Category: Press Releases

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 4 February 2004.

Innovative schemes to deliver joined-up care for victims and witnesses, developing visitor centres in prisons and reducing the number of children entering the Criminal Justice System, are just some of the winning projects across England to receive a total of £46 million under the ‘Invest To Save’ initiative, announced the Treasury and Cabinet Office today.

The ‘Invest to Save’ initiative provides support for projects that involve joined up public bodies working together to deliver services that are innovative, responsive to local needs and more efficient.  This, the sixth round of the Invest to Save Budget, continues to include partnership bids from central government, local authorities and the voluntary sector.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng said:

“Since 1999, the Invest to Save Budget has invested £370 million in some 400 projects across the United Kingdom to deliver reform and enhanced levels of service to local people.  This investment has helped develop new ways of working – for example, partnerships between voluntary organisations and the public sector as well as better outcomes such as more effective teaching of citizenship and reductions in crime and the fear of crime.

“The  Invest to Save Budget has been a catalyst for change across the public and voluntary sector – sharing lessons learned and best practice across regions and departments and so helping to improve service delivery.”

Douglas Alexander, Minister for the Cabinet Office said;

“Improving the delivery of services to the public is a key objective for  Government. The ISB programme funds projects that have identified innovative ways to transform the way public services are delivered through multi-agency partnerships. There are other benefits too, which include improvements to the quality and cost effectiveness of the services themselves.”

The new projects receiving funding are:

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 9 February 2004.

Ahead of the 10 February meeting of EU Finance Ministers and the March European Council, the Treasury is today publishing a new report highlighting the need for further and faster economic reform to promote growth, jobs and prosperity in Europe.

Advancing Long-Term Prosperity: Economic Reform in an Enlarged Europe, examines how Europe needs to respond to the challenges of globalisation, enlargement and ageing populations and advises that the problems of low growth and high unemployment will only be solved with greater efficiency, flexibility and productivity.

The Chancellor, Gordon Brown praised the reforms which have been achieved so far, but called for the pace of reform to accelerate:

“In the past four years since the Lisbon Council, the EU has made great steps, with significant reforms in many Member States. However, we still have a long way to go if Europe’s economy is to match that of our major international competitors.

“We have created six million jobs since 1999.  But Europe will still fail to meet its 2005 targets and must create another 21 million jobs to hit its target for 2010.  Productivity in the US is at least 14 per cent higher than in the EU.

“Europe will only solve its problems of low growth and high unemployment by becoming more efficient and increasing productivity – pressing ahead with reforms to increase product, labour and capital market flexibility, and ensuring that its policies are rooted in the realities of global competition and the opportunities it offers.

“Europe must ensure that its policies do not protect and shelter inefficiency, but promote competitiveness, enterprise, innovation and skills. Policies such as those to reduce the burden of regulation, and to reform further the state aid rules and the Common Agricultural Policy, will ensure that Europe secures its place in the modern global economy.”

Detail

The report examines the progress made in economic reform since the March 2000 Lisbon European Council, noting both the EU’s achievements over the past four years, and the scale of the challenge ahead if Europe is to compete effectively in the modern global economy and achieve the Lisbon goals. It calls on Member States and the institutions of Europe to demonstrate a strong commitment to reform, designed to:

• improve the quality of regulation, building on the joint initiative of the next 4 EU Presidencies to simplify existing regulation and ensure that every new regulation is subject to strict tests for its impact on competitiveness;
• strengthen the Single Market, with a more pro-active competition policy, further reform of the state aid rules, and by making the Single Market a reality for services as well as goods;
• deliver more and better jobs, implementing the recommendations of the Employment Taskforce report, with new commitments to improve the functioning of Europe’s labour markets;
• promote enterprise and innovation, building on the recent joint statement of the UK, France and Germany, and with new European Centres of Enterprise – local centres of excellence in enterprise policy;
• ensure an ambitious outcome to world trade negotiations, by improving access to all of Europe’s markets and further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and
• strengthen the transatlantic economic relationship, by tackling the barriers to trade and investment between the EU and the US.

The report also calls for a more flexible and adaptable approach to European policy-making, that reflects developments in the global economy and the diversity within Europe itself, advances flexibility and fairness together, and ensures that EU budget expenditure is limited and refocused to support the Union’s priorities, including economic reform. It also calls on the European Commission to nominate a Vice-President with explicit responsibility for overseeing progress in reform.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 10 February 2004.

