Author: admin

  • PRESS RELEASE : Glasgow property director, Brendan Michael Gaughan, given 12 year disqualification for Bounce Back Loan Fraud [December 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : Glasgow property director, Brendan Michael Gaughan, given 12 year disqualification for Bounce Back Loan Fraud [December 2022]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 20 December 2022.

    Brendan Michael Gaughan, 40, from Glasgow has been disqualified as a director for 12 years, after using his companies to take out Bounce Back Loans totalling £135,000 that the companies were not eligible for.

    Gaughan was director of three separate property management companies, Gaughan Group Ltd, Gaughan Property Ltd, and Rentl Property Ltd. They were only incorporated in February 2020 and did no business until April 2020.

    As a result, they were not eligible for funds through the Bounce Back Loan (BBL) scheme, which was available only to firms that had been doing business on 1 March 2020.

    However in May 2020, Gaughan Group received a BBL of £50,000, Gaughan Property received a BBL also of £50,000, and Rentl Property Ltd received a BBL of £35,000.

    Gaughan transferred all the funds into a single account and proceeded to use the money to buy a property on Warden Rd in Glasgow for over £115,000 in August 2020. He then sold the property in March 2021 for just over £120,000, and on the same day transferred £100,000 of the proceeds to his personal account.

    All three companies were put into liquidation on 11 October 2021, which triggered an investigation by the Insolvency Service.

    The Secretary of State accepted disqualification undertakings from Brendan Michael Gaughan, after he did not dispute that none of his companies had been eligible for Bounce Back Loans. He has been banned for 12 years, effective from 27 October 2022. He has separately agreed compensation with the Insolvency Practitioner.

    The disqualification undertakings prevent him from directly, or indirectly, becoming involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the permission of the court.

    Steven McGinty, Investigation Manager at the Insolvency Service said:

    Bounce Back Loans were made available for trading companies adversely affected by the pandemic. Brendan Gaughan should have known his companies weren’t entitled to the loans yet he took them anyway and used the funds for personal gain.

    We will not hesitate to take action against directors who have abused Covid-19 financial support like this.

  • Ben Wallace – 2022 Statement on Situation in Ukraine (20 December 2022]

    Ben Wallace – 2022 Statement on Situation in Ukraine (20 December 2022]

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 20 December 2022.

    Today marks the 300th day of what was supposed to be a “three day” operation. As this calendar year draws to a close, I want to update the House on the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the brave defence of the Ukrainian people.

    Since it began its offensive on 24 February, Russia has failed to achieve its strategic objectives. Not one single operational commander then in place on 24 February is in charge now. Russia has lost significant numbers of generals and commanding officers. Rumours of General Gerasimov’s dismissal persist as Putin deflects responsibility for continued military failure in Ukraine, high fatality rates and increasing public dissatisfaction with mobilisation is growing. More than 100,000 Russians are dead, injured or have deserted. And Russian capability has been severely hampered by the destruction of more than 4,500 armoured and protected vehicles, as well as more than 140 helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, and hundreds of other artillery pieces.

    The Russian Battalion Tactical Group concept, for a decade the pride of their military doctrine has not stood up to Ukrainian resistance. Russia’s deployed land forces’ combat effectiveness has dropped by more than 50%. The Russian Air Force is conducting tens of missions per day as opposed to 300 per day back in March. And Russia’s much vaunted Black Sea Fleet is little more than a coastal defence flotilla. Kremlin paid mercenaries are faring no better. Hundreds were killed by a recent strike on a headquarters used by the paramilitary Wagner group in the Luhansk region.

    Behind the scenes international sanctions, including independently applied UK sanctions, have handicapped the Kremlin’s defence industry. Russia is running out of stockpiles and has expended a large proportion of its SS-26 Iskander short range ballistic missiles. It is now resorting to stripping jetliners for spare parts. Its inability to operate independently is underscored by its reliance on Iran’s Shahed drones.

    President Putin’s failure to marshal recruits and machinery is translating to battlefield defeat. At the maximum point of its advances in March, Russia occupied around 27 percent of Ukrainian land. Ukraine has since liberated around 54 per cent of the territory taken since February. Russia now controls around 18 per cent of internationally recognised areas of Ukraine. Last Monday the Kremlin cancelled its annual press conference for the first time in a decade.

    Almost a year on and the conflict now resembles the attritional battles of World War I. The Russian army is largely fixed in place not just by Ukrainian fire power but by its own creaking logistics system and barely trained troops. Soldiers occupy networks of waterlogged trenches and a vast frontline stretches for 1200 km – the distance from London to Vienna. Despite intense fighting in Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions, Russia can barely generate a fighting force capable of retaking lost areas let alone make significant operational advances. Russian public opinion is starting to turn. Data reportedly collected by Russia’s Federal Protective Service indicated that 55 percent of Russians now favour peace talks with Ukraine, with only 25 percent claiming to support continuing the war. In April that latter figure was around 80 percent.

    Alongside Russia’s litany of failure is an expanding rap sheet of reported war crimes. According to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, since 24 February, some 6,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed and nearly 10,000 injured. Every day more allegations emerge of rape, arbitrary detentions, torture, ill treatment, deaths in custody and summary executions. Unrecorded group burial sites have been discovered in former occupied area such as Mariupol, Bucha and Izyum. Industrial facilities such as the Azovstal steelworks and the Azot chemical plant have been targeted – risking the release of toxic industrial chemicals. And the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant – the largest in Europe – has been indiscriminately shelled.

    At the start of this invasion Russia planned “kill lists” of civic leaders, show trials and sham referenda but the international community has not been fooled by such tricks.

    Russian soldiers have exhumed the bones of Prince Potemkin, the legendary confidant of Catherine the Great. They have looted priceless artefacts from museums. And, according to UNESCO, they have either partially or completely destroyed more than 200 Ukrainian cultural sites. More sinister still they are splitting up families through forced relocation or ‘filtration’ into Temporarily Occupied Territories or Russia itself.

    Numerous open-source reports show this morally bankrupt activity is not the work of rogue units or of corrupt individuals.

    It is systemic.

    Today Russia is weaponizing winter with ongoing and widespread missile strikes targeted at Ukraine’s energy and water infrastructure. More than 40 per cent of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure has been struck. However, Ukraine’s resilience has meant that a significant proportion is back up and running. Such behaviour is a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict. We are doing everything we can to support the Ukrainian authorities and the International Criminal Court as they investigate.

    At the beginning of this year my aim was to help Ukraine resist and give their citizens hope that the Europe they aspire to be part of would support them in their hour of need. And the International Community has not disappointed.

    As Russia has changed its tactics throughout this conflict, so we have changed the type and level of our support in the UK. For example, it is Britain’s expertise and advice that is helping Ukraine better coordinate and synchronize its air defence. Our advice helps Ukraine target incoming Russian/Iranian kamikaze drones. We always make sure our support is calibrated to avoid escalation. The House should be under no illusion that it is Russia that is escalating its attacks on Ukraine. And I have made this point clear to my counterpart Minister Shoigu in Moscow.

    I wish I could say to the House after 300 days of almost daily defeats Russia would have recognised its folly. Sadly, it has not and there is no let up for the Ukrainians. As we have seen by the weaponization of energy there is no let up for us here in the UK and across Europe from Putin’s war. Therefore, this will require our continued support to Ukraine in 2023 building on our lethal aid, training, humanitarian support and international coordination.

