people with significant academic ability, ideally those trained in computer science. That is obviously just a snapshot of the challenges faced by modern policing – in the 15 minutes I have to address you I could not hope to encompass them all. But think of the other degree-level qualifications that could assist in a career in policing – economics, languages, management, law.

    Great professions

    As I said, I would never argue for a degree-level entry to be introduced to policing, but I want the college to turn it into a career that is more attractive to the right sort of graduates. Policing should be regarded as one of the great professions, alongside those of the law and medicine. And as much as I would like to hear sixth form students talking of their ambitions to enter it, so I would like their parents to have that aspiration for their children. The proposals we announced earlier this week on direct entry will make it easier for people with private sector skills (with or without degrees) to bring them into policing at senior ranks and to advance more quickly through the profession. But the real work to make a long-lasting change to the perceptions of policing as an aspirational career choice will come through the college.

    Of course, the challenge to the college goes way beyond simply making it a more attractive career option for school leavers. It must also change the culture of policing from within. As well as conducting its core duties of improving overall professionalism, it will lead a transformation in the way police officers do their jobs, and, crucially, how they do their jobs.

    The public expects, rightly, only the very highest standards of integrity from police officers. You do not need me to tell you that there have been several incidents that have hit the headlines in the last year where those standards have not been met. The vast majority of police officers do their job with the utmost dedication to the oath they swear when taking the Office of Constable. The College will ensure the small minority who do not reach the required standards becomes even smaller. It is developing a Code of Ethics to underpin policing throughout the profession, one which will be just as relevant to a Chief Constable of 30 years’ experience and a new starter in their first day in the job. The code will have statutory force and will be used as the basis for testing throughout policing careers.

    The public also expects policing in Cumbria to be carried out in the same way that it is in Cornwall and that of Norfolk to be the equal of Northumbria. While people might like to see a familiar badge when they greet their local neighbourhood officer, they will have no truck with the 43-force model being delivered in different ways if it means their force is falling behind standards elsewhere. Our police.uk website gives people the opportunity to compare force performance and our introduction of PCCs gives them a way of expressing dissatisfaction if they don’t like what they find. But the College has the ability to ensure those regional variations are few and far between. Experts within the College itself already studying ‘what works’ in policing and will produce a new evidence-based model for forces to adopt. And, crucially, they will identify the best work going on across the country and ensure it is shared swiftly with the other forces.

    Taken together, I hope all these transformational elements will help produce a revolution in the way policing is delivered. Although, on reflection, perhaps revolution is the wrong word. Perhaps it would be more apt to describe it as a evolutionary process. For while I hope – and indeed expect – the College to produce far-reaching results, I very much hope they will be delivered in a collaborative way and with all police officers using their skills and experience to help shape the process of modernisation.

    And I also hope, to return to my earlier theme, that it will make policing a more attractive profession to all, to make it more representative of the people it serves. So more representative of the proportion of the population going on to degrees and post-graduate education; more representative in terms of race; more representative in terms; more representative in terms of sexual orientation. And this is not just a hope rooted in some sort of politically correct notion of what is right (although clearly this must be right), but also in a selfish notion of what is more productive. For having a police force that more accurately represents the people it serves can only strengthen the link between officer and civilian and that can only strengthen policing.

    The College’s Releasing Potential programme should mark a significant step towards these long-running aims and, again, it will be able to share best practice across all 43 forces wherever it finds good work.

    You may think my words today have set out an ambitious wish-list. Indeed, I hope you think it is ambitious wish list, my desires for the future of policing require no less than great ambition. We already have a very able police force, one that has produced a drop in crime rates of more than 10% under this government despite the difficult decisions we had to take on funding. But I want an even better police force, one that can continue its recent successes into the future and confront head-on the ever-changing nature of criminality.

    And I want the College of Policing to be at the vanguard of that transformation.

  • Damian Green – 2013 Speech on the Role of Magistrates

    damiangreen

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, Damian Green, on the 14th August 2013.

    I’m very pleased to be here at the first of a series of events with magistrates across the country. When we began to think about the role of magistrates, as part of our wider reforms of the criminal justice system, I was adamant that we should involve magistrates themselves as early as possible in shaping our reforms. I want their thoughts and ideas to be at the heart of our policy.

    I think that the speed with which the places on these events were booked up is testament to the appetite to engage with the change going on in the Criminal Justice System, and to inform how we go about it.

