The proportion of cancers diagnosed as an emergency at hospital has decreased. At the same time, the proportion of cancers diagnosed through urgent GP referral with a suspicion of cancer has increased.

The complete Routes to Diagnosis data, which covers more than 2 million patients diagnosed with cancer from 2006 to 2013, has been published by Public Health England (PHE) today (Tuesday 10 November 2015). This publicly available, big data project tells us how people are diagnosed, with associated survival rates, for 56 different cancer sites and is a vital tool to help improve early diagnosis.

In 2006, almost 25% of cancers, 1 in 4, were diagnosed as an emergency. In 2013, this figure had fallen to 20%, or 1 in 5. This is against a rise in the overall cases of cancer.

Rates of survival for cancer patients diagnosed as an emergency are much lower than through other routes.

In cancers with screening programmes, like bowel and cervical, the proportion of those detected by screening, with the associated improved survival rates, have increased compared to 2006.

For a common cancer, like lung, the proportion diagnosed through the urgent GP referral route increased from 22% in 2006 to 28% in 2013, while the proportion diagnosed through emergency presentation fell each year, from 39% in 2006 down to 35% in 2013.

Julia Verne, Head of Clinical Epidemiology, PHE, said:

The latest Routes to Diagnosis data shows a positive trend in how cancer is diagnosed in England. The earlier the better if we are to catch up with comparable European countries.

It is hugely satisfying to see innovative use of big data help improve cancer diagnosis and thus, survival. Routes to Diagnosis has helped inform other work like PHE’s Be Clear on Cancer campaigns, which help people spot symptoms early and PHE’s NHS Screening Programmes.

These improvements in routes to cancer diagnosis follow several years of work across the sector to improve early diagnosis in England and we encourage anyone with an interest, from patients, to charities, to clinicians, to look at the data. Our work however, is not complete; while emergency presentation is declining it still remains high for cancers like liver and pancreas.

Sara Hiom, Cancer Research UK’s director of early diagnosis, said:

It’s encouraging that the proportion of cancers being diagnosed as an emergency is moving in the right direction. But it’s important to highlight that nearly 60,000 people every year are still being diagnosed in this way – and this is far too many people.

We know that if someone is diagnosed as an emergency, their cancer is more likely to be advanced, which often means treatment options are more limited. The earlier cancer is detected, the greater the chances of survival.

This report provides vital insight into how well England is doing at diagnosing cancer, but it’s important that efforts continue to further improve early diagnosis. Far too many cancers are still being picked up at a late stage and this needs to change.

Background information

1. The full and final Routes to Diagnosis data for every cancer site 2006 to 2013 has been published.
2. This follows the preliminary report published in September: Routes to Diagnosis 2006 to 2013, preliminary results.
3. Compared to the European average, cancer survival in England is low. Studies have suggested this difference could be largely due to later diagnosis, by which time cancers are harder to treat and have progressed to a more advanced stage.
4. This fact led to the development of the National Awareness and Early Diagnosis Initiative (NAEDI). A key piece of this work is the Routes to Diagnosis data.
5. The National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN) in PHE has worked with (partners) Cancer Research UK on the Routes to Diagnosis project since 2007 and it has greatly improved the understanding of where delays arise. NCIN both defined a methodology to determine the route a patient took through the healthcare system before receiving a cancer diagnosis and collects, analyses and publishes the data on it.
6. The Routes to Diagnosis methodology is described in the preliminary report.
7. A Route to Diagnosis describes the end point of the pathway a patient follows to a diagnosis of cancer. There are 8 aggregated Routes derived from multiple linked data sets. These include 2 Week Wait (urgent GP referral with a suspicion of cancer) and Emergency Presentation (an emergency Route via A&E, emergency GP referral, emergency transfer, emergency consultant outpatient referral or emergency admission or attendance).
8. The National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN) is part of PHE.
9. PHE has run several Be Clear on Cancer campaigns for different cancer sites.
10. For bids, please contact Dominic Stanley at PHE: phe-pressoffice@phe.gov.uk, telephone 020 7654 8400, out of hours telephone 020 8200 4400.
11. Public Health England exists to protect and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing, and reduce health inequalities. It does this through world-class science, knowledge and intelligence, advocacy, partnerships and the delivery of specialist public health services. PHE is an operationally autonomous executive agency of the Department of Health. Follow us on Twitter: @PHE_uk and Facebook: www.facebook.com/PublicHealthEngland.

• thousands of rail customers to benefit from the convenience of new ticketing at Gatwick Airport from January 2016
• pay as you go with Oyster and contactless payment will be accepted at Gatwick Airport and 5 other stations along the route
• Southern, Gatwick Express and Thameslink passengers to benefit from government agreement with Transport for London (TfL) and Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR)

Passengers travelling between Gatwick Airport and London will soon be able to use pay as you go, Rail Minister Claire Perry confirmed today (Tuesday 10 November 2015), thanks to an agreement between the government, Transport for London (TfL) and the operator, Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR).

Pay as you go using Oyster and Contactless payments will be introduced as new methods of payment from January 2016 for journeys between London and Gatwick Airport on Southern, Gatwick Express and Thameslink services. Five other stations along the route - Horley, Salfords, Earlswood, Redhill and Merstham – will also benefit from the up-to-the-minute pay as you go ticket technology.

This will mean more convenience and flexibility for commuters and visitors alike, with improved value for money in many cases, and reduced crowding at stations. It will also allow seamless onward connections to London’s transport network and National Rail services.

Rail Minister Claire Perry said:

Our plan for passengers is to build a 21st century railway that provides better journeys for all, and improved ticketing is a vital part of that customer experience.

This extension of Oyster and contactless embraces some of the latest technology, making journeys easier for customers, offering them a vastly more convenient option. As we undertake the biggest rail modernisation since the Victorian era, improving London to Gatwick by rail is another step to a modern railway that strengthens the economy.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson MP, said:

By providing a quick and easy way to pay, our Oyster and contactless ticketing has transformed the way people get around our capital. We’ve already extended this on a number of key routes outside of London and it makes perfect sense for Londoners, commuters and passengers from around the world to benefit from this further link to Gatwick Airport. It’s great news that more people than ever before will be able to benefit from our pioneering modern ticketing system.

From the New Year, many customers will be able to benefit from cheaper fares. Currently, a single journey paper peak-time ticket costs £15.40 from London Terminals to Gatwick Airport (excluding Gatwick Express). With pay as you go, a rush hour trip will cost £14.00 and £8.00 off-peak.

Since contactless payments were introduced on the TfL network in September 2014, there have been more than 220 million contactless journeys made. Each day there are over one million contactless journeys on London’s transport system. One in ten contactless transactions in the UK are made on TfL’s services, making TfL one of the largest Contactless merchants worldwide.

TfL’s Director of Customer Experience, Shashi Verma, said:

Expanding Oyster and the Contactless ticketing system to Gatwick Airport is a great step forward. Nearly 25 per cent of our pay as you go customers use contactless payment already because it is so quick and easy. Already customers from 70 countries across the world are using their contactless payment cards on the capital’s transport network. We are committed to making paying for transport easier for everyone and this extension will allow travellers from across the world to quickly jump on a train to central London and start their holiday or business trip with minimum fuss.

Gatwick Express Passenger Services Director, Angie Doll, said: “We are delighted that our passengers will be able to use pay as you go to travel between Gatwick Airport and London. This is yet another example of how we are making it easier for our passengers to travel by National Rail using state-of-the-art payment technology, and one of many customer benefits we are introducing and delivering across GTR such as a new Gatwick Express train fleet, 1,400 new carriages for the Thameslink programme and a £50m investment on improving our stations.”

Gatwick Airport’s Chief Commercial Officer, Guy Stephenson, said:

Gatwick’s passengers will welcome the introduction of Oyster and contactless payments at the airport as the most convenient way to pay for onward rail travel to London. It means a single ticketless system will link Gatwick with the whole of Greater London so passengers can benefit from seamless connections to and throughout the capital.

This technology will make journeys easier and ticketing considerably faster. Passengers with contactless bank or credit cards, for example, will simply need to touch the Oyster readers without having to queue for a ticket or even top up their Oyster card.

This announcement comes at an exciting time for rail access to Gatwick with world class improvements being introduced. Within the next five years new fleets of Gatwick Express and Thameslink trains will come in to service, Gatwick station will be re-developed and train capacity will be doubled.

Other fares include:

• Gatwick Express single journey on pay as you go will be £19.80. The current single fare when purchased at London Gatwick or London Victoria is £19.90.
• Redhill to London Victoria or London Bridge single journey on pay as you go will be £10.30 peak and £5.80 off-peak. The current anytime day single is £10.50.
• East Croydon to Gatwick Airport single journey on pay as you go will be £5.20 peak and £3.00 off-peak. The current paper anytime single (excl. Thameslink only fares) is £5.20.

All existing peak and off-peak fares, advance fares, period fares, and group ticket offers from Gatwick Airport will be maintained, including the special Thameslink only fares offers. These may cost less than pay as you go and customers are advised to check online in advance.

On 18 June 2015 at about 05:50 hrs, a train struck a wooden sleeper lying across the track just after passing through Somerleyton station, while travelling at about 35 mph (56 km/h). The train, reporting number 5J61, was the 04:20 hrs empty coaching stock service from Norwich Crown Point depot to Lowestoft, comprising two class 170, three-car diesel multiple units. At the time the driver did not know what his train had struck and in response he applied the train’s brake and brought the train to a stand.

After contacting the signaller and being given permission to go onto the tracks to examine his train, the driver left the cab and found a wooden sleeper wedged underneath the front of the train. The driver, who was accompanied by a second driver, removed the sleeper and found another two sleepers nearby; one lying in the middle of the track under the train and one lying close to the track a short distance behind the train. There were no injuries and there was only minor damage to the train.

Following engineering work the night before. work had taken place to collect bundles of scrap wooden sleepers alongside the railway between Somerleyton and Oulton Broad North (towards Lowestoft) using a road rail vehicle with front and rear trailers. During this work, three sleepers fell onto the railway and the staff undertaking this work were not aware of this when they handed the railway back so that trains could start running again.