    That’s why, as the mercury drops further in Ukraine the UK is doing what we can to help Ukrainians endure the harsh midwinter. The UK has donated over 900 generators to Ukraine and has sent approximately 15,000 sets of extreme cold weather kits to the Ukrainian Armed Forces including cold weather clothing, heavy duty sleeping bags and insulated tents. We anticipate a further 10,000 cold weather kits will be delivered by Christmas. Across the international community, around 1.23 million winter kit items have been donated.

    Alongside our global partners, we have implemented the most severe package of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. Simultaneously, we have galvanised efforts to raise funds to support Ukraine. I chaired my first Ukraine donor conference on 25 Feb and have attended three since then. The UK has been instrumental too in bringing our Northern European neighbours together in solidarity under the auspices of our Joint Expeditionary Force – whose unity was apparent in the meeting in Riga yesterday.

    Together this has ensured a steady supply of lethal and non-lethal aid to sustain Ukrainian resistance.

    As the threats to European security rise, the UK has also been leading efforts to shore up regional security deploying a number of units across Europe. President Putin wanted to see a weaker NATO. NATO will be even stronger with Finland and Sweden’s decision to accede to the Alliance and I will do all I can to ensure their swift entry into the alliance.

    Although our populations continue to struggle with the cost-of-living crisis, the global community must hold its course on Ukraine. The price of Putin’s success is one none of us can afford. We must ensure they maintain their commitment to the Black Sea Initiative which has so far transported 14.3 million tonnes of grain from more than 500 outgoing voyages. We must stop their reckless shelling of nuclear facilities. And we must hold their enablers to account. Iran has become one of Russia’s top military backers. In return for having supplied more than 300 kamikaze drones, Russia intends to provide it with advanced military components, undermining both Middle East and international security. We must expose this deal.

    Make no mistake Mr Speaker, the UK’s assistance to Ukraine will remain unwavering and I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his continuing support. We have already committed to match or exceed the £2.3 billion in military aid we will spend this year. We have secured a major deal to keep up the ongoing supply of artillery rounds and will continue refreshing their stocks of air defence and other missiles. Where we have equipment to gift we will replace from our own stocks and where we have no more to gift then we shall purchase alongside our Allies. The UK has been joined by the US in its huge level of support, as well as that of EU members. And, in particular, Poland, Slovakia and the Baltic States.

    We are also determined to maintain and sustain the Ukraine equipment pipeline for the longer term. Our International Fund for Ukraine co-chaired by the UK and Denmark has to-date received pledges worth half a billion pounds and it has just concluded its first round of bids for capabilities we plan to rapidly procure in the new year for Ukraine.

    Our Armed Forces are doing everything possible to develop the battle skills of Ukrainian men and women. Having put almost 10,000 through their paces in the UK in 2022, my ambition is for our Armed Forces – alongside our allies – to at least double the number trained in 2023. I would like to place on record my thanks to Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Australia for their contributions of troops to help train Ukrainians.

    Finally, we must help Ukraine rebuild and the reconstruction conference we host next year will accelerate that process.

    Mr Speaker, throughout this year I have kept-open communication channels with my opposite number, Defence Minister Shoigu, in order to avoid miscalculations and reduce the risk of escalation. Through written correspondence and a phone call on 23 October, I have repeatedly stressed that Russia must stop targeting civilians, end its invasion, and withdraw its forces from Ukraine.

    This year the Ukrainians have been fighting not only for their freedoms but also for ours. We must be clear that three days, or even 300 days, is not the maximum attention span of the West.

    The UK and the international community’s dedication to help Ukraine is solid and enduring, and will not let up through 2023 and beyond.

    We cannot stand-by while Russia sends these waves of drones to escalate its attack on innocent civilians.

    And, just as the UK has evolved our support as the conflict has unfolded; we are doing so again now for this latest phase of Russian brutality, developing options to respond in a calibrated and determined manner should their escalation continue.

    Because if the Kremlin persists in its disregard for human rights and the Geneva Conventions, we must insist on Ukraine’s right to self-defence and the protection of civilians.

    Mr Speaker, the next year will be critical for all of us who believe in standing-up for freedom, international law, and human rights. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Jamie Stone – 2022 Speech on Family Businesses

    Jamie Stone – 2022 Speech on Family Businesses

    The speech made by Jamie Stone, the Liberal Democrat MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

    As a Scot myself, let me say that it is a pleasure to hear a canny Scot—the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson)—taking us through this important subject; I always think a gentleman from Aberdeen would have a particularly good grasp on the vital need to make ends meet and run a tight ship.

    I ran my family business for eight years, and my brother runs it now. It was a cheesemaking business that grew out of small dairy farm on the shores of the north Firth. For eight years, I had to juggle the profit and loss account and know how to do a VAT return—I had to do all that stuff, and it was invaluable experience. I will not go any further, because I cannot plug a family business too hard, but my brother continues in the same vein and I am very proud of him.

    Let me expand on the points made by the hon. Member for Carlisle. The local contribution of family businesses is crucial. They tend to use the local bank: businesses in my constituency deposit large amounts of money in the local branch and help keep it open. They mostly use a local solicitor, and that equates to jobs in the local area. They use a local estate agent if the need arises, and local shops. They rely on their reputation, as the hon. Gentleman hinted at; local businesses do not want to make a mess of things locally, because it is on their own doorstep. Those are the key things they bring to their areas.

    No local business will survive if it cannot balance the books and get it to work. That expertise, as the hon. Gentleman said, makes a huge local contribution, in terms of the chamber of commerce, local government and so on. As a passing aside—this is as much about my party as any other party in this place—we could do with more local businessmen in the House of Commons. If we go back 100 years, there was a time when many Members of the House of Commons had made their fortune and knew what they were talking about when it came to the big issues. That would be no bad thing. But that criticism is not directed at any one party; it includes mine.

    John Stevenson

    The hon. Gentleman makes a really interesting point about getting people with business experience here. Does he agree that, although traditionally important local businesspeople became members of the council, we do not see that today, and that is a big loss to us all?

    Jamie Stone

    That is a very apt point. I was elected to Ross and Cromarty District Council in 1986, which was a long time ago, and I have seen the sort of people who become members change dramatically in my lifetime. When it comes to local government finance, to have hard heads on the finance committee does not half help things.

    Nurturing local businesses sits within a wider framework, which the hon. Gentleman touched on. He mentioned advice and access to finance as and when needed. Many of us feel that the day of the local bank manager has gone—the man or woman who could talk to the businessman and say, “Okay, that is a good idea. I’m willing to offer the following finance.”

    In my part of the UK—my very far north constituency—a local business will do well and thrive if it has the support to which I alluded. We have an organisation called Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which was conceived by the Wilson Government in the 1960s, and did much good work over the years. I am sad to say that it is not what it was all those years ago. It is weaker, through no fault of its own; it is a small organisation and does not have the ability to offer advice and target finance as and when necessary. A lot of other infrastructure is required in our constituencies—in my own case, an airport, rail links and road links. A hardy perennial is the NHS, and I often raise the issue of maternity services. If any one of those vital key support networks is not up to standard, that sadly makes life harder for local businesses, particularly when it comes to recruitment or expansion.

    I will close with an example. In Caithness we have an engineering firm called JGC Engineering, which is owned by the Campbell family. It is a third-generation firm that grew out of a blacksmith business, and it makes clever stainless steel stuff for the nuclear industry, Dounreay and others. As right hon. and hon. Members know, I have often talked about the potential of a space launch coming to my constituency—and I think it is just around the corner. A company such as JGC Engineering can use that but, if it does not have the infrastructure links, the back-up and so on, it will be harder for the company when the big day comes and it can go for those contracts. It is a basic point, and I make no apology for emphasising it again and again.

    It remains only for me to wish all right hon. and hon. Members the compliments of the season, a very happy Christmas and a prosperous—in the business sense—new year.

