"The nation of the second chance"

"Dave" dived straight in. His serious tone made me listen up more than a flamboyant start would have:

"Today I want to talk about how we eradicate poverty in Britain".

He focused on how he would go about tackling the root causes in a distinctly different way to Gordon Brown's failed top-down approach. He acknowledged that Brown also had the objective of tackling poverty, and was sincere in it, but tore up the recieved wisdom of the Chancellor's methods, shred by shred:

"He sees limits on what the voluntary sector, social enterprises and community groups can do... Gordon Brown looks at area where the state has failed and thinks the answer is more state intervention, more of the same. I look at state failure and say: let's try something different."

The speech was marking the launch of the Social Justice policy group, based at the Centre for Social Justice. When talking about the Centre's effective giving programme, Phillippa Stroud pointed out at the start that the left-leaning IPPR think-tank had more new employees last year than all of the conservative-leaning think-tanks put together.

Iain Duncan Smith, the chair of the new policy group, followed with an engaging introduction on the role of the group and the challenges that need to be met. He challenged those who don't believe in government seeking social justice by pointing out that the very building they were in, Hawkstone Hall, had hosted launches of Wilberforce's anti-slavery drive, the ragged school movement of Shaftyesbury (pictured) and that the spire was donated by the family of Abraham Lincoln who had drawn his inspiration from the conservative moments that had started there. The packed audience of party activists, charity workers, MP's and opinion formers were amused by IDS' self-deprecating jokes such as, in reference to Cameron's leadership: "I had the job once actually, in case you missed it!".

Similarly to the leadership race, the Chancellor was in Cameron's crosshairs. Attacking him on his home turf he talked of "Third Scotland" where male life expectancy is lower than in Bosnia, Gaza strip, Iran and North Korea. He cited Calton where 57% of adults don't work at all as two in five of them claim incapacity benefit. As Scotland has the same tax and benefits system as the rest of the UK but with disproportionately more funding, the fact that it is also the place where problems with the welfare state are at their starkest shows that there is a problem with the method:

"Only this week in my constituency surgery, a working single mum told me that she would have a higher income and a better house if she gave up her job. She'd done the maths. She'd be better off on benefits. But she chose to stay working. It was a small victory of the human spirit against the vast scale of Gordon Brown's state machine."

The policy group will be comprised of seperate working groups: Home and Family, Education, Economic Security, and Drugs, Alcohol and Debt. Detailing the role of each, he stressed the importance of strong families and decent education, Brown's not-so-good record on job creation, and the need for more drug rehabilitation places.

Cameron then moved on to elaborating on a great phrase that I hadn't heard before, "the nation of the second chance". He wanted the fifth working group to focus on making this a reality, particularly by developing plans for 'Social Enterprise Zones':

"We will never fulfil our potential as a nation by giving up on our fellow citizens, abandoning them to long-term unemployment, educational failure or addiction."

How are we going to achieve that?

"Here, I don't think the voluntary sector has an important role to play. I believe that the voluntary sector has the crucial role to play."

In concluding, Cameron said that the ambition of smaller government alone is not enough:

"You cannot have a smaller state unless you have bigger, more responsible people. Growing levels of social breakdown are creating growing demands for welfare and other forms of government intervention. Limited government is impossible without renewing the forms of behaviour and social structure that prevent poverty and create community. Communities are not created from the top down, but built from the bottom up."

The 45 minute speech was laced with personal experiences, which combined with the statistics to make his argument very compelling. There was a positive atmosphere in the hall to match the positive undertones of the speech. The endemic failures of the Labour party on helping the vulnerable contrasted with the reinvigorated feeling about the Conservative party, and its evident care about the issues that matter to people.

