The following summary of planned new and ongoing road improvements over the coming week is correct as of 17 February 2017 but could be subject to change due to weather conditions or unforeseen circumstances. All our improvement work is carried out with the aim of causing as little disruption as possible.

M1 junction 6a (M25), Hertfordshire: resurfacing

Work to improve journeys by carrying out resurfacing will start this week. The dedicated link road from the M1 southbound to the M25 in both directions will be closed in both directions, between 10pm and 5.30am, from Monday 20 February for 5 nights. Work on Friday will start at 11pm. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the M1 southbound to junction 6 and the A405 to M25 junction 21a.

M3 junctions 2 (M25) to 4a Farnborough, Hampshire: smart motorway improvement

Work to reduce congestion and improve journey times continues this week with narrow lanes a 50mph speed limit in place on both carriageways between junctions 2 and 4a, with a free recovery service operating 24 hours a day.

The southbound carriageway between junctions 2 and 4a will be closed overnight, between 8pm and 5.30am, from Monday 20 February for 5 nights. Work on Saturday morning will finish at 7am. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via M25 junction 13, A30 and the A327 to M3 junction 4a.

The northbound carriageway between junctions 4 and 2 will be closed overnight, between 8pm and 5.30am, from Monday 20 February for 2 nights. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the A331, A30, M25 junction 13 and M25 junction 12.

The northbound exit slip road at junction 4a will be closed overnight, between 8pm and 5.30am, from Monday 20 February for 2 nights. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via junction 4 and the A30.

The northbound carriageway between junctions 4a and 2 will be closed overnight, between 8pm and 5.30am, from Wednesday 22 February for 2 nights. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the A327, A30, M25 junction 13 and M25 junction 12.

M4 junction 4, Heathrow Airport, Greater London: drainage survey

Work to maintain safety by carrying out drainage surveys will start this week. The westbound exit slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Wednesday 22 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via junction 5 and return.

The westbound entry slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Thursday 23 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via junction 3 and return.

M4 junction 4b (M25), Greater London: drainage survey

Work to maintain safety by carrying out drainage surveys continues this week. The dedicated link road from the M4 westbound to the M25 in both directions will be closed overnight, between 11pm and 5am, on Friday 24 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via junction 5 and return.

M11 junction 6 (M25), Essex: resurfacing

Work to improve journeys by carrying out resurfacing will start this week. The dedicated link road from the M11 southbound to the M25 anti-clockwise will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, from Monday 20 February for 5 nights. Work on Friday will start at 11pm. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via M25 junction 28 and return.

M25 junction 2 (A2), Kent: resurfacing

Work to improve journeys by carrying out resurfacing will start this week. The anti-clockwise exit slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Saturday 25 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via junction 1a and return.

M25 junction 3 Swanley, Kent: vegetation clearance

Work to maintain safety by carrying out vegetation clearance will start this week. The anti-clockwise exit and entry slip roads will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am from Wednesday 22 February for 2 nights. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the exit slip road via junction 2 and return. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the entry slip road via junction 4 and return.

M25 junction 4 Orpington, Kent: vegetation clearance

Work to maintain safety by carrying out vegetation clearance will start this week. The anti-clockwise exit slip road will be closed overnight, between 11pm and 6am on Friday 24 Feburary. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via junction 3 and return.

M25 junction 10 (A3), Surrey: resurfacing

Work to improve journeys by carrying out resurfacing will start this week. The anti-clockwise exit slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, from Monday 20 February for 2 nights, and between 11pm and 6am on Friday 24 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via junction 9 and return.

M25 junctions 10 (A3) to 11 Chertsey, Surrey: bridge joint replacement

Work to improve journeys by carrying out bridge joint replacement on the structure that carries the M25 over the River Wey and the South West Trains railway line continues this week. The clockwise carriageway will be closed overnight, between 9pm and 8am, on Saturday 25 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the A3, A245, A320 and the A317.

M25 junction 12 (M3), Surrey: smart motorway improvement

Work to improve journeys by carrying out smart motorway improvement continues this week. The dedicated link roads from the M25 in both directions to the M3 southbound will be closed overnight, between 8pm and 5.30am, from Monday 20 February for 5 nights. Work on Saturday morning will finish at 7am. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via M25 junction 13, A30 and the A327 to M3 junction 4a.

The dedicated link road from the M25 clockwise to the M3 northbound will be closed overnight, between 8pm and 5.30am, from Monday 20 February for 3 nights. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via M25 junction 13 and return.

M25 junction 19 (A41), Hertfordshire: electrical repair

Work to maintain safety by carrying out electrical repairs will start this week. The clockwise exit slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, from Monday 20 February for 2 nights. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via M25 junction 20 and the A41.

M25 junction 20 Hunton Bridge, Hertfordshire: electrical repair

Work to maintain safety by carrying out electrical repairs will start this week. The anti-clockwise exit and entry slip roads will be closed overnight, between 11pm and 5am, on Friday 24 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the exit slip road via junction 18 and return. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the entry slip road via junction 21a and return.

M25 junction 21a St Albans, Hertfordshire: resurfacing

Work to improve journeys by carrying out resurfacing will start this week. The anti-clockwise carriageway between the slip roads will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, on Monday 20 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the M25 via the exit and entry slip roads.

M25 junction 21 (M1), Hertfordshire: resurfacing

Work to improve journeys by carrying out resurfacing will start this week. The dedicated link road from the M25 anti-clockwise to the M1 northbound carriageway will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, on Monday 20 February. A clearly signed pre-diversion will be in place via M25 junction 21a, A405 and M1 junction 6.

M25 junctions 25 Enfield to 26 Waltham Abbey, Essex: tunnel maintenance

Work to test and maintain the Holmesdale Tunnel safety systems continues this week. The clockwise entry slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, from Wednesday 22 February for 4 consecutive nights. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via junction 24 and return.

M25 junction 31 Lakeside, Essex: technology installation

Work to maintain safety by carrying out technology installation will start this week. The clockwise entry slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, from Wednesday 22 February for 2 nights. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via junction 30 and return.

A2 Dartford Heath, Kent: resurfacing

Work to improve journeys by carrying out resurfacing will start this week. The eastbound exit and entry slip roads will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Monday 20 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the exit slip road via M25 junction 2 and return. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the entry slip road via the Black Prince Interchange.

The westbound exit and entry slip roads will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Tuesday 21 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the exit slip road via the Black Prince Interchange and return. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the entry slip road via M25 junction 2 and return.

A3 Esher, Surrey: litter clearance

Work to improve journeys by carrying out litter clearance will start this week. The southbound exit and entry slip roads will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Monday 20 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the exit slip road via the Painshill junction and return. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the entry slip road via the Tolworth junction and return.

The northbound exit and entry slip roads will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Tuesday 21 February. A clearly signed diversion for the exit slip road will be in place via the Tolworth junction and return. A clearly signed diversion for the entry slip road will be in place via the Painshill junction and return.

A3 Painshill, Surrey: litter clearance

Work to improve journeys by carrying out litter clearance will start this week. The southbound exit and entry slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Wednesday 22 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the exit slip road via M25 junction 10 and return. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the entry slip road via the Esher junction and return.

The northbound exit slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Thursday 23 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the Esher junction and return.

A3 (M25), Surrey: litter clearance

Work to improve journeys by carrying out litter clearance will start this week. The northbound entry slip road will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5am, on Thursday 23 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the Ockham junction and return.

The southbound exit and entry slip roads will be closed overnight, between 11pm and 6am, on Friday 24 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the exit slip road via the Ockham junction and return. A clearly signed diversion will be in place for the entry slip road via the Painshill junction and return.

A13 (M25) to (A1012), Essex: technology testing

Work to maintain safety by carrying out technology testing continues this week. The A13 eastbound between the M25 and the A1012 will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, on Monday 20 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the dedicated link road between junction 30 and 31, A1306 and the A1012.

A13 (A1012) to (A1306), Essex: technology testing

Work to maintain safety by carrying out technology testing continues this week. The A13 westbound between North Stifford and Wennington will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, on Monday 20 February and Wednesday 22 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the A1012, M25 junction 31 and the A1306.

A13 (A1306) to (A1012), Essex: technology testing

Work to maintain safety by carrying out technology testing continues this week. The A13 eastbound between the Wennington and North Stifford will be closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, from Thursday 23 February for 2 nights. Work on Friday will start at 11pm. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the A1306, M25 junction 31, A1306 and A1012.

A282 (M25) Dartford – Thurrock Crossing: maintenance

Work to improve journeys at the Dartford Crossing continues this week. The following closures will be in place with fully signed diversions in place during the northbound east tunnel closures for oversized vehicles:

• Monday 20 February (9pm to 5.30am) northbound west tunnel
• Tuesday 21 February (9pm to 5.30am) northbound west tunnel
• Wednesday 22 February (9pm to 5.30am) northbound west tunnel
• Thursday 23 February (9pm to 5.30am) northbound west tunnel
• Friday 24 February (9pm to 5.30am) northbound east tunnel
• Saturday 25 February (9pm to 5.30am) northbound west tunnel
• Sunday 26 February (9pm to 5.30am) northbound east tunnel

The QEII Bridge will have three (of four) lanes closed overnight, between 10pm and 5.30am, from Monday 20 February for 5 nights. Work on Friday will start at 11pm.

A282 junction 1a Swanscombe, Kent: tunnel maintenance

Work to maintain safety by carrying out tunnel maintenance continues this week. The northbound entry slip road will be closed overnight, between 9pm and 5.30am from Monday 20 February for 4 nights and on Saturday 25 February. A clearly signed diversion will be in place via the A282 southbound to junction 1b and return.

General enquiries

Members of the public should contact the Highways England customer contact centre on 0300 123 5000.

Media enquiries

Journalists should contact the Highways England press office on 0844 693 1448 and use the menu to speak to the most appropriate press officer.

Mr Hill has been a QC for 9 years and has extensive experience both defending and prosecuting complex cases involving terrorism, homicide, violent crime, high value fraud and corporate crime. He successfully prosecuted the 21/7 bombers, and appeared in the inquest into the 7/7 bombings. Mr Hill takes over the role from David Anderson QC, who has held the post since 2011.

Welcoming the appointment, Home Secretary Amber Rudd said:

I am pleased to announce that Max Hill QC has been appointed as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

With the threat from terrorism continuing to evolve and diversify, it is vital we have robust oversight to ensure our counter-terrorism laws are fair, necessary and proportionate. Mr Hill brings a wealth of experience and legal expertise to help deliver this.

I am grateful to David Anderson QC for his service as Independent Reviewer and thank him for his considered reports and valuable analysis.

Max Hill QC said:

I am very pleased to have this opportunity, which comes at a time of heightened concern about the risk from terrorism which we all face in the UK. As a practising barrister with experience in both counter-terrorism and the rights of citizens facing allegations of serious crime, I look forward to working with participants at all levels and from all sides.

As part of his role, Mr Hill will be required to provide an annual report on his findings, which the government must lay before Parliament and publish. He will begin his tenure on 1 March 2017.

BAE Systems announced today that the new training facility will provide a tailored learning environment for an estimated 1,000 craft and technical apprentices currently in training.

Mr Fallon met apprentices working in a range of areas, and toured the Devonshire Dock Hall where Audacious, Anson and Agamemnon, the fourth, fifth and sixth of seven Astute class nuclear-powered submarines, are under construction.

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said:

This investment demonstrates the benefits that our growing defence budget brings for highly skilled jobs in the North West and across the country.

It will ensure we have people with the skills necessary to deliver one of the most complex programmes in the world that will help modernise our fleet of nuclear submarines.

Apprentices at BAE Systems already work on our cutting-edge Astute Submarines, the most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy, as well the Dreadnought Programme, the new fleet of four Dreadnought Ballistic Missile submarines that will carry our nuclear deterrent.

The new modern facility is due to open next year and will include a teaching block, classrooms, offices, craft workshops and welfare facilities. It is planned that the facility will include to-scale ‘submarine mock-up sections’ which will allow apprentices to gain hands-on experience in a controlled environment and help them develop skills working to the tolerances required to build submarines.

Following a £1.3 billion investment by Defence, construction has started on the Dreadnought submarines. Backed by a rising Defence budget and £178 billion equipment programme, both Astute and Dreadnought programmes secure thousands of highly skilled jobs in Barrow and right across the UK.