RAIB has identified two learning points. One is for Network Rail to remind its staff who plan work involving the lifting and transporting of loads on trailers, that control measures should be specified in the authorised work plan. The second reinforces the need for the Rule Book (GE/RT8000) to be reviewed with the objective of clarifying the responsibilities for ensuring the safety of the line at the conclusion of engineering work. This issue is already identified in recommendation 2 of our investigation into an accident in Watford tunnel, RAIB report 12/2015.

B0320015_151110_Somerleyton

PDF, 8.1MB, 17 pages

This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.Request a different format.

If you use assistive technology and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please emailenquiries@raib.gov.uk. Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s letter to the Pay Review Body chairs

The Home Secretary’s remit letter for the 2016 pay round (PDF, 92.1KB, 3 pages)

The remit letter from the Minister of Justice Northern Ireland for the 2016 pay round (PDF, 3.95MB, 3 pages)

The parties’ evidence to PRRB will be published on their own websites on submission in January 2016.

The timetable for the PRRB 2016 pay round is as follows

• 11 January 2016 – submission of parties’ written evidence
• March 2016 – England and Wales oral evidence sessions
• April 2016 - Northern Ireland oral evidence sessions
• 17 June 2016 – submission of PRRB Report to the Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Justice Northern Ireland.

The UK Government and Northern Ireland Executive determine when it will respond to and publish the report.

Prime Minister’s speech on Europe

Introduction

Almost 3 years ago, I made a speech about Europe.

I argued that the European Union needed to reform if it was to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

I argued that Britain’s best future lay within a reformed European Union, if the necessary changes could be agreed.

And I promised the British people that, if I was re-elected as Prime Minister, we would have an in-out referendum…

…and the final say on whether our national and economic security is better protected by remaining in the European Union, or by leaving.

That promise is now being honoured.

The law of the land will require that there must be a referendum on our EU membership by the end of 2017.

The re-negotiation is now entering its formal phase, following several rounds of technical discussions.

Today I am writing to the President of the European Council setting out how I want to address the concerns of the British people…

…and why I believe that the changes that Britain is seeking will benefit not just Britain, but the EU as a whole.

That will of course be for the negotiation itself to conclude the precise legal changes needed to bring about the reforms Britain needs.

But today I want to explain in more detail why we want to make the changes we have set out – and how they will make a difference.

This is perhaps the most important decision the British people will have to take at the ballot box in our lifetimes.

So I want to set out for the British people why this referendum matters, and some of the issues we should weigh up very carefully as the arguments ebb and flow as we approach the referendum.

And I want to explain to our European partners why we are holding this referendum…

…what we are asking for and why.

Bloomberg – still valid 3 years on

Since I made that speech almost 3 years ago, the challenges facing the European Union have not diminished – indeed they have grown.

The economic outlook may be somewhat brighter. But the legacy of the Eurozone crisis endures.

The threats to our security – and to the security of every European nation – have grown enormously in the last few years…

… from the Russian invasion of Eastern Ukraine, to the emergence of ISIL, and the migration flows triggered by the war in Syria.

And across Europe, the rise of parties of protest demands a response.

But nothing that has happened – nothing – has undermined or rendered obsolete the central argument I set out in my speech at Bloomberg.

If anything it has reinforced it.

The European Union needs to change.

It needs to become more competitive to cope with the rise of economies like China and India.

It needs to put relations between the countries inside the Euro and those outside it – like Britain – onto a stable, long-term basis.

It needs greater democratic accountability to national parliaments.

Above all, it needs, as I said at Bloomberg, to operate with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc.

Never forget that the European Union now comprises 28 ancient nations of Europe.

That very diversity is Europe’s greatest strength.

Britain says let’s celebrate that fact.

Let’s acknowledge that the answer to every problem is not always more Europe.

Sometimes it is less Europe.

Let’s accept that one size does not fit all.

That flexibility is what I believe is best for Britain; and, as it happens, best for Europe too.

Doing what is best for Britain drives everything I do as Prime Minister.

That means taking the difficult decisions, and sometimes making arguments that people don’t much want to hear.

It is why we have taken the difficult, but necessary action to reduce the deficit.

It is why we are seeing through our long-term economic plan.

It is why we are reforming welfare and education.

Because we know that the bedrock of our security is a strong economy – and that these are the things any nation must do to succeed in the twenty-first century.

It is also why, despite all the pressures on public finances, we have guaranteed to spend 2 percent of our economy on defence…

….and why we are spending 0.7 percent of our gross national income on overseas aid.

With that money we are able to equip our armed forces with 2 brand new aircraft carriers…

…double our fleet of drones…

…buy new fighter aircraft and new submarines…

…and invest in our special forces.

We are doing all of these things to protect our economic and national interest.

And that is the prism through which I approach our membership of the European Union.

Taking the tough decisions…

….making the difficult arguments…

…addressing the issues no one wants to talk about…

…and protecting and advancing our economic and national security.

Like most British people, I come to this question with a frame of mind that is practical, not emotional.

Head, not heart.

I know some of our European partners may find that disappointing about Britain.

But that is who we are.

That is how we have always been as a nation.

We are rigorously practical.

We are obstinately down to earth.

We are natural debunkers.

We see the European Union as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

“Europe where necessary, national where possible”, as our Dutch friends put it.

An instrument to amplify our nation’s power and prosperity – like NATO, like our membership of the UN Security Council or the IMF.

We understand that there is a close relationship between the security and prosperity of the continent to which our island is tied geographically…

…and our own security and prosperity.

In the week when we commemorate the end of the Great War…

…and in the year when we have marked the seventieth anniversary of the liberation of Europe, how could we not?

Britain has contributed in full measure to the freedom that Europe’s nations enjoy today.

Across the continent, from Ypres to Monte Cassino, from Bayeux to Arnhem,…

…in stone cold cemeteries lie the remains of British servicemen who crossed the Channel to help subjugated nations throw off the tyrant’s yoke…

…and return liberty to her rightful place on what Churchill called ‘this noble continent’.

And today, we continue to play our full role in European security and in global security.

Fighting Ebola in West Africa. Flying policing missions over the Baltic nations.

Contributing to NATO operations in Central and Eastern Europe.

Saving lives and busting the people smuggling rings in the Central Mediterranean.

Spending £1.1 billion on aid to the region of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan – more than any other European nation.

Britain has always been an engaged nation, because we know that engagement is the best way to protect and advance our economic and our national security.

So today, as we confront fresh threats and dangers to our country…

…I am in no doubt that for Britain the European question is not just a matter of economic security, but of national security too…

…not just a matter of jobs and trade, but of the safety and security of our nation.

Equally, when the European Union accounts for almost half of our trade…

…it matters for our economic security that the European Union is competitive and succeeds in promoting prosperity for its members.

Just as it matters to us that – while we are not part of the Euro – and, in my view never will be – the Eurozone is able to deal with its problems and succeed.

If it fails to do so, we will certainly not be immune from the side effects.

That is why, almost 3 years ago, I set out the case for reform – reform that would benefit Britain, and in my view benefit the entire EU.

I was clear that Britain gains advantages from her membership of the EU.

But I was also clear that there are some major problems which need to be addressed.

Political leadership means confronting these problems, not wishing them away.

If we ignore them, history teaches us that they will only get worse.

Let me explain what I mean.

4 major challenges facing the European Union

In my Bloomberg speech almost 3 years ago, I said that the European Union faced 3 major challenges.

First, the problems in the Eurozone: they need to be fixed – and that will require fundamental changes.

Second, a crisis of European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead and Europe risks being left behind.

And third, a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically in recent years…

…and which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that is felt particularly acutely in Britain.

These 3 challenges are as critical now as they were when I first set them out.

And today I would add a fourth.

As we have seen so spectacularly across Europe with the questions posed by the migration crisis…

…countries need greater controls to manage the pressures of people coming in.

And while in Britain we are not part of the Schengen open borders agreement and so we have been able to set our own approach by taking refugees direct from the camps…

…we do need some additional measures to address wider abuses of the right to free movement within Europe…

…and to reduce the very high flow of people coming to Britain from all across Europe.

So the changes we are arguing for are substantial.

But they have a very clear purpose: to address these 4 key challenges which are vital to the success of the European Union…

…and to maintain and advance the UK’s economic and national security within it.

Let me explain each in

Economic governance and the Eurozone

First, it is in all our interests for the Eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long-term.

Britain understands that, and we will not stand in the way of those developments, as long as we can be sure that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that our own interests are fully protected.

Let me explain what I mean.

Today there are 2 sorts of members of the European Union.

There are Euro members and there are non-Euro members.

The changes which the Eurozone will need to implement will have profound implications for both types of members.

So non-Euro members like Britain which are outside the Eurozone need certain safeguards…

….in order to protect the single market and our ability to decide its rules…

…and to ensure that we face neither discrimination nor additional costs from the integration of the Eurozone.

Because the European Union and the Eurozone are not the same thing.

And those of us who are in the EU but outside the Eurozone need that accepted.

We need a British model of membership that works for Britain and for any other non-Euro members.

And this should be perfectly possible.

The European Union is a family of democratic nations whose original foundation was – and remains – a common market.

There is no reason why the single currency and the single market should share the same boundary, any more than the single market and Schengen.

So the EU needs flexibility to accommodate both those inside and outside the Eurozone…

…both those who are contemplating much closer economic and political integration…

…and those countries like Britain which will never embrace that goal.

This is a matter of cardinal importance for the United Kingdom.

Because if the European Union were to evolve into a single currency club, where those outside the single currency are pushed aside and over-ruled, then it would no longer be a club for us.

We need this issue fixed – so that the UK is not obliged to fight a series of running battles which would only corrode trust among member states.

And we have to make sure that there is a point to being in the EU but not in the Eurozone, and that that position does not turn a country into a rule-taker instead of a rule-maker.

Now is the time to do that.

So as part of our renegotiation I am asking European leaders to agree clear and binding principles that protect Britain and other non-Euro countries…

…and a safeguard mechanism to ensure these principles are respected and enforced.

These principles should include the following. Recognition that the EU is a Union with more than one currency.

There should be no discrimination and no disadvantage for any business on the basis of the currency of their country.

The integrity of the single market must be protected.

As the Eurozone moves ahead, any changes it decides to make – like the creation of a banking union – must be voluntary for non-Euro countries, never compulsory.

Taxpayers in non-euro countries should never bear the cost for operations to support the Euro as a currency.

Just as financial stability and supervision has become a key area of competence for Eurozone institutions like the ECB…

…so financial stability and supervision is a key area of competence for national institutions like the Bank of England for non-Euro members.