Some questions from the audience followed, they were all pertinent and from people in relevant organisations and experiences. Key points made during the Q&A's include:

• The good thing about National Service is that it brought everyone together
• Charities need financial security, annual contracts stop them working for the long-term
• A single, ethnic minority mother stood up confidently.. she praised the speech and pledged herself as a 'guinea pig'
• We have to be careful about how we let the term Social Justice be defined
• We should judge faith-based projects on what they do rather than on the fact that they have religious beliefs

Personal comment: "I joined the party as an idealistic Scouse teenager completely on my own accord, wanting a new approach to how people interact with the state. A few years of party politics inevitably dulled the passion somewhat, but I'm not ashamed to say that I feel there is something happening now which is truly exciting. For many people there was a sense of change and hope in the air when Blair swept to power, feelings towards him couldn't be more different now and it's eminently faesible that the same goodwill is about to be channelled towards Cameron's "modern, compassionate conservatism". The best thing about this social justice driven agenda is that it anchors some of the 'vacuous platitudes' of late to distinctly conservative principles. There was more detail in the speech than I could recount above, but the real detail will come in 18 months time from the policy groups - we must give the talented Shadow Cabinet the benefit of the doubt until then.  This politics of trusting people will reciprocate into people having more trust in the politicians that advocate it. This is the kind of government our country desperately needs. We need Reagan-esque optimism now more than ever, not the cynicism British Conservatives can be prone to. For me, Cameron's speech marks a milestone on the right path for our party, and I believe he was sincere in what he was saying. I'll be sure to hold him to it."

Report by Sam Coates, Deputy Editor.

Comments

[Richard Bailey]

Yes, yes, yes, but what about the punch up in the Horse afterwards??!!

[Guardsman]

I fundamentally agree with the necessity for the reintroduction of National Service. When everbody was required to serve their time in the Queen's uniform society was cleaner, better behaved, and with much less crime.

Some of the people one sees around on the streets these days with tattoos and earrings show just how bad this country has become after years of socialist misgovernment.

Take out the earrings and studs and pout some of these fellows on a parade ground and I guarantee you will transform them and their lives for the better.

The armed services need to be massively increased under the next Conservative Government. We can reloy on this to become reality.

[RobD]

An excellent summary of an excellent speech Sam. I felt the mood in the hall was hugely positive in a way I have not seen in conservative politics before. David showed you can mention things that are negative such as the one million school children in failing schools, without making the whole tone of the speech negative.

Unfortunately there does not seem to have been much coverage of this speech which is a pity as it demonstrated more about what Cameron's Conservatives are all about than any other event in the last few months.

[Andrew]

Somewhat dodgy use of stats methinks:

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/press/news2005/0204le-press.html
"Compared with 10 years ago in 1992-1994:

Life expectancy at birth for Scotland has improved from 71.7 years to 73.8 years for males..."

I can't be bothered looking it up, but I'd be surprised if any of the afore-mentioned bad examples have a male life expectancy >70 yrs. For comparison's sake, Sweden has the highest in Europe by a mile (something like 79yrs), while the US and most of northern Europe are around 74/75ish.

[Editor]

I thought it was excellent stuff. It, for me, showed a Right Way To Modernisation. Taking us into neglected territory mismanaged by Labour - the battle against poverty - but being willing to adopt genuinely conservative remedies (ie an emphasis on the family, rigour in education and social enterprise).

The second chance phrase is a very powerful one. It will help us to rebut Labour claims that we are not interested in the poor. Labour are the party who have seen the worst forms of poverty get worse in eight/ nine years of prosperity because they have no imagination to try anything other than a bigger state or a voluntary sector that is micromanaged by the state.

It is Conservatives who want to free people from the worst forms of poverty by building up genuinely innovative third sector groups that can give people a second chance.

[John Hustings]

I think David Cameron was smart enough to realise that Iain Duncan Smith was onto something with his Social Justice agenda.

If only he would consistently apply the "bottom up, not top down" approach to other areas of policy.

[Mark Fulford]

Andrew, not dodgy stats at all. You're looking at Scotland as a whole. The speech was referring to specific regions, now dubbed “Third Scotland” (3rd World). Those deprived regions do have much worse stats.

Yes, yes, yes, but what about the punch up in the Horse afterwards??!!

I felt quite safe in James Cleverly's formidable presence.

[RobC]

I thought Cameron’s speech was excellent, but why was only half of David’s face lit? Being new to these things I was attempting to celeb spot, was that Whatisname Bob Andrew Marshalls? The Labour MP who announced he’d lost his seat when in fact he had retained it?

On a more serious point Cameron said…

“And then there are those things that only individuals can do for themselves. That much was demonstrated by William Galston, the liberal academic who inspired the Clinton-era welfare reforms. His genius was to comb through the facts and the figures and relate them to real lives lived by real people in the real world. For instance, he found that three questions hold the key to whether an American citizen avoids poverty:

Did you finish high school? Did you marry before having children? Did you have children before 20?