    This government has already made big changes to Criminal Justice:

    – we have brought in Police and Crime Commissioners

    – we are transforming the way we rehabilitate offenders;

    – we’re reforming legal aid;

    – and we’ve made important improvements to support for victims.

    However we still have much more to do to make sure the system continues to serve the public as well as it should. And the Strategy and Action Plan, which we launched in June, announces wide ranging changes to streamline and digitise the way we work, as well as to make the system more accountable, and more transparent, to victims and to the public.

    At this time of significant change in the CJS, this is the right time for everyone to contribute to a debate on how to ensure magistrates remain central to our criminal justice system. We have an opportunity here to both strengthen and widen the role of the magistracy as part of our reforms, and also to use the expertise and unique position of magistrates to help us make the criminal justice system better.

    Magistrates in England and Wales play a vital role in our judiciary. In 2011, magistrates’ courts dealt with around 19 out of every 20 defendants in criminal cases. Only 6% of defendants had a trial in the crown court.

    In addition, magistrates use civil jurisdiction to help the police and local authorities combat anti-social behaviour and gang-violence; and to protect thousands of children from abuse each year.

    Magistrates with their legal advisers and district judges share a breadth and volume of work which is not matched by any other judicial office-holder in England and Wales. They are volunteers, are truly the cornerstone of our justice system. Not only that, they are a model of what a good citizen should be. The 23,500 magistrates are the best of our country. They want to give their skills, expertise and time for the good of others, for nothing. We are lucky to have them, and we should be proud of them.

    Our summary justice system was founded with the magistracy at the centre. Magistrates have dispensed justice in their local communities for more than 650 years, since Justices of the Peace Act introduced the novel proposition that decent members of the community, not themselves lawyers, should be vested with the power to administer justice.

    That’s not to say that the magistracy hasn’t changed since then. Thankfully, it has. They are a vibrant and diverse group, which much more closely represents the communities they serve. I am particularly impressed by the improvements which have made terms of gender and ethnicity. There is still though more to do to ensure that the magistracy is truly representative of the country.

    The role has also changed over time, and will continue to do so, as communities change. But the qualities of today’s magistracy – fairness, good character, understanding of people and the application of sound judgement – have been constant for decades.

    Magistrates are impressive people. They perform a vital role, bringing the valuable experience and common sense of ordinary people to the justice system, and devoting large amounts of your valuable time to serving your communities. Volunteering to be a magistrate is a prime example of the kind of commitment from people to improve their own communities that this Government has sought to promote.

    But we could be doing much more to make better use of this knowledge and expertise. That is why I want to ensure that we equip the magistracy with what they need to enable them to continue to make a real difference in an ever changing landscape, and ensure that they are used where they can provide maximum benefit.

    In my relatively short time as Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice I have seen the considerable problems in the criminal justice system – too many delays, and too much waste. And I am sure that all magistrates must have witnessed this time and time again as they have sat in court over the years.

    There would be outrage if fewer than half of hospital operations went ahead on time, or if children turning up at school found that their lessons only went ahead less than half of the time. I can only imagine how frustrated magistrates’ must feel when after volunteering their valuable time, they find that only 44% of trials proceed as planned – not even half of them.

    The reforms that we’re making in the Strategy and Action Plan aim to cut out much of the waste, and reduce the delays. I hope that this will mean a more fulfilling experience for magistrates on the Bench, and this also provides an opportunity to make better use of their skills and expertise.

    That is why today I am launching a piece of work that will involve them directly in developing a new statement of the role of the magistrate.

    Of course a magistrates core role is, and will remain as judicial office-holders, dispensing justice for the benefit of the communities they serve. That won’t change. However, I am keen that we should maximise the value which they bring to those communities, and to emphasise the value that the Government places on their services and skills.

    In order to make sure that we maximise the value of magistrates and get their role in a twenty-first century justice system right, I want to ask them three questions:

    How do we ensure that Magistrates are dealing with the right cases in court?

    The time magistrates spend in court should be focussed on those cases where they make a real difference to their communities. Their core skills of deciding on bail, fact-finding and sentencing should be put to best effect.

    For example, three magistrates needn’t spend time rubber-stamping foregone conclusions in simple road traffic cases where the defendant doesn’t contest the matter, and doesn’t even turn up. One magistrate could deal with this much more efficiently in an office.