And any issues that affect all member states must be discussed and decided by all member states.

Competitiveness

Second, we want a European Union that adds to our competitiveness, not detracts from it.

We have already made progress since my speech at Bloomberg.

Legislative proposals under the new Commission have fallen by 80 percent…

…with more regulations set to be repealed this year than in the whole of the previous Commission.

We have proposals for a Capital Markets Union which will help get finance into the hands of entrepreneurs and growing businesses.

The new plans to deepen the single market in services and digital will mean new opportunities for millions of British businesses to operate more easily anywhere in Europe.

Changes we secured just last month will mean that British tourists will no longer incur roaming charges when they use mobile phones…

…or have to pay extortionate credit card fees.

And just last month the European Commission published a new trade strategy that reflects the agenda that Britain has been championing for years…

…including pursuing massive trade deals with America, China, Japan and ASEAN.

We know the benefits free trade can bring.

Recent deals including one with Korea are already saving UK consumers £5 billion every year…

…and have helped UK car exports to Korea to increase five-fold.

But there is much more we can do.

For all we have achieved in stemming the flow of new regulations…

…the burden from existing regulation is still too high.

Two years ago we secured the first ever real terms cut in the EU budget.

It’s now time to do the same with EU regulation.

So we need a target to cut the total burden on business

And at the same time, we need to bring together all the different proposals, promises and agreements on the single market, on trade, and on cutting regulation…

…into one clear commitment that writes competitiveness into the DNA of the whole European Union.

Sovereignty and subsidiarity

Third, we need to deal with the disillusionment that many of Europe’s citizens feel towards the European Union as an institution.

These concerns are not just in Britain.

But they are perhaps greater here than anywhere else in the European Union today.

We have already passed a law to guarantee that no powers can transfer from Britain to Brussels ever again without the explicit consent of the British people in a referendum.

But if Britain is to remain in the EU, we need to do more.

And really it boils down to this.

We are a proud, independent nation.

We intend to stay that way.

So we need to be honest about this.

The commitment in the Treaty to an ever closer union is not a commitment that should apply any longer to Britain.

We do not believe in it.

We do not subscribe to it.

We have a different vision for Europe.

We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions, working together in a spirit of co-operation…

…to advance our shared prosperity…

…and to protect our people from threats to our security whether they come from at home or abroad.

And continuing, in time and only with unanimous agreement, to welcome new countries into the EU.

This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union – but it is just as valid.

And if we can’t persuade our European partners to share this vision for all…

…we certainly need to find a way to allow this vision to shape Britain’s membership.

So I can tell you today, that as part of our renegotiation…

…I am asking European leaders for a clear, legally binding and irreversible agreement to end Britain’s obligation to work towards an ever closer union.

That will mean that Britain can never be entangled in a political union against our will…

…or be drawn into any kind of United States of Europe.

We also need to ensure that – while the European Parliament plays an important role…

…there is a more significant role for national parliaments, including our own Parliament right here at Westminster.

It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the main source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.

It is to the British Parliament that I must account on the EU budget negotiations, or on the safeguarding of our place in the single market.

Those are the parliaments which instil respect – even fear – into national leaders.

So it is time to give these national parliaments a greater say over EU law-making.

We are not suggesting a veto for every single national parliament.

We acknowledge that in a European Union of 28, that would mean gridlock.

But we want to see a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments can come together and reject European laws which are not in their national interest.

We also need to address the issue of subsidiarity – the question of what is best decided in Brussels and what is best dealt with in European capitals.

We believe that if powers don’t need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster.

So we want to see the EU’s commitments to subsidiarity fully implemented, with clear proposals to achieve that.

In addition, the UK will need confirmation that the EU institutions will fully respect the purpose behind the justice and home affairs protocols in any future proposals dealing with justice and home affairs matters…

…in particular to preserve the UK’s ability to choose to participate.

In addition national security is – and must remain – the sole responsibility of member states…

…while recognising the benefits of working together on issues that affect the security of us all.

Finally, in this area, people are also frustrated by some legal judgments made in Europe that impact on life in Britain.

Of course, this relates as much to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as the European Union.

Which is why we need to act on both fronts.

So we will reform our relationship with the ECHR by scrapping Labour’s Human Rights Act and introducing a new British Bill of Rights.

We will – of course – consult on how to make this big constitutional change.

The consultation we will publish will set out our plan to remain consistent with the founding principles of the Convention,…

…whilst restoring the proper role of UK courts and our Parliament.

And as we reform the relationship between our courts and Strasbourg,…

…it is right that we also consider the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

So – as was agreed at the time of the Lisbon Treaty – we will enshrine in our domestic law that the EU Charter of Fundamental rights does not create any new rights.

We will make it explicit to our courts that they cannot use the EU Charter as the basis for any new legal challenge citing spurious new human rights grounds.

We will also examine whether we can go one step further.

We need to examine the way that Germany and other EU nations uphold their constitution and sovereignty.

For example, the Constitutional Court in Germany retains the right to review whether essential constitutional freedoms are respected when powers are transferred to Europe.

And it also reserves the right to review legal acts by European institutions and courts to check that they remain within the scope of the EU’s powers,…

…or whether they have overstepped the mark.

We will consider how this could be done in the UK.

Immigration

Fourth, we believe in an open economy. But we’ve got to be able to cope with all the pressures that free movement can bring – on our schools, our hospitals and our public services.

Right now the pressures are too great.

I appreciate that at a time when other European countries are facing huge pressure from migration from outside the EU, this may be hard for some other EU countries to understand.

But in a way these pressures are an example of exactly the point the UK has been making in recent years.

For us, it is not a question of race or background or ethnicity – Britain is one of the most open and cosmopolitan countries on the face of the earth.

People from all over the world can find a community of their own right here in Britain.

The issue is one of scale and speed, and the pressures on communities that brings, at a time when public finances are already under severe strain as a consequence of the financial crisis.

This was a matter of enormous concern in our recent General Election campaign and it remains so today.

Unlike some other member states, Britain’s population is already expanding.

Our population is set to reach over 70 million in the next decades and we are forecast to become the most populous country in the EU by 2050.

At the same time, our net migration is running at over 300,000 a year.

That is not sustainable.

We have taken lots of steps to control immigration from outside the EU.

But we need to be able to exert greater control on arrivals from inside the EU too.

The principle of the free movement of labour is a basic treaty right and it is a key part of the single market.

Over a million Brits benefit from their right to live and work anywhere in the EU.

We do not want to destroy that principle, which indeed many Brits take for granted.

But freedom of movement has never been an unqualified right, and we now need to allow it to operate on a more sustainable basis in the light of the experience of recent years.

Britain has always been an open, trading nation, and we do not want to change that.

But we do want to find arrangements to allow a member state like the UK to restore a sense of fairness to our immigration system…

…and to reduce the current very high level of migration from within the EU into the UK.

That means first of all correcting the mistakes of the past by ensuring that when new countries are admitted to the EU in the future…

…free movement will not apply to those new members until their economies have converged much more closely with existing member states.

Next, we need to create the toughest possible system for dealing with abuse of free movement.

That includes tougher and longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages.

It means addressing the fact that it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than it is for a British citizen to do the same.

It means stronger powers to deport criminals and stop them coming back, as well as preventing entry in the first place.

And it means addressing ECJ judgments that have widened the scope of free movement in a way that has made it more difficult to tackle this kind of abuse.

But ultimately, if we are going to reduce the numbers coming here we need action that gives greater control of migration from the EU.

As I have said previously, we can do this by reducing the draw that our welfare system can exert across Europe.

To those who say that this won’t make a difference. I say look at the figures.

We now know that, at any one time, around 40 percent of all recent European Economic Area migrants are supported by the UK benefits system…

…with each family claiming on average around £6,000 a year of in work benefits alone…

…and over 10,000 recently-arrived families claiming over £10,000 a year.

We need to restore a sense of fairness, and reduce this pull factor subsidised by the taxpayer.

So I promised 4 actions at the election.

Two have already been achieved.

EU migrants will not be able to claim Universal Credit while looking for work.

And if those coming from the EU haven’t found work within 6 months, they can be required to leave.

But we need to go further to reduce the numbers coming here.

So we have proposed that people coming to Britain from the EU must live here and contribute for 4 years before they qualify for in work benefits or social housing.

And that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas.

Now, I understand how difficult some of these welfare issues are for other Member States.

And I am open to different ways of dealing with this issue.

But we do need to secure arrangements that deliver on the objective set out in the Conservative Party manifesto to control migration from the European Union.

The 4 objectives

So these are the 4 objectives at the heart of our renegotiation.

Objective 1: protect the single market for Britain and others outside the Eurozone.

What I mean by that is a set of binding principles that guarantee fairness between Euro and non-Euro countries.

Objective 2: write competitiveness into the DNA of the whole European Union.

And this includes cutting the total burden on business.

Objective 3: exempt Britain from an ‘ever closer union’ and bolster national parliaments.

Not through warm words but through legally binding and irreversible changes.

And objective 4: tackle abuses of the right to free movement, and enable us to control migration from the European Union, in line with our manifesto.

The precise form all these changes will take will be a matter for the renegotiation.

But I want to be very clear: if we are able to reach agreement, it must be on a basis that is legally-binding and irreversible…

…and where necessary has force in the Treaties.

The negotiation

Now there will be some in Britain who say that what we are asking for is far too little.

And there will be some in European capitals who say that what we are asking for is far too much.

I say that what I am asking for is what is needed to fix the problems in Britain’s relationship with the European Union.

And that these measures, if adopted, will benefit the European Union as whole.

I have been Prime Minister for five and a half years.

I have sat in 39 European Council meetings with my fellow European leaders.

I have seen this relationship operating at close quarters; I see how much Britain can gain from its membership of the EU.

And I have seen where the problems lie.

I have thought very carefully about what is needed to fix those problems, and I have come up with a carefully-designed package to do so.

It is not outlandish or absurd.

It is right, and it is reasonable.

But I must be very, very clear.

I don’t want this reasonable approach to be misunderstood.

Reasonable does not mean lacking in resolve.

I understand, of course that every negotiation must involve just that – negotiation.

But Britain is the second biggest economy in the EU.

We are the second biggest contributor to the EU budget.

Along with France, we are its foremost military power.