“Of all the responsibilities of government – to ensure a competitive environment, to invest in science, skills and infrastructure – the greatest and pre-eminent challenge is the creation and entrenchment of economic stability and taking the hard decisions to lock in stability even in difficult times in the world economy – like the last three years when we have lived through the first slowdown to hit all continents simultaneously for 30 years.

But instead of being – as in the old days – first in, worst hit and last out of any world downturn, Britain has not only avoided recession but has continued to grow in quarter after quarter, year after year, in all seven years of our government since 1997.

And we are not just one of the only major industrialised countries to have avoided recession but have been more stable than any of our neighbours over the last few years.

While I recognise that manufacturers and exporters in all regions have faced difficult times, employment overall has continued to rise, unemployment continued to fall and we have had the lowest interest rates and lowest inflation for a generation.

And I believe that now the world economy is strengthening, with, in the fourth quarter of last year, GDP in Britain growing by 0.9 per cent – the fastest rate seen since the first quarter of 2000.

And for the year as a whole, UK GDP expanded by 2.1 per cent – in line with the Treasury’s Budget and Pre Budget Report forecasts.

Growth is also becoming more balanced. While consumption has moderated over the last few months, official data shows that manufacturing output has been rising – up 1.1 per cent in the 3 months to December compared to a year ago. And business surveys show a marked strengthening in corporate conditions in every region of Britain, with export prospects for manufactured exports at their highest level in eight years.

As we discussed this weekend in the USA, the lessons all advanced economies have learned are that in a global economy, monetary and fiscal policy has now to adjust quickly to fast moving changes and to heightened risks of instability – and to do so it has to be proactive and forward looking.

While there is a link between money supply and inflation, in open economies with liberalised capital markets rigid monetary targets just cannot work. But the experience of the 1970s and 80s also taught us that, correct as Keynes was to point to the need for proactive and forward looking monetary and fiscal policy – ever more essential in fast moving capital markets, the old way of doing so – crude annual fine tuning – could not work either.

Instead the flexibility and proactive approach a modern economy needs demands a framework – both monetary and fiscal – based not on short term targets but on clear long term objectives that are met and seen to be met: instead of politicians making interest rate decisions on short term considerations, the Bank of England independently operating a symmetrical inflation target — a target that because it is as concerned about deflation as it is about inflation is not just pro stability but pro growth.

And in Britain today, in contrast with the experience of many other economies where growth has been lower, the credibility that has come from independence for the Bank of England and the symmetric target, the British model we have created, has enabled the monetary policy committee to respond early and decisively – raising interest rates in 1997, cutting them sharply in 1998 – and again with nine interest rate cuts since the latest global downturn began with the result that, even when more exposed than any European economy to the IT shock, growth continued and unemployment continued to fall.

I want to reassure you today that we will never take stability for granted and I can say categorically to investors everywhere that while no-one can ignore the reality of the economic cycle and the potential of global events to impact on the economy, we have shown it possible to make the hard choices and to steer a course of stability. And we will continue to make whatever decisions are necessary to steer that course and support our monetary authorities in the difficult choices they have to take.

And we will entrench not relax our fiscal discipline. Let us recall that at this stage in the economic and political cycle governments have resorted to short termism in fiscal policy and gone on to raise the rate of spending.

But I can tell you this evening that I am determined not to go down the short term road, and we are resolved to avoid the short termism and mistaken monetary and fiscal policies of the past.

So, as I have announced, we will, while meeting all our commitments and our fiscal rules, lower the rate of spending growth in the next spending round.

And let me add: as we welcome the opportunities of Enlargement, we will continue to demand the same discipline from the European Union as we demand of ourselves. We are agreed to resist plans for any excessive increase in the European Union budget. And, so as we are determined to lock in monetary and fiscal discipline in Britain at this stage of the economic cycle, we are resolved to tackle profligacy and waste where it exists in the European budget.