  • John Stevenson – 2022 Speech on Family Businesses

    John Stevenson – 2022 Speech on Family Businesses

    The speech made by John Stevenson, the Conservative MP for Carlisle, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 20 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the contribution of family businesses to local communities in the UK.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate the importance of family businesses and their contribution to our national economy, our local economy and our communities up and down the country. I appreciate that this might not be the best week for this debate, given that we are approaching Christmas, but this is a really important time of the year for many businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry, and an important time of the year for family businesses to succeed.

    I want to put on the record my thanks to the Institute for Family Business for its support and the research that it has carried out into the success of family businesses and also the challenges that many of them face. The institute is the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary group for family business, which I chair, and it has been very supportive for all the time that I have been chairing that APPG.

    I want to start the debate with a simple question: what exactly is a family business? There are many different definitions and people will have their own interpretations. The Institute for Family Business set out its own definition in its most recent report, but for me it is quite simply the involvement of family in a business. This can be a sole practitioner—an individual who has set up their own business and is effectively a one-man band. It could be a husband and wife team. The wider family and children could be involved. It could involve other members of the family such as cousins, and of course it could involve different generations. But it is also about the level of control.

    When we look at a corporation, we look at the shareholding of that company—how many shares are owned by the family and how many are external. We look at who effectively controls that business. A family business might not always be run by members of the family. It might have independent management or a mixture of family members and outsiders. Each can be equally successful. They all have their own challenges, but that does not detract from the fact that they can be just as successful as a purely family-run business, or as a mixture or with outside control.

    The real challenges come when there is third or fourth generation involvement in a family business. They all present different concerns. There are intergenerational matters, and shareholding or ownership of a business can be widely spread among many members of the same family.

    What about the sector that the business is involved in? It is estimated that there are around 5 million businesses in the United Kingdom, all of varying sizes. Family businesses make up 85% of that 5 million, so effectively our economy is dominated by such businesses both at the national and local level. I will come specifically to the local level in due course.

    The size of the businesses varies enormously. Most are microbusinesses—small one-man bands or small family units. Equally, there are some enormous businesses that have grown from small start-ups. Warburtons is a good example. Historically we could look at Mr Barclay or Sainsbury’s as examples of small businesses many years ago that became huge conglomerates and very large and successful businesses.

    Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this extremely important debate, because family businesses are the bedrock of our local economies. In my own constituency, Glencairn Crystal started as a local family business. It won the Queen’s Award and went on to develop the iconic Glencairn Crystal whisky glass, which is now internationally renowned. Does he agree that, with the correct package of support, financial innovation, contribution and development from Government, family businesses can become iconic and international successes?

    John Stevenson

    The hon. Lady is right. It is always lovely to hear Members promoting family businesses and demonstrating their success. She also highlights an issue that I will come to about how we can ensure they get the support that they need to be successful.

    I have talked about family businesses being small or large, but we must also remember that there are some huge international businesses, including Mars and McCain. An interesting general observation is that many large, international family businesses are invariably owned from North America. That indicates that family businesses are not just part of our economy but part of international economies across the world.

    Family businesses are involved in all sectors. The obvious one is transport, with large transport businesses up and down the country displaying their logos. They are also in retail and manufacturing. One particular area that features a lot of family businesses is the food and drink sector. That is a very popular sector in which to set up and grow a family business. That has a knock-on impact on the hospitality industry, which has a large number of small family businesses.

    Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)

    Last week I went to the opening of a state-of-the-art factory by Equi’s Ice Cream in my constituency. That business has been around for a century, with its ice cream sold locally as well as in a number of supermarkets such as Morrisons, Co-op and Asda, and even as far away as Texas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such family-owned businesses not only contribute to our communities but are great ambassadors for them?

    John Stevenson

    Absolutely. It is always lovely to hear individual businesses being highlighted by Members of Parliament. That demonstrates that family businesses are not just in one constituency but spread across the whole country. We need to be behind them in our local communities as well as nationally.

    From our perspective as Members of Parliament, the importance and contribution of family businesses should not be underestimated. They matter to our national economy. Family businesses employ nearly 14 million people; over 50% of all private sector employment is in family businesses, so the majority of people are employed by a family business. It is estimated that they account for 44% of our GDP. Just think of their contribution to the Treasury, which is vital for our public services.

    Family businesses are clearly the backbone of local economies up and down the country as well as nationally. Think of a small family business and the contribution it makes to the Exchequer. If it employs five people, that means five families supported by that business. The contribution goes beyond that, with the payment of national insurance for those five employees, and of corporation tax. It will probably collect VAT for the Exchequer and pay business rates at the local level. It makes a vast contribution, not just to the local but to the national economy. That is replicated up and down the country.

    Carlisle is a good example as the home of national and international businesses which employ a lot of people and make headlines locally because of the number they employ and their brand names, such as Nestlé and Pirelli. But drilling down, what matters in many respects is the local family businesses. Story Construction is a first-generation business now moving into the second generation, employing in the region of 500 people. It was set up in the last 30 to 40 years and makes a significant contribution to local construction and to the rail construction industry. Pioneer Foods, a food hospitality business, is into its third generation of making a contribution to Carlisle’s economy. Thomas Graham is in its fifth generation of local leadership.

    We have those international brands and companies, but I have just highlighted three individual businesses at the heart of our local economy that employ a lot of people making a vital contribution. They are now into their second, third and fifth generations. The individuals who lead those businesses are also vital to our local communities. They provide leadership. They are often respected, and local people will look up to them and may aspire to be similar to them, and to set up their own businesses in due course.

    Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)

    My hon. Friend mentions the contribution of small businesses to the local community. What I often see is something that is almost invisible. Does my hon. Friend agree that business owners often support community events, such as the recent Christmas tree festival in Aldridge?

    John Stevenson

    My right hon. Friend is getting ahead of me. She is absolutely right, and I will come to the contribution that such businesses make to local communities. There are, of course, similar factors for family businesses at the national and local level: the high employment levels in family businesses, the investment that we want to see, and the tax contribution that they make both locally and nationally, which I have already highlighted. I have set out what I think is a powerful demonstration of the importance of family businesses; however, some people would ask what the difference is between a family business and other corporations. Are they not in many respects just the same? I accept and recognise that they face many similar issues.

    At present, energy costs are obviously affecting many businesses, both those that are family run and those that have other structures. It is a serious issue right now. On taxation rates, what corporation tax is set at matters to both family businesses and others, although dividend tax and capital gains tax can have a particular influence on family businesses, because of the way they structure themselves and the way the families take profits out of the business. Skills matter to any corporation, as does getting the right staff and ensuring that the right training is in place. That also matters to a family business, which needs to recruit in exactly the same way as any other. Regulation affects different sectors in different ways. I have already highlighted the importance of the food and drink sector, on which regulation clearly has a huge impact.

    There are, however, a number of issues that in my view are unique to family businesses. The obvious one is succession. Passing the business on to the next generation, or indeed between families, can be a challenge. Who should inherit? Who takes over? Can the older generation let go and allow the next generation to take the reins of the business? If there are cousins, or two or three generations, involved, how is that dealt with? Those are some of the principal challenges for family businesses, and the Institute for Family Business spends quite a bit of time helping to support family businesses with them.

    There are additional challenges with financing and growing family businesses. How do we ensure that a family business can grow in exactly the same way as other corporations? In my view, family businesses have a real strength, in that they can draw financial support from members of the family, which can help with that growth. It can also be a weakness, because they need to attract external finance to grow. Family businesses must be willing to accept outside help and allow external influences to support the business in its attempt to grow. Families have to accept the risk that they may be taken over, or that their influence in the business will be diluted by external investment from other parties.