Tony Johns, Managing Director of BAE Systems Submarines, said:

The design and build of a nuclear-powered submarine is one of the world’s most complex and technically demanding engineering challenges. It’s vital we have right people with the right skills to deliver these programmes and this investment underlines our commitment to the future. The new facility will provide a modern learning environment to supplement the training our apprentices already receive.

The MOD is committed to delivering more high quality apprenticeships and work experience for young people right across Defence, and encouraging our industry partners to do the same. As the largest provider of apprenticeships in the UK, the MOD successfully completes more than 10,000 apprenticeships a year and we are setting a target to deliver 50,000 military apprenticeships during this parliament.

Whilst in Barrow, the Secretary of State also visited Allan Webb Ltd, a specialist in Defence Technical Documentation and Supportability Engineering to review aspects of the support provided to the MOD. Allan Webb Ltd has a strong reputation in the Defence Sector for quality and innovation having over 50 years’ experience in the industry.

Allan Webb Ltd works in conjunction with BMT Defence Services, to increase the MOD’s capability with training and logistical support. BMT Defence Services has a strong reputation in the naval design market, having provided the winning designs for Royal Navy’s MARS Fleet Tanker, the Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) aircraft carrier, and the Astute submarine

The Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon said:

Allan Webb Ltd and BMT Defence Services operate a strong and efficient partnership that provides the MOD with world-leading service helping us to keep Britain safe.

During his visit, the Defence Secretary discussed the latest innovations in how technical equipment handbooks are produced for the MOD and the benefits of this modernisation in order to meet the needs of engineers across the Armed Forces.

Our work with companies of all sizes shows Defence’s determination to do its part to deliver a bold, long term Industrial Strategy that builds on our strengths and prepares the UK for the years ahead. We are working with SMEs and businesses of all kinds to innovate and build mutual security to ensure an economy that works for everyone. 

Defence investment supports high-wage, high-skills jobs across the UK and backed by our rising Defence budget, £178bn Equipment Plan, and £800m Innovation Initiative, we are delivering the jobs, apprenticeships, infrastructure, and economy of the future.

• You can find out more about Continuous At Sea Deterrence here.
• You can find out more about MOD Apprenticeships here.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has named 361 businesses who underpaid 15,521 workers a total of £995,684, with employers in the hairdressing, hospitality and retail sectors the most prolific offenders.

As well as recovering back pay for some of the UK’s lowest paid workers, HMRC issued penalties worth around £800,000.

Employers who failed to pay workers at least the National Living Wage have been named and shamed for the first time since the Government introduced the higher £7.20 rate for workers aged 25 and over last year.

Business Minister Margot James, said:

Every worker in the UK is entitled to at least the national minimum or living wage and this Government will ensure they get it.

That is why we have named and shamed more than 350 employers who failed to pay the legal minimum, sending the clear message to employers that minimum wage abuses will not go unpunished.

Secretary of State for Wales, Alun Cairns, said:

This record naming and shaming round sends out the clear message to employers across Wales that underpaying workers the legal minimum will not go unpunished.

This Government is committed to building an economy that works for all and April’s increase in the national minimum and living wage rates will put more money into the pockets of Wales’ lowest paid workers.

The rate increases on 1 April shows it pays to be in work and I am confident it will help support the high levels of employment throughout Wales.

Excuses for underpaying workers included using tips to top up pay, docking workers’ wages to pay for their Christmas party and making staff pay for their own uniforms out of their salary.

The 361 employers have been named.

The publication comes weeks after the Government launched a £1.7 million national minimum and living wage awareness-raising campaign, encouraging the UK’s lowest paid workers to check they are being paid the correct rates and to report their employer if they are not.

Since the naming and shaming scheme was introduced by BEIS in October 2013, more than 1,000 employers have been named, with arrears totalling more than £4.5 million. More than £2 million in fines have been issued to national minimum and living wage offenders.

There are currently more than 1,500 open cases which HMRC are investigating.

Animal research: then and now - Paget Lecture 2016

In doing research in preparation for this lecture, my chronic bibliomania turned out to be rather useful. A few years ago, whilst I was undertaking a review of STEM education for the government of the time, I discussed this with the late, great Lisa Jardine. She told me that I should look at the Cavendish Royal Commission Report on Scientific Instruction from 1870 to 1875. To my delight, shortly afterwards, in the Chatsworth Attic Sale, a copy of the Cavendish Commission reports, all 8 of them, appeared and I duly became the owner of the Duke of Devonshire’s personal copy of his Royal Commission reports.

Royal Commission

But Victorian Royal Commission reports are nothing if not deeply specialist; they are neither distinguished by their typography or by their illustrations. So they are of relatively little financial value. This particular lot was padded with a string of other equally esoteric Royal Commission reports, which meant that the transport costs were almost as great as the costs of the books themselves. Amongst the other reports I acquired was the 1876 Royal Commission on Vivisection. I also acquired at the same time the 1849 report on the Application of Iron to Railway Structures; I am looking forward in due course to lecturing on this topic as well. Both of the first 2 of these reports have turned out to be extremely useful, and many of the arguments that they contain are as valid today as they were 140 years ago.

Although references to animal research have existed in popular culture since at least Shakespeare’s time, from the 1850s onwards, concomitant with the rise of physiology and also stimulated by the discovery of the anaesthetics, chloroform and ether, there was debate in both the public and specialist press about the propriety of experiments on living animals. The appointments of Professors of Physiology at a small number of British Universities fuelled the debate.

At the meeting of the British Association in Edinburgh in 1871, Sir James Paget, father of the Stephen Paget, whom we commemorate tonight, laid a series of resolutions which were passed. These included the following: Firstly: No experiment that can be performed under the influence of an anaesthetic ought to be done without it; Secondly: No painful experiment is justifiable for the mere purpose of illustrating a law or fact already demonstrated.

So the Royal Commission, initiated on 22 June 1875, purpose was to:

Inquire into the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes, and to consider and report what measures, if any, it may be desirable to take in respect of any such practice.

The Royal Commissioners included Thomas Henry Huxley, who was also part of the Commission on Science Instruction. The report itself was issued on 8 January 1876, and commendably is only 15 pages in length, but for those of us that worry about evidence-based reports, it was backed up with 6,551 paragraphs of evidence. It makes fascinating reading.

The list of witnesses is extraordinary. Sir James Paget was joined by some of the founding parents of physiology, including William Sharpey and J Burdon Sanderson. Other luminaries who gave evidence included Joseph Lister, Charles Darwin, Sir William Gull and a panoply of the great and the good of 19th century science and medicine.

A few quotes from the report itself will suffice to indicate its general tenor.

It has been proposed to enact that the object in view shall be some immediate application of some expected discovery to some prophylactic or therapeutic end, and that any experiment made for the mere advancement of science shall be rendered unlawful. But this proposal cannot be sustained by reflection upon the actual course of human affairs.

Knowledge goes before the application of knowledge, and the application of a discovery is seldom foreseen when the discovery is made. ‘Who,’ says Helmholtz, ‘when Galvani touched the legs of frogs with different metals, and noticed their contraction, could have dreamt that ….all Europe would be traversed with wires, flashing intelligence from Madrid to St Petersburg with the speed of lightning…’

Of course that was right then, and it is true now. It is a nice enunciation of the justification and the importance of the conducting of basic research led by curiosity in to answering important scientific questions.

So then as now, in the Commission, the Report and the evidence, examples were given of discoveries important to the advancement of human health. These included the discovery of the circulation of blood, the discovery of the lacteal and lymphatic system of vessels, and Sir Charles Bell’s discovery of the compound function of the spinal nerves.

Sir James Paget identified the challenge of discovering an antidote to snake poisons, citing the “many thousands of your Majesty’s Indian subjects who perish annually from snake bites.” Indeed, less than 20 years later Cesaire Phisalix and Gabriel Bertrand, together with Albert Calmette presented to the French Society of Biology on the 10 of February 1894 their independent work on the development of an anti-venom against Viper venom and Indian Cobra venom respectively. And it was only a few years later that Vital Brazil, head of the Butantan Institute in Sao Paulo, developed the first antisera to South American poisonous snakes.

Amongst the witnesses was Charles Darwin, and to quote him briefly:

The first thing I would say is that I am fully convinced that physiology can progress only by the aid of experiments on living animals. I cannot think of any one step which has been made in physiology without that aid.

Darwin was then asked:

Now with regard to trying a painful experiment without anaesthetics when the same experiment could be made with anaesthetics or, in short, inflicting any pain that was not absolutely necessary upon any animal, what would be your view on that subject?

And his reply:

It deserves detestation and abhorrence.

But the evidence that probably had the greatest impact of all was that of Dr Emanuel Klein, a physiologist working as an Assistant Professor in the Brown Institute. He appeared completely insensitive to the suffering of animals.

Huxley wrote to Darwin on October 30th, after Klein had provided his evidence:

The Commission is playing the deuce with me. I have felt it my duty to act as counsel for science, and was well satisfied with the way things are going. But on Thursday, when I was absent, (Dr Klein) was examined; and if what I hear is a correct account of the evidence he gave, I may as well throw up my brief. I am told he openly professed the most entire indifference to animal suffering, and he only gave anaesthetics to keep the animals quiet!

I declare to you, I did not believe the man lived, who was such an unmitigated cynical brute as to profess and act upon such principles; and I would willingly agree to any law that would send him to the treadmill.

The impression his evidence made on Cardwell and Foster (two of the other commissioners) is profound; and I am powerless (even if I desire, which I have not), to combat it.

But the Royal Commission report duly, and I think inevitably, concluded that legislation was necessary. And to quote again:

What we would humbly recommend to your Majesty would be the enactment of a law by which experiments upon living animals, whether for original research or for demonstration, should be placed under the control of the Secretary of State, who should have powers to grant licenses to persons and, when satisfied of the propriety of doing so, to withdraw them. No other persons should be permitted to perform experiments. The holders of licences should be bound by conditions, and breach of those conditions should entail the liability to forfeiture of the license, the object of the conditions should be to ensure that suffering should never be inflicted in any case in which it could be avoided, and should be reduced to a minimum where it could not be altogether avoided.

This was the first statement, in a way, of the 3 Rs. The government listened. The result was a Bill placing animal experimentation in Great Britain – akin to the study of human anatomy - under the supervision of the law. This was enacted as the Cruelty to Animals Act on 15 August 1876. Of course this was by no means the end of the history. There was another Royal Commission between 1906 and 1912. And finally in 1986, the 1876 Act was replaced by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. The big change here was that it authorised animal experimenters by means of a personal license, but an additional project license that defined the categories of purpose. That of course is where we are today.

It is an enormous privilege to be asked to give the 80th Paget Lecture this evening. Stephen Paget, in whose memory this series of lectures was instituted in 1927, was a tireless advocate for the value of properly conducted animal research. His work to found the Research Defence Society in 1908, during that Second Royal Commission on Vivisection, was a turning point in the national debate around animal research.

The Research Defence Society was formed to:

…make known the facts as to experiments on animals in this country; the immense importance to the welfare of mankind of such experiments and the great saving of human life and health directly attributable to them.

Stephen Paget would find today’s discourse as familiar as we find the arguments of the 1870s.

Science meets values

But this is not a lecture on history. The introduction is intended to show that all of the concerns that continue to rear their head about research using animals have a very long history. And these concerns sit at the interface between the conduct of science, the application of science and the human values held by individuals and societies in different parts of the world.

So what are the core arguments around animal research? In truth they are still the same as those articulated clearly in the 1870s. They are fundamentally utilitarian arguments about one sort of value - the value of scientific research in discovering the secrets of human and animal biology in health and disease. This work brings with it the potential to prevent disease, through vaccination for example, or to treat it, as with the use of insulin in diabetes. That value is balanced against another sort of value, which is our relationship with other species, and the extent to which we are prepared to cause harm to other species to bring benefits to ourselves.

I fear that all too often discussions about science are conflated with arguments about values. So we end up with arguments that are framed as follows: The proponents argue for the necessity of animal research if we are to progress in our understanding of health and disease, and to discover new preventive and therapeutic approaches. Opponents of animal research argue that the research is scientifically invalid, that the results are not transferable from one species to another and that experiments cause unacceptable suffering.

But this is not the real argument. It is an argument that is being conducted at cross purposes. The reality is that there are some who believe that it is simply wrong to experiment on animals, whatever the potential benefit. Equally there are some in the scientific community who do not recognise that, in the face of all of the benefits that they perceive from such research, that it is reasonable that some people oppose the use of animals in research from the perspective of their personal values.