As I found at the G7 this weekend, each country and continent is having to face up not just to the immediate question of fiscal sustainability but to the longer term question of sustainability. Some countries face bills for pensions and health care rising over the next decade to 20 to 25 per cent of national income. Our bills are much lower – around 5 per cent for state pensions for example – and we are determined to ensure that our fiscal position is sustainable over not just a year or two but over the next decades. And in the Budget we will publish our best forecasts not just for the next few years but the next decades examining the costs of health care and pensions in the years ahead, showing how we can meet our fiscal rules.

So let me conclude: it was decisive action by the Bank of England, and supportive fiscal policy, that ensured Britain – unlike other countries – avoided recession. And let me be clear: Britain would have run the same recessionary risks as other countries – indeed, suffered the same British recession of the past – but for the new British model that has been created.

As the monetary policy committee demonstrated rightly and decisively last week, it will be the same forward looking monetary action – backed by our sound fiscal policy – that can, if we continue to make the right decisions and stick to our resolve, lock in greater stability not just for a year, or for an economic cycle, but in this generation – a prize of greater stability that has eluded successive governments of all parties in the post war era; a prize that – with resolve and prudence – is now within our grasp.

So it was right not wrong to make hard difficult choices to ensure that inflation and debt are low, and our fiscal rules are met.

You asked the government to make stability our first priority, above all else, after years of boom and bust.

And I repeat: our priority will remain stability first: stability yesterday, today and tomorrow.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 11 February 2004.

Following Budget 2003, the Government commissioned research from the consultancy Integrated Skills on ways in which increases in landfill tax could be recycled to business.  The Government is publishing that research today.

This independent report highlights a range of measures which could be useful to businesses in reducing the amount of waste that is sent to landfill.  The two high priority options identified are targeted grants, and funding for increases in promotional, capacity building and advisory services.  However a range of other options are also considered to be helpful for business in reducing waste sent to landfill.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 19 February 2004.

Alan Wood today launched a consultation process to identify the barriers faced by British businesses in accessing the estimated €1,500bn per year European market in public procurement.

Mr Wood, Chief Executive of Siemens in the UK and Chair of the EEF Economic Policy Committee, has been asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to examine the difficulties faced by UK-based firms in competing for public procurement contracts in other European Union countries.

The consultation will run until early April, and Mr Wood will present his findings and recommendations for action later this year.

Launching his consultation, Alan Wood said:

“We want to know which factors help UK suppliers win public contracts in other Member States, and what difficulties they encounter. I want to find out how these experiences compare with tendering for public sector contracts in the UK or for private sector contracts in other Member States.

We will look at any specific examples of barriers faced by UK firms and whether there is any unfair discrimination or other factors at work. I will also look at which procurement practices encountered in other Member States are helpful or unhelpful”.

Businesses can find a questionnaire and further information about the review on www.woodreview.org.

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 2 March 2004.

The Government today outlined its plans to introduce a long-term strategy for supporting British science and gave its commitment to make Britain one of the most competitive locations in the world for science, research and development and innovation.

At a breakfast seminar with leading figures in the UK scientific community, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Secretary of State for Education Charles Clarke, and Secretary of State for Industry Patricia Hewitt announced plans for a fundamental review of funding needs and policy priorities for science, engineering and innovation, with a ten-year investment plan to be announced as a central priority for this summer’s Spending Review.

Gordon Brown said today:

“The Britain that succeeds in the new world will be a leader in science, skills and enterprise. So we have to make it a priority as a nation to invest in what is the key to our whole economic future and well-being – our science and skills.

“While it would be easier to take the short term route – and fail to make the necessary investments for the future – we propose to take the longer term view, to choose science above many other spending priorities, and we will therefore propose a ten-year investment plan for science, engineering and innovation alongside the 2004 Spending Review.”

“To help inform this plan Patricia Hewitt, Charles Clarke and I will consult widely with the scientific community, with universities and research institutes, with charities, and with business over the next few months.”

Patricia Hewitt said:

“The UK has some of the best scientists and universities in the world, and to secure that science base, we’ve invested over £1.75 billion in university infrastructure since 1997.  But as our Innovation Report showed last year, we still need to get science out of the labs, into our companies and onto the balance sheet.  Our businesses can and should benefit from this fundamental review of our science needs.”

Charles Clarke said:

“It is extremely timely to have this debate now. The teaching of science and scientific development are highly charged and topical issues. High quality science teaching, a high quality research base, high level science and engineering skills and a broad understanding of science across society are also important drivers for educational and economic success.