He found that of the people who did all three, only 8% were poor; but of those who failed to do all three, 79% were poor.”

This has confused me. I would have thought that having children when a little older (e.g. after 20) meant that people would be more financially stable and less likely to slip into poverty. Am I missing something?

[hayek's grandad]

Did he really say

"We will never fulfil our potential as a nation by giving up on our fellow citizens, abandoning them to long-term employment, educational failure or addiction."

I feel I've been abandoned to "long term employment..." I'd really like to retire but I can't thanks to Gordon's stealth taxes.

[Cameron Watt]

Only half of David's face was lit up because one of our lamps failed. It made an interesting picture in The Times, though.

[Rob]

All sounds very good to me. An encouraging sign that Cameron does have quality and isnt blindly going to the centre. Looking forward to hearing more on Social Justice. But a point of caution, Bush before the 2000 election made a big issue of voluntary sector development, but it failed to progress into anything and was quitely shelved when he was less than a year into his Presidency. However Sam says Cameron appeared sincere and, for now, that is good enough for me.

[Cameron Watt]

Also Rob C, Galston identified that those who had a child after the age of 20 were more likely to avoid poverty.

[Oberon Houston]

Good stuff Sam. In-fact this site has been doing brilliantly since the leadership contest and that’s fantastic to see. If a couple of dedicated and talented worker bees’ helped a bit by activists (who have a day job) can produce so much great material, what are the MPs doing? Now I realise that they too have other commitments, however surely we can up the pressure on the Government – and especially Brown. Pick a subject and I’ll get him on it. NHS – Shambles. Education - chaos. Tax Credits - fiasco. New Deal - hasn’t worked. Incapacity Benefit - shambles. Devolution – half baked. Drugs policy - ? Manufacturing – down the plug hole. Regional Assemblies – disaster. Transport policy – where? Defence – disgrace (regiments, carrier contract, equipment, budget, troop commitments) Welfare state – failing. EU presidency – shameful. Pensions policy – disgraceful (unions, tax of funds, etc. etc.). Taxation – sky high. Waste – rocketing. Productivity – nose diving. Business environment – worse day by day. Unemployment up up up. Social mobility down down down. We need to get going with these issues, all day every day. Every member, activist, every MP, every shadow cabinet member, Councillor, MSP, MEP, everyone.

[James Maskell]

"abandoning them to long-term employment". Wait a sec, am I reading this wrong? Isnt long term employment good as they arent on the dole? Isnt that meant to me unemployment...

[Richard Bailey]

As someone who spent 3 very happy years of my life turning 16 / 17 yr old "yoof" from the streets of Britain into infantry soldiers, I can say that I am convinced that there is a lot of good in these youngsters just waiting to be channelled and released.
At every Passing Out parade I was surrounded by tearful and proud parents who had finally reached the end of a traumatic journey with their off-spring and who had finally received the disciplined help they really needed to turn their kids into decent adults.
That Cameron can stand up in public and carry off his policy of introducing some sort of community service for school leavers without being mocked and ridiculed just shows how far society has come and indeed how far Cameron and the Tories have come.
I do not want the Army to become a branch of the Social Services but there must be a way of using them and other resources to unlock the hidden potential buried deep within our "am I bovvered" youth.

[Richard]

Although I am sympathetic to the ideas of national service, it still strikes me as distinctly Prussian and at odds with our traditions of liberty.

I agree that a minimal state requires a strong voluntary sector. I hope Cameron is implying that with the growth of the voluntary sector the state will begin to shrink under his reign.

[Sam Coates]

I decided to embolden Oberon's encouraging comment because, well, I can :D

[Rob]

I am very sceptical of the idea of national service. It sounds to much like social engineering by the state for my liking. Not to mention how outdated makes us look. Britain has a long tradition of having a professional volunteer army. I see no reason to break with this tradition of liberty.

[Sam Coates]

Thanks for the typo tip-off James. Tim and I really appreciate it when regulars email us with a mistake (I don't think it happens too much), don't assume everyone else will though!

There seems to be a growing number of Robert's/Robin's/Roberto's - Rob, Rob G, RobC and RobD, to name off the top of my head!