We gain from the Union, but we bring a lot to it.

We believe very strongly that if a major Member State has major concerns…

…concerns which it has been voicing in a measured and constructive fashion over a number of years…

…then it is entitled to expect those concerns to be addressed.

At the heart of this negotiation is actually a very simple question: is the European Union flexible enough to accommodate the concerns of its very different member states?

The answer to that question must be yes, if the EU is to survive and prosper in the future – not just for Britain today, but for other member states, large and small, north and south, or the east or the west. The European Union has reached a decisive moment.

Now is the moment to ensure that membership of the European Union works for Euro and non-Euro members alike.

I think most people would find that an eminently reasonable proposition.

Already there have been productive rounds of talks with every European leader…

…with the Presidents of the European Council and Parliament…

…and of course with the President of the European Commission who has made this issue a priority and pledged his support for a fair deal for Britain.

So I have every confidence that we will achieve an agreement that works for Britain and works for our European partners.

And if and when we do so, as I said 3 years ago,…

…I will campaign to keep Britain inside a reformed European Union…

…I’ll campaign for it with all my heart and all my soul,…

…because that will be unambiguously in our national interest.

But if we can’t reach such an agreement,…

…and if Britain’s concerns were to be met with a deaf ear, which I do not believe will happen…

…then we will have to think again about whether this European Union is right for us.

As I have said before – I rule nothing out.

Best of both worlds

And to the British people I say this.

We have a long history of engaging with the best parts of what membership of the European Union has to offer…

…the parts that work for Britain, and our own history and traditions.

Already, we have ensured that as British people, we can travel freely around Europe, but at the same time we have maintained our own border controls.

We have kept our own currency while having complete access to the single market.

We cut the EU budget for the first time ever, while protecting the British rebate.

We successfully took Britain out of the Eurozone bailout mechanism – the first ever return of powers from Brussels to Westminster.

Through our opt-out from justice and home affairs matters, we have achieved the largest repatriation of powers to Britain since we joined the EU.

And when we have had to, we have used our veto – as I did to block a treaty that wasn’t in Britain’s national interest.

In other words, we have shown before that it is possible for Britain to find a way that works for us.

And I believe that we can do so again and that through this renegotiation we can have the best of both worlds.

We do not need to choose between being a marginalised voice within Europe…

…or an isolated voice outside it.

Let me explain what I mean.

Rejecting the status quo

Those who believe we should stay in the EU at all costs need to explain why Britain should accept the status quo.

I am clear that there are real problems for Britain with the status quo.

There are some economic risks, if we allow a situation where Eurozone countries could potentially spend our money…

…or where European regulations hold back our ability to trade and create jobs.

And there are also significant risks if we allow our sovereignty to be eroded by ever closer union…

…or sit by and do nothing about the unsustainable rate of migration into our country.

But just as those who are advocating staying in the EU at all costs have to answer serious questions…

…so those who think Britain should just leave now also need to think hard about the implications of their arguments – and the possible risks of the course they advocate.

What would being outside the European Union mean for our economic security?

And what would it mean for our national security?

Let me briefly take these questions in turn.

Economic security

First, our economic security.

Those who believe we should leave the EU, mostly argue that we would still seek a relationship with the single market…

….and that we would still build trade deals with the rest of the world.

So the question is how exactly would this work?

On the single market, some have suggested that we could be like Switzerland or Norway.

These countries are great friends of ours – but they are also very different from us.

Switzerland has had to negotiate access to the single market sector by sector.

Norway is part of the single market but has no say in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.

10,000 rules and regulations in the last 20 years, 5 for every day the Norwegian Parliament has been sitting.

So the irony is that if we followed the model of Norway, Europe’s political interference in our country could actually grow, rather than shrink.

Because here’s the rub.

The single market has rules.

We will not always get what we want from those rules.

But we have more influence over them from inside the EU, where those rules are actually made.

And on trade, those who advocate Britain leaving need to explain how the league of 1 will compare with the league of 28.

Negotiating as part of an economy with 500 million people gives us more power as a country, not less.

Our membership of the European Union gives us free trade agreements with more than 50 countries around the world.

Trying to recreate all of these deals from scratch on our own would not be a quick or easy process.

So we should be clear that leaving the EU is not some automatic fast track to a land of milk and honey.

National security

Just as there are difficult questions for our future prosperity outside the EU…

…so there are also important questions for our future security too.

In 2015, our membership of the European Union is not just a matter of trade and commerce, of pounds and pence.

It is about our national security as well as our economic security.

The world is undoubtedly a more dangerous place than when I made my speech at Bloomberg 3 years ago.

Then, ISIL didn’t exist. Now it controls substantial territory in Iraq and Syria and directly threatens our country.

Then, Ukraine was at peace. Now it is in crisis, after Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

And of course the war in Syria has unleashed a wave of migration towards Europe which we see night after night on our television screens.

Britain has never joined the Schengen border-free zone, so we retain our border controls.

This, and our geographical status as an island, means we are less directly affected than other European countries by this crisis.

Our agreement with France, as a fellow EU member, means that our main border control with continental Europe effectively operates now at Calais, not Dover.

And our decision to admit 20,000 Syrian refugees from the camps was a British national sovereign decision.

But our membership of the EU does matter for our national security and for the security of our allies…

…which is one reason why our friends in the world strongly urge us to remain in the EU.

It is not just a question of strength in numbers, important though that is.

The EU, like NATO and our membership of the UN Security Council, is a tool that a British Prime Minister uses to get things done in the world, and protect our country.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, and European leaders met, it was Britain that pushed through sanctions to penalise Russia and ensure a robust response.

On Iran, it was Britain that helped impose the tough sanctions which got Iran to the negotiating table.

These things were done through the EU.

The point I am making is this – if the British Prime Minister was no longer present at European summits, we would lose that voice and therefore permanently change our ability to get things done in the world.

We have every right to do that as a sovereign nation.

But we should do so with our eyes open.

Britain’s future

I am not saying for one moment that Britain couldn’t survive outside the European Union.

Of course we could.

We are a great country.

The fifth largest economy in the world.

The fastest growing economy in the G7 last year.

The biggest destination for foreign direct investment in the EU.

Our capital city a global icon.

The world, literally, speaks our language.

Last month the President of China spent a week in this country.

This week the Prime Minister of India will visit.

They see a great future for this country that we all love.

No one doubts that Britain is a proud, successful thriving country.

A nation that has turned round its fortunes though its own efforts.

A far cry from the ‘sick man of Europe’ at the time we entered the European Economic Community 4 decades ago.

Whether we could be successful outside the European Union – that’s not the question.

The question is whether we would be more successful in than out?

Whether being in the European Union adds to our economic security or detracts from it?

Whether being in the European Union makes us safer or less safe?

That is a matter of judgment.

And ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum that I promised and that I will deliver.

You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future.

It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.

Your decision.

Nobody else’s.

Not politicians’.

Not Parliament’s.

Not lobby groups’.

Not mine.

Just you.

You, the British people, will decide.

At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.

This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.

And it will be the final decision.

So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave…

…would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay…

…I say think again.

The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.

An in or out referendum.

When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.

If we vote to leave, then we will leave.

There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.

So I say to my European counterparts with whom I am negotiating.

This is our only chance to get this right – for Britain and for the whole European Union.

I say to those who are thinking about voting to leave.

Think very carefully, because this choice cannot be undone.

And to those who are campaigning to leave but actually hoping for a second referendum – I say decide what you believe in.

If you think we should leave – and leave means leave – then campaign for that and vote for it.

But if you are actually arguing for a better relationship between Britain and the European Union, then don’t campaign to get out.

Work with me to get that better deal for Britain.

Conclusion

And so?

I have set out today the changes I want to see, and which Britain needs to see.

There will be those who say – here and elsewhere in the EU – that we are embarked on ‘mission impossible’.

I say: why?

I do not deny that seeking changes which require the agreement of 27 other democracies, all with their own concerns, is a big task.

But an impossible one?

I do not believe so for a minute.

When you look at the challenges facing European leaders today, the changes that Britain is seeking do not fall in the box marked ‘impossible’.

They are eminently resolvable, with the requisite political will and political imagination.

The European Union has a record of solving intractable problems. It can solve this one too.

Let us therefore resolve to do so.

Because the prize is a big one.

A new kind of European Union.

A European Union which could lead the world in competitiveness, be a magnet for start-ups, a beacon of jobs and growth.

A European Union in which those countries inside and outside the Euro could both have their interests fully protected.

A European Union, which could recognise the different visions of its members,…

…and celebrate their diversity as a source of strength.

A European Union in which those who wished to proceed towards a political union could continue to do so…

…but where it would have been clearly accepted that Britain would not take part in such an endeavour.

A European Union in which the United Kingdom could exert greater control over the numbers coming to our country.

In other words, a European Union with the flexibility needed to ensure that all its members felt their particular membership worked well for them…

…and our British model of membership worked well for us.

I have no doubt that with patience, with goodwill, with ingenuity, it can be done.

And that in doing so we can make Britain and the whole of Europe safer and more prosperous for generations to come.

Introduction

The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is the arms-length body of the Ministry of Justice charged with the oversight of young people in the criminal justice system who are between our age of criminal responsibility (10 years old) and their 18th birthday (legal adulthood).

The YJB was a creation of the 1998 Crime & Disorder Act and came in to being in the year 2000. Its creation followed a 1996 ground-breaking report, “Misspent Youth”, which identified the central problem of youth justice at that time as being the responsibility of many and the priority of none.

I think it fair to claim that in its fifteen year history the YJB has provided that priority by giving leadership and expertise at national level whilst at local level delivering a cross disciplinary, holistic approach to local authority-based and supported youth offending teams (YOTS).

During the fifteen years the YJB has been in operation, we have seen the number of young people entering the criminal justice system fall from over 80,000 at its peak to a little over 23,000 today. At the same time the number in our secure estate (under-18 young offender institutions, secure training centres, secure children’s homes) has fallen from a peak of about four thousand to about one thousand today – less than fifty of them girls.

That success is not because of the efforts of the YJB alone. Our partners in Children’s Services, Social Services, Probation, Policing and the Magistracy have all contributed, as have major inputs from the charitable and voluntary sector.

