Research carried out by Liz Kendall, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Care, shows that 551 elderly people lost their free social care in the two years that Cllr Royston Smith was Leader of Southampton City Council. That’s a cut of 49%.

Southampton Labour’s John Denham MP has been campaigning for more services for adult social care in recent months.

Mr Denham said: “Today we finally see the end of Cllr Smith’s time as Southampton’s Council Leader. During that period we have seen the disgraceful cut in free social care available for our city’s elderly and vulnerable people.

“The UK is facing a growing care crisis, and unfortunately Southampton is right in the middle of it. A huge cut of 49% since 2010 – that’s 551 elderly people – in free elderly social care just goes to show that the Tories are not on the side of elderly people in Southampton.”

Mr Denham said; “I welcome any fall in unemployment, although there are still too many young people out of work for over 6 months in my constituency.

“But there’s another story underneath the headlines. This fall in unemployment is almost entirely down to people who want full-time jobs only being able to find part time jobs, and this is an issue the Government will need to tackle.

“Unfortunately we remain in recession – a recession made in Downing Street by David Cameron and George Osborne – with no plan for growth and jobs. I fear that without a plan for growth, unemployment is likely to remain unacceptably high for years to come.”

This must be the foundation for social security in a country where disability now affects 11 million adults and some 770,000 children.

With half of workless households home to someone with a disability, Byrne said the right of disabled people to work is the foundation stone and he slammed Government changes that mean:

* A failing Work Programme now missing its target for disabled people by over 60%.

* Nearly half of all Work Capability Assessments end in tribunals and nearly half of those decisions are overturned.

* 1,500 fewer people using Access to Work funds last year.

The speech came just a fortnight after Iain Duncan Smith accused Remploy workers of, “not doing any work at all. Just making cups of coffee.”

Liam Byrne MP, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said;

On Contemptuous Conservatism:
“In a series of reforms that should have been approached with care and attention this Government have used all the finesse of a bull in a china shop.

“Iain Duncan Smith is now demonising those he is failing most.

“Compassionate Conservatism is dead. Contemptuous Conservatism has taken its place.”

On the Disability Living Allowance:
“We have to make sure that reform doesn’t make a bad situation worse.

“Many people receiving DLA use the money to fund the mobility – and care – they need to stay in work.

“If this vital support is knocked away, then disabled people will be simply forced to quit.”

Byrne argued that welfare changes now risk hitting disabled people on all sides, wrapping them in red tape with test after test:

“Crucially we have to end the business of wrapping disabled people and their families in red-tape.

“There are assessments for NHS care. For social care. For ESA. For DLA. For back to work support.

“So, together Anne McGuire and I, together with shadow Social Care Minister, Liz Kendall, will be taking evidence around the country from people with disabilities, from carers, from campaigners, from public service and business leaders.

“We have to ask how do local councils, the DWP and where needed the NHS, come together to offer one assessment of the health, social care, benefits and back to work support that disabled people might need?”

On reform:
“Now at a time of austerity, anxiety and fear, the same ideals of 70 years ago should inspire us to be reformers once again, reformers together, and restorers of the principles of William Beveridge.”

Jim Murphy MP, Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary, in a speech yesterday to the Electrical Infrastructure Security Summit, called on the Government to:

* Do more to promote active ‘internet citizenship’ through better education on online protection and a public awareness campaign to raise cultural awareness of the cyber threat.

* Work closely with industry, including to reform defence procurement to favour companies with strong cyber protection and ‘cyber kitemarks’.

* Improve cyber expertise within the MoD.

* Consider a Cyber Reservists Force who would test new technologies and systems.

* Increase collaboration on cyber policy across NATO.

Full text of Jim Murphy’s speech:

It is great to be at the 3rd Annual Electrical Infrastructure Security Summit.

It is vital that there is an international dialogue on how to challenge modern threats and your work is a central part of that.

There is a risk that policy development can be outpaced by technological change, and so events like this are invaluable.

Today I want to argue that the threat posed by cyberspace demands a response based on deeper partnerships with business, the public and international allies.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the emergence of cyberspace is amongst the biggest changes in human history.

Until now we have operated in four contested areas – land, sea, air and space. We now have a fifth: information.

Digital technologies dominate all aspects of our society, from education to how we support critical infrastructure, from communication to business.

Almost a third of the world’s population is online and cyberspace fuels domestic and international growth, opening up markets and opportunities.

Modern communications are reshaping politics and societies. The Arab Spring was hugely energised by the internet.

But simultaneously the characteristics of cyberspace which are such assets are also at the root of the threat it poses.

The cyber threat can hurt the very fabric of our society.