[a-tracy]

National voluntary service or whatever you want to call it is yet another tax on the Middle Classes that I'm sure Brown will be more than happy to pick up on before the next election as it appears to have Cameron's support. I don't want my children using by the State, as an Employer you have to pay the NMW for 16 year olds and I would expect no less if my children were forced into service rather than studying for a worthwhile career or working.

[James Maskell]

Funnilly enough Oberon Im currently in a public debate with a Labour Councillor locally about a list of 25 "good" things that Labour are responsible for...I came up with over 50 bad things Labour are responsible for. Hes actually going through my list!

[Rob]

Perhaps I should start to go by my full name to make things easier?

[Bishop Hill]

For me, as a Cameron sceptic, this was very promising. Perhaps he does understand after all.

But National Service? Forget it. "Back to the fifties policies" aren't going to work.

[Richard]

"National voluntary service or whatever you want to call it is yet another tax on the Middle Classes that I'm sure Brown will be more than happy to pick up on before the next election as it appears to have Cameron's support. I don't want my children using by the State, as an Employer you have to pay the NMW for 16 year olds and I would expect no less if my children were forced into service rather than studying for a worthwhile career or working."

This is another of my worries. Where will the money come from? Will all children be compelled to take part or only those that need the discipline? I fear it looks like the former.

A more effective way to establish discipline is to make people more responsible for themselves instead of running to the state. This is where Cameron seems to be more promising with his talk of enhancing the role of the voluntary sector.

[Matthew Oxley]

National service would be a huge infringement on our civil liberties and we should resist any attempt by any party to restore this.

Also earings and tattoo's are a matter of personal choice, to take away one's right to express themselves this way is to take away our Freedom.

I feel very positive about all the rest though.

[comstock]

"I fundamentally agree with the necessity for the reintroduction of National Service. When everbody was required to serve their time in the Queen's uniform society was cleaner, better behaved, and with much less crime."

What about loving this country the way it is, not the way it was?

[John Hustings]

It's interesting Oberon that you quite willingly list all of Labour's failings, but you are just as enthusiastic about Cameron dumping any policies which would have had a smidgeon of a chance of correcting those failings.

[Mark Fulford]

What is being suggested by Cameron has nothing to do with National Service or discipline. They are red-herrings in this debate.

What Cameron wants to explore is how it would be possible to get more school-leavers to engage with the world. He sees it as a way to build stronger communities, which is part of the bottom-up approach to taking people out of poverty – and thereby reducing the size and cost of government.

There are real obstacles to this idea, not least of them being cynicism, but they're not a reason to give up. From what Cameron has said so far, it’s reasonable to assume that the result would be a government-facilitated scheme run by the voluntary sector – and it’s people like The Prince’s Trust who are providing input and ideas.

[James Hellyer]

What is being suggested by Cameron has nothing to do with National Service

Then why does he continually draw comparisons with national service?

[Howard Stevenson]

Sam/Tim,

Not been at the event, could you enlighten us as to how close this was to the "and" theory of Conservatism.

[James Hellyer]

Well, I'm still waiting for the text of the speech to be posted at Conservatives.com, but from what's reported it sounds far more promising than almost anything from Cameron's other recent pronouncements.

I remain sceptical about this one though because the lines about "trusting people" and making people more responsible, seem contradicted by what appear to be topdown approaches in other areas.

[Mark Fulford]

Cameron draws comparisons with the beneficial results of National Service – cohesion, experience, being part of something. But it's a red-herring to follow the line that this means beating people into shape with 50s style methods.

[Editor]

What a great question Howard!!!

I think the big "And" on show in DC's speech was Conservatives believe that people should take responsibility for avoiding poverty AND Conservatives believe that those in poverty deserve a second chance...

On the first half of the "And" DC was emphasising the role of good choices in education, employment, family and addiction as important ways of avoiding poverty. Because this was DC and because of his emphasis on "shared responsibility" it wasn't (correctly) put in such a stark way... He talked about the responsibilities of others to help people avoid the paths to poverty (that include unemployment, addiction etc).