I give this prologue to my remarks because I believe the lessons learnt from the YJB’s holistic, cross disciplinary approach can readily be applied to our topic today. There is no doubt that early intervention, upstream of a child becoming involved with the criminal justice system, via diversion and alternative dispute resolutions such as Restorative Justice, has produced results. I think there are similar lessons to be learnt from the Troubled Families Initiative, where all too often YOTs are fishing in the same pool.

I was pleased to read the report from HM Inspectorate of Probation, the Care Quality Commission, Ofsted and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary which commended the contribution of YOTs to the Troubled Families initiative whilst pointing to what I suspect will become recurring themes during this conference: the need for clear leadership, the need for clear lines of responsibility and faster and better exchange of information at all times and at all levels.

Of course success in the Youth Justice system has also brought its own problems which will impinge on today’s discussions. We now have a more complex, damaged and difficult cohort concentrated within our care.

When I became Chairman of the YJB, 18 months ago, it did not take many visits to YOTs and the secure estate in order to meet with young people with clear mental health needs. Early on in my term of office I was told by a seasoned professional that there was often reluctance to identify mental health issues too early in a child’s life, that often children had a cluster of issues that fell below the threshold for mental health diagnosis and that there was sometimes fear by parents of their child being stigmatised.

The mental health professionals in the audience will know how much truth there is in those assertions.

A recent Freedom of Information Request by the NSPCC revealed that between March 2014 and April 2015, in 35 Mental Health Trusts across England, more than a fifth of children and young people referred to local NHS and mental health services were reportedly rejected from receiving treatment because the child “did not meet the high clinical threshold to qualify for treatment by CAMHS.”

According to Barnardos one third of children in custody, three times higher than the general population, have mental health needs.

• one in ten children and young persons between 5 and 16 have a diagnosable mental health issue
• children and young people who live in poverty or poor housing are more likely to have mental health problems
• one in fifteen young people have self- harmed

Now I am sure that in the course of the day we will hear variants on those figures from different reports and surveys. As the House of Commons Health Committee said in 2014: ”Those planning and running Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services have been operating in a fog”. So I am very pleased that the Minister of State for Community and Social care, Alistair Burt, announced on 22 October the first national survey of children and young people’s mental health since 2004.

So there is some hope that the fog might be lifting. We were fortunate that my colleague Norman Lamb gave such priority to mental health during his time as a minister in the Coalition Government. His successor, Alistair Burt has been equally positive. On taking office last May he said this:

Future in Mind (the report on mental health services commissioned by Norman Lamb and published just before he left office) established a clear and powerful consensus about improving children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing.

Of course, we’ve had a change of government, but not a change in direction.

That statement of intent has been backed up by the announcement that the Government will spend an extra £1.25 billion on mental health care in the next five years.

I make no bones about my desire to see some of that money ear marked, focussed and targeted at the mental health needs of children and young people on the cusp of, already in or emerging from the criminal justice system. That money should be overseen by a task force consisting of Health Minister Alistair Burt, Justice Minister Andrew Selous and Education Minister Sam Gyimah. Between them they could ensure that money is spent on the right things, in the right place at the right time – particularly if they were to draw on the readily available experience and expertise of the Youth Justice Board.

We have already had influence and input in to “Future in Mind” to which I referred earlier, so that it made specific mention of the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system. We have also successfully influenced guidance to local areas to include specific references to youth justice services. This should enable YOTs to influence the development of strategies and commission decisions locally. Reports back from YOTs thus far has, however, reported a worrying lack of engagement by Health and Wellbeing Boards in welcoming YOT input in to the Transformation Plans they have been charged to develop. There is also a worrying patchwork of availability of CAHMs provisions in England in contrast to a uniformity of good provisions across Wales.

I am often asked “What exactly does the Chair of the Youth Justice Board do?” Well, all too often, fifteen years after we started, the job is still to knock on ministerial doors to ask that the needs of young people in the criminal justice system are given the priority they deserve. I have asked to see Alistair Burt and will raise with him this worrying lack of YOT engagement in the CAMHS provision transformation plans.

It is essential that those plans take full account of the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system and that YOTs are able to influence the development of strategies and commissioning decisions locally. To that end we are willing to work closely with NHS England on this problem, reported by many YOTs, of them finding increasing difficulty in gaining effective access to CAMHS services as well as the need for them being fully involved in local decision making. These are relatively early days yet. So I do not despair, simply call it work in progress.

I referred earlier to the need for a better, quicker exchange of information between the various agencies responsible for a young person’s care. When I was a minister between 2010 and 2013 I had responsibility for DATA protection. I was aware of widespread concerns that the state would be able to know everything about us at the touch of a button.

Since becoming Chair of the YJB I have become aware of a more immediate danger: namely that key decisions are made about individuals without the person making those decisions having as full a picture as possible about the vulnerabilities and needs of the young person in their care. In response to that danger the YJB is helping develop an integrated pathway for children & young people in the youth system which will give as full a picture as possible, at every stage, to help the right decisions be made about a child’s welfare and safety.

There is progress, too, on other fronts:

• Police cells will no-longer be used to detain under 18s with mental health issues.

• The police are showing commendable enthusiasm for early triaging and liaison and diversion of those with mental health needs – a key recommendation of the Bradley Report. We still have the benefit of Lord Bradley’s Report as a check list of issues facing young people with mental health problems or learning disabilities. His follow up report in 2014, five years after his first one, found that progress had been made in the last five years; but another five years of sustained action was still required to make his vision a reality. Let us hope that in 2020 he will be able to report “Mission accomplished”.
• In another area The Laming Committee, on which I sit, is looking at the specific needs of looked after children in the youth justice system, including their mental health needs.
• We now have a High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Davis as the first Judicial Lead for Youth Justice in England and Wales. His appointment comes as a direct recommendation of the Carlile Report on the operation of the youth court and I am in regular contact with the Magistrates Association on how to make court proceedings more understandable to vulnerable young people.

I recently received a letter from a senior barrister who wrote: “I have become increasingly concerned about the way that the Criminal Justice System is able to accommodate and cope with young people with autism and other spectrum difficulties.” He goes on to say “ Recognition of the condition and early diagnosis with reference to schools, clubs or other communities who see young people may be of assistance and certainly the early stages of the criminal justice system would benefit from greater assistance and recognition of the condition”. I have similar letters on my desk from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, Dyslexia Behind Bars, academics and campaign groups.

We are clearly only in the foothills of understanding the changes which take place in the brain between early teens and mid-twenties. Certainly the brain does not make the quantum leap between childhood and adulthood which the law does at 18. There is also need for continuing research about the link between brain injury and offending.

Research thus far suggests that the most common disorders among young people in the youth justice system are conduct disorder, followed by anxiety and depression. It also seems that the prevalence of personality disorders, psychosis, attention disorder, post -traumatic stress and self-harm are all notably higher than in the general population.

In moving forward to Lord Bradley’s 2020 target we should recognize the grounds for optimism at the progress being made as well as a the serious nature of the challenges which still remain.

In my “optimism” folder is the Sun’s “Stamp out the Stigma” campaign which seeks to end the stigma of kids’ mental health, calls for greater resources and priority for children’s mental health and makes helpful suggestions about how social media, often a cause of bullying, anxiety and depression among young people can be used, via the best apps available for youngsters looking for help, advice and support. I commend the Sun for a campaign which is both timely and constructive in an area which still has too many taboos.

Having outed myself as a Sun reader let me conclude by repeating the clear commitment of the Youth Justice Board and its youth offending teams to give the highest priority to ensuring that young offenders with mental health needs have those needs addressed.

I have the distinct impression that, in spite of budget cuts, comprehensive spending reviews and the other joys of the age of austerity, this is an idea whose time has come. So let us use the cross disciplinary, holistic, silo mentality dismantling, information-sharing approach the YJB has pioneered these last fifteen years to make it a reality.

ENDS

In April 2012, the Competition Commission, a predecessor body of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), started a market investigation into private healthcare which reported in April 2014, immediately after the establishment of the CMA. The report concluded that certain features of the markets for privately-funded healthcare services were leading to an adverse effect on competition (AEC). The CMA required HCA International Limited, the largest private hospital operator in central London, to sell one or two of its hospitals.

HCA appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), which in January 2015 set aside part of the CMA’s findings and sent the case back to the CMA to reconsider.

In its provisional findings report published today, the CMA has provisionally found that HCA’s large market share, combined with high barriers to entry and expansion in central London, result in HCA facing weak competitive constraints and this leads to HCA charging higher prices to private medical insurers than would be expected in a well-functioning market. This is in addition to the AEC for patients who self-pay in central London, which the CMA identified in its original report and which was not quashed by the CAT.

The CMA is consulting on possible remedies to address the concerns it has identified. The remedies which the CMA is currently minded to consider are:

• the divestment of one or more hospital(s) by HCA
• HCA allowing competitors access to one or more of its hospital(s)
• preventing further expansion by HCA in central London

The CMA will consult on its provisional findings and potential remedies before publishing a final report in March 2016.

Roger Witcomb, Chairman of the Private Healthcare Market Remittal Group, said:

Following a long and thorough re-examination of the issues remitted back to us by the Competition Appeal Tribunal we have provisionally concluded that there is still a competition problem that needs addressing.

We will now consult widely and listen carefully to all responses to our provisional findings and potential remedies before we publish our final report.

The remittal was made after HCA identified errors in the insured pricing analysis during its appeal. As part of the remittal, the CMA revised this analysis and consulted on it through the publication of a working paper on 11 June 2015.

As well as revising its insured pricing analysis, the CMA also took into account all relevant arguments and evidence put to it by parties in relation to the other analysis that supported its original findings.

The CMA has already brought in a number of changes in the private healthcare market as a result of the initial investigation including:

• The appointment of the Private Healthcare Information Network to provide independent information for private patients on healthcare performance and fees as required by the CMA’s final report. The website will carry information on consultants’ fees along with information on their performance and the performance of private hospitals.
• A crackdown on benefits and incentive schemes provided to referring clinicians by private hospital operators.
• The ability for the CMA to be able to review future arrangements where private hospital operators team up with NHS private patient units (PPUs) and ban any that might substantially lessen competition.