    Family businesses also have some key strengths, such as resilience. They often deal with recessions better than most other businesses. They are flexible and more adaptable in terms of hours of work. A person is more likely to want to work longer hours in their family business to ensure that it will cope with any bumps on the road. Family businesses also take the long view. It is not just about the next set of financial figures; it is about the next generation. That can lead to long-term investment, rather than a short-term view about making profits here and now. The stats suggest that often staff are loyal, and remain with such businesses for far longer than they would otherwise. Also, family businesses are invariably very loyal to their staff, who in many cases have worked for them for many years. That creates a real element of stability.

    Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that family businesses showed that loyalty to staff during the pandemic? For example, a number of tourism businesses in Torbay decided that the family would take no wages to ensure that staff could be paid, which we would not see in many other corporations.

    John Stevenson

    My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We saw that in the pandemic, and we often see it in recessions as well. Family businesses are more resilient and stay loyal to their staff, and that gets them through in a way that many other businesses would not necessarily tolerate. Another interesting aspect of the research from the Institute for Family Business is that there is more female involvement in family businesses than in general in business; we should research more why that is the case.

    Family businesses are often the start of something. They start as very small businesses, then continue within the family, or at least owned or controlled by the family, but with external management; or they dilute and float on the market. I do not think that selling out is a negative, as the business—what the family have created—is successful and can continue to thrive but in a different environment and under a different structure. Life does move on.

    I am a solicitor, and work in a practice that was set up in 1805. Until 1916, three generations of the family were involved. Since then, there has been no family involvement, but the business is still going strong today and it had that family involvement for those three generations.

    Where I think family businesses provide an extra layer of benefit is in terms not of the economy but of the community. Family businesses are often embedded in their community. The children go to local schools. The business employs local people. The families want the local area to succeed because they live in it and socialise in it—they are part of it. They often get involved, as school governors and in charities and other community organisations. If they are brave, they may even get involved in local politics; they may get involved in other things, such as the local enterprise partnership or the chamber of commerce. They are invariably respected leaders in the community—people want to emulate them. That support to their local areas is a real strength of family businesses and the leaders within them; that element does not show up in national statistics, but it is vital to the success of our communities up and down the community.

    I am very conscious of the lack of Government recognition for the importance of family businesses. I think everybody here would recognise that they are the backbone of our economy and a source of strength for our communities. Is there more that the Government could do, on the growing of these businesses, and in understanding their nature, the challenges they face and how we can ensure the investment and finance for them so that they will grow, expand and become the big corporations of tomorrow?

    There is also the skills agenda. Training opportunities can be difficult, as many of these businesses are small or micro businesses that find it challenging to train staff and to get the skills they need. What can the Government do to support them?

    There is also a need for general advice, for not just financial but succession planning. Quite often, family businesses feel they are operating in isolation. That is why organisations such as the Institute for Family Business are so important, because they help with that sort of advice, but many businesses do not get it. I wonder whether the Government could do more to help.

    There is also the issue of profile. Leaders in the community, as I have already said, often come from family businesses. Some, though not many, have a national presence. Sadly, trust in business is at a low ebb right now, but family businesses often have a far better reputation. It may be that the Government should be seeking to exploit that in a positive way. We need businesses to succeed. We should celebrate their successes. I think people often feel more comfortable celebrating the success of a family business than the success of what they perceive as a faceless corporation. Maybe the Government need to associate business more with the family side of things, demonstrating the importance and the vital contribution family businesses make to our society, as well as to our economy.

    In society, families really do matter. In business, family businesses are absolutely vital. Let us celebrate their success, but let us help them more than we do to ensure that they continue to be the backbone of our country and central to our communities.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Better Protection for Pensions in PFI – Alan Milburn Launches a new Five Point Action Plan [June 1999]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Better Protection for Pensions in PFI – Alan Milburn Launches a new Five Point Action Plan [June 1999]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 14 June 1999.

    Staff transferring from Government Departments and Agencies to the private sector under PFI and other PPP deals are to have their pensions better protected through a new five point plan announced by Chief Secretary Alan Milburn today.

    Launching the new five point plan Alan Milburn said that this was a major step forward in taking forward the Government’s PFI and PPP programmes and one that would guarantee fair treatment to employees.

    Mr Milburn said:

    “PFI has a key part to play in delivering the Government’s modernisation of public services. For it to work in giving value to the taxpayer it also needs to be trusted by the staff who deliver those services.

    “In the past some staff have felt that their pensions have suffered when they have transferred from public to private sector employees. It is not fair or right that staff pensions should be a casualty in PFI deals.

    “I want future PFI deals to guarantee fair treatment to employees. This new guidance protects staff pensions. In this way we can ensure that when private sector contractors are selected as partners in delivering services, the decisions are not distorted by handling of pension issues. It is fair to staff, employers and taxpayers alike.”

    The Statement of Practice on the Treatment of Staff Pensions in Government PFI deals supercedes existing guidance on procurement practices through a new five point action plan:

    • requiring business contracts to be conditional upon staff being offered ‘broadly comparable’ pension packages by the new employer in a way that guarantees that employees are no worse off when they move from the public sector;
    • extending these rights for some public sector staff who may be subsequently transferred to another private sector employer or who are involved in integral sub-contracting;
    • publishing a Statement of Practice of the Government Actuary’s Department on how ‘broad comparability’ will be assessed;
    • making it a standard requirement before a business contract is signed for a new employer’s pension scheme to allow transferring staff the option of moving their accrued credits into that scheme on a fully protected basis;
    • ensuring that business deals involving staff transfers will not be signed unless any unresolved employee concerns have been considered by the appropriate Departmental Minister.

    The new procurement practices will be introduced immediately. This is without prejudice to the outcome of the Government’s current review of the coverage of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) – ‘TUPE’ – Regulations, which is expected to report later this year.

    The new practices will be followed by Government Departments and Agencies. Alan Milburn said that he would be expecting other parts of the public sector to adopt them too, and would be expecting them to do so as quickly as possible.

  • Barbara Roche – 1999 Speech at the Inter-Forum Conference on E-Commerce

    Barbara Roche – 1999 Speech at the Inter-Forum Conference on E-Commerce

    The speech made by Barbara Roche, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 11 June 1999.

    Introduction

    I am absolutely delighted to be speaking at today’s conference on e-commerce.

    Importance of e-commerce

    Technology is changing the world more quickly than we could ever have imagined. And no more so than in the business world, especially to small and medium sized enterprises.

    Let me give you some examples. The 98 year-old family that is selling home-fed dry cured bacon and black and white pudding across the Internet to Hong Kong, Japan, South Africa and Venezuela. They are expecting Internet trade to be the main source of their business by next year. And there’s the Aboriginal tribe in the Australian outback selling paintings to dealers in New York.

    E-commerce opens up a wealth of new business opportunities for every single business in the United Kingdom. It means access to new markets – by next year, it is expected there will be over 300 million Internet users worldwide.

    But not only at the retail end of a business. The potential for efficiency savings in the supply chain is also very significant. In the US, companies are realising the productivity improvements as approximately 80% of all electronic transactions are between companies rather than between businesses and consumers.

    There are, for example cost-efficiencies to be had from e-commerce. In the US, the cost of a bank transaction is $1.08 when conducted at a bank. This falls to $0.54 if conducted over the telephone, and only $0.13 through the Internet.

    And it not just cost efficiencies. Because the Amazon.com on-line book store orders from suppliers only when an order is placed, it’s inventory turnover is very low – turning over a little over once every week.