    That’s why we announced that we will be legislating to remove those cases from traditional courtrooms, so that magistrates can focus their time in court on the more serious and contested cases which best use their skills.

    For some the obvious way to keep more cases in magistrates’ courts will be to increase their custodial sentencing powers, and there is an attractive logic to this. However, there is also a risk that this could cause additional pressure on the prison population, because sentencing practices could change.

    We have done some work analysing the potential impact of increased powers – as have the Magistrates Association – and we agree on the numbers involved. We perhaps disagree on how easy it could be to realise any savings and on the costs of additional prison places. So we will keep the case for increasing magistrates’ custodial sentencing powers under review and in the meantime we will retain on the statute book the provisions that enable the increased powers.

    Our priority at the moment though is to tackle the unacceptably high reoffending rates – especially reoffending by those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months. We have already announced our intention, in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, which is currently before Parliament, to ensure all adult offenders are supervised for at least 12 months on release from prison. This means introducing new licence and supervision measures for offenders serving short custodial sentences.

    These proposals also include a new role and powers for magistrates to deal with offenders who breach the conditions of their supervision. That means courts will have powers to deal with those who fail to comply with their supervision conditions, including being able to commit an offender to custody for up to 14 days.

    We want to work with magistrates to deliver these new provisions, to get right the training and support they need to deal with these offenders and to involve them in how we rehabilitate offenders.

    Around 40% of defendants that are convicted in magistrates’ courts and then committed to the crown court for custodial sentences receive no more than six months imprisonment. These are cases which magistrates could have sentenced; no, these are cases which magistrates should have sentenced; they already have the skills, capability and powers to do so. This is why I want to work with magistrates to find out why these cases are being escalated, and address that. This is particularly important for young people, where the Youth Court is set up specifically to deal with children involved in criminal proceedings, whether as witnesses, defendants or both.

    We also need to get the balance right at the lower end of the spectrum as well. There is definitely a place for out-of-court disposals in ensuring justice is brought in cases which may otherwise not have come to court and as a proportionate response to some low-level offending. But we need to make sure that it is only these cases which are getting out-of-court disposals, and that all cases which should properly be brought before a court are brought to court.

    There is a role for magistrates in scrutinising the police’s use of out-of-court disposals, and I am pleased that the Senior Presiding Judge supports this, and has recently issued guidance, encouraging magistrates to get involved.

    These are some examples of where we can bring more of the right cases in front of magistrates, but there is more that we could do and I want to hear Magistrates suggestions and views.

    This brings me onto my next question, which is:

    What other ways are there for Magistrates skills and experience to be used for the benefit of their communities?

    In the Offender Rehabilitation Bill we are giving magistrates more powers to help reduce reoffending. I am also very pleased to hear Magistrates are getting involved in their communities’ Neighbourhood Justice Panels, and in scrutinising out-of-court disposals; taking their valuable experience from courtrooms and using them in new and different settings.

    I want to explore whether there are other appropriate roles, compatible with Magistrates core role as judicial office-holders, which would benefit from their knowledge and experience, and help to reduce crime and reoffending, and make communities safer.

    Another area where Magistrates have become much more involved in recent years is in community engagement. Activities like the Magistrates in the Community initiative, the Local Crime: Community Sentence project, and the National Mock Trial Competition which John Fassenfelt of the Magistrates’ Association recently informed me about, help to strengthen the links between courts, communities and the wider justice system. They build public confidence in sentencing, and teach young people about the law and the way that the justice system in England and Wales operates.

    These are great examples of the sort of local justice that we need to move towards – visible and continuous engagement with communities, working with local criminal justice agencies to understand the issues that affect those communities, and what can be done to resolve them. I want to make sure that we are doing everything we can in this area, and that we are taking every opportunity we have to raise public understanding of summary justice. I’d like to hear Magistrates views on what more we could be doing help the magistracy forge closer links with their communities.

    And my last question is:

    How can we ensure that Magistrates are in the driving seat of improving performance of the justice system in their communities?

    I’d like to hear views on how we could harness Magistrates experience to help us improve the performance of the CJS.

    The CJS needs to work in partnership to improve performance and provide a better service for victims. Not through top-down targets and measures but through a common understanding that a well performing criminal justice system is good for victims, is good for communities, and is good for the rehabilitation of offenders.