Notes for editors

1. The CMA is the UK’s primary competition and consumer authority. It is an independent non-ministerial government department with responsibility for carrying out investigations into mergers, markets and the regulated industries and enforcing competition and consumer law. From 1 April 2014 it took over the functions of the Competition Commission and the competition and certain consumer functions of the Office of Fair Trading, as amended by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
2. The members of the Private Healthcare Market Remittal Group are: Roger Witcomb (Chairman), Tony Morris, Anne Lambert, Jeremy Peat and Jonathan Whiticar.
3. For more information on the CMA see our homepage or follow us on Twitter @CMAgovuk, Flickr and LinkedIn. Sign up to our email alerts to receive updates on markets cases.
4. Enquiries should be directed to Rory Taylor (rory.taylor@cma.gsi.gov.uk, 020 3738 6798) or Simon Belgard (simon.belgard@cma.gsi.gov.uk, 020 3738 6472).

I wish to inform the House of the latest developments on vehicle emissions testing, following the revelations that Volkswagen Group had been fitting so-called defeat devices to some of its vehicles.

The government takes the unacceptable actions of Volkswagen (VW) extremely seriously. Our priority is to protect the public and I have taken a number of steps to investigate what went wrong and what we can do to stop it happening again.

I have been clear that I expect VW to do everything necessary to protect its UK customers, but it is right also that the government carries out its own thorough and independent investigation to:

• establish whether the use of defeat devices goes wider than the VW Group
• gather much-needed evidence to restore public confidence, improve our understanding of the real world emission performance of vehicles, and strengthen our ambition and influence in pushing the EU to move to a comprehensive real world testing regime

We have already taken a range of actions.

The UK testing body, the Vehicle Certification Agency, has secured assurance from all automotive manufacturers outside the VW Group for whom it has issued emissions type approvals that defeat devices have not been used. We will of course be testing this for ourselves. We have already retested VW Group vehicles for which the UK provided type approval. These initial tests provide valuable information, improving our ability to detect a defeat device and strengthening our understanding of the impact it has on vehicle emissions, including CO₂ and NOₓ.

We have also begun a wider testing programme to understand the real world emissions performance of a broader selection of vehicles in the UK. This is crucial to improve the accuracy of environmental assessments – used for both air quality management and infrastructure investment. This programme will test a representative selection of vehicles used on UK roads, including a sample of the newest and the UK’s top selling vehicles.

I have secured agreement from my opposite number in Germany that our technical teams will work cooperatively together. This will enable us to reduce duplication and ensure a wide range of vehicles are tested. My officials will continue to look for further opportunities for collaboration with other European partners with a view to securing additional efficiencies.

This investigation is vital in restoring public confidence. We will look at vehicles from across all main brands sold in the UK – manufacturers will be treated equally. We must act urgently to remedy wrongdoing but we must also ensure that the results from this investigation are viewed fairly and in the context of the completed work. A report will be prepared at its conclusion and I will provide an update on progress by the end of the calendar year.

Alongside this, we have succeeded in reaching an agreement with the European Commission and member states that represents a real step change in the way in which testing is carried out – for the first time real world testing will be part of the regulatory regime from 2017. This is an important milestone, but we will continue to press for EU level action towards a comprehensive approach to emissions testing, to restore consumer confidence and deliver our wider air quality and climate objectives.

We have a major work programme underway and I will continue to inform the House of developments.

A prolific and persistent scammer, responsible for deliberately scamming Intellectual Property Office (IPO) customers, was today found liable for trade mark infringement and passing off and ordered to pay £500,000 plus legal costs.

A company trading as ‘Intellectual Property Agency Ltd (IPA)’ and the director Mr Harri Mattias Jonasson were found to have deliberately set out to deceive intellectual property owners by issuing scam renewal notices. By giving the impression that IPA was the IPO, or connected with it, IPA was able to persuade owners of trade marks and patents to engage it to renew those rights at a cost of up to 6 times the official renewal fees.

The judgment handed down by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) provides the IPO with the maximum financial award possible from this court.

IP Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe said:

I welcome this judgment and the stiff sanctions. Deliberately misleading consumers into thinking they are engaging with an official government agency, is a very serious matter.

Such misrepresentations of this kind, will not be tolerated and with the help of the IPO we take the issue of protecting IP seriously across government. We are also working with the City of London Police Fraud Team to combat this type of behaviour. I would encourage customers to report this type of scam - invoice fraud- to the Action Fraud website.

Initially IPA offered to negotiate and mediate, but ultimately they were unwilling to provide all the legal undertakings the IPO required.

IPA instead filed a defence at the IPEC early in December 2014. The judgment today follows a hearing that took place at the IPEC on the 29th September.

The IPO is working to educate its customers about the danger posed by scammers such IPA by issuing explicit warnings to users of the IPO naming the organisations concerned. Warning messages have also been placed on the IPO web site and other similar international IP offices such as OHIM and the European Patent Office.

Customer feedback has shown an overall reduction in scam renewal notices. In 2014 262 people told the IPO that they had received such notices compared to 848 in 2013.

During 2015, the total number of customer complaints about scam renewals as of the end of October was 224. The judgment of IPEC is therefore an important step in the continuing fight to stop the scammers.

More information is available on the Action Fraud web site.

Notes to editors

1. Intellectual Property Office (IPO) is within the Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills (BIS) and is responsible for the national framework of Intellectual Property rights, comprising patents, designs, trade marks and copyright. The IPO’s role is to help manage an intellectual property system that: encourages innovation and creativity, balances the needs of consumers and users, promotes strong and competitive markets and is the foundation of the knowledge-based economy.

2. The IPO operates in a national and an international environment and its work is governed by national and international law, including various international treaties relating to intellectual property which the United Kingdom is a party.

The upgrade to buildings, which are used by troops during large scale exercises, will help save money and make training more efficient. The site at Caerwent is used 3 times a year and in the past, each time an exercise took place, temporary facilities were brought in to support the team managing the training.

The improvements to the site, which cost £150,000, included installing electrical cabling points, lighting and heating, as well as showers and toilets to a number of buildings.

Col Richard Howard-Gash, Regional Commander for DIO training in Wales and west said:

DIO’s role is to maximise the potential of the defence estate to support the armed forces. The improvements to the site at Caerwent training area will benefit those managing training exercises hugely.

The team has worked incredibly hard to achieve something that on paper did not seem possible. I am extremely grateful for the commitment of both MSH Building Ltd and Landmarc in making this happen

Lt Col Nick Short, from the Mission Training and Mobilisation centre, which uses the facilities, said:

The team running this critical pre deployment training exercise, which will continue to take place on the Caerwent training area for the next few years, used to bring all this kit with them each time which involved a lot of planning and was costly and resource intensive.

“The permanent improvements to the buildings at Caerwent have reduced the resources required and now enable us to just turn up and plug in which brings significant cost savings and will enable troops to train more effectively.”

The work at Caerwent was due to be delivered through a 12 week programme, but this was reduced to 5 weeks to ensure that the army could benefit from the improvements in time for their next exercise.

Mark Griffiths Wales & west Regional Operations Manager, for DIO contractor Landmarc said:

Landmarc works in partnership with DIO to provide services that support the vital training needed to prepare Britain’s armed forces for operational success. This was a key project that will support Priority One military training over the next 2 to 3 years.

Our appointed contractor MSH Building Ltd has been very supportive and understanding of what we had to achieve and more importantly when it needed to be completed by. It is this attitude that has allowed us all to work together to deliver the project to the required 5 week programme.

ITER is the international successor to the world’s largest fusion experiment, JET, operated by UKAEA at Culham on behalf of the European fusion community. It is currently under construction in Cadarache and will act as the single step to a demonstration fusion power plant.

The Board members met with Bernard Bigot, ITER Director General, David Campbell, ITER Director of Science & Operations and Jérôme Pamela, Director of the Agence ITER France, to hear about progress and remaining technical challenges on ITER and took a detailed tour of the construction site.

The Board also took the opportunity to visit CEA’s site at Cadarache. They visited the Tore Supra experimental fusion device and were given a tour of the Jules Horowitz Reactor building. This is a new experimental reactor under construction that will test materials and fuels for nuclear reactors – with potential for collaboration with UKAEA’s growing materials research programme. Rob Bamber, a UKAEA engineer, currently seconded to the project, gave a short presentation on his work.

UKAEA Chairman Roger Cashmore was delighted with the visit:

It was very instructive for the Board to see what is happening at ITER, on the ground so to speak. It is clear that there are many opportunities for UKAEA with our knowledge and expertise to contribute to realising ITER and further steps towards electricity production.

Welsh companies are to benefit from a unique new five year national campaign that will present real-time export opportunities businesses can apply for instantly, in a move to get 100,000 additional companies exporting by 2020.

Exporting is GREAT – part of the world-renowned GREAT campaign – is the UK’s most ambitious export campaign to date. For the first time, it will present real-time export opportunities across media outlets and digital channels to businesses - of all sizes, from across sectors and every region of the UK - that they can apply for immediately. The platform will go live with hundreds of business opportunities, which will be available here. Around 1000 more will come online each month.

Coinciding with the launch, a series of events will be held across the UK as part of Exporting is GREAT Week. These are aimed at more experienced exporters as well as those that are about to begin their journey. In Wales this will be ExploreExport an all day event taking place at Cardiff’s SWALEC stadium on Thursday 12 November 2015.

The campaign will provide advice and expertise to support businesses at every step on their exporting journey, from initial interest to selling in-market. This will include a year-long Exporting is GREAT roadshow that will travel the length and breadth of the country giving face-to-face assistance to first-time exporters using the latest technology to connect businesses with live export opportunities.

Companies will also have the chance to visit the Export Hub truck, which will be touring across Wales in February 2016.

Through the campaign businesses will also benefit from strong commercial partnerships: increasing the supply of available trade opportunities, providing offers and discounted services to SMEs.

Secretary of State for Wales Stephen Crabb said:

From Penderyn Whisky to BCB International, home grown business success on a global stage show just what can be achieved when innovation and ambition are combined with a fantastic product and a strong Welsh identity.

The potential for companies of all sizes to reach out to new customers and lucrative new markets beyond the UK has never been greater. We are committed to continue working with the Welsh Government and UKTI to ensure that Welsh businesses realise this potential, and help put Wales on a sound path to becoming a beacon of exporting success.

Welsh Economy Minister Edwina Hart said:

Developing new export markets for Welsh businesses is vital to our plans to create economic growth and jobs. Since 1999 the value of exports from Wales has more than doubled and is currently worth an estimated £11bn annually to the Welsh economy and the long term trend for Welsh exports is very positive.