    Although the e-commerce phenomenon very much started in the US, it has quickly spread beyond those shores. In virtually every country across the globe, businesses increasingly trade through the Internet. So just to say abreast with our competitors, we must move quickly.

    New and potentially vast markets, and clear and significant productivity improvements.

    So the benefits to business are clear. But how can we, as UK plc, maximise the potential offered by e-commerce.

    What the Government’s doing

    The Government is convinced of the need to ensure businesses make the most of e-commerce. And we are committed to encouraging businesses to make the most of the massive opportunities that ICT technology provide.

    E-commerce Bill

    The Electronic Commerce Bill, which we will be introducing to Parliament in this session, is a key part of our strategy for achieving this ambitious target.

    The Bill will help to build confidence of both business and consumer in electronic commerce by:

    • modernising the law to recognise electronic signatures;
    • removing, where it makes sense to do so, existing laws which insist on the use of pen and paper;
    • building trust in bodies offering electronic signature and similar services to the public, by ensuring that minimum standards of quality and service are met.

    The Government is working closely with industry and other interested parties in developing these proposals, and my colleagues in the DTI are now finalising the Bill in the light of the over 240 responses received to the consultation launched in March.

    CWP target

    E-commerce also featured in the Competitiveness White Paper, published last December. The White Paper made it clear the Government’s commitment to developing the UK as the best place in the world for businesses wishing to trade electronically.

    The White Paper set a target that by 2002, the number of small businesses wired up to the digital economy should be trebled to 1 million.

    The recent annual Benchmark published by DTI shows that an additional 250,000 businesses have already met this “connectivity” target, showing that we are firmly on track to meet the target two years early.

    The Study revealed the progress that has been made by UK businesses. In two years, the number of UK businesses with websites has doubled. Buying and selling on-line has trebled. And on most measures of the ownership of IT, the UK is now close to the US.

    This is good progress indeed, and the UK is well positioned relative to some European countries, such as France and Italy. But there is absolutely no grounds for complacency. The rapid spread of the Internet in Germany is just one example of how fast things can change.

    There are two basic points we need to constantly bear in mind. First, it’s not good enough to be average – we’ve got to aim to match the most dynamic, most IT-literate major economies in the world.

    Second, the average performance of the UK conceals a big difference between larger businesses – which are close to their peers in the US – and smaller UK firms, which lag well behind. Micro-businesses in the UK – with 10 employees or fewer – are close to the bottom of the international comparisons in this area.

    The reality of the new global economy is that you never arrive. Once you get to where you are aiming for, the goalposts have moved. So we must keep on our toes and constantly strive to improve our performance.

    And that is why when announcing the results of the Study, Stephen Byers set challenging new targets for bringing our smaller businesses up to the level of the international best: to reach 1.5 million SMEs connected to the Internet and have 1 million SMEs not just on-line, but actually trading on-line by 2002. And a new target aimed specially at smaller businesses, to bring their performance up to the level of the international best.

    To support business in reaching this target, we announced a new programme to ensure advisers working with business are able to give high quality advice on the use of information technology.

    This new public private partnership brings together the DTI and BT, Compaq, Intel and Microsoft to help train the full range of advisers working with SMEs, to make sure they are able to properly help businesses with the latest information and communications technology advice.

    Budget 1999

    Successful e-commerce depends not just on business having the right approach, but also an improved degree of computer literacy and access to computers right across the country in all our communities, homes and schools. And that is why in the March Budget, Chancellor Gordon Brown announced a new National IT strategy to help ensure the UK is at the forefront of the information age.

    In the Budget we allocated an additional £470 million to launch a total £1.7 billion “computers for all” initiative, a nationwide effort enlisting schools, colleges and companies, public and private sectors across the board to make Britain a leader in the information economy.

    The target is a national network of 1,000 computer learning centres, one for every community in Britain – in schools, colleges, libraries, in Internet cafes and on the high street.

    To help employers encourage their employees to use IT more, we will also legislate so that businesses can lend computers to their staff to take home without any charge to tax. Experience in Sweden has shown how imaginative employers can use this sort of arrangement to drive IT usage forward.

    We want a whole new network of computer learning with one purpose only, that the whole of Britain is equipped for the information age.

    Government leading by example

    The Government is looking at it’s own backyard too. The public sector accounts for around 40% of the economy and so there is scope for the public sector to embrace the benefits of e-commerce too.

    In the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government looked carefully at public procurement. Each Government department has been set challenging targets for electronic procurement. Overall, the Government has adopted the challenging target that 90% of routine goods for civil central government would be purchased electronically by the end of the financial year 2000/01.

    We are also fully committed to the target – that 25% of Government’s dealings with the public will be able to be performed electronically by March 2002. In the recent Modernising Government White Paper, these targets were extended to 50% by 2005, and 100% by 2008.

    Electronic government also offers opportunities for businesses and government to cut regulatory burdens and costs by streamlining and opening up the process of Government. It also offers better access to information and improved accountability.

    The tax departments was part of this process. Our Finance Bill this year provides the legislative basis for tax declarations to be made electronically. The first services being developed by Customs and Excise will enable business to send VAT registrations, returns and payments. A pilot this financial year will be expanded in 2000-01.

    The Revenue will focus first on self-assessment and employers’ PAYE returns, and expect to be able to receive these returns on 2000-01.

    The DVLA will be running a pilot scheme for vehicle excise duty relicensing over the Internet this year. Finally, to encourage businesses to make use of electronic communication with the government, we intend to offer a discount on returns filed via the Internet.

    This will be another way of encouraging small firms to become familiar with IT and to use the Internet regularly, as well as helping to make the whole process of running the tax system smoother for both business and Government.

    Finally, in this sphere, the new Small Business Service will offer help to small firms wanting access to information technology, and the Government will support new standards for payroll software, to help small businesses cope with the responsibilities of employment.

    These are examples of the potential of IT to improve the interface between Government and business. It can make businesses lives easier by making compliance with regulation more straightforward. It is in both our interests to see this happen.

    International negotiation

    The effects of e-commerce is to break down many of barriers between countries. And so it is important for countries to work together to help encourage e-commerce and resolve some of the issues it raises.

    In the international arena, the Treasury works with colleagues from other departments in many of the international discussions and debates on electronic commerce. As G7 and 8 presidents, we were in the lead developing the G7 communique agreed in Birmingham last May. We are also committed to the work of the OECD in Ottawa and the World Trade Organisation to facilitate greater international trade through electronic technologies.

    The UK is also actively involved in negotiations on a number of e-commerce directives: e-commerce, e-signatures, e-money and distance selling. E-commerce is important in helping completing the single market, and so is in the interests of EU consumers and providers, especially here in the UK.

    E-commerce also has an important international tax dimension. The UK Government is committed to ensuing that tax policy and administration keeps pace with the scope of electronic commerce and with the growth of the global market place generally. And committed to ensuring that taxation is not discriminatory and is on a equal footing with more traditional methods of trading.

    Conclusion

    E-commerce offers huge opportunities for everyone: business and customers alike. For business it offers the opportunity for both productivity improvements and growth through access to larger more remote markets. For customers it offers greater choice, lower prices and more efficient product delivery. But it also poses challenges too. The challenge for businesses is identifying new markets, developing new products and successively selling these in a global competitive world.

    The world of e-commerce is an endless dynamic and the Government has a clear role working in partnership with business to create the best possible environment to encourage trade in e-commerce. But this, at the end of the day, is not a Government led revolution. Instead it is a revolution which is led by individual business men and women the world over turning e-commerce challenges into great opportunities.

  • Gordon Brown – 1999 Mansion House Speech

    Gordon Brown – 1999 Mansion House Speech

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Mansion House in London on 10 June 1999.