In fact, it is much more complicated than this because many who do not like the idea of animal research express gradations of concern about research on other species. These concerns are based on judgements of a perceived hierarchy. This hierarchy is partly based on perceptions of the capacity of different species to experience pain or suffering. Or on the basis of their evolutionary relationship to humans, so there tends to be less concern about invertebrates – with the exception of cephalopods - and successively more concern moving from fish to mice to rats to rabbits, with cats, dogs and non-human primates the objects of the most concern.

This complexity means that animal research is a topic where the institutions of science meet the institutions of democracy fairly and squarely. It is an area where the arguments will continue and the opposing cases will need to be made and remade. We live in a plural democratic society, where different citizens hold different views based on differing moral precepts. Ultimately it is for democratic governments to decide on the acceptability and conditions under which research on animals is undertaken and how this should be regulated. And this is an area in which the UK is a global leader.

Transparency and communication

My life in science started with experiments on the genetics of the fruit fly in school laboratories in the 1960s, dissection of frogs and extremely smelly formaldehyde-pickled dogfishes, which provided ample confirmation to me, if it was ever needed, that I was neither going to be an anatomist nor a surgeon.

It was medical school that provided my first insights into research on mammalian species, studying immune responses to mice to chemically induced tumours as part of my Part 2 Pathology course in Cambridge. And participation as a medical elective student at the Karolinska Institute in research on a strain of mice, called C3H/Hej. This strain of mice shows no response to exposure to lipopolysaccharide, which is a component of many bacterial cell walls that is a cause of the damaging inflammatory response suffered by animals infected with certain bacteria.

My task, as an elective medical student in a couple of months, was to work out the explanation for this failure of responsiveness of the C3H/Hej mouse to lipopolysaccharide (LPS). I isolated lymphocytes from these and control mice and checked whether they would respond to stimuli other than lipopolysaccharide, which they did. But I did not get anywhere near to un-covering the explanation for how they failed to respond to LPS. Nor, I have to confess, did I understand at the time the importance of these particular mice and why it mattered to discover the explanation for lipopolysaccharide unresponsiveness. So you can imagine my fascination when Dr Bruce Beutler was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2011 for discovering that these mice were genetically deficient in a protein called Toll-like receptor 4.

This is an important part of the innate immune system that confers inherited resistance to bacterial and other infections - and is a member of a group of proteins that have been conserved over a very long period of evolution, with very similar Toll receptors present in those fruit flies that I studied at school. This and related discoveries has opened up a whole new field of research into our immune responses, in both health and disease, and is a good example of how apparently rather basic research enquiries, in this case firstly in flies and then in rodents, turned out to have important utility in understanding the mechanisms of ill health.

So, whilst the arguments about animal research have been conserved through the generations, there is one important respect, in which the landscape for animal research has changed significantly during the last thirty years or so. For a long time, the laws that ensure that animals used in research are treated as humanely as possible have been enforced. However, the laws protecting scientists from illegal harassment by extremists were not. That asymmetry has disappeared in recent years. Scientists can practice their legal experimental work confident that government will support them against extremism. Since the days of a brave few, who were prepared to talk openly about their research on animals, more and more scientists are willing to make the case in public for the research that they do. Animal labs and their host institutions are increasingly open, and the sky has not fallen in. It is worth reflecting on how remarkable that change has been.

Huge progress has been made in opening up animal research to public scrutiny, particularly in the academic community. However, the argument hasn’t been won in all parts of the animal research community. We must continue to make the case to our peers for intelligent transparency. Too often the answer is still to hope that no one asks questions of us, rather than to open the doors and show there’s nothing to fear. But importantly, this openness cannot and should not be left to the academic community alone. Industry needs animal research. Industry voices would therefore be a persuasive part of making the public case for why animal research remains necessary.

In 2012, following discussions between the Science Media Centre and the Wellcome Trust, a further series of discussions, in which Geoff Watts played an important role, which led to over 40 organisations working in the biosciences in the UK signing a Declaration on Openness on Animal Research. That included a commitment to developing a Concordat which set out how they would be more open about the ways in which animals are used in scientific, medical and veterinary research in the UK. In 2014 the Concordat was launched and now has 108 signatories.

I think the individuals who have been willing to stand up and to make the case for animal research throughout the years can claim a great deal of the credit for the state that we now find ourselves in. So it is only right that we celebrate their achievements this evening. It is a very good opportunity to thank the successor organisation to the RDS, Understanding Animal Research, for the work that you do. And Fiona Fox and your colleagues at the Science Media Centre – also thanks for your work on encouraging openness. The Concordat has, I believe, been helpful. I would encourage every institution involved in animal research to sign up.

But amidst the fervour for encouraging openness and much more communication, I believe there is occasionally some danger of over-reaction. We want volunteers for communication about animal research, not conscripts. Not everyone is able and willing to communicate effectively. The modern channels for abuse are manifold and a thick skin is needed by those who communicate in some of the more controversial areas of science.

Indeed, enthusiasts for science communication often fail to recognise that it is not a ‘singular thing’. Science communication comes in many forms. It is much easier to communicate science discoveries such as the Higgs Boson or to enthuse people about space science, than it is to communicate the role of science in areas where there are conflicting human values. That is not to say that it is easy to explain the Higgs Boson. But here the challenge is not the general public, but actually other particle physicists, who are all too ready to shoot down some hapless colleague who does not fully communicate the arcana correctly.

It reminds me of when I went on the Today programme a few years ago to talk about the potential importance of a new genetically modified potato that was resistant to potato blight. I explained that blight was caused by a fungus that could devastate potato crops. On that occasion it wasn’t anti-GMO activists who objected to my interview. It was a letter from a gardening pundit who accused me of extreme ignorance in calling potato blight a fungus. Because it is, in fact, an oomycete, which Wikipedia will tell you is:

A distinct phylogenetic lineage of fungus-like eukaryotic micro-organisms.

They didn’t actually teach me that at medical school, and indeed I don’t think it was even known when I was at medical school! But I am not sure that the point of the interview would have been enhanced by this particular element of taxonomic rigour.

The reality is that scientists who participate in public discussions on embryo research, animal research, GMOs, pesticides, climate science and the like will have an utterly different experience from those that talk about science in areas that are not value-laden. And indeed scientists sometimes fail to recognise that how science is used is a topic for all of society, and as scientists, our views do not trump the views of others.

Trust and standards

But please do not think that I am making a case for any kind of ‘post-truth’ approach to science communication. I am absolutely not. One of the big challenges for science is to become even more rigorous in the way that we conduct research and communicate its results. Indeed I think one of the problems in the way in which science is communicated is the over-emphasis on the reporting of the ‘latest paper’ on x or y, rather than on what the body of the scientific evidence shows. Frankly, this causes endless problems to those of us that are involved in providing science advice to government. By and large, we are not that interested simply in what the latest paper shows, especially when it’s apparently equal and opposite to the paper that was published last week. What we care about is the totality of evidence. What do we know overall, what do we not know and where are the uncertainties?

Where animal research remains necessary, we must clearly and confidently explain why. But we should hold ourselves to the same standard of evidence in communication as we’d expect in our science itself. We mustn’t be seduced by our own PR. And here I have a challenge to this audience: To what extent have we as a community, ever subjected our claims about how vital animal research has been to human health to the same level of scrutiny we’d apply to those claiming to have discovered a new cure? And I think if not, we must. A Cochrane-standard review of the contribution of animal research to advances in health and wellbeing over the last 20 years or so would be a valuable contribution. That is a challenge to you as an audience tonight.

Developing and maintaining a supportive environment for research is both more difficult and more necessary in animal research, than it is in less controversial branches of science. People talk a lot about trust so animal research must command public trust. But as Baroness O’Neil is always saying the corollary of trust is trustworthiness. We earn trust by being trustworthy. We cannot be complacent in our maintenance of what we have earned. Therefore the animal research community needs to behave in a fashion that is irrefutably trustworthy.

Set in this context, a robust regulatory environment is not a burden to be borne by those who would do animal research. It is an integral part of the case we make to the society in the UK. Members of the public can be confident that we are trustworthy precisely because we are so carefully regulated and because we obey those regulations. It follows that we, as a research community, must share responsibility for how we are regulated.

I know my colleagues in the Home Office would welcome more dialogue with the scientific community. However, it would be a mistake for us to interpret that as an invitation to dictate to the Home Office what we want, or for special pleading. As the Chief Inspector in the Home Office, Dr Culverwell in the 1940s, pointed out once to some unfortunate colleagues:

No one ever tells the Home Office what to do.

Rather we should approach discussions with the Home Office in the spirit of partnership, politely suggesting improvements which would better ensure animal welfare and promote the best science.

This brings me to an issue which should be close to the heart of any scientist. We can never be complacent in the pursuit of rigour. As scientists, we must constantly ask ourselves “does this study meet the highest standards of work?” And we must be ruthless in challenging where we see this is not the case: in the work we do ourselves and in the wider research community.

As I’m sure everyone in this audience agrees, there can be no choice between high standards and high volumes of research. It’s the standards that trump everything. If we are to make the most of the funding available, the correct approach is to prioritise the best, most reliable work. This is particularly true if animals are involved. It is unethical and wrong to conduct poorly powered studies.

Experiments should always be designed to provide the best chance of generating robust and reliable results. That doesn’t of course take away the need for repetition of experiments, to confirm or to refute important findings. But ultimately, we will use the fewest animals in experiments overall if we optimise the experimental designs to give the greatest chance of reliable findings.

With that in mind, the ongoing work to standardise approaches around the world is entirely welcome. We should be proud in the UK, for having some of the highest standards for animal testing in the world. And where other countries’ systems meet those standards, we can use their results in our regulatory processes. This is both efficient and good for animal welfare. This is a responsibility for everyone in the scientific endeavour. It’s a responsibility for the funders of research, it’s a responsibility for the researchers themselves, and it’s a responsibility of those that peer review their papers and publish the findings to insist on the highest standards of work, and in doing so drive welfare internationally.

Whilst I don’t anticipate a point in my lifetime when animal research will be entirely unnecessary, we must continue to ask ourselves “is there a better way?” Worldwide, the supply chain of animals for research is fragile. Global public opinion is quite hard to forecast and it may harden against testing. What pharma company would continue the expense and reputational risks of animal tests if they did not have to? What government would not welcome the avoidance of political controversy? What scientist would want to keep using an imperfect animal model if a more accurate alternative existed? The UK should continue to lead the process of finding alternatives. That means that the work of the NC3Rs, the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animal Research, is extremely important.

The extraordinary tools of modern biomedical research offer ways to unravel physiology at the level of the cell, the organ and the organism in ways that were inconceivable even a few years ago. In his philosophical poem, An Essay on Man, Alexander Pope wrote in 1733:

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man.

Our tools let us study man and woman in the most extraordinary detail and with minimal invasion. But not all of our tools can, or indeed should, be applied in humans. For example, the power of optogenetics to study neural circuitry, or gene editing to create an array of genetic variation, offers opportunities to ask important questions about for example the function and the malfunction of the nervous system in animals, in ways that simply cannot be achieved in humans. And these results are very important for our understanding of humans.

We are in an extraordinary time for science, engineering, technology and social science. The Government Office for Science periodically produces reports on Technology Innovation Futures. Our most recent report concludes that what is happening at the moment is a convergence between technologies. For example, biology meets material science, engineering and ‘big data’. So the opportunities and the importance of animal research remains as salient now as it has ever been.

But we should never forget that the pursuit of science requires a ‘public license’, not least because it is the taxpayer that funds much of our basic research. The return to the taxpayer comes in many forms. Of course, advances in knowledge matter in their own right. But ultimately they are not sufficient on their own. The public expects gains in health and well-being, and gains to the economy from the many billions of pounds that are invested in research and development.

Science, engineering, technology and the social sciences are at the heart of advances in industry and the economy. The UK is a world leader in the biosciences. In that context, animal research is an essential and integral part of the jigsaw of the UK knowledge economy.

Embracing openness

So I will end where I began. The lesson of history is that some things do not change, so we must be resolute in continuing to make the case for animal research. One hundred and eight years after the Research Defence Society was formed, their founding purpose to ‘make known the facts’ about animal research, needs but one update. We have learned as a community that ‘knowing the facts’ is not enough. People must be engaged, involved in and ultimately persuaded by the utility of our work.