We want to build on this success by supporting even more Welsh businesses at all stages of their export journeys, to increase trade and explore new markets. Working with UK Trade and Investment, and building on the success of previous event, we have developed the programme for this year’s ExploreExport with exactly those goals in mind.

Notes to editors:

1. Exporting is GREAT is the government’s most ambitious export campaign ever. It aims to inspire and support 100,000 additional UK exporters to sell their goods and services overseas by 2020. The campaign’s mission is to turn the UK into the world’s greatest exporting nation, capturing the imagination of the public, boosting business confidence and national pride and empowering more UK companies to go out and succeed in global markets.

Every day in every country around the world, there is someone somewhere who wants or needs a UK product or service. The demand is out there, you could be too.

To find out more, click here

1. The first phase of the campaign will run across the UK from 8 November 2015 to March 2016 and include TV, digital, radio, outdoor, and press advertising. The campaign includes a series of films that feature high profile entrepreneurs, international business owners and export champions demonstrating the global demand for UK products and services.

2. Online help is available via www.exportingisgreat.gov.uk. The site is designed to engage, direct and support businesses that have responded to the campaign. Every user’s data will be captured for relationship management (CRM) and evaluation purposes. From day one, first-time exporters can register their interest in live trade opportunities, access support to export, find out more about Exporting is GREAT Week events and the Exporting is GREAT roadshow and sign up for our essential guide to exporting.

3. UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) is the government department that helps UK-based companies succeed in the global economy. We also help overseas companies bring their high quality investment to the UK’s economy – acknowledged as Europe’s best place from which to succeed in global business. UKTI offers expertise and contacts through its extensive network of specialists in the UK, and in British embassies and other diplomatic offices around the world. We provide companies with the tools they require to be competitive on the world stage.

•Welcome. Wanted to gather fellow UNSC members and AU and other UN partners together to mark the UK’s Presidency of the UNSC in November. Main purpose is to network, but wanted to say a few words on our overall approach to the Presidency.

•Before I do so, may I congratulate the African UNSC members Chad and Nigeria who leave the UNSC at the end of December for their hard work over the past two years and say how much we look forward to working with Egypt and Senegal, who join the UNSC in January.

•The UK approach to our Presidency this month is one of transparency, efficiency and innovation – those are the keynotes - we want to use this month to guide a Council that is open to, and reflective of, the modern world, and one that can come together to meet complex challenges of the day, taking full account of the views and expertise of the region.

•And I should like to emphasise our desire to see the UNSC and AU working together ever more closely and effectively, as the implementation of the UNSG’s recommendations in response to the High Level Panel report on Peace Operations is taken forward. The UK fully supports the AU suggested principles of burden sharing, comparative advantage, and division of labour, backed by close and constant collaboration.

•The challenges of the day are clear for all to see, not least on the Middle East issues which are already dominating business during November. Syria – where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions displaced - remains a top priority for the Council.

•But more widely, increased violence and instability across the Middle East continues to be of serious concern: from Yemen to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to Libya, where the situation is so fragile.

•So much of our Presidency will be devoted to mobilising the Council to tackle these grave threats, which are global in their impact.

•Of course this need for progress extends far beyond the Middle East. Here in Africa, much more must also be done. That is why our Foreign Secretary, alongside the UN Secretary General, is – as we meet here tonight - hosting a briefing on Somalia. The Council has already given its backing to increased support for UNSOA, whose name may change to UNSOS, allowing it to consolidate and build upon the progress made in that country. We were pleased that our Prime Minister was able to announce a specific UK contribution to UNSOA during UNGA.

•The UNSC will also turn its attention to the deteriorating situation in Burundi and there will be discussions on UNAMID/Darfur, South Sudan and the Sahel.

•The UN – and its Security Council – is at the heart of the rules-based international system, and we will use our Presidency to uphold that system and advance essential norms.

•To that end, our Development Secretary will host an important open debate on Conflict Prevention. She will make clear that inclusive societies – with effective and accountable institutions and respect for the rule of law – are essential for lasting peace. There is particular resonance here in the case of the rule of law, bearing in mind that this year is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta – one of the many national and international legal documents specifically inspired by Magna Carta was of course the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The debate on Conflict Prevention will build on the groundbreaking Sustainable Development Goals, agreed in New York in September. It will be the first ever UNSC meeting of International Development Ministers.

•We will also take stock of international peacekeeping – a fundamental part of upholding the rules-based system - with the first Council discussion of the UNSG’s response to the High-Level Panel Report on Peace Operations. And we will recognise the contribution made by police to those peace operations, through a briefing from their commissioners.

•The UK’s approach to the Security Council is formed of 4 pillars – tackling threats, shaping rules, supporting reform and maximising outreach. We will embed that in our Presidency, ensuring our reform-minded outlook and outreach to others can uphold the rules and tackle the threads the Security Council is charged with addressing.

•I shall be leaving here at the end of my posting in mid-December. Although there will be other chances to bid farewell, just wanted to take the opportunity of tonight to thank everyone here for their friendship and collaboration over the past four years. A lot has been achieved during that period, and I have to say that it’s never been dull!

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act received Royal Assent in March 2015. It’s expected to be implemented to the timescales set out below.

The measures that affect companies aim to:

• reduce red tape
• increase the quality of information on the public register
• enhance transparency

The Act intends to provide a boost to the economy, making it easier for businesses to find the valuable information they need. It should also ensure the UK is seen as a trusted and fair place to do business.

All companies will be affected in some way, as the measures change legal requirements on companies, including what they file with Companies House. This will impact your company’s systems and processes.

The changes with the highest impact will be delivered in the final stage, giving you more time to get your company ready.

Changes may still happen as secondary legislation passes through Parliament. We will keep you updated and release more information as this becomes available.

26 May 2015

Bearer shares

Share warrants to bearer (known as ‘bearer shares’) were abolished.

These were shares issued by a company, but assigned to a warrant, rather than a registered owner. The warrant allowed the bearer holder to claim any ownership or rights attached to those shares.

As the owner’s details did not need to be entered into the register of members, it was sometimes difficult to establish ownership of those shares.

In keeping with the government’s focus on business transparency, this measure means all shares must have a designated owner.

If your company has bearer shares

If this affects your company, your bearer shareholders have 9 months (from 26 May 2015) to surrender their warrants voluntarily. These can then be converted into registered shares, and the bearer shareholder will enter their name into the register of members.

Your company should take steps to ensure bearer shareholders know their rights to surrender their warrants, and the consequences if they don’t.

Consequences of not surrendering share warrants

If the share warrants haven’t been surrendered within 7 months (from 26 May 2015), all rights are automatically suspended. Bearer shareholders can’t vote or claim dividends from the shares. They will also be unable to transfer the warrant, as any transfers made after the 7 month period are void.

If the share warrants haven’t been surrendered within 9 months, the company has to make an application to the court to have them cancelled.

10 October 2015

Date of birth

Partial suppression of date of birth on the public register: suppressing the day element for directors.

It has always been a requirement of the Companies Act 2006 for directors to provide a full date of birth. This measure provides you with more protection by suppressing the day of birth on the public record.

The full date of birth will still be needed to be provided to Companies House, but will no longer be shown in full on our data products.

Your full date of birth will only be disclosed in exceptional circumstances (for example to credit reference agencies, or to public authorities). This procedure is similar to how residential addresses are protected.

You will still need to enter your date of birth into the register of directors, PSC register or both.

Accelerated strike-off

The time it takes to strike a company off the register if it’s not carrying on business or operation will be reduced.

The accelerated strike-off process aims for the right balance between removing a defunct company from the register and allowing creditors time to register an objection.

Under old legislation, if no objection was received, the company was struck off not less than 3 months after a notice is published in The Gazette. Under the new timescales, the company will be struck off not less than 2 months from publication of the Gazette notice.

If you’re waiting for a company name to become available, faster company strike off means this will happen slightly sooner. However, if you’re trying to prevent your company from being struck off, it’s even more important for you to keep your company record up to date.

If you are objecting to a company being struck off, this also means you now have 2 months to object, instead of 3.

Companies House are not re-advertising a 1st Gazette notice once a valid objection has expired. If you previously relied on this as a prompt to renew your objection, it’s important to realise this no longer happens. All objections need to lodged within the 2 month notice.

Consent to act as an officer

Replacement of the ‘consent to act’ procedure.

For newly appointed officers, a statement was added by Companies House to the relevant appointment and incorporation forms (paper and electronic) that the person has consented to act in their relevant capacity.

Companies are required to agree to this statement. This replaced the previous consent to act procedure of providing a signature on paper forms and personal authentication on electronic filings.

As part of this, Companies House write to all newly appointed directors to make them aware that their appointment has been filed on the public register and explain their general legal duties. See also the new director disputes procedure.

December 2015

Director disputes

A simpler way to get falsely appointed directors’ details removed from the register.

Disputes might be made where it is found an appointed director did not consent to act in their appointment.

When a dispute is received, your company needs to provide evidence that the director ‘consented to act’ in their appointment. If sufficient evidence isn’t provided, this may result in the director’s appointment being removed from the register.

This proof might be that the company has retained a statement from the director that they have ‘consented to act’.

Additional information or evidence that might need to be sent to the registrar is yet to be determined, and will form part of secondary legislation.

Registered office address (ROA) disputes

A new process to help when a company is using an address for its registered office it doesn’t have authorisation for.

Where a complaint is received that a company is fraudulently using an ROA, Companies House will investigate. If the registrar is satisfied that a company is not entitled to use an address, he will have the power to change an ROA to the ‘default’ address.

Default addresses

A default address is the relevant Companies House address for that jurisdiction.

A company registered in England and Wales would be defaulted to Companies House in Cardiff, a company registered in Ireland defaults to Companies House in Belfast, and a company registered in Scotland defaults to Companies House in Edinburgh.

Once changed to a default address, any post sent to that company is held at the relevant Companies House office. If the company wants to obtain post we have retained, they first need to change their ROA and provide evidence that they are entitled to use it.

Companies House offices will not receive packages or bailiff visits on the behalf of companies with default addresses.

Acceptable evidence

This might be a document that shows the ROA is a building the company owns, one they rent, or an agreement from the owner that they are allowed to use the address as an ROA.