It can infiltrate living rooms, boardrooms and Ministerial Offices. It can bring down electricity and transport networks or firewalls protecting information critical to national security.

From the Stuxnet virus to US warnings of increased state-led cyber attacks, the threat has become central to the modern security landscape.

Global by nature and dependent on a loosely governed and rapidly evolving technology, cyber diffuses power among different actors.

It makes conventional crimes more possible while introducing new forms of criminal activity.

As the scale of our dependence on digital technologies grows, so too will the potential for disruption and abuse.

In designing our cyber defence policy I agree with General Sir David Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that the UK must learn to defend, delay and attack and manoeuvre in cyberspace just as we might on the land, sea or air.

Because of the nature of the threat, however, strength does not just lie in hardware. We of course need the best possible software but our ability to deter and tackle cyber attack lies in our creating both the infrastructure and culture that allows preventative strategies and capabilities to be continually enhanced, as is technology itself.

Governments cannot work alone. Static legislation is often inadequate to meet a dynamic threat. Cyber defence must be flexible and responsive. All who share in the qualities of the web in an open society also share in the responsibility to keep it secure. We must hardwire cyber defence into every aspect of society.

In many ways it highlights the changing nature of defence policy. It lies next to modern threats such as a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack or an electromagnetic storm caused by solar activity, which I know were discussed yesterday. Cyber demands new strategies and capabilities as part of a necessarily diverse modern arsenal.

Cyber security could be the arms race of the 21st century as countries rush to grow the technologies and skills which will allow them to dominate the domain. The UK must remain competitive, but that means using all the expertise which exists within our borders and amongst our allies.

The threat to the UK is real, which is why we are ranked 6th in the world as a hotspot for malicious cyber activity and cyber is a ‘tier 1 threat’.

Cyber-crime costs the UK £27 billion annually.

Major General Jonathan Shaw, the UK military’s Head of Cyber-Security, recently revealed that computer hackers have managed to breach some of most secret and secure systems within the Ministry of Defence.

I want to be clear, cyber security would be a priority issue for a Labour government. We broadly support the approach Ministers have taken as the recent cyber strategy continues the direction set by the UK’s first ever strategy enacted by the Labour Government in 2009.

We welcome in particular a new Defence Cyber Operations Group to bring together capabilities from across defence.

There are, however, areas where the Government must go further since the urgency of the threat is greater than the pace of policy change.

It’s important we hear from the Government on how and when they plan to achieve the goals they set out, with clear benchmarks for progress.

The Government can go further in public education.

We need in my view to promote cultural change and active ‘internet citizenship’, where there is a more reciprocal relationship between the Government and the public to collective online security.

Online and offline worlds are increasingly one place. In the same way as in life offline, people need to take personal responsibility online. One would not give personal details to a stranger in the street and one should not give details online to untrusted websites. People would report suspicious or antisocial activity in their street and should do so when they encounter it online.
The pace of technological change is such that government cannot be expected to have all the answers.

Major General Jonathan Shaw recently said, “We really have to listen to the young kids out in the street…The only people who spot what is happening are people at the coal face and that is the young kids. We have to listen to them and they have to talk to us.”

That’s why governments must provide better public education about threats faced. A recent OECD report on reducing cyber security risks highlighted education as a key element of cyber security policy to help citizens appreciate that while risks cannot be eliminated, they can very often be managed.

Schools have an important role in teaching children how to keep safe online, especially using social media, which would help young people develop good habits to take into adulthood. This should be an important part of the UK’s national curriculum review, ensuring young people develop the skills today to protect themselves and others tomorrow.

The Government should also consider a public awareness campaign along the lines of those conducted against drink driving, highlighting threats and action that can be taken to strengthen personal responsibility.

For drink driving, cultural change combined with government action to turn what was once a social norm into an unacceptable behaviour in the eyes of the public and in law. We have to ask ourselves what the right combination of education and regulation is because we must develop a cultural intolerance towards aggressive or criminal internet use.

The Government can also improve collaboration with industry.

It is vitally important that we can easily share threat information between business and government, especially since 80% of the UK’s critical national infrastructure is in the private sector.

The plan for a public/private sector ‘hub’ is an idea we want to see implemented as a matter of priority.

More thought is needed, however, on how to bring the private and public sector together.

Businesses will want commitments that knowledge exchange will be two-way. They will also be sensitive about the notion of greater ‘knowledge sharing’, so this must guard confidentiality where necessary.

Government should have a strategic role in promoting best practice and should take a more active role in promoting high standards amongst those with whom they do business.

We are only as strong as our weakest point and so government should increase awareness of protective measures and reward those with strong cyber security products and practices.

‘Kitemarks’ for those with high standards of cyber security must become a reality across the private sector and there is potentially a strong role for public procurement rewarding those companies with ‘cyber kitemarks’.