In 2016, of all years, no one needs reminding of the dangers of assuming the wider public shares the views of experts. But furthermore, the claim of expertise needs careful examination. A true expert should behave with impeccable and dispassionate rigour, properly acknowledging uncertainty where this exists. I am not sure that all self-declared or indeed anointed experts always live up to these standards.

One cannot hope to convince everyone. However, on animal research, it is necessary in a democracy to bring on board the widest possible coalition of the public.

The age old arguments about the pros and cons of animal research have not been resolved, and maybe never will be. They sit at the heart of the debate about our relationship as humans with other species. And they tell us something important about one of the unique attributes of humans. The tiger does not debate whether it is right to bring down and strangle the gazelle with a bite to its neck. Eat or be eaten - nature, red in tooth and claw, but we humans have what appears to be the unique cognitive ability to consider our relationship with other species.

It is the essence of humanity that we care for each other in extraordinary ways and care for other species and our environment, though almost certainly not enough, given the environmental challenges that come with a global population of over 7 billion people. Alexander Pope reminds us of the paradox at the core of humans, even in an era of Enlightenment:

Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus’d.

It was Hume that noted that the passions often trump reason. Scientists who are human and not, I would suggest, immune from passion, must continue to promote reason. So I think there are a few things I suggest that this mission, to promote reason, requires of the animal research community.

Firstly, keep talking to government about where the regulations could work better to ensure high standards of research and animal welfare, but challenge where you see examples of these standards not being upheld by the community.

Secondly, let us maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in the most rigorous animal research, but also in the search for alternatives.

And thirdly, welcome scrutiny for the confidence it provides. Keep talking about what research is undertaken. Keep opening the doors. And let us submit our own arguments for the value of animal research to the same scrutiny we would apply to all of our scientific work.

We cannot fear openness, we must embrace it.

Thank you for your attention.

Speaking at the event, which was also attended by the Zambian Minister of Higher Education Prof. Nkandu Luo, Mr Cochrane-Dyet said:

Welcome, and thank you for coming this evening.

I am delighted to be hosting this event to welcome the 17 Zambians who went to study at prestigious British universities. I also welcome the Chevening alumni who are already making a difference in Zambia through their respective positions and activities they are carrying out in their communities.

I am always interested when meeting Zambians who have studied and lived in the UK to find out how they coped with the cultural differences. Take British understatement, for example, and irony. Anyone going to Britain for the first time needs to know that when they hear someone preface a remark with “With the greatest respect” they do not mean “I think highly of you”, not at all, what they really mean is “I think you are completely wrong.” Or someone might respond to an observation you make by saying “how very interesting”. Do they really mean that they have been inspired by your sparkling intellect or do they actually mean that they think you have been talking nonsense? And if you hear a British person say “I agree with you up to a point”, be in no doubt that an accurate translation would be “I am too polite to say so but I think you might be mad”.

For many years now, the UK has been working alongside Zambia to develop young leaders and support the self-development of individuals who want to make positive change in their communities, workplaces and their country. The British High Commission aims to build lasting relationships between people in the UK and Zambia, and increase the appreciation of what the UK has to offer and what we have achieved - together.

Chevening and its predecessor schemes have been operating in Zambia since 1985. To date, over 230 Zambians have studied in the UK under it. Chevening is the UK’s flagship scholarship scheme administered in Zambia by the Association of Commonwealth Universities on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I hope to see more Zambians study in the UK, now that we have expanded our Chevening Scholarship scheme here from two places in 2015 to 17 in 2016. We are in the process of organising interviews for the scores of Zambians who have applied for Chevening scholarships in various fields of study for the 2017/2018 academic year. I wish them luck.

Chevening Scholarships are an important element of the British Government’s programme to promote greater capacity for the next generation of Zambian leaders and to further develop the excellent relationship between Zambia and the UK. Improved relations are in the interests of all of us. At the risk of flattering many of you, these Scholarships are for talented people who have been identified as potential future leaders across a wide range of fields, including politics, business, the media, civil society, religion, and academia.

Let me tell you a fact. Did you know that of all the kings and queens, presidents and prime ministers across the world, all those currently serving, one-in-seven of them have studied in the UK? Britain continues to offers among the best educational institutions in the world - schools as well as universities. And many influential Zambians have benefited from that experience. The idea of the Chevening scheme is to expand that further, two examples being Justice Florence Lengalenga, High Court Judge, and Chibamba Kanyama, former Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Director General and now working for the International Monetary Fund.

I am certain that the 17 returning students will join the list of Zambian Chevening Alumni who are using their skills and knowledge to contribute significantly to Zambia’s development.

I am glad that the Alumni are doing some good works already. For instance, they contributed to Zambia’s elections last year by hosting a public debate for candidates who were vying for the Mayoral seat in Lusaka. Candidates, who included the current Mayor, Mr Wilson Kalumba, had the opportunity to sell themselves to the electorate. The Alumni also participated in the inaugural “Race to Beat Cancer” which was organised by PricewaterhouseCoopers Limited Zambia to raise awareness about the disease. You Alumni have helped to mentor and encourage potential candidates to apply for Chevening scholarships. You have also assisted with interviews for Chevening applicants. I look forward to seeing more of such activities, and would like to hear your ideas.

Finally, being educated at a British university can have unexpected rewards. I speak from experience. In 1983 I matriculated at Jesus College, Oxford University, but chose to leave after an unhappy affair of the heart. I went travelling instead, worked at a school in Kenya, and decided that I wanted to devote my life to working with Africa and Africans.

Subsequently, I returned to my studies at Durham University. However, after my unhappy experiences at Oxford, I chose an all-male college so that I could avoid women for a while and thus avoid romantic entanglements. What I did not know was that after I had been accepted, the college deviously decided to introduce women for the first time with an initial intake of twenty young ladies. Arriving at the college on that sunny October morning nearly 33 years ago, the first other student that I saw was an attractive girl in a blue beret. Ladies and gentlemen, that student’s name was Susie, and she became my wife shortly afterwards. An unexpected benefit from my university education.

Thank you for listening.

I would now like to conclude by presenting certificates to the returning scholars.

Today’s session is the latest in a series of meetings that aim to provide a mechanism for businesses to engage with UK Government on a range of strategic economic issues and to provide UK Government with high level advice on critical business and economic issues facing Northern Ireland.

This afternoon’s meeting was an opportunity for Minister Hopkins to encourage discussion on areas of particular resonance to Northern Ireland in relation to pillars one and four of the Industrial Strategy - investing in science, research and innovation and supporting businesses to start and grow – and to encourage the business groups present to respond to the consultation. It also allowed the minister to provide assurance that the Government is committed to political stability and urge members to use their influence to encourage political parties to deliver a functioning and effective Executive post-election.

Speaking after the meeting, Kris Hopkins MP said:

The Industrial Strategy is a vital part of this Government’s plan to drive growth across the whole United Kingdom and create more high skilled, high paid jobs and opportunities. New Sector Deals and investment in research and development will support the industries of the future where the UK – and Northern Ireland in particular – has the potential to lead the world.

Both the Secretary of State and I will continue to explore how to maximise the positive impact that this Strategy can have in Northern Ireland, particularly in exploring Sector Deals, removing barriers to innovation and growth and developing new trade and investment deals to increase exports.

Today’s session also provided an opportunity to stress the need for political stability as a fundamental basis for industrial success. Securing strong, stable devolved institutions in Northern Ireland that will provide leadership, support innovation and boost skills will be vital to delivering on Northern Ireland’s potential as a place to invest and do business as we continue to build an economy that works for everyone.

Today’s meeting was attended by the following:

John Cunningham, Camlin Group

Peter Cunningham, Camlin Group

Linda Brown, Institute of Directors

Ian Sheppard, Institute of Directors/Bank of Ireland

Wilfred Mitchell, Federation of Small Businesses

Roger Pollen, Federation of Small Businesses

John Friel, Federation of Small Businesses

Angela McGowan, Confederation of British Industry

Nick Coburn, Northern Ireland Chamber

Chris Morrow, Northern Ireland Chamber

Professor Paddy Johnston, QUB Vice-Chancellor

Professor Paddy Nixon, UU Vice-Chancellor

Liam Nagle, Norbrook

Nick Wheelan, Dale Farm

Shaun McAnee, Danske Bank

Lynsey Cunningham, Ulster Bank

Joanne Stuart, Catalyst NI

The British High Commission in Nigeria has announced the arrival of Laure Beaufils, appointed as British Deputy High Commissioner for Lagos, Laure is the first female to head the UK mission in Lagos. She arrived Nigeria on Monday, 20 January 2017, and already looks forward to the tasks ahead.

Commenting upon arrival, Laure said “I’m delighted to be in Lagos and leading the UK mission here. I look forward to working with a variety of Nigerian partners to further progress the already strong UK/Nigeria relationship”.

Laure Beaufils has been head of the UK Department of International Development in Rwanda since August 2014 where she managed a $100 million portfolio of programmes focusing on economic development, governance and social sectors. Prior to holding this position, she worked in various positions in the UK Government. She was the lead strategic adviser working for the British Prime Minister in his role as co-chair of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on the post-2015 development agenda.

She ran DFID’s department for Overseas Territories. She led a team working on climate change, and also worked for the UK mission to the UN, as first secretary responsible for development. Prior to joining the UK civil service, she worked with the UN and civil society organisations. She also worked with the private sector as a financial auditor. She has lived and worked in Rwanda, Ethiopia, India, Cambodia, France, the UK and the USA.

In a speech at the Chartered College of Teaching’s inaugural conference, Education Secretary Justine Greening set out her ambition for a high-status teaching profession, backed up by high-quality continued professional development and pledged her support for teachers as the body of experts who are key to driving social mobility.

Addressing an audience of over 450 teachers, Justine Greening described the launch of new the College of Teaching as a historic moment for the teaching profession. Commenting on the launch she said:

Teaching deserves all the hallmarks of the other great professions - with a high bar to entry, high-quality initial training and a culture of ongoing self-improvement.

So it’s crucial that, like other experts, teachers now have a professional body with a shared commitment to ever-improving standards, disseminating evidence on what works, and driving progress for the profession as a whole.

And I especially want to see a new generation of teachers becoming part of the Chartered College of Teaching - to help safeguard and shape the profession’s future.

The Education Secretary also outlined plans to strengthen the teaching profession so that every child has access to an excellent teacher, including:

• making absolutely clear that QTS will not be scrapped - instead, the government will work with the sector to develop and introduce a newly strengthened QTS from September 2019, so that all school leaders will want all their teaching staff to achieve it
• announcing the first round of bidding for the £75 million Teaching and Leadership Innovation Fund - to enable new, high-quality continued professional development (CPD) provision to be delivered where it can make the most difference, including in the 12 opportunity areas
• new, fully revised gold-standard national professional qualifications (NPQs), developed in partnership with the teaching profession, to be implemented from September this year. £10 million from the Teaching and Leadership Innovation Fund will be made available to incentivise take-up of the new NPQs for high-potential professionals working in the most challenging schools

Underlining the importance she placed on ensuring teachers have the right support and skills so they are able to help all young people fulfil their potential, the Secretary of State said:

Teachers are the great drivers of social mobility in our country. We know that the single biggest in-school influence on a child’s life chances is the quality of teaching they receive.

It is important that all teachers are supported with the right framework that will allow them to become the best professionals they possibly can be.

I want to work with the profession to make sure this happens, with a golden thread through every teacher’s career from initial training and QTS through continued professional development, especially in those early post-QTS years, through to specialism or leadership.

Great teaching transformed my life, and I want to make sure that happens for today’s generation of children in our schools. I will do all I can to ensure teachers have the right support that will enable them to spread opportunity for children and young people - particularly those who need it most.

South West Water has been ordered to pay £205,000 in fines and costs for discharging sewage into the Fal estuary in Cornwall. The case was brought by the Environment Agency.

On 26 August 2013 untreated sewage overflowed from the water company’s Newham sewage treatment works near Truro into the Fal, an internationally important shellfishery, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

The illegal spill occurred after a piece of redundant grating fell and partially blocked an inlet at the works, causing sewage to back up and overflow into the estuary via a storm storage outfall. The spill continued for about 9.5 hours, during which time enough sewage escaped to fill 4,563 bath tubs (730,000 litres).