The second half of the "And" was my favourite part. Here's a particularly rich (!) section:

"For the mum who got pregnant as a teenager the nation of the second chance will enable her to study when she's 35. The nation of the second chance will offer rehab to the man who has frittered away his twenties on drugs. The nation of the second chance will find a warm home and a job for the man who has slept rough since he ran away from the father that abused him. The nation of the second chance is a different world to Gordon Brown's decommissioned Britain. We will never fulfil our potential as a nation by giving up on our fellow citizens, abandoning them to long-term unemployment, educational failure or addiction."

It is the perfect companion to the first "half". Noone should ever want to be in a position where they need a "second chance" so we should do our utmost to help people avoid poverty in the first place but when someone falls on hard times conservatives shouldn't be wagging their finger in a "I told you kinda way". We should be there helping them to start again. We should never give up on someone - we should always believe that they can start again and move away from a demoralising dependence on the state.

AND that is a contrast with Labour and Gordon Brown's decommissioned Scottish neighbourhoods that DC spoke so powerfully about last night.

[James Hellyer]

"Cameron draws comparisons with the beneficial results of National Service – cohesion, experience, being part of something."

So it in fact has something to do with National Service, and far less to do with his other example of the Peace Corps, which was always voluntary.

"But it's a red-herring to follow the line that this means beating people into shape with 50s style methods."

I think people are drawing comparisons with the compulsion aspect, rather than with the programme "Lads' ArmY"!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

please stop the centre madness!

[Rob Largan]

"abandoning them to long-term unemployment, educational failure or addiction."

Surely that contradicts with Cameron's decision to rule out selective education? Not that I am doubting the good intent behind social justice, but the voluntary sector's job would be so much easier if we had an education system that worked and didnt neglect students with practical talents. Just a thought.

(changed to my full name to keep Sam happy)

[James Hellyer]

??????????????????????????????????????????????

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Just like Cameron and the Conservative Party, all the comments on this blog are being dragged to the centre!

[James Hellyer]

What is centre madness?

[James Hellyer]

As in they're being centred on the page (which I can't see), or as in they've been Oberonised?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

see my immediately previous comment, James

[James Hellyer]

I did, and I wondered whether you meant justification or Houstonisation?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Sorry I meant text positioning in a literal, not political, sense James - although it must be an error with my browser or something if you can't see it. In which case, I feel a bit of a fool and beg the Editor (or his Deputy) to delete my comments at once!

[Rob Largan]

No I have the same problem, everything is justified to the centre for me as well.

[James Hellyer]

Something browser related then?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Phew. I'm glad that, unlike the British Museum, I'm not losing my marbles.

Perhaps it's appropriate that the text is tacking to the centre as Cameron's Conservatives do the same?

[James Hellyer]

Does that mean I should justify my text further and further to the right?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Well visitors to my blog will soon be lucky to see my muesli-sprayed ramblings creeping over the left-hand margin at this rate!

[James Maskell]

The centre isnt always justified Rob Largan! Ive got a funny feeling this scenario has become a caption competition!

[Editor]

Anyone want to talk about social justice?!

[James Hellyer]

Yes, it's a ghastly focus group tested term. I don't like it.

I'd also stop all this talk about "eradicating" poverty. Cameron must know full well that it's commonly used to describe "relative poverty", which by defintion cannot be eliminated.

In terms of the general message, I still find it mixed.In terms of "social justice", Cameron talks about empowering people and trusting them, while elsewhere he follows an agenda that sees ministers dictating standards (e.g. education). I fear mixed messages are doomed to failure.

[Richard]

Personally I always sympathised with Hayek's opinion of "social justice". It is a socialist concept that inerferes with natural justice.

[Sam Coates]

Odd! I use Firefox so didn't notice anything unusual until I tried it with IE.
I'll sort it out (unless you fancy a change!)

[James Hellyer]

... Odd! I use Firefox so didn't notice anything unusual until I tried it with IE.

Ditto! I just assumed they were all mad.

As usual ;-)

[Rob G]

Sam: as one of the Rob's at last night's event, I'll try to think of a better id as soon as I can.

DC's national voluntary service: I thought it was clear from his answer to a question that this is intended to be voluntary not compulsory and that he accepts that more study is needed to see whether the idea is workable.

I thought that the whole tone of his speech was very encouraging as I am sure that he is right that the voluntary sector can achieve much more than the state is the various areas of deprivation that he mentioned.