The defence industry is one of the most at risk sectors and so the MOD could work with business to set a series of benchmarks for firms’ cyber security performance which would be taken into account when making procurement decisions.

‘Cyber kitemarks’ could act almost as an accreditation process for major public defence contracts.

Standards would focus on sharing threat intelligence with government as well as development of companies’ own safety and expertise.

The benefit would be enhanced protection for the intellectual property so vital to defence programmes.

As a principle, the Government should prioritise purchasing from those who help to keep our nation safe online.

We should focus in particular on the supply chain as SMEs – home to so much ingenuity – may have weaker cyber defences than larger, better established organisations.

Ministers should also look at how international benchmarks could be developed as so many organisations delivering ICT and cyber security solutions are not headquartered in the UK.

Government currently itself uses an array of standards and practices across departments and so the ultimate aim should be to incentivise common standards of high performance across both public and private sectors.

This is important beyond defence, particularly for departments such as the DWP and public organisations such as the NHS, who deal with huge amounts of personal data.

We must always ask ourselves whether our investment in resilience is proportionate to the malevolence that we face.

In cyber security it is individual knowledge or ingenuity which can make the difference between safety and insecurity and in the UK we need a greater focus on the right skills. It is widely recognised that we need more professionals to both maintain and develop systems.

The Government’s Cyber Security Challenge is good, but we can go further.

It is important that the salaries offered in the private sector do not draw away from GCHQ and the Ministry of Defence the very specialist skills required, and so the pay and career structure for cyber professionals within government should be looked at, with cyber expertise recognised as a professional competence.

We should also consider whether this could become a recognised discipline amongst the Reservists to help test new systems and technologies.

Increasingly it is industry which is developing world leading cyber skills and so there should be greater public-private exchange of resource and knowledge. Government should heighten awareness amongst CEOs and Boards, who must take responsibility for developing skills within their workplaces.

Research must also focus on new techniques of monitoring cyber activity and in particular the use of crowdsourcing to maximise capability.

As we know, cyber, like so many modern threats, knows no borders. To be truly effective our defence strategy must be international.

Global co-ordination is already happening, notably through the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention.

Since the attacks on Estonia in 2007 NATO has recognised the growing sophistication of cyber attacks, including in the 2010 Lisbon Summit Declaration. The introduction of NATO Cyber Defence Management Board to co-ordinate cross-Alliance policy is very positive.

Cyber co-operation within NATO is, however, relatively limited and in future I think the Alliance needs to strengthen discussions in areas including legislation over prosecution, the scope for collaboration in preventing threats, governance strategies for emerging technologies such as cloud computing and engagement with international business.

All nations must balance the benefits brought by cyberspace – freedom of expression, the global spread of ideas, technical innovation – with increasing awareness and resilience.

Cyber security is one of the challenges of our era, and it is one in which we all have a stake.

Can I thank Paul McKeever for the invitation to speak at the Police Federation Conference.

It is 12 months since I joined you in Bournemouth.

12 months on Thursday to be precise. Today being Tuesday.

I always have to check what day it is, shadowing Theresa May.

Or Theresa April as she’s known in the Home Office now.

When last I came, and when last you gathered, I said then I was worried about the perfect storm building around policing.

At that time we feared 12,000 officers would be lost

* We feared the frontline would be hit.

* We feared morale was falling.

* We feared that Ministers were not listening.

Turned out we weren’t afraid enough.

The Home Secretary told your conference last year she was on “a rescue mission, to bring the economy back from the brink and to make sure the police come through not just intact but better equipped for the future.”

Since then the economy has gone back into double dip recession. And 5,000 police officers have gone from the frontline.

Some rescue.

But as we reflect on the last 12 months, we should also pause to reflect and pay tribute to the serving officers who have lost their lives in the last twelve months.

Ian Swadling.

Scott Eastwood-Smith.

Perviz Ahmed.

Anthony Wright.

Stephen George Cully.

Ramin Tolouie.

Mark Goodlad.

Neil Jeffrys.

Andrew James Stokes.

Karen Paterson.

David John Rathband.

Preston Gurr.

The whole country was deeply moved and saddened by the tragic death of PC David Rathband.

He became Raol Moat’s target simply because of the job he did and the public service he gave. Shot and left in darkness by a murderer because he was a police officer.

An officer who inspired so many by his battle to return to service and to stand up for others injured in the line of duty.

We must make sure the Blue Lamp foundation stands as his legacy and his tribute now.

But I also want to pay tribute to PC Mark Goodlad whose funeral I attended in Wakefield at the end of last year and who lived just outside my constituency in West Yorkshire.