The discharge occurred close to mussel and oyster beds at Malpas and Grimes Bar. As a precaution, these shellfisheries were temporarily closed by Cornwall Port Health Authority because of the possible risk of contamination by harmful viruses and bacteria such as Norovirus and e.coli.

The decision to close the shellfish beds was taken just before the start of the commercial harvesting season (1 October). Although most harvesting is done during the commercial season, there is a risk small quantities of shellfish may be hand-picked by individuals outside of this time and there would have been a potential risk to those consumers.

Sewage at the Newham treatment works normally undergoes a high level of treatment (tertiary) including ultra violet (UV) that kills bacteria and disinfects effluent. An UV disinfection system is required at this site because of the Fal estuary’s designation as a shellfishery.

The sewage discharged over a bank holiday on 26 August was settled and screened, but otherwise untreated and occurred outside of a storm event. This would have resulted in a significant increase in levels of bacteria in parts of the Fal estuary and meant the treatment works was in breach of its Environment Agency permit.

Mark Pilcher, team leader for the Environment Agency in west Cornwall, said:

It is essential large sewage works bordering estuaries with conservation designations and also containing shellfish beds are operated and inspected to a high standard to prevent unpermitted sewage spills posing risks to public health and the environment.

In this case an inspection programme or removal of a redundant grating structure would have removed the risk of this grating falling into the sewage works and blocking it leading to the spill of sewage.

South West Water Limited was fined £185,000 plus £20,000 costs after pleading guilty to 2 offences under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 including, on 26 August 2013, causing pollution of the Fal estuary through the illegal discharge of sewage and failing to maintain a saline tank valve at its Newham sewage treatment works. The water company was fined £175,000 for the first offence and £10,000 for the second. The case was heard at Truro Crown Court on 15 February 2017.

The following summary of planned new and ongoing road improvements over the coming week is correct as of 17 February but could be subject to change due to weather conditions or unforeseen circumstances. All our improvement work is carried out with the aim of causing as little disruption as possible.

Devon

A30 at Woodleigh, west of Exeter: survey work

Eastbound lane will closed from 8pm to 6am overnight from Monday to Friday for survey work from Monday 20 February to Saturday 11 March 2017.

A38 at Smithaleigh, east of Plymouth: drainage work

Westbound lane will be closed from 8pm to 6am overnight from Monday 20 February 2017 to Saturday 4 March 2017.

A38 Voss Farm, east of Plymouth: carriageway work

Eastbound lane will be closed from 8pm to 6am overnight from Tuesday 21 February 2017 to Wednesday 22 February 2017.

A38 Smithaleigh, east of Plymouth: drainage work

Westbound lane will be closed between the exit and entry slip roads from 8pm to 6am overnight from Tuesday 21 February 2017 to Wednesday 22 February 2017.

A38 between Deep Lane and Smithaleigh, east of Plymouth: drainage work

Eastbound lane will be closed between the exit and entry slip roads from 8pm to 6am overnight from Wednesday 22 February 2017 to Friday 3 March 2017.

Cornwall

A30 Cornwall, between Temple and Higher Carblake, east of Bodmin: improvement scheme

There will be a 24-hour eastbound and westbound lane closures/contraflow and 40 mph speed limit until Tuesday 4 July 2017.

A30 Cornwall, Hayle Bypass, east of Penzance: drainage works

There will be a 24-hour lane closure and 40 mph speed limit until Saturday 25 February 2017.

A30 Cornwall, Callywith, Bodmin: junction improvements

There will be speed restrictions on slip roads for junction improvements until Monday 17 July 2017.

A30 Cornwall, Longrock Bypass, east of Penzance: vegetation clearance

There will be a westbound lane closure from 9am to 4pm from Monday 20 February 2017 to 24 February 2017.

A30 Cornwall, between St Erth roundabout and Loggans Moor roundabout, east of Penzance: drainage works

Eastbound and westbound carriageway will be closed overnight from 8pm to 6am from Monday 20 February 2017 to Saturday 25 February 2017.

A30 Cornwall, Blackwater, east of Redruth: drainage works

Westbound lane will be closed from 9am to 4pm from Tuesday 21 February 2017 to Thursday 23 February 2017.

A38 Cornwall, between Latchbrook and Saltash Tunnel, west of Plymouth: junction improvements

There will be 24-hour narrow lanes & 30mph speed limit for Carkeel roundabout junction improvements until Tuesday 28 February 2018.

A38 Cornwall, between Dobwalls & Turfdown, east of Bodmin: scheme work

There will be a 30 mph speed limit between Two Waters Foot and St Neot junction for slope stabilisation works. The work will take place until Wednesday 12 April. There will be a 24-hour westbound diversion via A390 and North Lane to rejoin the A38 west of Two Waters Foot. (Trago Mills accessed via A38 as normal). This is in place until Thursday 25 May 2017.

General enquiries

Members of the public should contact the Highways England customer contact centre on 0300 123 5000.

Media enquiries

Journalists should contact the Highways England press office on 0844 693 1448 and use the menu to speak to the most appropriate press officer.

A new administrator will be responsible for delivering work for the Specialist Quality Mark (SQM) from 1 April 2017. The work will in future be carried out by Recognising Excellence and there will be a small number of changes to the audit process.

The current contract with SQM Delivery Partnership ends on 31 March 2017.

What does this mean for providers?

1. Starting 1 April 2017 audits should be booked by emailing: sqm@recognisingexcellence.co.uk.
2. Audit award process will have fewer stages.
3. Increase in requirements at the pre-quality mark stage.

More details are available on our ‘quality standards’ page on GOV.UK – see link below.

Requirement for contract-holders

It is a requirement for legal aid contract holders to hold either the SQM or the equivalent Lexcel accreditation. This will continue for anyone wanting to deliver services under the new civil contracts in 2018.

We confirmed this requirement would remain when we announced on 20 January 2017 that a procurement process for these contracts would start in April 2017.

Accreditation valid after 31 March 2017

All organisations with SQMs valid after 31 March 2017 should check they have a copy of their certificate.

If you are unable to find your current SQM certificate, you may request a copy from the outgoing audit provider, SQM Delivery Partnership. Such requests must be made before 31 March 2017.

Further information

Legal Aid Agency quality standards– to find out more about the standards and new administration arrangements

The Environment Agency has received 2 applications for environmental permits at the Palmers Wood oil and gas site.

These applications have been submitted by the site operator to bring the site into line with the current regulations for conventional oil and gas sites. This is part of the Environment Agency’s review of all oil and gas permits granted prior to October 2013.

In deciding whether or not to issue the permits, the Environment Agency will take into account all relevant considerations and legal requirements.

You can find further information on the application and details of how to comment online.

An Environment Agency spokesperson said:

An environmental permit sets out stringent conditions that a site must adhere to. We will not issue an environmental permit for a site if we consider that activities taking place will cause significant pollution to the environment or harm to human health.

We are in the process of determining the applications to re-permit this site and we want to hear from the public and understand people’s views. Everybody has the chance to see what the permit may look like and to raise any additional concerns before we make any final decision.

Introduction

Thank you Sue for those kind words of introduction.

It’s been several years since a government housing or planning minister spoke at this conference.

But throughout that period the links between the CPRE and my department have remained strong - and rightly so.

We’ve not only listened to your input, we’ve taken it on board.

Any honest assessment of the housing white paper will quickly spot the marks of your influence - whether it’s the protection of the green belt, our opposition to speculative development or our insistence on community involvement in planning and design.

Your Chief Executive Shaun Spiers welcomed our proposals; your Head of Planning Matt Thomson said they “showed promising signs of doing some things differently”.

Having listened to your concerns, and adopted many of your ideas, we now ask you reciprocate with positive and practical support for new homes that are built in the right places - because we know your influence can make a real difference.

I have great respect for the contribution your members have made to public life over many decades in your ceaseless campaign to protect and enhance the English countryside.

As the MP for Croydon Central I represent a community on the border between Greater London and the countryside, a frontier that was in many ways defined by Sir Patrick Abercrombie and the vision of the CPRE in the post-war years.

I understand the value of living in one of the world’s greatest cities while being able to enjoy the beautiful countryside of the North Downs on my doorstep - which I know, thanks to its designation as green belt, will be protected for my children and future generations.

And although I am and always have been a Londoner, I spent my summer holidays during my formative years with my grandparents in the Sid Valley in East Devon, an area of outstanding natural beauty, and have a deep emotional connection with that landscape.

The CPRE has played such a distinguished role - and for such a long time - that you suffer from that paradox of success: many people are completely unaware of your profound impact on the English landscape because they simply take it for granted.

Of course such blissful ignorance of the CPRE would be impossible for a Planning Minister.

Napoleon Bonaparte once said that “the people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know”.

Well you could never accuse the CPRE of being cowards…

And that’s why we count the CPRE as a friend, because friends can occasionally disagree.

Friends can also have honest conversations and today Britain urgently needs to have an honest conversation about housing because the lack - in the widest sense of the term - of affordable homes is one of the greatest barriers to progress our country faces.

So it’s great to be here today to start that conversation, in what is my first major public engagement since the publication of our housing white paper.

The new consensus on housing supply

Much has changed in British politics since 2014 when my predecessor, Nick Boles, spoke here.

We have a new Prime Minister, a new government with a new Secretary of State and, as you will have noticed, a new Housing and Planning Minister. Our country has also made the historic choice to leave the European Union and forge a new role for ourselves in the world.

But I believe something else has changed too.

A growing consensus is emerging about the need to build more homes. In 2010, 29% of people were supportive of house-building in their area and 46% were opposed. By 2016, that had switched round with 57% supportive and 24% opposed.

A few years ago, it was common for people to question the need for more house building. They’d argue that if just we brought empty properties back into use or cut immigration, there wouldn’t be a problem.

Now of course both of those things will help, but more and more people recognise that even if we do both of those things - as we will - we still need to build more homes.

The facts speak for themselves.

Since the 1970s we’ve supplied an average of 160,000 new homes each year, far below what numerous independent assessments have said we need to build.

You don’t need a degree in economics to understand what happens when supply fails to keep up with demand. Across the country the average house now costs almost 8 times average earnings - an all-time record high.

Here in London the average home made its owner £22 an hour during the working week in 2015 - considerably more than what average Londoner was earning. Stop and think what will happen to wealth inequality in our society if we allow it to continue.

And this isn’t just a London or Home Counties problem. Since 1997 the ratio of average house prices to average earnings has more than doubled in places as diverse as Boston in Lincolnshire, Lancaster and Manchester.

That may sound like great news if you already own a property, but for those who don’t it means the dream of owning a home isn’t just distant - it’s getting further and further away.

And if you stop and consider the implication, rapidly rising house prices aren’t all good news even for those who have managed to get a foot on the property ladder.

They make it harder for businesses to attract the skilled workforce they need to grow, which holds back our economy.

They mean more people who rent needing some help from housing benefit, which puts up our tax bills.

And they force families apart, compelling many of our children and grandchildren to leave the neighbourhoods in which they grew up because they can’t find anywhere affordable to live.

The difficulties of getting on the housing ladder mean the proportion of people living in the private rented sector has doubled since 2000.

According to the latest English Housing Survey, 1.5 million people are sharing properties when they wanted to have a home of their own.

The average couple living in the private rented sector is now paying half their disposable income to their landlord, making it nigh on impossible to save for a deposit.

High demand couple with low supply has also created opportunities for exploitation: unfair terms in leases, unreasonable letting agents’ fees and landlords letting out dangerous, overcrowded properties.

And finally an increasing number of people find themselves unable to afford any home at all.

So not only do we need to build homes to cater for our projected population growth, but also for the backlog that has built up - people in their 20s and 30s still stuck at home with their parents or sharing homes, often in overcrowded conditions.

This is a point where our honest conversation requires the right terminology.

There has long been a debate about whether the various independent assessments I referred to earlier - and the local assessments carried out by councils across the country - are measuring genuine “housing need” or what Shaun [Spiers] has called “aspirational demand”.

Where we stand, I fully accept that we cannot meet the demand of everyone who would like to live in the Cotswolds, the Peak District or the Yorkshire Dales.

But let me be clear: the problem with our housing market today is not that too many people can’t find their ideal home - it’s that all too many people can’t find a decent home at all.

Young people living with their parents until well into their 30s.

Families living in overcrowded conditions.