    Back in February, I launched a set of seven shared outcomes for the CJS. We developed them with practitioners across the system and this has enabled us, for the first time, to state clearly a common view of what we are all working towards:

    – to reduce crime;

    – to reduce re-offending;

    – to punish offenders;

    – to protect the public;

    – to provide victims with reparation;

    – to increase public confidence, including among victims and witnesses; and

    – to be fair and just.

    I would like to have a discussion about what magistrates role is locally in making these outcomes happen, for the benefit of the system, and for the benefit of their communities.

    There has been some great work so far; stop delaying justice is a sentiment we can all support. Delay is bad for the victim, bad for the accused and bad for justice itself. Magistrates are central to the success of our justice system and initiatives designed to improve the way cases are managed should have the training and support of JPs at the heart of them. This I believe is true of the Stop Delaying Justice programme which began last year and enters its second phase this summer, and is why I am really impressed with the way in which the magistracy and wider judiciary have taken the initiative with this work.

    I know that the magistracy is already working locally to change listing patterns to enable the police to present a greater range of cases in court, releasing the CPS to concentrate on the more serious and complex cases. This is another great example of where I can see Magistrates working effectively with the wider CJS to improve the way that the justice system works in all our areas.

    Those are the three questions that I would like to put to magistrates today.

    This work is the start of a new way of working with the magistracy in matters which affect summary justice. That is why we are holding these events now, at the beginning of the policy process, to ensure that it is their thoughts and ideas which form the heart of our policy building a world-class justice system.

    Today we are also launching – for the first time – an online tool that will allow magistrates to put forward ideas on how they can become more involved in their communities to make them safer. Crucially the tool will allow magistrates to collaborate and develop these ideas so we can come up with a shared solution.

    This is an exciting time of change for criminal justice. And I want to involve as many magistrates as I can in helping us to shape their role in the 21st Century. I know that in 650 years the role of the magistracy in England and Wales has changed as much as society has, but magistrates are still as important and highly valued as ever. Magistrates have been an essential part of the backbone of a successful society for centuries, and the changes I want to bring about will strengthen that vital role.

  • Damian Green – 2013 Speech at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Events

    damiangreen

    Below is the text of a speech made by Damian Green at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners event on 23rd January 2013.

    Introduction

    I would like to thank the APCC for inviting me to speak to you today.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Paul McKeever, the chair of the Police Federation who sadly died last week. Some of you may have known Paul – I  did for a short time – he was a dedicated police officer and chair of the federation and my condolences and thoughts are with his family, friends and colleagues at the federation.  The federation has its differences with the government, but Paul was always willing to listen to our views as we were his.

    We are in the midst of the most significant and wide ranging programme of reform to policing. And you – the first Police and Crime Commissioners – are at the heart of this change.

    Benefits of having a single association

    I know that the APCC have been seeking your views on how best they can assist you to play a full part in shaping and leading this wide ranging programme of reform at the national level. When I spoke to you a few months ago I talked about the clear benefit of having a single representative body that acts on your behalf and in your interests at the national level.

    Clearly how that body is formed and what it does, is for you to determine. But, as one of the individuals likely to be most affected by such a body – and you may not catch me saying this once I feel the impact of such a body-  I see no better way of ensuring, during this period of significant change, that your collective voice can be heard and acted upon at all levels. Particularly obviously inside central government.

    I am of course realistic, you won’t always be able to speak with one voice, but as many of you will know  MPs from all parties manage to come together on issues that require collective change and so do local councillors. So there are times when I expect you will see the value over coming together irrespective of your political backgrounds or particular views.

    The local government association obviously represents councils of every colour so it is an example of how a desire to improve services for the public and influence national policy has gone beyond political divisions.

    You have a powerful mandate. You are the voice of the public on policing and crime in your force areas and through a single body you will be able to amplify that voice at a national level.

    Already, we have been consulting on a new pay review body and many of you as individuals have contributed to this important process. But on top of the value of these individual responses, that he will rightly take full account of, I was very grateful to receive the formal response from the APCC which demonstrated to me that there was indeed a consistency in your individual responses, and most importantly that when presented as a collective, they really do make a very direct impact.

    So, there will be clearly times when it is in your interest to talk with a shared voice and these will increase over time.

    New initiatives

    Before the elections last November some people questioned what impact PCCs would make. I am glad to stand here today and say that already due to some of the decisions you have taken, and your dedication and drive, those voices have started to fall silent.