PC Goodlad was a traffic officer. Stood at the side of a motorway helping a woman who had broken down by the side of the road. A lorry driving on the hard shoulder knocked him down and took his life.

PC Goodlad wasn’t fighting crime when he fell. He was helping someone in need. Like so many officers day in day out. Doing his job. Taking risks to keep the public safe. And he gave his life.

Police officers are crime fighters yes, but they are so much more besides. And I want to pay tribute and say thank you to all the police officers across the country working hard, taking risks every day of the week to keep us safe.

But so many police officers and staff are now are worried about the future of policing.

Over 30,000 police officers gathered on the streets of London last Thursday.

Constables, sergeants, inspectors, superintendents and chief constables.

Police officers on their rest day, taking annual leave, slipping in before the night shift. Over 2,000 from the West Midlands, Over 1,000 from Greater Manchester, 650 from Thames Valley. Officers from Devon and Cornwall getting on coaches at 2am and travelling through the night to make their voices heard.

Officers from across the country who know that their forces are facing a cliff edge, worried that the service to the public is falling, and afraid that crime and public safety are being put at risk.

Because the Government is cutting too far and too fast. Hitting jobs and the economy. But also putting public safety at risk.

Labour MPs have voted four times in Parliament against the 20% cuts.

David Hanson, former Policing Minister many of you know and here today as Labour’s Shadow Policing Minister has called repeatedly in Parliament for the Government to change course.

Last week we supported your march against 20% cuts.

You are right, communities are being put at risk.

Cutting 16,000 officers is criminal.

Thank you for gathering last week to stand up for the communities you serve.

Because we are seeing the real consequences now.

* In the Midlands, officers told me about a 999 call that came in about a hit and run involving a child. Thanks to cuts in response units, the nearest officer was 45 minutes away. He got there as fast as he could. But he arrived to a slow hand clap from the gathered crowd.

* And in the South West, officers told me about a 999 call from a woman who was afraid because her partner was making threats. She was told to go round to a neighbour’s because there wasn’t a car to send. She called a second time as she became more worried and afraid. Only when she called the third time to report an assault was the response car dispatched.

Eighteen months ago, the Home Secretary promised that the frontline would not be hit.

Yet now we know 16,000 officers are being cut.

16,000. That’s the number of officers it took on the streets of London to take back control of the streets after rioters burned Tottenham and Croydon, and looters ransacked Clapham and Hackney.

The Prime Minister promised:

“We won’t do anything that will reduce the amount of visible policing on our streets”.

But over 5,000 police officers have gone already from 999 response units, traffic cops, and neighbourhood police.

So when 30,000 officers took an hour and a half to march ten abreast past the Home Office to demonstrate the strength of anger and concern, I think the Home Secretary should have answered you.

We called the Home Secretary to Parliament to respond. It is an utter disgrace that on police cuts she had absolutely nothing to say.

Everyone recognises the police have to make their share of savings.

Labour has said repeatedly since before the election that the police budget would have to be cut.

We supported 12% cuts. Based on expert work in the Home Office and by the Inspectorate. But not 20% cuts.

We supported £1bn annual savings over the course of a Parliament. And yes that would require pay restraint, reforms and back office cuts to achieve it. But it would also mean you could protect the frontline rather than watching 16,000 officers go.

Ministers would have you believe that means we support their plans. Quite the reverse. Instead of the £1bn cuts we accepted, they are cutting £2bn. Going too far too fast. And that’s why so many officers are being lost.

I know and you know that we won’t always agree.

Labour in government had disagreements with the police.

And there will be issues we disagree over in future too.

On pay and pensions, we believe further reforms are needed.

But they should be done through fair negotiations.

Some officers I know now support the police having the right to strike.

I strongly don’t. The police are the emergency service of last resort.

But there’s a flip side to that.

Government should respect and value the office of constable on which we depend.

When I spoke last year I supported your call for a royal commission

Not because policing in Britain is broken. But because to cut crime and keep the public safe, we should always seek reforms and improvements to make policing better.

I said then we would press the Government for a royal commission or major independent review of the long term future of policing in the 21st century.

And I said that if the Government refused to set up any kind of overarching review, then we would do so instead.

We have done so.

Lord Stevens, former Commissioner of the Met, has now begun work. Drawing on expert advice and contributions from serving officers, members of the public, academics and top criminologists, former Chief Officers, business people, local government workers, even our security and intelligence agencies, from Britain and across the world.

Looking at:

* Challenges of the future – more national, international and high tech crimes. Greater expectations for fast and responsive local policing.

* The talented, flexible and professional workforce needed.

* Accountability, checks and balances.

* The balance between national and local policing priorities.

But this Government has no positive vision for the future of policing.