And increasing numbers of people are unable to find anywhere to live and either being accepted as homeless by their local council and placed in temporary accommodation or, in the worst cases and to all our shame, ending up on the streets.

In her first speech as Prime Minister, Theresa May said the mission of her government would be to make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.

It goes without saying that a country that works for everyone is not one where some of our fellow citizens are reduced to sleeping rough on our high streets.

But nor is it one where young people are told that they have to wait until they are well in to their 40s to have a home of their own, or one where people of all ages find themselves completely priced out of the market.

The need for a new approach

As a government we can - and will - provide help right now to those struggling in our broken housing market, but in the long term the only way to solve these problems is to build enough homes.

To meet both future and pent-up need, independent estimates suggest we need to deliver somewhere between 225,000 and 275,000 homes every year.

That may sound simple enough, but it’s a goal that has proved elusive for every government since the 1970s.

We are not prepared to let that record continue and that’s why we published a white paper, Fixing our broken housing market, which resets housing policy, switching from demand-side interventions to a focus on increasing supply.

An inconvenient truth

The good news is we’re not starting from scratch. Under my predecessors house building recovered from the historic low we inherited in 2010.

Net additions to the housing stock increased from 145,000 in 2009 to 2010, to 190,000 in 2015 to 2016.

Real progress, but not enough.

I spent my first few months as Housing and Planning Minister talking to as many people as possible to try to understand why we haven’t been building enough homes.

And I quickly came to one conclusion: despite lots of people trying to pitch one to me, there’s no silver bullet solution. If there was, one of my predecessors would have found it.

I wish it wasn’t so: if there was one big idea with the potential to transform our house-building woes it would have made this speech a lot shorter - and the white paper much easier to implement.

But I am convinced that what’s actually needed is a whole series of interventions at every stage of the house building process.

We need to make sure we’re planning for the right number of homes in the right parts of the country.

Once developments have got planning permission, we need to make sure they are built out quickly.

And we need to diversify the market so that we’re not so dependent on a small number of large developers to do that building.

The CPRE have long argued that failures in the housing market can’t be solved simply by releasing more land for building. The white paper clearly and unequivocally agrees with that view.

Releasing more land in the right places is necessary if we are to build the homes we need, but on its own it will not be sufficient. Action is required on all fronts - and that’s the approach we set out in the white paper.

Planning for the right homes in the right places

Since it’s probably the most difficult part of our conversation, let’s start with planning.

There are a number of problems with our planning system at the moment.

Some councils still haven’t produced a plan. In those areas, development is happening thanks to speculative applications, which are often resisted by local residents. It’s slow, expensive and denies communities the chance to agree where they would like to see development go.

Other councils produced a plan years ago, but it is now hopelessly out-of-date.

Others still have an up-to-date plan, but have ducked the tough choices that need to be made by failing to be honest about the level of housing need in their area.

We can no longer tolerate this patchy performance.

So we’ll be insisting that every area is covered by a plan, which must be reviewed at least every 5 years. And we’ll be consulting on a new way for councils to assess housing need, which we’ll strongly incentivise councils to use, so that these plans start from an honest assessment of how much housing is required in their area.

This consultation is a central plank of our reforms and we want you to be involved in it. We want to build a national consensus about the best way to estimate how many homes are required in each area, so that we can do away with the time and money that is currently wasted arguing about this issue.

We also want you to be involved in using another power you asked for - the ability for local communities to shape the design and mix of new homes.

73% of people say they would support new developments if they are well designed, built in the right places and in keeping with their local area.

That’s a view I know you share and yet there are some people who claim the CPRE is merely a respectable front for nimbyism - that behind your public objectives is a private and unrelenting refusal to accept any kind of new development in rural areas.

Of course I know that’s nonsense.

You recognise that well-designed new settlements in sustainable locations can take the pressure off the green belt and you have an unparalleled legacy in influencing the planning system, particularly in the years after the war.

Your vision for garden cities, towns and villages has been adopted by the government. So has your preference for community-design, with extra power and resources for local areas to make this happen.

So now you have got the government behind your ideas I would challenge you to go a step further and prove your detractors wrong.

Support local communities in their quest for good design and actively seek out and champion the best-designed developments - so no one can say your words are not backed up by deeds.

Alongside greater ability for local communities to influence design, we’re also introducing new measures to help councils identify appropriate sites for development.

In all but the most exceptional circumstances that will exclude the green belt.

Contrary to a lot of press speculation beforehand, the white paper doesn’t weaken protections for the green belt one jot. Indeed, it actually increases protection for ancient woodlands and veteran trees, something I am sure the CPRE welcomes.

Around 11% of the surface area of England is already developed. A further 13% is green belt. Allowing for the fact 40% is covered by protective designations, such as national parks, there is still plenty of other land to build on without having to concrete over swathes of our precious green belt.

Some greenfield land will be required for new homes, but our focus is on developing brownfield land - specifically in those parts of the country where additional homes are urgently required.

We’ll amend the National Planning Policy Framework to increase the take-up of brownfield sites suitable for homes, prevent low density developments where there is a clearly a shortage of land and support proposals for Starter Homes on employment land that has been vacant or unviable for 5 years.

These are merely the latest steps to bring brownfield land back into use.

Together with the Mayor we’ve designated 57 brownfield housing zones around the country for up to 77,000 new homes.

The £3 billion Home Building Fund will also support development on brownfield land, as will the £1.2 billion Starter Homes Land Fund.

We’ve legislated for the introduction of Brownfield Registers so developers of all sizes can easily find suitable sites.

And permission in principle for brownfield sites will provide a new route to planning permission that gives up-front certainty for developers.

As your Head of Planning Matt Thomson acknowledged last week, this government has done a great deal to prioritise regeneration and make the most of our existing housing stock.

We’ve widened permitted development rights so that new homes can be delivered by converting commercial buildings; we’ve provided funding to encourage estate regeneration projects across the country; and we’ve done more than any government to bring empty homes back into use through the New Homes Bonus and Council Tax changes.

It means the number of empty homes has fallen by a third since 2010 and now stands at the lowest levels since records began.

Faster building

But as I explained earlier, planning for the right number of homes in the right places won’t fix our broken housing market on its own.

The evidence of the last 7 years proves that. Thanks to the planning reforms we’ve already introduced, English councils granted planning permission for a record number of homes in the 12 months to September 2016 - 277,000.

If I was confident that all those homes would be built quickly we wouldn’t have needed to publish a housing white paper.

But I’m not confident. There’s a large and growing gap between homes being granted planning permission and homes being started.

And people can’t live in a planning permission. So the second chapter of the white paper focuses on what we need to do to get planning permissions built out quicker.

We’ve listened to all the things developers say slow them down - viability assessments, section 106 agreements, mis-use of pre-commencement conditions and infrastructure delays - and we’re taking action to deal with all of them.

Having addressed all their concerns, we’re entitled to expect developers to build out quicker.

And if they don’t we’re giving councils new powers - shorter timescales for implementing permissions; more streamlined completion notice procedures; and new guidance encouraging more active use of compulsory purchase powers at stalled housing sites.

And having given councils new powers they’ve been asking for, we’ll be introducing a new Housing Delivery Test to hold them to account if they don’t ensure the homes they’ve planned for are actually built.

Diversifying the market

Build out rates will also be quicker if we have a more dynamic and competitive house building market and that is what the third chapter of the white paper tries to achieve.

Small independent builders were decimated in the 2008 recession and most have never come back, while new companies find it very difficult to enter the market.

It means 60% of new private homes are built by just 10 companies, using methods that haven’t changed much for the past century.

A lack of competition is never good for innovation, something our housing market is in desperate need of.

So we will make it easier for small and medium-sized builders to compete and encourage innovation.

That means access to finance for small and medium-sized builders - and those using innovative methods of construction, such as off-site manufacturing - through programmes such as the £3 billion Home Building Fund. And it means councils ensuring they are making smaller sites available in their local plans.

We’ll also make things easier for custom builders who want to design and build their own home and encourage institutional investment in the private rented sector.

And we want housing associations and local councils to build more. The private sector can’t solve this problem on its own.

In the 1950s and 1960s - when we did build enough homes - councils made a significant contribution and, while no-one wants to go back to large mono-tenure estates, council-owned local housing companies and housing associations have an crucial role to play.

Conclusion

I said I wanted a conversation so I am keen to move on to questions, but let me finish where I started - on the value we place on your input.

We recognise that your concern for the preservation of the English landscape is shared by millions of people across our country. Indeed as a government - we share it too.

We have listened to you on housing and planning issues and we’re implementing many of your ideas, but in return we want your help.

I’m delighted that your leadership clearly recognise the urgent requirement to fix the broken housing market. Now I want those words to be matched with practical, positive action.

Each year that passes this problem gets bigger, the solutions more difficult and the consequences for our children and grandchildren gets worse and worse.

We must build more homes of the type people want to live in and in the places where they’re needed.

That requires both new thinking and a tireless commitment to deliver on the ground, not just from the government, but from everybody with an interest in our housing market, including the CPRE.

We won’t always agree on every single issue, but I challenge you to work alongside us, so together we can both preserve our precious countryside and build the homes we so desperately need and makes this a country that works for everyone.

Thank you, Mr Turner. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

In response to the two petitions which have triggered this debate, and having listened to the arguments of both sides, I would like to set out the position of Her Majesty’s Government, and explain the thinking behind it.

The State Visit as people have mentioned is a uniquely British construct. No other country is able to offer a State Visit in quite the same way as we do. It is distinctively British.

Over the course of her reign, Her Majesty has hosted over 100 of them. All such visits are a rare and prestigious occasion. But they are also our most powerful diplomatic tool. They enable us to strengthen and influence those international relationships that are of the greatest strategic importance to this country, and even much more widely to other parts of the world as well. In answer to the Honourable lady who speaks for the front bench, the opposition, recommendations for state visits are made on the advice of government through the Royal Visits Committee, not by parliament as such. That committee is attended by representatives of the Royal Household, Downing Street, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Trade and is chaired by the Foreign Office.

In an uncertain and increasingly dangerous world, the ability to work closely with key countries is of critical importance. Strong alliances and close relationships are a central stabilising pillar for world security.

This is an increasingly unstable world. Yet always within that world, and throughout modern history, the United States and the United Kingdom have worked together, side by side, to bring peace and security during times of danger and uncertainty. Especially with the world as it is today, that is why a State Visit matters so much. Put simply, diplomacy matters.

The relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is built around a common language, the common principles of freedom and democracy, and common interests in so many other areas besides.

Our relationship is undoubtedly special. On security, on defence, on trade, on investment, on all of these issues, the United Kingdom and the United States are, and will remain, the closest of partners.

The US is the world’s greatest power, and in the light of America’s absolutely pivotal role, we believe it is entirely right that we should use all the tools at our disposal to build common ground with President Trump.

As the baton of office passed seamlessly, constitutionally, from one President to another, we were already well placed to have a productive and meaningful engagement with the wider new Administration. The British Embassy in Washington has been working with key administration figures over many months. British Secretaries of State have built relationships with their opposite numbers following their Congressional confirmation process.

The Prime Minister’s visit last month was of enormous significance. The Foreign and Defence Secretaries met their opposite numbers only last week and on Friday I met Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly.

This Government places our national interest at the heart of our government’s decision-making, and the Special Relationship is a central part of that national interest. It is a relationship which transcends political parties on both sides of the Atlantic and it is bigger than individual personalities. It is about the security and prosperity of our two nations.

Mr Turner, The Prime Minister’s meeting with President Trump in Washington last month identified many areas of common interest where we will work with the new Administration. A State Visit will provide the opportunity to advance these common interests further.

In respect of timing, which has been mentioned in this debate, State Visits are not necessarily the sole preserve of long-serving Heads of State. In the past a State Visit has been extended to the Presidents of South Africa, France, South Korea, Finland and Poland, amongst others, each within their first year of office.

The Government strongly believes that it is a perfectly legitimate decision to use the full impact of an invitation to maximise the diplomatic significance of a State Visit at the start of President Trump’s term of office. Both President Obama and President George W Bush visited the UK on a State Visit during their first term in office, so it is entirely appropriate that President Trump should be invited in his first term too.

But let me be also be clear: neither the precise timing nor the content of the proposed visit have yet been agreed.

Mention has been made of the prospect of the President addressing Parliament in some manner or other. The fact is, on only three occasions in the past century has the guest addressed both Houses of Parliament as part of their State Visit: President de Gaulle in 1960, President Mandela in 1996 and President Obama in 2011.