    Introduction

    My Lord Mayor, Mr Governor, My Lords, Aldermen, Mr Recorder, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I am delighted to be here this evening, to be able to speak with you, Lord Mayor, and the Governor of the Bank on the three great issues that together constitute our national economic interest – economic stability, economic reform and engagement with Europe; and to start by paying tribute to the work which the City and our financial services industries do in pursuit of our interests: the service you give, the contribution you make, the dedication and expertise you show.

    As we move towards the end of both a century and a millennium, it is instructive to look back here in London, one of the few world cities with a thousand year history, on the progress, and achievements of the City of London, the key to which have always been – as the attendance tonight from round the world demonstrates – London’s global reach, forever looking outwards to the challenges and opportunities of the wider world.

    So that now today the City of London and our financial services industry accounts for 7 per cent of our national income, employing over 1 million people. The London Stock Exchange is the largest trade centre for foreign equities in the world. And the foreign exchange market – with a daily turnover of around 500 billion dollars – is the largest and most important in the world. And this year you have risen to yet another new challenge – that of introducing the new euro currency and attracting the business that flows from it.

    Now let me address the questions of stability, economic reform and Europe.

    Monetary and fiscal stability

    The events of the last two years demonstrate beyond all doubt that in a world of ever more rapid international financial flows, monetary and fiscal stability is the precondition of economic success.

    Indeed in these deregulated, liberalised financial markets, growth and prosperity just cannot be achieved by the old ways, either by fine tuning or by applying rigid monetary aggregates.

    • In the 1960s and 70s, the attempted trade-offs between inflation and unemployment ended each time ended in higher inflation and higher unemployment;
    • in the 1980s, rigid intermediate monetary and then exchange rate targets failed, overtaken by capital market liberalisation;
    • and then following sterling’s departure from the ERM, an ambiguous inflation target, in the absence of a proper long term framework, was not enough.

    The way forward is for governments to consciously pursue monetary and fiscal stability – through setting clear objectives, establishing proper rules, and requiring openness and transparency – the new rules of the game. Particularly important for a Britain which has been more subject than most economies to the instability of boom-bust cycles and constantly changing policies.

    Indeed, the economy of 1997 was set to repeat the same cycle of boom and bust that had been seen over the past 20 years. There were strong inflationary pressures in the system. Consumer spending was growing at an unsustainable rate and inflation was set to rise sharply above target; there was a large structural deficit on the public finances. Public sector net borrowing stood at £28 billion.

    So we put in place a wholly new long term framework of monetary and fiscal policy based on:

    • first, clear objectives: price stability through a pre-announced inflation target – a symmetrical target – and sustainable public finances through tough fiscal rules: the golden rule that requires that over the cycle we balance the current budget, and the sustainable investment rule requires that, as we borrow for investment, debt is held to a prudent and stable level;
    • second, well understood rules: a new system of monetary policy-making, at the heart of which is the independence of the Bank of England, and its open letter system, and an equivalent and equally important set of fiscal procedures legally enshrined in the code for fiscal stability; and
    • third, transparency in policy-making: an open system of decision-making in monetary policy through the publication of minutes, a system of voting and full reporting to parliament; and in fiscal policy the same openness and disclosure with key fiscal assumptions independently audited.

    Today, two years on, by applying our fiscal rules we have reduced the inherited deficit by 32 billion pounds; budgeted well within our public spending ceilings; and brought debt down towards 40 per cent of GDP.

    As a result of this cautious and prudent approach, we remain on track to meet the fiscal rules while at the same time guaranteeing an extra 40 billion pounds for schools and hospitals.

    The monetary rules are well established too, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the Governor, the MPC and the Bank’s Court for their successful establishment of the new system.

    Transparency and openness has, in my view, led to greater public understanding of why decisions are made in ways that will make the public realise the benefits of keeping inflation low and ensure that employers and workforces see for themselves the short-termism of paying ourselves more today at the cost of higher interest rates, fewer jobs and slower growth tomorrow.

    Two years ago commentators expressed fears about how monetary and fiscal policy would be coordinated. Under the old system the Chancellor announced his fiscal policy in the Budget – and invariably cut interest rates a day or two later claiming credit for the wisdom of his budget decisions. I am convinced that today there is a much more informed discussion of the interaction of monetary and fiscal policy – and as a result much better coordination.

    Now the results in monetary policy in what has been a difficult and troubled period for the global economy: over the last 10 months inflation has remained within 0.2 percentage points of the 2½ per cent target and, even more important, it is expected – in future – to remain close to target.

    Long-term interest rates and mortgage rates are at their lowest levels for over 30 years.

    It is because inflation trends are subdued that the bank has been able to cut interest rates by 25 basis points today, the 7th cut in the last 9 months.

    In contrast to the early 1980s and 1990s monetary policy has been able to respond positively at the right time in the economic cycle, and has thus been able to make its contribution to stability and growth.

    Now of course I understand exporters’ concern about the pound.

    But it is important to recognise that while exchange rates affect inflationary expectations the MPC has only one target – its symmetrical inflation target.

    Anyone who thinks that either dropping the inflation target to replace it by an exchange rate target or running inflation and exchange rate targets at the same time is the right way to achieve domestic stability or convergence is failing to learn the lessons of the 1980s. We would end up with neither stability nor convergence.

    The Bank of England was quite right to say, when publishing its latest inflation report, that the objective of British monetary policy is clear and unambiguous, with a symmetric inflation target, so that inflation outcomes below target are viewed just as seriously as outcomes above target.

    So while this has been a period of instability for the world economy, we have, as a result of decisive and timely action on the fiscal deficit and on interest rates, been able not only to steer a course of stability but to lay the foundations for high and stable growth and employment.

    Removing the barriers to growth

    Stability is the necessary but not a sufficient condition for a successful economy.

    In the last full international economic cycle (1982-1993) the growth rate in the UK averaged 2.3 per cent, whereas it was 2.9 per cent in the G7, 3 per cent in the US, and 3.4 per cent in Germany.

    Our challenge is to raise the trend rate of growth in the UK, and to achieve this we must do more to encourage science and innovation, creativity and enterprise, skills and knowledge – the drivers of productivity and growth today.

    First, Britain is developing a reputation for inventiveness that extends well beyond the traditional inventions for which we are famed. To let the creative talents of our country flourish, we must expand the circle of innovators from invention to commercial exploitation and manufacture of new products here in Britain.

    So I lay great importance on the £1.4 billion additional funds being invested in basic scientific research; the new R&D tax credit to encourage R&D on the university challenge fund that is helping to turn British inventions into British products, businesses and jobs; and the new British institutes of enterprise that will provide management help to our inventors and innovators. Shortly we will consult on a matter I hope will be of interest to many here – new incentives to promote corporate venturing.

    There is the broader question of how in Britain we can encourage and broaden new entrepreneurship. At each point we want to be on the side of business, removing the barriers to growth – improving access to start-up finance and venture capital, to export markets when going international, and widening access for all to the skilled workforces we need.

    Under the new enterprise management incentive, companies seeking to recruit or retain key personnel will be able to secure tax relief for equity remuneration up to 100,000 pounds.

    This is one of many new incentives for investment and growth – a cut in the small business tax from 23p to 20p, a new 10p rate, 40 per cent investment incentives for small and medium sized businesses; new incentives to encourage venture capital; a 10p long term rate of capital gains tax; and new employee share ownership incentives that allow employees to buy shares in their own companies from their pre-tax income and employers to match them, also tax free.