Instead we have just chaos and contradictions:

Scrapping the NPIA with no proper plan for national training and development when it goes.

Abolishing the Forensic Science Service before sufficient quality services are available in its place.

Fragmenting forces with elected police and crime commissioners just when forces need to co-operate more.

Major cuts in service, yet £100m for elections in November that no one wants.

Promising less bureaucracy yet forcing officers to do more paperwork because so many police staff have been cut.

Undermining neighbourhood policing – one of the most important and successful reforms Labour introduced – as some areas consider removing officers and leaving PCSOs alone to do the job.

And demoralising the officers and staff who we need to be highly motivated by the cack handed approach to Winsor reforms.

The detail of the Winsor proposals is of course a matter for you and your representatives to pursue in the negotiations.

But let me raise some general points.

I think there should be reforms to pay and conditions to support modernisation of the police. Many police officers I’ve spoken to recognise that too.

I think there should be greater emphasis on skills, and the development of talent, faster track promotions, greater flexibility. We supported the Neyroud report. Fitness tests make sense too.

But the Home Secretary was completely wrong to give whole sale backing to the Winsor report when it raises so many concerns.

For example:

* Regional pay is likely to cost more not less.

* Calling for higher qualified recruits whilst cutting starting salaries makes no sense at all.

* Too little consideration has been given to the impact on individual officers at a time when family budgets are already being squeezed.

* Compulsory severance looks frankly like a plan for another huge round of cuts to policing or contracting out police work.

Time and again the Government is failing to value the office of constable or to recognise the complex mix of skills, experience and judgement the police workforce need.

We see it too in their plans to force through widespread privatisation of core public policing with no safeguards in place.

Public private partnerships can be very effective. The police can and should work closely with business on new technology and developing new ways of working. There is important work for the private sector to do.

But government needs to draw a line – in the interests of public confidence and public safety too.

Core public policing – such as neighbourhood patrols, serious criminal investigations, or assessing high risk offenders – should not be contracted out, no matter how cheap the contract price.

British policing is based on consent and it depends on the confidence of the communities being policed.

The public need to be confident decisions are being taken in the interests of public safety, the community or justice, not distorted by contract or profit.

We don’t want private companies on the beat on our public streets, we want crown servants, public servants, police officers doing the job to keep us safe.

Chaotic, fragmented, contradictory changes.

Cuts and confusion putting at risk the very best of British policing.

With no vision in its place.

That’s not reform. It is destructive chaos.

This Government is giving reform a bad name.

Reform should make the police service better.

Reform should improve the quality service to the public.

Reform should make it easier not harder to cut crime or keep the streets safe.

And reform should create a highly motivated, talented, committed and professional police force.

We want to see reforms from the Stevens review that support good policing rather than undermining it.

And that also means giving police officers the confidence that they will get the backing of the public and the force when they go the extra mile to keep people safe.

There is one reform the Government could sign up to straight away.

Doing more, not less, to help those officers injured in the line of duty who want to get back to work in the policing jobs they love.

Like PC Guy Miller from Kent Police who was run over by a car driven by two men he tried to arrest. At the time it was said that PC Miller would never recover from his injuries.

Yet less than three years later, PC Miller was back working for Kent Police.

He has since received recognition for his work in the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, solving crimes, and helping to protect the public.

Or PC Gareth Rees, a traffic officer for Hertfordshire police, hit by a car at the scene of an incident. Now back on full duties. But only after many operations and two years recovery.

As he told a journalist, “We are in harms way, but if it all goes wrong you hope you will be put back together again”.

Under the Government’s plans officers who want to return, but who need time to recover and rebuild will be penalised and probably forced out.

I believe we owe a duty of care to officers like PC Miller, PC Rees, or PC Rathband hurt working to keep us safe.

When a police officer, seriously injured in the line of duty, is determined to return to the policing job they love, they should not be penalised. I think they deserve the confidence of knowing their force will back them all the way.

And we need more action too from the Government to make it easier for the police to do their jobs – cutting crime and keeping people safe.

Because in the end that is what policing is all about.

In thirteen years of Labour government, crime fell by 40%.

That was the result of hard work by police and communities. Reforms that built partnerships with councils and housing associations to prevent crime. More police. New PCSOs. Neighbourhood policing to get back into the community. New powers on anti-social behaviour, domestic violence, knife crime or counter terror.

Most people think crime is still too high and they want it to come down further.

And that in the end should be the joint aim of communities, the Government and the police.

Instead the Government is making it harder for the police to do the job:

* Fewer police.

* Fewer powers.

* Making it harder to get CCTV, taking rape suspects off the DNA database, ending ASBOs, watering down counter terror powers.

* More bureaucracy not less.