But in any event, Mr Chairman, as the House and you are both aware, whether this ever happens is an issue solely for the relevant Parliamentary authorities to determine. Comment on whether or not this might happen has, on this occasion, completely run ahead of itself.

Because the simple fact is that no request has ever been received from Washington for any Parliamentary event to take place. The question of perhaps addressing a meeting of Parliament has never even been mentioned. Therefore, Mr Turner, any discussion or judgement about this possibility is purely speculative.

But within the views that have been expressed about the appropriateness of a State Visit for the President there lurks too, I would argue, a fundamental principle that Members of this House should consider very seriously. It is the principle of freedom of speech.

President Trump was democratically elected by the American people under their own constitutional system. To have strong views about him is one matter: but to translate a difference of opinion into a demand to ban him is quite another.

Given the understandable questions on certain policy stances which arise with any change of government, it is prudent for us to work closely alongside the United States as the new administration charts its course. And already we see the importance of that engagement with the Prime Minister’s early meeting with the President eliciting key commitments on NATO, echoed by the Vice President in Munich on Saturday, and laying the groundwork to establish a swift post-Brexit free trade agreement.   Mr Turner, in February 1917, a century ago, the Spectator magazine published its view on the US and the UK. It read:

It would be easy to write down a hundred reasons why unclouded friendship and moral co-operation between the United States and Britain are a benefit to the world, and why an interruption of such relations is a detriment to progress and a disease worldwide in its effects.

It went on:

But when we had written down all those reasons we should not have expressed the instinctive sentiments which go below and beyond them all. To our way of feeling, quarrelling and misunderstandings between the British and American peoples are like a thing contrary to Nature.

They are so contrary to Nature that the times of misunderstanding have always seemed to us abnormal, and a return to friendship not an achievement of wise diplomacy but merely a resumption of the normal.

It is that historic normality that is reflected in this invitation. This is a special moment for the Special Relationship.

Mr Turner, the visit should happen. The visit will happen. And when it does, I trust that the entire United Kingdom will extend a polite and generous welcome to President Donald Trump.

I have today laid before the House, the Report on Local Government Finance (England) 2017 to 2018, which represents the annual local government finance settlement for local authorities in England.

I would like to thank all colleagues in the House, and council leaders and officials, who contributed to the consultation after the provisional settlement was published before Christmas. Representations from nearly 200 organisations or individuals have been carefully considered before finalising the settlement.

[political content removed]. As we continue to bring the deficit down, local government, which still accounts for nearly a quarter of public spending despite the savings delivered since 2010, must continue to play its part.

At the same time, local residents rightly continue to expect excellent public services. I commend all councils for how they are getting on with the job. Public satisfaction with local services has been maintained, and councils are engaged in substantial efforts to modernise, transform local services, and reduce waste so that frontline services can be protected.

The 2017 to 2018 local government finance settlement supports councils to continue in that regard, and progresses funding reforms to make councils more self-sufficient.

We remain committed to increasing funding certainty for local government. In total, local government spends more than £120 billion a year and the 2015 Spending Review and 2016 to 2017 settlement delivered a flat-cash settlement for local government, providing 4 year funding allocations for the first time.

The settlement being published today is the second year of the 4 year offer which was accepted by 97% of councils. To enshrine this commitment to stability in law the Local Government Finance Bill establishes a legal framework for multi-year settlements.

Councils are able to use this increased funding certainty to continue reforming the way they work and become more efficient, both in back-office functions and front line service delivery. Building on the £508 million savings already delivered from shared service arrangements, councils are using improved digital technology, new delivery models and innovative partnerships to deliver savings across local government.

We listened to the unanimous view that we must prioritise spending on adult social care services that councils provide to our elderly and vulnerable citizens. The Spending Review put in place up to £3.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care by 2019 to 2020.

Recognising the immediate challenges in the care market facing many councils next year, this settlement repurposes £240 million of money which was previously directed to local authorities via the New Homes Bonus to create a new adult social care support grant next year. It also grants councils extra flexibility to raise the adult social care precept by up to 3% next year and the year after.

These measures make available almost £900 million of additional funding for adult social care over the next 2 years, bringing the total dedicated funding available for adult social care to £7.6 billion over the 4 year settlement period.

But more money is not the only answer. We will bring forward reforms to provide a sustainable market that works for everyone who needs social care. And I welcome the consensus across both sides of the House that every area should move towards the integration of health and social care services by 2020, so that it feels like one service.

Council Tax referendum principles

We are committed to keeping Council Tax down, and will maintain referendum principles to protect hard-working tax-payers from rising bills. Council Tax in England has fallen by 9% in real terms from the levels [political content removed] in 2010, and is expected to be lower in real terms in 2019 to 2020 than it was in 2010 to 2011.

This year, in addition to the further flexibility on the Adult Social Care Precept, we are proposing a core Council Tax principle of 2% for principal authorities, or £5 – whichever is greater – for all shire district councils, and for police and crime commissioners in the lowest quartile.

100% business rates retention

To reduce local government’s dependence on central government for funding – long campaigned for by councils - we have announced that by the end of this Parliament, local government will keep 100% of the income raised locally through business rates.

Councils will take on new responsibilities to be funded from this additional income – estimated to be around £12.5 billion - as central government grants are phased out. And to ensure councils with less business rates do not lose out, there will continue to be redistributions between authorities.

The Local Government Finance Bill, currently before Parliament, provides the legislative framework for these reforms. This will allow us to continue to work closely with interested parties over the coming months on the more detailed aspects of reforms.

A consultation has already been conducted. The government response to that announced that, in the reformed system, Revenue Support Grant, Rural Services Delivery Grant, the Public Health Grant and the Greater London Authority Transport Grant will be funded through retained business rates.

Taken together these account for around half of the additional retained business rates that we estimate will be available to councils. We will continue to engage with local government on the remaining responsibilities to be devolved as part of these reforms but it has already been confirmed that the devolution of Attendance Allowance funding is no longer being considered as part of the business rates retention reforms.

A further consultation has been published seeking views on many of the important aspects of the new system – for example, how growth in business rates can best be rewarded, and how the system can help authorities to manage and share risk. Responses to that consultation are invited by 3 May.

Pilots of these reforms will take place from April 2017 in Liverpool, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West of England, Cornwall and Greater London. We have also confirmed that we are interested in building on the existing pilot scheme and will be inviting all councils to apply to participate in piloting aspects of 100% business rates retention from April 2018. We will be publishing more information about this process shortly.

Conclusion

Reforms to local government finance, based around 100% business rates retention offer a bold and innovative response to the twin challenges of promoting economic growth and securing more self-sufficient and sustainable local government. They will help determine the role, purpose and means of delivery for local government in the years ahead.

The 2017 to 2018 local government finance settlement provides the financial stability authorities need as they transition towards the reformed system in 2019 to 2020; these longer-term reforms will ensure the councils people rely on for their local services are both sustainable, and more self-sufficient.

Universities Minister Jo Johnson is today (Tuesday 21 February) calling on university and student bodies to do more to deal with the spread of ‘essay mills’ - websites which provide custom written essays for students to submit as part of their degree.

The Universities Minister has asked for guidance aimed at universities and information for students to help combat the use of these websites, as well as other forms of plagiarism. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has also been tasked to take action against the online advertising of these services and to work with international agencies to deal with this problem.

The Minister is calling for the guidance to include tough new penalties for those who make use of essay mills websites, as well as the need to educate students about the potentially significant negative impacts on their future career if they are caught cheating.

Universities Minister Jo Johnson said:

“This form of cheating is unacceptable and every university should have strong policies and sanctions in place to detect and deal with it.

“Essay mill websites threaten to undermine the high quality reputation of a UK degree so it is vital that the sector works together to address this in a consistent and robust way.”

The spread of essay mill websites was uncovered in a QAA report, commissioned by the government, which was published last year. It found that the websites often advertise their services to students for a fee and many promote “plagiarism-free guarantees”, or essays tested against plagiarism detection software.

Further work by QAA has confirmed that there are now over 100 essay mills websites currently in operation. Prices charged by these sites vary depending on the complexity of essay and tightness of deadline. They can range from a couple of hundred pounds for a single essay to as high as £6,750 for a PhD dissertation.

Ian Kimber, QAA’s Director of Universities, Quality Enhancement and Standards said:

“Essay mills are a major challenge for universities and colleges because, unlike other forms of cheating, the practice is notoriously difficult to detect. We look forward to continuing our work with the government and sector colleagues in addressing an issue potentially damaging to students and the reputation of UK higher education.”

The new sector guidance and student information is expected to be made available for the beginning of the 2017/18 teaching year.

Notes to editors

Following a request by the government to investigate the use of essay mills in the UK, the QAA published a report on this issue in August 2016 titled ‘Plagiarism in Higher Education - Custom essay writing services: an exploration and next steps for the UK higher education sector’. This report confirmed that essays mills are a “growing threat to UK higher education”.

Sector guidance on plagiarism has not been updated for some time. It is currently left to individual institutions to develop their own plagiarism policies in accordance with the requirements and indicators of sound practice set out in the UK Quality Code.

Global sales of the UK’s food and drink have hit the £20 billion mark for the first time, Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom will announce today.

New figures reveal exports grew by nearly 10 per cent in 2016, with food and drink sales to the USA – one of Britain’s biggest markets – up 12 per cent. China is quickly becoming one of our fastest growing markets, with the export value of pork skyrocketing to £43 million, an increase of over 70 per cent.

Alongside these global heavy-hitters, newer markets also saw record growth last year – exports to Malaysia grew by a whopping 143 per cent, while India emerged as one of our priority markets thanks to growing demand for Scotch whisky.

The figures reveal exports show no sign of slowing following the decision to leave the EU, and come as the Environment Secretary vows to ramp up the focus on international trade.

With only one in five food producers currently exporting, a dedicated Government team has turned its attention to ensuring UK companies have the skills, knowledge and confidence to tap into new international markets and take advantage of the global demand for British food and drink.

Speaking ahead of the NFU Conference today, Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom said:

It’s great to see the global appetite for British food and drink continues to grow – thanks to our well-established reputation for taste, quality and high animal health and welfare standards.

As we prepare to leave the EU, there has never been a better time to become more outward looking – developing new trading relationships and establishing our place as a truly Global Britain.

But the food and drink industry cannot do this alone – we need to give them the skills, knowledge and contacts to make the most of the opportunities ahead.

I want to see more companies taking advantage of these opportunities, which is why we’re expanding our team of trade experts to support UK businesses, encouraging them to take the leap and share their quality produce with the world.

As well as opening up new markets around the globe, the Government will continue its focus on taking advantage of European markets – with exports of salmon to France growing by 31 per cent and all food and drink exports to Germany up by 12 per cent.

France and Germany are among the priority markets identified in the UK International Action Plan for Food and Drink launched last October.

Through this plan, the Government is focusing on forging stronger links with key markets including USA and Canada, China and India to generate an extra £2.9 billion in exports over the next five years.

Food and Drink Federation Director General Ian Wright CBE said:

Exports of food and drink reached record levels last year and we’re committed to building on this success going forward.

We’ll continue to work closely with Government to help existing and new food and drink exporters take advantage of the growing international demand for our produce.

Ministers are also continuing to fly the flag for British food abroad – the Environment Secretary visited China in November last year, while Food Minister George Eustice will be visiting the UAE and Kuwait next week to support nearly 100 UK firms exhibiting at Gulfood and agree market access for lamb.

Through the Government’s Food is GREAT campaign Defra will continue its work to drive exports and increase global demand for the UK’s top quality food and drink.

The Attorney General has opened the application process for counsel wishing to join the London A and B Panels of the Civil Counsel.

This is a fantastic opportunity for advocates with more than five years experience. Being a panel member gives advocates exposure to some of the most important and high profile cases of the day, and the chance to represent the government in various courts, including the Supreme Court.

There are vacancies on the panels in all areas of public and private law. This includes general public and administrative law, employment law, personal injury, and specialists in a number of areas such as pensions, social security and tax.

Application process

Anyone considering making an application to join either the A or B Panel should register an expression of interest by emailing panelcounsel@governmentlegal.gov.uk

Everyone who has registered an interest will be sent details of how to access the online application form.

The deadline for applications is midday on Friday 24 March 2017.

Background

What is the Panel Counsel?