    These are significant tax cuts and simplifications in taxation, the test throughout being what will increase productivity and employment opportunity. The same test we will apply in removing unnecessary business regulation. The internet and electronic commerce offer new scope to cut red tape. So our small business service – an open door, one stop service for small companies – will give help with running a payroll for new employers starting out, the inland revenue will offer a new business helpline and we will soon offer discounts for internet filing of tax returns.

    And let me also stress the importance I attach to the extension of competition and to the Financial Services and Markets Bill in advancing our productivity agenda. With our new highly successful Financial Services Authority, under the excellent leadership of Howard Davies, an authority whose powers will be confirmed shortly by the Financial Services and Markets bill, and our robust stand defending London’s interests in the European savings directive. London’s position is one we are determined to maintain and advance.

    I can confirm this evening that by working together to exclude the eurobond market we are already securing results: the ECOFIN Council and the European Commission have come to accept our case, agreed a further review and asked us to submit our proposals for excluding the eurobond market. We will not only defend Britain’s interests in this area but, if necessary, not hesitate to veto any proposal which damages our financial markets.

    Stability for the future, economic reform for our future. Now the importance of the skills of people to our future.

    This spring a number of landmarks have been reached.

    • I can report that nearly 50,000 businesses have joined the new deal that helps get the unemployed from welfare to work;
    • as a result of your efforts a quarter of a million young people have now joined for work and training;
    • 100,000 long term unemployed adults have been signed up;
    • and I can also report that over 400,000 more men and women are in work than 2 years ago, more men and women in work than ever before.

    And we are making work pay more than benefits by cuts in national insurance for 20 million employees, reforms in employer contributions to cut the costs of hiring, the 10p rate of income tax, the cut in the basic rate of income tax to 22p and, what will be to the benefit of jobs and companies, the working families tax credit which creates the best incentives to take a job, and reward work and effort for hard-working employees.

    But we have a long way still to go to make us the best skilled country in Europe. For the many companies who cannot find the highly skilled workers they need to continue growing, let me say that we are implementing a long term programme to build skills and remove skill shortages – with a rigorous approach to standards throughout our schools, with demanding targets for literacy, numeracy, school qualifications and educational attainment, not shirking from schools’ reform, demanding higher teaching standards and discipline – and as we make the investment that is essential to raise all of Britain to the standards of the best.

    Europe

    So we are putting in place stability and major economic reforms. We need also constructive engagement with Europe and the trading world.

    No one should doubt that as a country we are in Europe and in Europe to stay.

    Since half our trade is with mainland Europe the national economic interest demands that we work constructively within the European Union to achieve the labour market product market and capital market reforms essential for European growth.

    Indeed British proposals to tackle structural unemployment, to complete the single market in financial services and utilities, and to tackle fraud and waste are giving Europe a modern reform agenda based on the best of British values: openness, adaptability, the work ethic, fair play and looking outwards to the world.

    It is also in the national economic interest that we refuse to make the mistakes of the past by dogmatically ruling out a single currency.

    Ours is the first government to say that, while we appreciate the constitutional issues involved, the test should be the national economic interest, that we should apply five economic tests – on investment, financial services, jobs, flexibility, convergence – in assessing membership and that in the interests of the public having a realistic choice we should, with the public sector leading, make the necessary preparations for that choice to be available.

    Conclusion

    So, my vision is of a Britain where there is economic stability, rising productivity and growth based on innovation, enterprise and skills, and constructive engagement with Europe and the trading world.

    As we approach a new century the challenges are enormous and many, but by working together, applying the enduring British values – being open and outward-looking, creative, fair and adaptable to the new challenges ahead, the prize is a modern successful economy, ready to ensure employment opportunity and greater prosperity for all our people in the years ahead.

    Just as the City works best when the City works together, so all of us in Britain work best when the whole of Britain works together.

    And that is what I hope we will continue to do.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Deputy Commander Strategic Command speaks at the DSEI 2023 Launch [December 2022]

    PRESS RELEASE : Deputy Commander Strategic Command speaks at the DSEI 2023 Launch [December 2022]

    The press release issued by the Ministry of Defence on 20 December 2022.

    Deputy Commander UK Strategic Command, Lieutenant General Tom Copinger-Symes CBE speaks at the DSEI 2023 Launch.

    At last week’s DSEI 2023 launch event, Lieutenant General Tom Copinger-Symes CBE explained what the overarching theme ‘achieving an integrated force’ meant for UK Defence.

    He described one of Strategic Command’s priorities as driving integration across Defence, learning lessons from our experience of COVID as well as from Russia’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, to support our operational commanders in their campaigns. He explained how these lessons had convinced the UK and our allies of the need for an integrated response to threats and challenges, so that we can operate and fight as a team-of-teams – building a whole greater than the sum of our parts. He highlighted the impact that data-driven systems were having in Ukraine, and that whilst hardware (tanks, ships, and planes) remains important on the battlefield, it is now the software they run on that gives us a competitive edge in modern warfare.

    The Deputy Commander highlighted the importance of DSEI as a learning platform and a way to bring together people from all over the world to share their experiences and knowledge. He related this to Ukraine’s astonishing success in defending their territory against Russian aggression – the Ukrainians’ ability to learn and adapt, as well as the resilience of their people, were perhaps the greatest lessons we could all take away from the last 10 months.

    Software and technology companies will play a leading role in DSEI 2023, with the event providing a platform for discussions around digitalisation, cyber security, data analytics and AI. As UK Defence’s leader across the cyber and electromagnetic domain, Strategic Command and its people have a vital role to play in these conversations. The Future Tech Hub at DSEI is three times bigger than at the previous event, and with many new non-traditional Defence companies already signed up, the reach DSEI has into these new areas is strong.

    Discussing the importance of the event Lieutenant General Tom Copinger-Symes, CBE, Deputy Commander of Strategic Command said:

    It was a pleasure to speak at the launch of DSEI 2023 and engage with so many Defence media and industry representatives. DSEI is an excellent opportunity for interaction between people with different skillsets and mindsets, all united by the common purpose of protecting our nations and helping them prosper.

    DSEI supports large Defence contractors as well as small and medium-sized enterprises, all of whom have an important role to play in the future of integration. At DSEI the global Defence Industry is brought together alongside stakeholders from across UK Defence and its international allies to better achieve an integrated approach.

    DSEI will take place at ExCeL London 12-15 September 2023.

  • BOOK REVIEW : Callaghan – The Road to Number Ten by Peter Kellner and Christopher Hitchens

    BOOK REVIEW : Callaghan – The Road to Number Ten by Peter Kellner and Christopher Hitchens

    This book was published in 1976 by Cassell of London, following the appointment of James Callaghan as the Prime Minister after Harold Wilson stepped down from his second spell in the role. The authors need little introduction, Peter Kellner is a polling expert and long-time journalist, whilst Hitchens became one of the best known and respected British journalists in the United States, speaking frequently on religious, cultural and political matters, rarely being afraid of controversy.

    Over the last half century there have been a few leaders who took over from a long-serving Prime Minister with relatively little time before the next General Election, including Gordon Brown, John Major and James Callaghan. Major was able to win his own mandate, but Brown and Callaghan were less successful, with Rishi Sunak facing the same challenges in current politics. Harold Wilson has resigned on 16 March 1976, not entirely a surprise to Callaghan who was serving as Foreign Secretary, as he had already been told by the Prime Minister that he would be stepping down in the short-term. But the date was a surprise and there is still debate on why Wilson retired whilst still relatively young, having just reached sixty. Although the book starts covering this period, it then returns to the birth of Callaghan in 1912 and examines how and why he reached the position of Prime Minister.