* And no over-arching strategy to cut crime.

Yet in the end, that means it is communities that pay the price.

Victims of crime who get less support.

Families who feel less safe.

Personal acquisitive crime already going up by 13%.

Other crimes have stopped falling when they should still be coming down.

I believe we can work together again – the police and communities, forces, councils, voluntary sector, businesses and government all pulling in the same direction to do more not less to keep people safe.

But it needs the Government, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to change course before it is too late.

Jon Cruddas is to become Coordinator of the Labour Party Policy Review.

Ed Miliband will recommend to the National Policy Forum that Angela Eagle becomes its new Chair.

Owen Smith is to replace Peter Hain as Shadow Secretary of State for Wales.

Andrew Adonis will advise the Policy Review on areas of Labour’s industrial strategy.

Ed Miliband said: “I am delighted to welcome the new members of our team.

“Jon Cruddas is already known as one of the most radical and deepest thinkers in the party. As the policy review enters its next phase, I look forward to him bringing his energy and new ideas.

“I am also delighted he will be working with Angela Eagle, in her proposed role as Chair of the National Policy Forum, combined with Shadow Leader of the House. She brings great policy and political acumen to the role.

“Owen Smith has shown himself to be a real talent and I welcome him to the post of Shadow Welsh Secretary.

“I am also pleased Andrew Adonis will be working on areas of industrial strategy, bringing his experience of government and fresh thinking to the role.

“I want to thank Liam for his excellent work in kick starting the ideas that Labour will need to win in 2015, and for working so hard to make sure our agenda is rooted firmly in the issues that matter to hardworking people in Britain.”

Ed Miliband today launched Labour’s new “NHS Check” campaign to allow doctors, nurses and patients to reveal the damage done to front-line services by Government free-market, free-for-all in the health service.

Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, said:

I want to start by paying tribute to Britain’s nurses.

Whether in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, in the public, private or voluntary sector, you make an incredible contribution to our country.

I also want to thank all the healthcare assistants represented here for the work you do as part of the nursing team.

You are there at the end of people’s lives and at the beginning.

Every person in Britain has their own story about your professionalism, care and compassion.

I’ve seen myself the care you provide at the saddest of times.

When my dad was dying in hospital, the nurses provided great care to him and great comfort to us.

I’ve also seen it at the most magical of times.

When my sons were born and we were back on the ward, the nurses and midwives there were superb in looking after my wife and my sons, and looking out for a proud but nervous new father like me.

I have seen a fleeting glimpse, as patients do, of how hard your job is.

That task of combining compassion and kindness, with great skill and knowledge and hard manual work too.

That combination of physical, emotional and mental work.

So let me say what the whole country thinks.

You are the backbone of the NHS.

You represent everything that’s great about public service.

You are the best of Britain.

Thank you.

Something politicians don’t say enough.
And thank you too to the nurses who work beyond our NHS.
In the community, in schools, even on the battlefield.

It was great to see three nurses all of them RCN members – honoured last month for their incredible work treating wounded soldiers in Afghanistan.

Thank you to them – and all of our Defence Medical Services – for their courage.

Let us applaud their service.

Let me say this.

I know recently there have been some disturbing stories about failures in standards of care.

I know those stories disturb you more than anyone.

But let’s say what you know, what the British people know:

The overwhelming majority of nurses do a phenomenal job.

And we must never forget it.

Now, I know you’ve heard the standard politician’s speech to nurses before.

First, we tell you how important you are.

Then we lecture you about how to do your job.

But I’m not here today to lecture you, but to listen and learn.

To understand how we can work with you to support what you all came into nursing to do.

Just like we worked together when Labour was last in government.

We made the extra investment to increase the number of nurses.

It’s easy to forget now, but fifteen years ago people were saying the NHS was an old-fashioned and out-of-date idea.

People said the idea of a service free at the point of use had had its day.

You proved them wrong.

We proved them wrong.

Delivering the lowest waiting times in NHS history.

Dramatic improvements in standards of care.

And the highest patient satisfaction in NHS history.

You showed, we showed, that the NHS is not just right for our grandparents’ generation, it is right for our grandchildren too.

And I am proud we did that together.

Partnership between government and nurses matters.

It matters, too, when it comes to pay and pensions.

Yes, there are difficult decisions to be made to make sure pensions are sustainable for the future.

But the right way forward is to set pensions by negotiation not confrontation.

And let me say this.

A national pay framework is right for the NHS.

One of the biggest challenges facing the NHS is health inequalities – different health outcomes between rich and poor parts of the country.

Paying people less to work in the poorest areas of the country will not narrow that gap.

It will make it worse.

We’ve said that when it comes to difficult choices between pay and jobs, we would prioritise jobs.