“That is why we have already invested more in the training of science teachers in developing and energising the science curriculum in schools and massively increasing the investment in research and research facilities in our universities. Our commitment to science will continue with the ten-year framework which will make sure we remain at the cutting edge of scientific change, innovation and revolution. We simply cannot afford to be playing scientific catch up with our main competitors.”

Today’s announcement has been welcomed by the scientific community.

Dr Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:

“I am delighted by this long-term commitment to strengthen the UK science base. The Wellcome Trust is able to fund first class research in UK universities because of the resolve and partnership of government. We will continue to work closely with the Government to support and develop the excellence of UK biomedical research.”

Professor Sir Harry Kroto, President of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said:

“I welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recognition of the crucial importance of science and technology to the knowledge economy of the 21st century, by bringing together the leading SET institutions to discuss the best way ahead – on which the UK’s very future and success will depend.”
And Lord May of Oxford, President of the Royal Society, said:

“The Royal Society welcomes the long-term investment that the Government is committing to both basic research and innovation and recognises the significant efforts that have already been made to improve the infrastructure in our universities. The UK is a world leader in science and can only maintain its international standing with the full support of the Government for our world class science base.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 15 March 2004.

Ruth Kelly, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, today announced that Clive Briault, Hector Sants and David Kenmir, the FSA’s three new Managing Directors are to be appointed Directors of the FSA Board.  Clive Briault and David Kenmir will be appointed from 1 April and Hector Sants from 4 May 2004

Commenting on the appointments, Ruth Kelly said:

“I welcome the appointments of Clive Briault, Hector Sants and David Kenmir as Managing Directors and am pleased to appoint them to the FSA Board in that capacity. Their knowledge of retail and wholesale markets and of regulatory services will prove invaluable to the FSA in implementing the new management structure.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 15 March 2004.

Sir Michael Lyons challenges Government to mainstream decentralisation of public sector activities out of London as a means for improving public service efficiency, regional competitiveness, and devolution. The final report from his Independent Review of Public Sector Relocation,  – ‘Well Placed to Deliver? – Shaping the Pattern of Government Service’ was published today.

In his report to the Chancellor, Gordon Brown and the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, he confirmed that departments have identified some 20,000 jobs that could move out of London and the South East and recommended that they should urgently take forward their relocation plans in the context of the forthcoming Spending Review. A further 7,000 posts would no longer be required, as a result of efficiency measures.  Potentially, over £2 billion could be saved over 15 years as a result.

Sir Michael made ten key recommendations. As well as departments’ moving quickly to implement their relocation plans, some of the recommendations were that:

• Government should be prepared to make the necessary investment;
• there should be a strongly enforced presumption against London and the South East for new activities and many other functions;
• London headquarters should be radically slimmed down;
• there should be greater coordination between departments in relocating activities; and
• Government must take responsibility for the whole pattern of its locations.

Full details of Sir Michael’s recommendations are attached at annex a.

Commenting on his report, Sir Michael Lyons said:

“I am grateful to departments for their cooperation.  I believe that a new pattern of government service will contribute significantly to Government’s policies for the reform of public services, improving regional growth, national competitiveness and devolution.  Government needs to take firm action to recast the pattern of its business in a way that better meets the needs of the nation in the new century.  I am certain that Government can meet that challenge.”

Sir Michael argues that the pattern of government has to be reshaped.  The concentration of national public sector activity in and around London is no longer consistent with Government objectives. It does not reflect the large cost disparities between London and the rest of the country. Neither does it correlate with the benefits of dispersal for the efficient delivery of government business or for the regional economies.

Sir Michael acknowledges that as the capital, London needs a governmental core supporting ministers and setting the strategic policy framework.  However, in every other respect, the status quo is open to challenge.  And, if Government wishes to make a significant impact on the pattern of its locations across the country, it will need to take firm action in the coming years.

—-

1. In April 2003, the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister asked Sir Michael Lyons, Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham, to conduct an independent study into the scope for relocating a substantial number of public sector activities from London and the South East to other parts of the United Kingdom.

2. Departments have identified about 27,000 posts which could go from London and the South East.  Of these, 19,700 are candidates for relocation, whilst 7,500 are expected to disappear as part of efficiency improvements.