    It was a complex family history given that his mother was Protestant and his father Catholic, which presented Callaghan with a challenge in the late 1960s when he was the Home Secretary dealing with the growing turbulence in Northern Ireland with the Troubles. Callaghan lost his 41-year old father when he was aged just nine, a tragedy for any child, but this also a financial problem for his mother as although she received a small payout, there was no widow’s pension to help her. Callaghan related later on that his mother voted Labour because they were offering a pension, which hadn’t been offered during the Conservative’s period in government.

    Callaghan didn’t go to university because his mother wanted him to settle down and secure a well-paid job where he wouldn’t struggle for money, although the authors of the book aren’t clear that he would have succeeded into getting into university anyway. He quite sensibly took a job working for the Inland Revenue and as the authors note, “the job protected him from the slump that was about to hit Britain”. Callaghan worked hard and also became heavily involved with union matters, working tirelessly on them and become engaged with the trade union movement and its meetings.

    Callaghan’s job was a reserved occupation and so he didn’t have to take part directly in the Second World War, but he chose to in any event, picking the Royal Navy and receiving his call up in late 1943. He continued his politics, not winning the nomination to become the Labour candidate for Reading, but instead winning the selection for Cardiff South, a constituency he won at the 1945 General Election. One of the limitations of this book is that there is relatively little commentary from the authors from this period of his life, which would likely be useful and informative, and it reads as more of a formal biography. However, this is likely down to how the writing of the book came about, which was to extend a long article that the authors had written for the Sunday Times.

    The authors did though note that by the 1951 General Election Callaghan had shifted away from the previous left-wing views that he held within the party. The authors write “his attitudes and move to the right had little to do with deeply held ideological convictions. They are the arguments of a practical man, firmly anchored to a keen sense of what will keep the show on the road, they are the arguments of a man who reduces political ideas to issues of tactics”.

    The then Labour leader Gaitskell gave Callaghan a substantial promotion in November 1961, when he was made the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the book notes that “according to close friends of Gaitskell, he wanted Callaghan to be shadow Chancellor because of his debating skills, not to be an actual Chancellor in a Labour Government, because Callaghan knew too little of economics”. If nothing else, the promotion was evidence of the political skills which Callaghan possessed and the importance which Gaitskell placed upon that. History may well have been very different if Gaitskell hadn’t died suddenly in 1963, as it was likely that he would have become Prime Minister. Callaghan sought to become the party leader, although this was never likely at that time and he was the first to be eliminated in the three man leadership race, which was ultimately won by Harold Wilson.

    Callaghan continued to be the shadow Chancellor under Wilson’s leadership, with the authors of this book commenting positively on this period, that “he was a political heavyweight”. They added that “he had established his authority as shadow Chancellor, he was a formidable adversary for Maudling in the Commons and the media were taking him seriously”. Gaitskell might not have wanted him to be the actual Chancellor in a Labour Government, but that’s what he became in 1964.

    Much of Callaghan’s legacy in the Treasury is considered from the prism of the devaluation which so undermined the Labour Government, even though they inherited a poor economic situation from the Conservatives. The authors of the book were balanced, noting that “he had partial success concerning tax reform, but corporation tax, capital gains tax and betting tax have worked well and survived”. They add that “Callaghan’s actions to secure international monetary reform must count as an important achievement”, a job done well enough to ensure that he was given a different senior Cabinet position, this time Home Secretary in 1967.

    Callaghan proved to be a very different Home Secretary to his predecessor Roy Jenkins, who the authors note took great care in making decisions and considered matters in depth. They comment that “his very first red box occupied him for just 45 minutes, causing one stunned official to note that he had just done three weeks’ work”. His time in the role is summarised by the authors as “having started as an unhappy and defeated ex-Chancellor, Callaghan finished his stewardship of the Home Office as a confident and restored man”.

    The book is well written, although that isn’t much of a surprise given the talent and ability of the two authors who put it together. They are willing to praise Callaghan, but note in the conclusions of the book that “his record in office contains more failures than triumphs”. They were also sceptical about the future, writing that “our view is not hopeful, as we write the responses of the Government to Britain’s economic problems, and the pressures from abroad on sterling, are uncomfortably reminiscent of the spineless strategy of the last Labour Government ten years ago”.

    This book is a useful introduction to what the future looked like in 1976 for Callaghan, given what was known about him from his time in Parliament and in leading Cabinet roles. The authors were notably pessimistic and that was perhaps the correct view to be taken given that Labour ultimately lost office in 1979 and didn’t regain it until 1997. The book is also testament to how far a politician can go in politics by being a strong team-player, by remaining close to fellow MPs and having a deep understanding of the party machine.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : 30 Million Pound Investment to streamline the justice system [June 1999]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : 30 Million Pound Investment to streamline the justice system [June 1999]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 10 June 1999.

    £30 million of innovative new funding to help cut paperwork and speed up access to justice across the Criminal Justice System was announced by the Chief Secretary Alan Milburn today. Home Secretary Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine and Attorney General John Morris welcomed the new funding which is being provided from the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF).

    The investment will create a central fund to provide electronic links to integrate the criminal justice agencies. Such integration will allow electronic case files to be passed between the Police, Prosecutors and Courts and will streamline the management of cases from arrest through to trial and sentence to reduce delays.

    The criminal justice system of the future, which the fund will help to build, will have the benefits of:

    – the police no longer having to send large bundles of paper to the Crown Prosecution Service, and each criminal justice agency not having to re-key information into its own system;

    – improving the courts listing of cases, through more up-to-date information on the availability of witnesses and the readiness of the prosecution and the defence for the hearing, so minimising adjournments and wasted time and travel by victims, witnesses, lawyers and others.

    – wider and faster access to Phoenix, the national criminal records database, will cut delays and improve public protection; custody sergeants and courts making decisions on bail, courts deciding between fines, community or custodial sentences, and prison governors deciding on the correct category of prison for an individual will benefit from faster and more accurate information on previous convictions.

    Commenting on the investment, Mr Milburn said:

    “This innovative pump-priming funding embodies the Government’s commitment to both investing in and modernising public services.

    It will cut out time wasting bureaucracy and speed up access to justice. Victims and witnesses in particular can expect an enhanced service with reduced delays. By cutting down on form-filling this new investment will also help free up police, prosecution and court time to concentrate on improving front line services and tackling crime.

    In welcoming the project, Mr Straw said:

    “This injection of cash is very welcome and is part of our continuing drive to modernise the criminal justice system. It will ensure a greater level of efficiency across the system and will also bring about practical benefits for all those involved by boosting the IT network, integrating the work of agencies, reducing paperwork and raising standards for the management of criminal cases.”

    The Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine said:

    “This major investment will help to transform the courts. I want the Crown Court and our judges to be at the heart of a modernised, efficient criminal justice system made possible by the latest technology. This is joined-up Government at its best.”

    The Attorney General John Morris said:

    “Information Technology is a crucial weapon on the Crown Prosecution Services’s fight to prosecute crime successfully. The money released today from the Capital Modernisation Fund will help modernise the criminal justice system and contribute to the integration of electronic links between the CPS, police and the courts, as well as assisting other agencies involved in the fight against crime in the UK.

    “I am delighted that the Treasury has again demonstrated the benefits of joined-up Government in this key area, ultimately improving everyone’s lives.”

    The £30 million CMF funding will be allocated through the Integrating Business and Information Systems (IBIS) initiative that is taking a strategic approach to IT development across the criminal justice system. The money will be available in the form of bids to a central challenge fund. This will support the best new projects which contribute most to unlocking improvements in communication links, joint working and innovative business solutions across the criminal justice agencies. The focus will be on a modern, efficient criminal justice system that can provide a better service to the public.