    The public can already see evidence of innovative, and in some cases, radical ideas and initiatives , from you and your offices to tackle crime, the causes of crime, and to promote the police service in your communities.

    It is simple: these positive developments, developments that will make a real difference to people’s lives in the communities you serve, would not be happening without you.

    Some of the most recent ones that have struck a chord with me are:

    The impressive amount of engagement that is happening with the public in setting plans and priorities;

    Plans, for example in Dorset, to set up community and victims forums for the public to raise issues about policing;

    The setting up of a youth commissioner in Kent;

    Plans in Staffordshire to explore recruitment of 200 new special constables and unlocking millions of pounds tied up by the force’s failure to sell its former HQ.

    Each of you will have other examples of how you are making a difference that I would like to hear about.

    Of course there was great work going on before the elections and many of you will already be drawing on what works for your area.

    Effective practice esp. IOM

    It is also impossible not to mention the huge amount of engagement that you are doing with partners across the criminal justice system and beyond.

    I know that many of you are ahead of the game and in the acronym you are using, PCC, the ‘C’ is important as well – you’re not just police commissioners you are crime commissioners as well.

    In many areas the police, working closely with probation, prisons and other partners, have put in place local arrangements to tackle offending under the banner of Integrated Offender Management.

    These arrangements bring a joint focus on the offenders who commit the most crime locally, or whose offending causes the most damage to the local community. Through effective joint working in this way, many areas have been able to turn around the lives of some of the most difficult and chaotic prolific offenders, whose offending obviously had such a negative impact on local communities.

    If there aren’t such arrangements in place in your area, you may have already be asking: ‘why not?’.  And the opportunity to share best practice is another benefit of coming together in forums like this.

    When we all work together, which is at the heart of the IOM approach, we can all make the best changes for the greater public good.

    For our part, the government has set out its commitment to supporting these approaches as part of the reform proposals set out in the consultation paper ‘Transforming Rehabilitation: a revolution in the way we manage offenders’.

    And I know that you will be a powerful and new voice in the dialogue which will form the process of consultation.

    Looking ahead, I hope there are plenty more opportunities for innovation. One example is the work being done to create the new Police IT company.

    Police IT Company

    Whenever I meet police officers, one of the first things they complain about is the poor IT in many forces.  I am sure that in your conversations with officers they will have made the same point to you.

    We all know that technology and communications is a vital part of front line policing and in implementing change.

    With significant cost pressures, many forces are now increasingly using digital and mobile technology to improve operational performance and as a lever for wider business change.

    With police forces spending over £1bn per annum and employing over 4,000 ICT staff.  I believe that the Police ICT Company gives you the opportunity to secure critical services for your force, to accelerate innovation and to help to make savings.

    This is your Company, set up to deliver what you want for your force. But to get this company to work in the way you want, you need to take control. The choice is yours but this is an opportunity for you to take ownership.

    I hope you see this as a real opportunity to achieve tangible results by working together. I urge you to take up the offer of the Company and use ICT as an enabler to keep officers on the front line.

    College of Policing

    There are obviously a number of challenges facing the new College of Policing and one is helping the police become more like the totality of Great Britain.

    The recently released Census figures for 2011 show how our society is changing faster than ever before.  The police must be able to respond to the needs and aspirations of this more diverse society.

    I am struck by how far we still need to improve representation of women, black minority ethnic populations and other protected groups in the police, especially at senior levels.

    And I also want to see the wider culture of the police strengthened so that it becomes more open, more inclusive and welcoming to people from all backgrounds.

    Police forces must also be better able to relate to the communities they serve. This is a key area of building trust and confidence in local communities.

    My firm belief is that the police must take ownership for these issues. I am therefore pleased that the newly formed College of Policing, which will have responsibility for standards in the police, will be a key driver for this work.

    In the spring they will release a new equality strategy for the police.  I hope that many of you can engage with the development of this strategy.

    I know that there is a huge interest from you collectively in the College and I welcome this.   It will have an essential role in professionalising policing. There are a limited number of places for formal involvement on the board, but I will be encouraging the College to look at what else you can do to get involved.

    Funding

    Moving onto the key subject of money, you will all now be aware of the provisional police funding allocations that were laid in Parliament on 19 December.

    First we decided to protect the police from further reductions to Departmental budgets for 2013/14 that were announced in the Autumn Statement.