The Attorney General maintains 5 panels of junior Counsel to undertake civil and EU work for all government departments. He has 3 London Panels (A, B and C), a Regional Panel, and a Public International Law (PIL) Panel.

Who can apply?

This recruitment drive is only for Panel A and B.

Members of the A Panel deal with complex government cases. They will often appear against QC’s. Those previously appointed to the A Panel have generally had in excess of 10 years advocacy experience.

Members of the B panel deal with substantial cases but these are not as complex as those handled by the A panel. They will generally be instructed where knowledge and experience of a particular field is required. Those previously appointed to the B panel have generally had between 5 and 10 years advocacy experience.

Further information

You can find out further information on the gov.uk website

Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning.

I’d like to begin by thanking Reform for giving me the opportunity to address you today. I want to talk to you about the potential of big data in government - and the hurdles we face along the way.

We often hear that this is the “age of data”, or that data is the raw material of a new industrial revolution. There’s truth in this. And there’s huge opportunity.

Data can truly be a catalyst for a society, an economy, a country that works for everyone.

Of course, data isn’t new. There has always been data. The Domesday Book is data. The Rosetta Stone is data.

But the rapid advances in technology and the development of analytical tools and techniques mean we can now gather and share data in huge quantities. We can process and analyse it at previously unimaginable speed. We can draw conclusions and create policies and services that reflect how people live now.

And we can help them live better, more securely, more healthily and more prosperously as a result.

Data entrepreneurs are mining public sector data to create apps and services to make our lives more convenient. Services driven by open data are already giving people more choice in where they get their healthcare, where they live and where their children go to school. There’s even a Great British Public Toilet app - a sort of relief map of the country!

In government, we get this. We’ve always held enormous quantities of data - now we need to make sure we use it properly. Getting this right is the next phase of public service modernisation.

That’s why this month we have published the Government Transformation strategy. And the Digital Economy Bill is in the last stage of its journey into law.

There are 3 key areas of opportunity that we need to grasp:

• first, improving the experience of the citizen
• second, making government more efficient
• third, boosting business and the wider economy.

The impact of data analytics and big data in our lives – for example the way online retailers tailor their recommendations for the food, books and music we buy - is quite familiar.

Less has been said about the transformative power of this technology for the delivery of high-quality public services. And it’s time that changed.

With the evidence of data we can spend less time developing policy and services that don’t work, and instead focus on continuously improving those that do.

I want people to turn to digital public services as readily and confidently as they do when shopping, socialising or checking bus times.

By doing so, we can actually change the way citizens interact with us - making the relationship we have with them more transparent, more responsive, and based on increasing levels of trust.

For big service delivery departments like the Home Office, HMRC and DWP, data analytics means the ability to search across organisational data sets. It can provide data for operational teams to put into practical effect.

In DWP, for example, providing job seekers with more targeted advice, and opportunities that closely match their personal profiles. The department is also working on data-informed tools, such as interactive visualisations of benefit claimant trends.

There are examples at home and abroad where data is being used to address people’s real concerns about their daily lives; providing solutions that were not available before.

In June last year, for example, Land Registry and partners published the first UK House Price Index, and provided a single source of information as opposed to the multiple competing versions which existed before.

Land Registry data has also been used to create a range of information services. From whether rude-sounding street names have an impact on house values - (they do!); to more serious matters, such as whether your home is on a floodplain.

Land Registry’s Flood Risk Indicator service uses data from the Environment Agency to identify flood risk for any registered piece of land within England and Wales.

The Companies House Service gives us free access to real-time information on companies. It’s receiving millions of search requests every day from people checking supplier and customer information.

The service can also be used for more mundane but practical reasons - if you’re getting in builders to do work on your home, you can go on the Companies House website and check them out first.

Healthcare is another exciting area. Moorfields Eye Hospital and DeepMind Health are partners in a research project that could lead to earlier detection of eye diseases.

At the moment, clinicians rely on complex digital eye scans. 3,000 of these scans are made every week at Moorfields. But traditional tools can’t explore them fully, and analysis takes time.

Moorfields will share a data set of one million anonymised scans with DeepMind, who will analyse them using machine-learning technology. This can detect and learn patterns from data in seconds, to quickly diagnose whether a condition is urgent.

With sight loss predicted to double by 2050, the use of cutting-edge technology is absolutely vital. The right treatment at the right time can prevent many cases of blindness or partial sightedness. Up to 98% of sight loss resulting from diabetes, for example, can be prevented by early detection and treatment.

Analysing data can also play a direct and powerful role in protecting the most vulnerable in society.

The Home Office Child Abuse Image Database has transformed the investigation of child abuse crimes and child protection. It won the Civil Service Innovation Challenge in 2015.

The database brings together all the images of abuse that police find. Using the images’ unique identifiers and metadata, they can check devices they’ve seized from suspects against the material on the database much more quickly.

Previously a case involving, say, 10,000 images, would typically take up to three days to review. Now, it can be reviewed in an hour.

So, we have a process that is cheaper, less labour-intensive and more efficient. This is all good. And it makes the investigation and prosecution of these appalling crimes vastly more effective.

There are also examples of government data meeting needs that more of us will be familiar with - like tax.

Personal tax accounts from HMRC now take a real-time digital approach. For the first time you can log in when you like, check your tax information and manage your details online in one place. More than 8 million citizens have now signed up, including some of you here today, I expect. HMRC’s digital team now has around 30 new online services in development.

Government open data, combined with digital technology, can also fuel an open economy. It will provide information that entrepreneurs, data start-ups and the general public can use.

In 2015, the digital sector contributed £118 billion to the economy, supporting over 1.4 million jobs.

The UK Government was an early world leader in open data. So far, we’ve released over 30,000 non-personal data sets in machine-readable formats, for no cost, and open for anyone to use or build upon. This has enabled the creation of innovative products that deliver value for citizens.

So far, these data releases have been turned into over 400 different apps. You may well have used some of them yourselves:

• the Floodalerts API: which uses Environment Agency data to provide 15-minute updates about flood risk
• UK Food Hygiene: which lets you see take-away and restaurant food hygiene ratings to help you make decisions on where to eat out
• FillThatHole: a site for reporting potholes and other road hazards across the UK using ONS Census geography data
• There are also apps for finding the best dentists, GPs, schools and universities.

The list of sectors tapping into Defra group data from Lidar (the airborne, laser equivalent of radar) is truly remarkable. British wine producers are using the terrain-mapping data to help them decide where best to plant vines, and if the recent prominence of English sparkling wine is anything to go by - they are having great success!

Architects are using it to build a model of London as they plan the next high-rise building; computer game developers to build new landscapes for Minecraft; and archaeologists to discover lost networks of Roman roads. In October last year alone there were almost 21,000 downloads of Lidar data from data.gov.uk.

Some companies don’t only use open public data to build a business but also to act as a positive disruptive force. FoodTrade, for example, maps the food supply chain system, making it easier for people to buy and sell fresh local produce.

And other start-ups are using open data in ways that boost the economy by providing data analysis tools and data products that support the growth of SMEs.

A firm called GeoLytix offers a range of products based on geospatial data - giving smaller companies access to information that they would not be able to do on their own, and helping them to solve business location issues in the process.

So as we look to improve the availability, quality and use of government data as the basis for fully transformed public services, it will also provide a new stimulus for data-based businesses.

Because government data is public data we have a duty to use it well and open it up where possible - and we have to be seen to do so cost-effectively, efficiently, proportionately and appropriately.

But it is not without challenges, and I want to address two in particular:

1. Winning and retaining public confidence
2. Building Civil Service capability in how we collect, store, analyse, share and use data

Public trust is absolutely critical to achieving our ambition for a data-driven government.

Information and data is power. Which is why, historically, the ability to communicate and understand it was so jealously guarded. Now that we are openly releasing information, we have to do so responsibly.

Trust means giving people confidence that their data is used appropriately and effectively, and that it’s secure, particularly when it’s being shared by different authorities. That trust has to be earned.

In partnership with civil society, GDS has published an ethical framework for data science in government. It is based on the key principles of data security, openness, user need and public benefit. And it highlights the importance of ensuring the data and models we are using are robust.

And to complement this, the Office for National Statistics has adopted a framework called ‘The Five Safes’ for building and maintaining trust and confidence:

Safe people Safe projects Safe settings Safe data Safe output

And we are looking outside of government too. The Royal Society and British Academy are conducting an independent investigation into how data is, and could be, used by government, and the types of governance that may be required.

We need to make sure we take the public with us on this journey, and maintain their trust that we are using and sharing data responsibly and effectively.

Transparency is part of this - transparency of evidence, ‘showing your working’, and opening up to greater scrutiny the data and analysis on which we base policy decisions. For transactions (such as driving licence and passport applications) users can now see the data government holds about them and change it if it is wrong.

We must also have the confidence that a person accessing a service is who they say they are, and we must do that in a way which the public trust.

Verify - the government identity service for citizens - is enabling people to access a whole range of online government services easily, securely and in a way which builds their trust. By 2020, we are aiming to get 25 million people using the service.

But providing transactional services is only part of what government does - it also uses data to: identify individuals for support where there is wider impact on society - such as elderly people in fuel poverty; or to develop policy, plan services and assess outcomes; or to promote innovation, or allow citizens to hold us to account.

The introduction of new legislation on data access in the Digital Economy Bill is designed to give confidence that government is doing the right thing.

The Bill provides a robust legal framework for sharing data between public authorities, where there is a clear public need and benefit.

A case in point is the Troubled Families Programme to get children back into school, put adults in employment or on a path back to work, and cut youth crime and anti­-social behaviour. To identify families in need of help, public authorities need to see information held by other authorities.

The Bill also makes provision for public authorities sharing information with energy companies to identify customers living in fuel poverty so they can automatically receive support - such as energy bill rebates or energy-saving measures.

We see a clear link between public trust and government capability in its handling of data.

A May 2016 survey for the Government Data Science Partnership showed that public approval for government sharing data is actually quite high when they accept that it is used in measured, proportionate and targeted ways. So the way we collect, store and release our data must keep pace with expectations.

We’ve introduced the first six developer-friendly open registers of reliable and up-to-date data on specific areas that we can use with confidence to build a service. These include countries, territories and English local authority registers - with more to come, covering everything from police stations and schools, to doctors and courts.

We need to think about the collection and storage of data as part of core national infrastructure, in the same way as we think of our road and rail systems, energy supply, and telecommunications networks as infrastructure.

To give confidence that we handle data and can realise its potential effectively, we also need the right people with the right skills in the right place, in government and across the economy.

And we are still short of the key data science skills in Government.

Such a shortage is not peculiar to this country - research in the US predicts that by 2018 they will be short of 190,000 data scientists.

Here, in the UK Civil Service, we are growing the specialist data science community in a variety of ways - from direct recruitment to training to defining new career pathways for analysts.

The Data Science Accelerator Programme is tapping into the 3,000 or so analysts from other disciplines looking to develop their data science skills

A Data Science Campus opened its doors at ONS’s headquarters in Newport last October. And the first intake for a new Apprenticeship in Data Analytics started work on their two-year vocational training programme at the end of 2016.

And because everyone at every level should have an appreciation of the power of data, we’re developing a programme in data literacy for non-data specialists. The Digital Academy will provide skills training right across government for up to 3,000 people a year.

Together, these measures are nudging us towards a cultural shift in the status of data in government and those who work with it.

And how Government uses data in service of the citizen will define how the citizen experiences Government. When we get it right, we will deliver the right service at the right time to the right person. And that is our goal.

So - to conclude.

Data underpins everything we do - but we could do so much more. The possibilities are tremendously exciting: Services for the the citizen that are both targeted and responsive; More effective and more efficient government; and Data as an enabler of growth in the wider economy.

And we have to step up our efforts. We have announced that we plan to appoint a new Chief Data Officer, whose role will be to oversee this agenda, and a cross-government senior Data Advisory Board.

But it is not without challenge, and we need your help. We need to partner with you to help us navigate the difficult ethical judgements about how to share data in the right way.

We need you to tell us which data you want in the open and how, and we need to share scarce resources to build toward our overall goal.

Data is at the heart of 21st century government. It puts the citizen front and centre in public service delivery. It powers effective decision making on the front line. It makes government work for everyone, by better reflecting the world that we live in.

We are at the start of this journey - but I can’t wait to see how we can accelerate from here toward a public sector which is truly in service of the citizen.