* The Chancellor has indicated since the review that he expects some 5,000 posts from his departments to be relocated

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 16 March 2004.

On the eve of the Budget, the Government today launched a consultation with business, research foundations and the scientific community on the framework for a ten-year strategy for investment in science and engineering.

Speaking to senior figures from science and industry at a National Science Week event at No.11 Downing Street today, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown promised to protect the large funding increases for science and engineering announced in the last Spending Review, and pledged increased investment in future years.

The Chancellor stressed that the delivery of the objectives set out in the ten-year framework would depend on collaboration between Government and business, research foundations and the investment community to ensure the overall level of investment required.

A number of major companies, including GlaxoSmithkline, AstraZeneca, Shell, Vodafone, Amersham and Rolls Royce, are already in discussions with the Government on how their commercial investment in R&D and innovation can partner public investment in the UK science base, with GlaxoSmithkline and AstraZeneca announcing over £100 million of investment in individual research, science and technology projects today.

The consultation will set out the aims and ambitions of the ten-year framework, with the ultimate purpose of making Britain one of the most competitive locations for science, research and development and for innovation:

• world class excellence from the best centres of science and technology, driven by competition for funding and talent;
• a dynamic research base that meets the needs of both public and private funders and is managed effectively to achieve financial sustainability;
• greater collaboration between universities and business to provide a sharper focus for research and an impetus to innovation and productivity growth;
• better commercial translation of leading edge technologies into applications in business and the public sector;
• the science and technology skills that the nation’s businesses and public services will need over the next decade, underpinned by excellent teaching in schools to engage the next generation of workers in the knowledge economy; and
• a society that is confident about the regulation and use of science and technology.

Gordon Brown said:

“National Science Week is an ideal time not just to be celebrating Britain’s history of scientific excellence but to look forward to a future in which science and engineering skills will be even more crucial to Britain’s ability to compete in high-technology, high-value sectors. So we are preparing new partnerships with businesses and charities to meet this global challenge.

“I can confirm that we will support our ten year science strategy by locking in the significant boosts to science from the last two spending reviews and that we will continue to work with leading science based companies, the scientific community and research charities so that for the years from 2005-6 we can raise science funding as a share of national income.

“This is a collaborative effort.  I am delighted that a whole range of leading R&D businesses have indicated that they wish to work with us on our science strategy and to make their own commitments to the future of British science and innovation over the next decade. Our final funding decisions will reflect the extent of the parallel commitments made by all the key players on research and development in the UK.  So this is the challenge I am putting to all our partners, leading businesses and charities, today – with one ambition and purpose: to make Britain the best and most attractive location in the world for science and innovation.”

Education Secretary Charles Clarke said:

“The case for science is iron-cast. A strong supply of highly skilled scientists, engineers and mathematicians, greater collaboration between universities and business and a broader understanding of science across society are all important to our economic competitiveness and educational edge. No-one can be in any doubt about this Government’s commitment to science and It is important that we build upon the momentum we have already created. This is a great day for science and innovation.”

Science and Innovation Minister Lord Sainsbury said:

“The UK needs to raise its innovation performance if it is to compete in the global economy with the low wage emerging economies such as China and India.

“The quality of our science and engineering is an important national asset. In recent years knowledge transfer from our universities has improved an business R&D is also now increasing, but we need to do more in both areas as well as making certain that our science and engineering base is properly funded.”

The press release issued by HM Treasury on 17 March 2004.

Launching her Final Report – “Delivering Stability: Securing our Future Housing Needs” – Kate Barker said:

“I believe that continuing at the current rate of housebuilding is not a realistic option, unless we are prepared to accept increasing problems of homelessness, declining affordability and social division, decline in standards of public service delivery and increasing costs of doing business in the UK – holding back our economic success.  My Review sets out a series of policy recommendations to address the lack of supply and responsiveness of housing in the UK.

Creating a more flexible housing market is a considerable challenge that will require concerted action by all players: Government at national, regional and local level, the building industry, and those engaged in social housing provision.”

• In 2001, around 175,000 houses were built in the UK – the lowest level since the second world war.  And over the past ten years, the number of new houses built has been 12.5% lower than in the previous decade.
• Over the last 30 years, UK house prices went up by 2.4% a year in real terms – compared to the EU average of 1.1%.  In Germany it was 0.0% and in France 0.8%.  Latest evidence suggests the trend rate of house price growth has increased to 2.7% over the last 20 years.