But a national pay framework is fair to staff and is more likely to control costs.

I know from my conversations with nurses, it’s not just pay and pensions that are concerning you at the moment.

It’s your ability to do your job.

Last week I was hearing from a group of nurses in London.

One of the strongest messages I took away was that the NHS works far better when nurses are influencing how things work.

As my party puts together our ideas for the future, I want to do it in partnership with you.

The Prime Minister has chosen a different course.

He’s been lecturing nurses recently on how to listen to patients.

I must say, I really wouldn’t have had him down as an expert on listening.

Three years ago, he came to your conference and told you:

“There will be no more of those pointless re-organisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos…”

…Just before imposing the biggest top-down reorganisation in NHS history.

And it doesn’t just affect this Prime Minister.

It undermines all politicians when he does something like that.

I want to pay tribute to the RCN and to you, Peter, for the campaign you led against the Bill.

You tried to engage with the Government.

You expressed the concerns that nurses were expressing to you.

You warned the Government of the risks it was running:

Resources being diverted away from the frontline, and nurses were right.

Patients waiting longer for treatment, and nurses were right.

Disruption and fragmentation. Nurses were right.

But the Government refused to listen.

It ploughed on regardless.

They have been acting like they are the masters, not the servants, of the NHS.

They are not the masters.

Not this Government.

Not any government.

It’s owned by the people of Britain.

Our health service is owned by patients, professionals and the people.

And their voice – your voice deserves to be heard.

And any government forgets that at its peril.

I can’t promise that we will always agree about everything.

But what I will never do is what this Government did: insult you by dismissing you as just a “vested interest”.

You were not a vested interest.

You were the defenders of the National Health Service.

We’ve been clear: we would stop this reorganisation and use the money to protect the jobs of nurses right across this country.

And what will Labour do if we win the next election in 2015?

Not another top-down reorganisation.

We would put an end to the damage of the Bill and repeal the free-market free-for-all in our NHS.

But my party isn’t going to wait until then before we do something to protect the NHS.

We’re going to be asking Health & Well-being Boards to act as the last line of defence in our NHS.

Resisting the creep of charges for treatment

Promoting collaboration over competition

Putting patients before profits.

And today, we’re launching a new campaign, NHS Check, which will allow staff and patients who are concerned about what’s happening to get in touch with us and tell us what they’re seeing in hospitals, clinics and GP surgeries.

So please go to yournhs.com and talk to us so we can all hold this Government to account.

My party wants to work with NHS staff and patients everywhere to hold the Government to account for what’s going on.

What’s so frustrating about the upheaval that’s going on now is that it’s a million miles away from the change the NHS really needs.

The NHS needs service change not structural change.

We know that we are an ageing society.

People are living longer, and that’s a good thing.

But it brings big challenges for the health service.

You know better than anybody that the health service needs to change.

But not change which brings fragmentation.

Not change which splits the NHS apart.

Change which helps the NHS to work together.

Integration.

The NHS of the future will have to be different.
That means bringing health and social care together, to provide security for our parents and grandparents whether they are in hospital or in their own home.

That means tackling the last taboo of healthcare in this country – mental health, which affects millions of families, rich and poor.

Above all, that means stopping people having to go to hospital in the first place by bringing services to people’s homes and communities.

That’s what real service change should be about.

Redesigning services to meet the needs of patients.

Nurses are essential to every one of those challenges.

Including the work of specialist nurses.

And I know the concern that that is being increasingly underrated in the NHS.

Let me say this about our NHS.

It is the institution that the British people are proudest of – and rightly so.

In a country where we are used to the values of markets, competition and money, it is based on different values.

The values which brought me into politics.

Values which are the reason that I’m standing on this stage today.

Values of care, compassion, fairness to all.

We all stand equal in the eyes of the NHS.

But it is not just the fairest system, it is the most efficient.

Too often we talk about the NHS as if it was merely a cost, a drain, an expense.

The NHS is not a burden on the taxpayer.

It is the most productive, value for money, brilliant asset that this country has.

Britain would not be getting out of bed in the morning without the NHS.

As a country, lets celebrate the values of the NHS.

Let’s celebrate the people who work in the NHS.

Let’s celebrate that we have the NHS.

And let’s together make sure we protect and improve it for the future.

Ballot papers need to be returned by 25th May and the three Queen’s Park Councillors say that the election of a Community Council will strengthen local democracy and give residents a stronger voice on local issues.