The registrar will consider any evidence sent and advise both the company and the applicant the outcome. If the registrar can’t come to an appropriate decision, it may be referred to the courts.

April 2016

People with significant control (PSC)

Companies will need to keep a register of people with significant control (‘PSC register’) from this point, in preparation for the need to file this information at Companies House from 30 June 2016.

A PSC is anyone in the company who meets one or more of the conditions listed in the legislation. This is a person who:

• owns more than 25% of the company’s shares
• owns more than 25% of the company’s voting rights
• has the right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors
• has significant influence or control over the company
• has significant influence or control over a trust or firm

One of the reasons behind this change is to improve transparency around who owns and controls UK businesses. This is also a measure to improve the UK’s reputation as a fair place to do business.

Protection

PSC information will be similar to director’s details in how it is provided and how some information is kept secure. Some of the information that will need to be kept and provided to us is:

• name
• service address
• usual residential address
• country and state of residence
• nationality
• date of birth
• date they became a PSC
• nature of company control

The usual residential address and day of birth will be protected, in a similar way to how director information will be treated under the new legislation.

Most of the details around PSCs will be set out in secondary legislation. We will update you when we know more.

June 2016

Check and confirm

A requirement to ‘check and confirm’ the company information by filing a ‘confirmation statement’, and notify changes if necessary at least once every 12 months. This will replace the current obligation to file an annual return.

People with significant control (PSC)

Companies are already keeping a ‘PSC register’ by this point. This information now needs to be filed with us on incorporation and updated when you submit your ‘confirmation statement’.

Company registers

Private companies will be able to opt to keep certain information on the public register, instead of holding their own statutory registers. This will apply to registers of:

• members
• directors
• secretaries
• directors’ residential addresses
• persons of significant control (PSC)

This is completely voluntary, and your company can continue holding its own registers if you prefer.

Outcomes to consider

If your company elects to hold its registers at Companies House, this information becomes part of the public record.

For example, information such as shareholder addresses or director day of birth would be protected when registers aren’t held at Companies House. These become part of the public record when registers are then switched to us.

Companies can opt in and out of holding registers here, but any sensitive information that was placed on the public record while registers were held at Companies House continues to remain part of the public record.

Registers that remain at the company’s ROA or single alternative inspection location (SAIL) continue to be bound to the normal inspection rules that currently apply.

Directors misconduct

Companies House will implement the necessary changes to forms and systems to support the updated and strengthened disqualified directors regime.

From October 2015, new offences have been added to the current regime that individuals can also be disqualified for. These are:

• ‘disqualification for certain convictions abroad’
• ‘disqualification of persons instructing unfit directors’

Disqualification for certain convictions abroad

This is where an offence is committed overseas in relation to the:

• formation or promotion of a company
• receivership of a company’s property (or similar)
• acting as an administrative receiver

Disqualification of person instructing unfit directors

The conduct of people instructing unfit directors can also be taken into consideration.

If a director has been deemed unfit and this is due to someone exercising control over the director, they too could be disqualified.

Statement of capital

Simplification of the statement of capital and consistency throughout the Act.

The changes remove the requirement to show the amount paid up and unpaid on each share. Instead, you now need to show the aggregate amount unpaid on the total number of shares. This figure is more useful for shareholders and creditors as it shows money which is still due to the company.

Currently, a statement of capital needs to be provided every year on the annual return. Instead, you can now simply show on the confirmation statement that there have been no changes for that year.

You will only need to provide a full statement of capital where changes have been made during the year. This will avoid you having to provide duplicate information to the registrar.

October 2016

Corporate directors

A prohibition on appointing corporate directors will be introduced with some limited exceptions. Any company with an existing corporate director will need to take action, either explaining how they meet the conditions for an exception or give notice to the registrar that the person has ceased to be a director.

Further detail on this and what it means for companies with corporate directors is being considered following a public consultation BIS held in April.

Late 2016 / early 2017

Optional information

Companies will be able to deliver certain categories of optional information to the registrar. A consultation period will establish which types of information will be able to be held at Companies House. These might include:

• company trading addresses
• number of employees
• one email address
• one phone number

The criteria are yet to be decided, but any optional information would be sent to the registrar on a voluntary basis.

Earlier this year we engaged with the charity on this matter and made clear that the posting of the video on the charity’s website was wholly inappropriate, and unacceptable for a trustee to do so. We raised concerns about whether the trustees had complied with their duties and brought the charity and its reputation into disrepute. We took immediate regulatory action in terms of requiring a number of steps to be taken regarding its Facebook account and we have an ongoing monitoring operation to check compliance with this. Failure to comply with these steps could lead the commission to take further action.

Our powers to remove trustees from charities are currently limited. This is why we have asked for new powers - which are currently before Parliament in the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill. The Bill will, for example, enable us to act where personal conduct affects fitness to be a trustee and it is in the public interest for us to act.

Our regulatory engagement with the charity continues.

For further enquires, please contact the Charity Commission press office.

Entitlement values, including those for greening, that will now be used to calculate farmers’ 2015 Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) payments have been confirmed by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA).

Entitlement values

Under the BPS scheme, farmers need to hold an entitlement for every hectare of eligible land they are claiming on. The size of farmers’ payments will depend on how many entitlements they use, supported by eligible land and the value of those entitlements.

Entitlement values are:

BPS:

€ 171.83 for non-SDA (Severely Disadvantaged Areas)

€ 170.60 for upland SDA, other than moorland

€ 45.07 for upland SDA moorland

Greening rates

Farmers must also meet new greening rules to receive additional funding. The greening part of payments will be calculated by taking the number of entitlements that they have used with eligible land to claim payment and multiplying it by the greening value.

The greening rates are:

€ 76.19 for non-SDA (Severely Disadvantaged Areas)

€ 75.64 for upland SDA, other than moorland

€ 19.99 for upland SDA moorland

The exchange rate that will be applied is €1 = £0.73129

National Reserve

The scheme’s National Reserve - used to fund additional entitlements for the Young and New Farmers - has been set at 0.75%. The RPA will soon be contacting anyone who has applied for entitlements from the National Reserve to confirm if their application has been successful.

Young Farmer Payment

Eligible Young Farmers, who applied, will receive an additional payment equivalent to a quarter of their entitlement value. The RPA remains on track to make full BPS payments as early as possible in the payment window with the majority before the end of December and the vast majority by the end of January 2016.The BPS payment window opens in December and closes in June 2016.

The scheme guidance can be found at GOV.UK/rpa/bps.

HMAC advises on the safety, quality and efficacy of herbal medicines. Members will need to possess or develop a working knowledge and understanding of the UK/European medicines regulatory procedures for herbal medicines and will need to contribute to meeting agenda items by drawing on their expertise.

HMAC invites applications from candidates with experience of committee membership and in one of the following areas:

• practitioner in traditional Chinese medicine
• gastroenterologist with a recognised leading role in medical education
• paediatrician (medically qualified) at consultant or equivalent level who is not a herbal practitioner
• lay member

Members will be required to speak on a range of relevant issues and provide advice to MHRA when required. Members should also be prepared to relinquish all personal interests of a financial nature in the pharmaceutical and related industries.

Members will receive £325 per meeting. Monthly meetings are scheduled but only take place if needed. Six meetings were held during the last year.

If you require an alternative format such as Braille, large print or audio please call Viona Pereira-Marron on 0113 254 5845 quoting the reference EC15-12.

The closing date for applications is 12pm on 1 December 2015.

Exercise Arrcade Fusion, which takes place in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, will be led by the Army, accompanied by a small number of supporting personnel from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

Around 1,400 troops from 18 NATO nations will take part in the exercise, which began over the weekend, and runs through November. The UK is committing 800 troops and around 350 Army logistics vehicles.

The UK led exercise will put the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) – the land element of NATO’s new Rapid Reaction Force – to the test. The exercise will help prepare the new force before it becomes operational in 2016.

It will also demonstrate NATO’s capacity to operate in complex environments across the conventional, unconventional and hybrid spectrum of warfare.

Arrcade Fusion reinforces the UK’s continued commitment to the Baltic States. Next year RAF jets will take part in the Baltic Air Policing mission for the 3rd consecutive year while last month, the Defence Secretary announced that the UK will deploy a persistent presence to the Baltic states to provide reassurance and build the capability of their armed forces of the region.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said:

This exercise underlines our commitment to the sovereignty of the democratic nations of Eastern Europe.

It builds on our decision to deploy RAF jets and company sized units to the Baltic region.

It will also provide crucial training to ensure the effectiveness of the new Rapid Reaction Force when it launches next year.

Lieutenant General Tim Evans, commander Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, said:

The Allied Rapid Reaction Corps has deployed to the Baltic States on Exercise Arrcade Fusion to improve and refine the way we operate alongside our allies in the region.

The exercise will also assure the public and the governments of the Baltic states that NATO stands ready to support its members when required.

More than 20 MPs attended the service in the Guards Chapel, at London’s Wellington Barracks, which was organised by Minister for the Armed Forces Penny Mordaunt.

Speaking at the event this morning the Minister, who also serves as a Royal Navy Reservist, said:

I’m pleased that fellow MPs joined us today, as I don’t think it is well known that about 10% of the house are >veterans, which is roughly the same as the rest of the population.

We have members with tremendously deep knowledge about history, about our Armed Forces and about international affairs.

The service was carried out by Reverend Dowell Conning, the Senior Chaplain to the Household Division, and included the traditional two-minute silence, The Last Post, and hymns Jerusalem and I Vow to Thee My Country.

A wreath was laid on behalf of those in attendance.

Keith Simpson, MP for Broadland, spoke during the service about MPs in the World Wars, and explained that 19 Members of Parliament were killed during the First World War and 21 in the 1939-1945 conflict.

The Unseen blends biological and chemical matter into materials that are designed to ‘enhance the unseen’.

The clothing in the Selfridge’s collection is able to change colour to reflect changes in aerodynamics, moisture and ultra-violet light.

See The Unseen and more inspiration from the future of fashion

Predictions - Future Fashion & Wearable Technology

Funding from Innovate UK allowed The Unseen to test out its science and design in the real world.

Materials alchemist Lauren Bowker, founder of The Unseen, said:

Innovate UK really helped to set up The Unseen. When I applied for the award, it was the first one I had seen for fashion technology.

Fashion technology is a growing area. In the future, clothes could clean themselves or even make us appear invisible.