    Secondly we will protect the police from reductions announced by the Chancellor in November 2011 relating to public sector pay restraint. Without this protection on pay restraint, central government funding for the police would have been reduced by £66m in 2013/14.

    These two decisions mean the police will receive the same amount of total government funding in 2013/14 that was agreed at the 2010 Spending Review, giving you confidence as you make your plans.

    I hope you welcome that and some of you already have but I understand you will have concerns about funding allocations in 2014/15. You will be aware that the Chancellor announced a further 2% cut to Departmental budgets. As mentioned in my Written Ministerial Statement, we have decided to defer publication of police funding allocations for 2014/15 in order to fully scrutinise all Home Office budgets and see what can best be done.

    The other key funding decision that was announced was on damping. As you know the government held an informal consultation on this. In deciding how to apply damping over the next two years we took account of the concerns expressed by respondents who called for a full review of the Police Allocation Formula before changing damping policy, given that the two are inextricably linked. This is why the Home Secretary will be commissioning a fundamental review of the Formula.

    I know you have strong views on this, and some of you have already raised them with me, so we are obviously keen to hear your ideas on this and we will engage with you as part of this review.

    I recognise that the funding settlement remains challenging. But as HMIC have made clear, police forces have risen to the existing financial challenge, cutting spending while largely maintaining the service they provide. The proportion of officers on the frontline is increasing, crime continues to fall – a point often lost in the wider policing debate, victim satisfaction is up and the response to emergency calls is being maintained. I am confident that you can build on this and continue to push your forces to drive out waste while maintaining and improving the level of service that the public receive.

    Despite inheriting the largest peacetime deficit, our decisions regarding funding for 2013/14 demonstrate that we are committed to ensuring that the police continue to have the resources they need to carry out their important work.

    Looking now at pay and conditions, you will have seen last week our decision to accept the recommendation of the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT).

    This includes proposals around pay scales and allowances.

    This represents another more step forward in what amounts to the most radical overhaul to policing pay and conditions for 30 years.

    But these reforms are not yet complete.

    We remain committed to the principles and objectives set out in the Winsor Review, in particular to the modernising of management practices and to developing the vital link between pay and professional skills.

    This is something that the College of Policing will take forward in line with the timescales recommended in the Winsor review.

    We want to ensure that the police are able to draw on the best pool of talent available to strengthen the workforce. And I am also determined to ensure that police forces are able to attract the brightest and the best, at all levels, including senior levels.

    We are convinced of the merits of enabling the most able people to join at senior ranks to open up the culture of the police to outside experiences and perspectives and will be consulting shortly on the development of effective direct entry and fast track schemes for talented individuals.

    This is about opening up the police to promote a diversity of experience and professional skills at all levels.

    And I am also committed, as I know you will be, to ensuring that the police set the best example of integrity.

    Police integrity

    With the publication of Giving Victims a Voice, the report on the Jimmy Saville case, the issue of police professional standards and integrity has once again come to the fore.

    We touched on this issue briefly at the PCC briefing event, back in December. I’d like to return to it today while we are considering how to address police integrity at the national level.

    This also seems an especially appropriate moment, given that so many of you are engaged in recruiting new chief constables.

    You will have received the guidance on recruiting chief constables from the College of Policing that was sent out in November, together with the note on vetting requirements. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that you have a responsibility to assure yourselves of the integrity of anyone you are considering appointing as a chief constable.

    But I should however remind you of the need to establish their formal vetting status – the note sent to the APCC, as well as Chief Executives and communicators, gives contact details should anyone like further advice on this matter.

    The integrity and professional behaviour of chief constables and their senior teams are the foundation of public confidence in policing.

    This is an area where you can make an impact locally, providing clarity to your communities about what they have a right to expect – that they will be treated fairly, honestly and with respect.

    Both the public and officers need to see the senior team leading by example. Underpinning this, there also needs to be comprehensive and rigorous governance – of integrity as well as finance and other issues – to provide the mechanisms by which professional standards can be monitored and enforced.

    Recent reports from HMIC, the IPCC and Transparency International have all highlighted a lack of consistency between forces in, for example, applying guidelines on hospitality.

    Integrity is one aspect of policing in which there should be no room for local variation.  It is so important that clearly every force, every officer needs to maintain the highest standards.

    Working with you

    I am in no doubt that the British police force is committed, dedicated and well respected. I know we all want to ensure that we keep it like that.