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Leader of the Labour Group, said; “We have supported the idea of a Community Council for Queen’s Park since the proposal was first put forward nearly two years ago. A Community Council will build on the work of the previously elected Neighbourhood Forum and we look forward to working closely with the Community Councillors when they are elected. The Community Council campaigners have done a fantastic job in organising the campaign in such a professional manner and this bodes well for the work of the new Community Council over the coming years. But first, residents need to say ‘Yes’ in the referendum and we urge everyone to do so.”

“Labour will bring reform into the classroom by learning from the Japanese system of lesson planning, known as ‘jugyou kenkyuu‘.

“Education in England has had years of reform to structures, exams and accountability measures. But the style of classroom teaching has changed little since Victorian times.

“In Japan, teaching practices have changed markedly in the last 50 years, through a process of gradual, incremental improvements over time. Japan gives teachers themselves primary responsibility for improving classroom practice.

“Raising the quality and status of teaching is Labour’s number one priority when it comes to education reform.”

Teaching in Japan
As part of Labour’s Policy Review, Stephen Twigg is announcing today that he plans to visit Japan to look at how they have reformed education.

Along with other Far Eastern countries such as South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, Japan consistently outperforms England in the TIMSS international study on maths and science, coming in the top 5.

While Labour made great progress in improving results in core subjects during our time in office, it is clear that more of the same isn’t the answer. So Labour will look at creative ideas and best practice from the highest performing jurisdictions across the world to improve education in England, as part of our Policy Review process.

Kounaikenshuu is the term for the continuous process of school based professional development that Japanese teachers engage in once they begin their careers. While teachers in England are considered to be fully equipped once they have gone through initial teacher training, Japan considers participation in professional development a core job requirement, with lesson planning and on-the-job training often taking as much as half of a teachers time.

Run by teachers for teachers, kounaikenshuu consists of teachers working together in grade level groups, subject matter groups and special cross-cutting committees (e.g. technology). The activities are focussed on the goals set out in the annual school improvement plan. Many teachers also get involved in district wide groups which normally meet once a month.

One of the most important parts of kounaikenshuu is jugyou kenkyuu (lesson study). The Japanese system places a very strong emphasis on collaboration between teachers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of lessons. In lesson study, groups of teachers meet regularly over long periods of time (ranging from several months to a year) to work on the design, implementation, testing and improvement of one or several ‘research lessons’. The premise is simple: if you want to improve teaching, the most effective place to do so is in the context of a classroom lesson. If you start with lessons, the problem of how to apply research findings in a classroom disappears.

In England, teachers tend to lead students through a series of steps to develop procedures for solving problems. The emphasis is on constantly succeeding, and on the demonstration of techniques for solving problems, followed by a process of memorisation and practice. By contrast, in Japan the focus is on allowing students to develop their own procedures for solving problems, through a process of structured trial and error with feedback. Teachers design lessons so that students are likely to use procedures that have been developed recently in class. The Japanese approach allows a deeper understanding of the rationale behind a solution and for students to develop independent learning techniques.

Improving Teaching not just Teachers
We should professionalise teaching as medicine has been professionalised. Studies show that in the classroom of the best teachers, students learn in six months what students taught by the average teachers take a year to learn. Teachers are skilled professionals. But if we’re honest, they don’t have the same parity as doctors. That should change.

Teaching standards need to be robust and progressive – reflecting development through a career. And there should be genuine systems of reward and progression for those who invest time and effort in their own continual professional development.

The focus should be on improving quality of teaching, not just teachers. Improving the quality of teachers, does not necessarily mean you will improve what happens in a classroom. International studies have shown that what teachers do in the classroom are not determined by their qualifications as much as by the culture in which they teach. The methods most teachers use are inherited from earlier generations of instructors, not invented when they reach the classroom. So if we want to change teaching, we can’t just change teachers, we must change the culture of teaching, its very fabric and DNA. The most effective way is to change teacher training, collaboration and lesson planning.

Medway Labour joined campaigners outside the London Assembly AGM at City Hall today to oppose Boris Johnson’s plans for an airport in the Thames Estuary.

Campaigners were represented from all parties, including Green mayoral candidate Jenny Jones, Caroline Pidgeon, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on the Assembly, and Labour’s Murad Qureshi.

Leader of the Labour Group, Cllr Vince Maple said, “It’s great to see strong cross-party opposition to the Estuary Airport so soon after the Mayoral elections.

“This sends a strong message to Boris Johnson that there is widespread opposition to his ludicrous proposals for an airport in the Thames Estuary.

“Medway Labour will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone, regardless of party politics, to oppose this potentially devastating plan.”

Cllr Tristan Osborne, who attended the rally, said, “It was great to see such cross-party support at the rally.

“The rally today was timely as it coincides with the publication today by Kent County Council of its Aviation Paper opposing an Estuary Airport.

“This has been a longstanding campaign for Medway Labour, which we will continue to fight.”