A weak supply of housing:

• Contributes to macroeconomic instability and hinders labour market flexibility, constraining economic growth.
  Leads to housing becoming increasingly unaffordable over time.  In 2002 only 37% of new households in England could afford to buy a house, compared to 46% in the late 1980s.
• Re-distributes wealth from have-nots to haves, bringing potential for an ever widening social and economic divide between those able to access market housing and those kept out.  Rising numbers in temporary accommodation is evidence of the polarisation that exists today (in 2003 there were 93,000 households in temporary accommodation compared to 46,000 in 1995).

Estimating Housing Need

The Review sets out three scenarios for England’s housing requirements in the future, two of which would require policy changes beyond those already being implemented by Government.  For private housing, these may be over-estimates, as greater supply would affect expectations and change the response of prices to additions to the housing stock. Taking as the baseline the level of private sector build in 2002/03 (140,000 gross starts and 125,000 gross completions) it is estimated that:

• Reducing the price trend in real house prices to 1.8% would require an additional 70,000 private sector homes per annum; and
• More ambitiously, reducing the trend in real house prices to 1.1% would require an additional 120,000 private sector homes per annum.

An increase in supply of social housing of 17,000 homes each year is required to meet newly arising need. Making inroads into the backlog of the most needy, coupled with the Report’s range of future price scenarios, mean that up to 23,000 additional social homes per annum would be required. These scenarios imply additional investment, building up to £1.2 (and £1.6 billion respectively), not all of which should necessarily come from Government.

The Review’s scenarios set out choices for Government, which needs to consider the appropriate balance between the objectives of macroeconomic stability, market affordability, meeting housing need and environmental sustainability. This is likely to require further action from Government, building on the achievements of the Sustainable Communities Plan and the planning reforms already underway.

Key recommendations

Government should express its objectives for the housing market through establishing a goal for affordability of market housing, with the aim of improving access to market housing over the housing market cycle.  This should be incorporated into the Public Service Agreement framework to reflect the status of housing as a national priority.

To deliver this improved market affordability, and building on changes already underway, the Report recommends a number of reforms to the planning system:

• In setting housing targets and allocating land, planning bodies should take greater account of market signals, such as changes in house prices and levels of market affordability.
• Stronger, more strategic regional strategies for housing and planning should be delivered through the bringing together of regional planning and housing boards and the establishment of new Regional Planning Executives to create a stronger evidence base for housing decisions.  Regional Planning Executives should provide independent public advice on the scale and allocation of housing numbers within regions.

At a local level the allocation of land for housing should become more responsive to demand for housing. In drawing up local plans, planning authorities should allocate buffers of additional land, which would be released for development as triggered by indicators of unexpectedly high demand.

Action is also required to ensure that appropriate incentives are in place for local authorities to support development, and to ensure that development is not held up by the absence of necessary infrastructure:

• Local authority growth incentives should be introduced to address the costs of additional housing, allowing local authorities to “keep” the council tax revenues from additional housing for a period of up to three years;
• More strategic use should be made of English Partnerships and area-based special purpose vehicles such as Urban Development Corporations to drive housing delivery;
• A Community Infrastructure Fund of £100-200 million should be created to overcome infrastructure blockages and facilitate development.

The Review has considered the appropriate role of taxation for housing and land.  Landowners and developers typically make windfall gains as a result of residential planning permission being granted, especially where this is on greenfield sites. These windfall or development gains result from the increase in land values, as land for housing is worth up to 300 times more than agricultural land.  It is right that the community shares in this increase in value, which could provide funding for other policies important to increasing housing supply.  Reforms in this area would also bring certainty and simplicity to the system, compared to the present situation whereby contributions are made through complex and protracted Section 106 negotiations.

The housebuilding industry needs to focus on its customers and deliver a better quality of service.  The industry is characterised by low customer satisfaction levels, a weak record of investment in skills and innovation and a cautious approach to increasing levels of output.  The Review sets out a number of challenges for the industry:

• to improve levels of investment in skills;
• to improve significantly customer satisfaction; and
• to build out sites, particularly large ones, as quickly as possible.

Taken together, the package of measures set out by the Review would have a positive impact on housing supply.