    And as I look forward to how we are going to make this happen, I know that working with you and the APCC will be key to our success.

    But what is also important is how we will do this. And I think this means speaking with you regularly without dragging you to London, eating into your valuable time and the public purse.

    I have asked officials to work with your offices and the APCC to come up with ways we can do this making the most of technology such as video conferences to maximise our time and minimise the effort we spend in making these meetings regular and as convenient as possible for all of us.

    You are only a couple of months into your new roles, but I have no doubt that by this November both you and I will be reflecting on where we have succeeded and identified areas where we must continue to work together, in order to realise a modern, trusted professional police service that not only ranks as the best in the world, but is indeed the leading standard for policing.

    It is a great and important goal and I very much hope that together we can achieve it.

  • Damian Green – 2012 Speech to the Police Superintendents' Association conference

    damiangreen

    Below is the text of a speech given by the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice, Damian Green, to the Police Superintendents’ Association conference on 12 September 2012.

    Thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you today.  It’s always daunting as a ,inister to come to speak to an audience containing so much experience and expertise, and that is particularly the case after only a week in the job.

    Like many other people I have had many experiences of police activity, when I have been a victim of crime, or when I have seen police in action in maintaining public order.  I also, famously, have some experience of police action which is perhaps unique for a Police Minister – I have been arrested, and this guarantees that I am not disposed to uncritical admiration of everything done by all police officers at all times.

    What I can guarantee is that during my time in this job I will be a candid friend of the police.  I want you to succeed in your job, because it is vital to a healthy society, and the best way I can help is to listen, learn, and express my own views clearly.  We may not always agree, but I will always be willing to engage and discuss.

    I am sorry that I wasn’t able to join you for the sessions and discussions that you have had this morning.  I have been in Coventry meeting with Chris Sims and West Midlands Police. I can confirm that as of 11am this morning the streets of Coventry were entirely peaceful and orderly. I was interested to see what they are doing with technology to make themselves better at their job by much better use of technology and various initiatives.

    Heart of our police force

    I am particularly pleased that my first major event and speech as Police Minster is to one of the police staff associations.  You, as key leaders of policing and as police officers, are the heart of our police force.  Yesterday I know the Home Secretary praised your professionalism and dedication, and I straightforwardly want to echo those sentiments.  This professionalism and dedication is particularly valued as you drive change within your forces.  And there is a lot of change taking place.

    I accept that this is a challenging period for officers and the force as a whole, and I understand that there is some suspicion about the changes we have made and are continuing to make.  I am not here to tell you that I will be slowing the pace of change or reversing decisions that have been made – the reform of policing is too important for that – but I hope that we can all follow Derek’s call to ‘move on’ from these changes and the debates and arguments of the past and work together to build a strong police force in the public interest.

    To that end I want to put on record our thanks for all the work that you and your colleagues have done to address the challenges so far.  Despite necessary reductions in budgets, crime is down and, as Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary has said, the service to the public is largely being maintained, response times have held up and victim satisfaction is improving.  This is down to the dedication and professionalism that officers and leaders like all of you show every day.

    I know that inevitably, everything that has happened, all those changes, have dominated the conference over the last couple of days.

    Today I want to talk to you briefly about some of the themes of professionalism and public confidence underpinning the reforms that have been made, and what I think the benefits will be.  But before moving on I want to be clear that even after  reform of structures and pay and conditions police officers will continue to be among the best paid of the public services, retiring earlier than most and with pensions that are among the most generous. But is equally worth saying that this is right, to reward the exceptional job that you do.

    Reducing bureaucracy

    The Home Secretary has been determined to restore discretion to the police and to enhance professionalism, and I am equally committed to this agenda. The proper use of discretion is important for all ranks of the police, but it is essential to you as superintendents.  It is a prerequisite to reducing bureaucracy and to end the culture of the Home Office – the Police Minister, Home Secretary, officials – looking over your shoulders as you make decisions.  I want you to be able to get on with the job they joined the force for: fighting crime, and you can’t do that if you’re tied up in red tape and bogged down by form-filling.

    I am please that great strides have already been made in this area which could see up to 4.5 million hours of police time saved across all forces every year, but I want to see more done to build on this. That is one of the things I am keen to drive through as police minister. This morning I spoke to Chris Sims, the ACPO lead on reducing bureaucracy, about what more we can do.  We’ve changed a lot from the centre, but we have to work with forces, and with you, to identify where further improvements can be made.