[James Hellyer]

"DC's national voluntary service: I thought it was clear from his answer to a question that this is intended to be voluntary not compulsory and that he accepts that more study is needed to see whether the idea is workable."

Now I admit I didn't hear this, but his comments elsewhere have made it clear that he doesn't know whether it should - or would - be compulsory or not. Indeed, one recent interview carried as its headline that it could be compulsory...

[Rob Largan]

I am concerned that the event has recieved extremely little coverage. The idea is a good one, and the extracts from the speech look good. However the idea of social justice struggles to make the big headlines. IDS complained that MPs didnt 'get' his social justice agenda when he was leader. As Richard points out, social justice, according to Hayek was a socialist concept. Perhaps James is right:-

"Yes, it's a ghastly focus group tested term. I don't like it."

Social Justice is a very good idea, that can be developed further, but the term itself 'Social Justice' might not be doing the very admirable ideas the justice (excuse the awful pun) they deserve.

[Sam Coates]

Rob G, I'm not too bothered about the names although it is a bit easier if people have less generic ones!

[Sam Coates]

I'm still stumped on the central alignment! I thought it might have been a broken html link but it's affecting all TD comments..

[Sam Coates]

It was a broken html code after all, but in a structural part of the weblog. You can now sleep in peace.

[Matthew Oxley]

Yes, I have too noticed that Camerons
Speech has had rather little coverage
outside of our own conservative press
no mention on QT, This week etc or in
any news.Perhaps policy announcements
aren't meant to be covered positively
as it does not make any good stories?

[Andrew]

"Andrew, not dodgy stats at all. You're looking at Scotland as a whole. The speech was referring to specific regions....."

Comparing an individual region with an entire country is hardly sound use of stats. That's especially true for a figure like male life expectancy, which varies so little between the first and second world.

There are plenty of little oddities in these stats: for example, Jordan has higher life expectancy than the US. Luxembourg, by a country mile the richest nation in Europe, has fairly poor stats. Even Gaza and the West Bank are around 70ish, higher than several European nations that are considerably richer (eg Poland).

In the genuine third world, male life expectancy is almost universally <55, and can dip <40 in some African states (usually cos of war and/or AIDS).

[Editor]

Rob Largan: Social Justice is a very good idea, that can be developed further, but the term itself 'Social Justice' might not be doing the very admirable ideas the justice (excuse the awful pun) they deserve.

I can't help with why the media didn't cover the event much (although IDS did have the prime 8.10am Today slot on the day of the speech) but YouGov has polled on the term for the Centre for Social Justice and it does have considerable public resonance.

[Oberon Houston]

James, a bit earlier you asked how I could agree with the failings of the Labour Government - yet maintain a centrist stance. I have made the point on this blog a couple of times that there is a huge difference between a centre-right Conservative party and a Labour Party that is pretending it is centrist - but in reality cannot enact any progressive reforms.

I guess I am much more optimistic about the good a centre-right tory party can do. I also believe that we will not be elected without a move back to the centre and promising a more measured reform agenda.

[Howard Stevenson]

Tim,

Thanks for the detailed answer. If Social Justice is the going to be the key theme for the next four years, all policies have to tie back to it. Tax, Education, Policing even the environment. The and theory would give the framework but not the policies.

I like the sound of what Cameron has said and chimes with my own beliefs. But like most have said on this blog, we need to start discussing the policies which will give the second chance to people.

[malcolm]

I too was suprised at the lack of coverage of this speech in the press.The journalists benches were packed at the meeting but most political coverage yesterday was concerned with Ruth Kelly,Kinnock and the Lib Dem leadership election(yawn).
Perhaps the media doesn't believe that the the work of the CSJ is 'sexy' enough.I hope that this soon changes, I found the meeting very interesting and left very encouraged by many of the ideas discussed.

[James Hellyer]

"James, a bit earlier you asked how I could agree with the failings of the Labour Government - yet maintain a centrist stance"

No I didn't. John asked how you could decry the problems caused by Labour's policies while cheering on the abandonment of Conservative policies that would address those problems.

I note that you haven't answered that question beyond an assertion that things would somehow be better. While a Conservative government might not have done things like interfere in the business dealings of Rover or banned hunting, for example, it's hard to see how it could have delivered notably better results elsewhere by adhering to failing systems.