    This agenda to restore discretion goes hand in hand with that to improve professionalism.  At the outset, it’s important to say what the professionalism agenda is not about.

    It’s not about criticising you or saying that the way you have been doing your jobs up to now has been fundamentally flawed.

    And it’s not about making policing a graduate profession.

    But it is about accepting that the threats we face have changed and that to support the new landscape, and particularly the increase in your discretion, we need to continue to develop skills and ensure that they are properly recognised and rewarded.

    College of Policing

    Key to this work will be the creation of the new policing professional body – the College of Policing.  The College will be established by the end of the year, taking on functions from the NPIA and ACPO business areas, with a powerful mandate to enable the service to implement the required standards for training, development, skills and qualifications.

    And, crucially, it will be independent of government, with a board made up of representatives from across the ranks, with PCCs and independent members helping to give advice and improve accountability.  And, as the Home Secretary said yesterday, the Chief Executive will be a senior officer.  I was pleased to learn on taking over the post of Police Minister that work on the College has been progressing well over the summer, and I’m grateful for the engagement of the Superintendents’ Association during this.

    The other key part of the drive to develop professionalism and restore discretion is considering and taking forward the recommendations of the Winsor review.  I know, even in my very short time in this role, that you have concerns about some of these proposals.  But the principles supporting these changes are important.  If we are to properly support professionalism we have to value the skills that officers, using their warranted powers, gain to carry out their roles.  A pay system that rewards time served, rather than skills and professional development cannot do this.

    Yesterday the Home Secretary spoke about the benefits of these proposals to you as operational leaders: the signals you can send to your officers and staff and the flexibility that you will be given.  And these benefits will flow to all officers and to the public, because it will support the central aim of policing: to cut crime.

    And that relationship between the public and police is where I’d like to end my comments today.  You all know that it is a relationship that needs to be won every day, by every action and decision an officer takes.  Contrary to what some people think, confidence in the police has been steadily improving, but too many people still feel disconnected from their local force, thinking that policing is something that happens to them, rather than something they need to engage with.

    That is why I am excited about the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners taking place on 15 November.  Public awareness of the elections is increasing and people are now starting to talk about policing priorities in their areas, often in a way they haven’t before.  You will always be the ones taking the operational decisions, but with a directly elected figure, accountable to the community they represent, the link with the public will be renewed.

    We all know a healthy society requires the police and public to be at ease with each other, and the triumph of the policing operation at the Olympic and Paralympic games is testament to this. I visited the Olympic Park several times but it was not just there, it was everyone involved in the torch relay, the spectators and they were only able to throw themselves into the spirit of the games because of the work that dedicated officers were doing quietly behind the scenes.  The fact that no one mentioned public order during the Olympic period is a huge testament to the success of the operation that police all over the country were involved with. You were essential to helping deliver a safe, secure and enjoyable Games that did prove to be one of the best things to happen to this country for many decades. This easier relationship between the police and the public needs to be one of the legacies of the Games.

    But it is not just for you as leaders or individual officers or forces to work to win this confidence, as elected representatives politicians have a duty to help build this too. So I look forward to working with you, and getting to know you, and my door will always be open to representatives of policing.  I also want to get out to meet with you and hear your concerns by visiting forces around England and Wales.  I visited Coventry with West Midlands Police this morning, so I only have another 42 forces to go.

    I want to thank Derek for his contribution as president.  I know that he has been a source of good counsel for Ministers, and I look forward to working with Irene and continuing what has been a very important relationship that the Home Office has with the Superintendents’ Association.

    I’d also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Steve Williams on becoming chair-elect of the Police Federation.  In my briefing I note that he is a trained hostage negotiator; I was pondering that and I’m sure he will find it a useful skill.

    I know many people have said that this is an opportunity for a new start and personal relationships will be very important and I am more than happy to do what I need to do to ensure we have a creative, constructive, evidence based dialogue. That is the way to make progress. Of course we will not always agree, reform and change is always a painful period for all involved but we need to have those discussions on a regular basis.

    It is true that we have a dedicated and professional police service, and I am excited about the future of policing in this country.  At a time of great change the central mission for policing remains the same: to cut crime.  And as Police Minister I will always support you to do this, in the interest of the people of this country.

    Thank you.