UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech on Venture Capital

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, at the Savoy Hotel in London on 1 March 2016.

    Thank you, Tim, and good evening everyone.

    I see a lot of familiar faces here.

    It’s always great to be asked to speak to organisations like the BVCA.

    I was in finance a lot longer than I’ve been in politics, so it always feels a bit like coming home!

    And it’s kind of fitting to be here at the Savoy, halfway between the Square Mile and Westminster, between my first career and my second.

    Of course a lot has changed in your industry since I left Deutsche Bank in 2009.

    For example, last month I saw that there’s a new kid on the VC block.

    Sesame Street.

    Seriously!

    The company behind the children’s TV programme is going to invest in start-ups in education and health.

    We’ll see finance brought to you by the letters I, P and O.

    And, having met plenty of VC people during my time in the City, I’m confident that Oscar the Grouch will fit right in!

    Don’t worry Rob, I’m not talking about you!

    J. Paul Getty once said that the secret of success in business was to rise early, work late… and strike oil.

    It’s sound advice, up to a point.

    But most businesses need a more reliable source of finance.

    And that’s where private equity and venture capital really come into their own.

    Now, more than ever, you have a vital role to play in Britain’s economy.

    And I’m proud to stand here tonight and say that the private equity and venture capital sector has the full support of the Business Secretary.

    I know that’s not always been the case in the past.

    It’s all too easy to paint you as vultures or parasites.

    And let’s face it, no politician ever lost votes by being too harsh on people working in finance!

    But such days are behind us.

    I know just how important your work can be.

    I know that, far from being the bloodsuckers of internet myth you actually breathe life into companies.

    You don’t strip out jobs, you create them.

    You put your money where your mouth is, and take the kind of calculated risks that benefit us all.

    When I worked in emerging markets I saw, again and again, how a little faith from investors at the right time can make all the difference.

    You take an idea, see its potential, and give it the boost it needs to become reality.

    When you get it right, everyone wins.

    And when you get it wrong… Well, you’re the biggest losers.

    Fortunately that doesn’t happen very often!

    BVCA members are currently investing more than £5 billion in more than 700 companies in the UK.

    Together, those companies employ well over 100,000 people.

    And of course the vast majority are SMEs with high growth potential, which means they’re likely to go on and create many more jobs in years to come.

    It’s clear that your confidence is coming back.

    [Political content removed]

    Equity investment in small businesses grew by more than 40% in the year to October.

    You’re also making a real difference right across the country.

    Three-quarters of BVCA members’ investment goes outside London.

    You’ve recently doubled the level of investment in my home region, the West Midlands.

    That’s a real boost for the region as we work to fire up the Midlands Engine.

    And a real sign that you’re ready, willing and able to back exciting, innovative ideas wherever they may be.

    That’s particularly important right now.

    Last week I attended the annual conference of British manufacturers, I spoke there in fact.

    And one message that came through loud and clear from all the speakers was that manufacturing is changing.

    That industry is changing.

    That as we enter this fourth industrial revolution the greatest demand in advanced economies is not going to be for raw materials, but for ideas.

    New ways of thinking

    New ways of working.

    New ways of manufacturing.

    In the past we’ve thought of cutting-edge start-ups as something limited to Silicon Valley and Tech City.

    However, in 2016 those labels are becoming less important.

    The lines between industry and technology are becoming blurred.

    That change brings with it incredible potential for economic growth.

    But only if the right finance and funding is available.

    And only if the people holding the purse strings can match the vision and ambition of the innovators themselves.

    That means you, by the way!

    But I’m not going to tell you to go out on a limb on your own.

    My department, and the government as a whole, is and will remain a committed partner in helping you support innovative companies to develop and grow.

    The British Business Bank is playing an active and collaborative role.

    So far its VC Catalyst, Angel Co-Fund and Enterprise Capital funds have facilitated new finance of almost £1 billion for nearly 500 businesses.

    On top of that, the bank will shortly be calling for innovative and ambitious investment strategies for delivering debt and equity finance through the £400 million Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund.

    So get your thinking caps on!

    We’re also committed to delivering a tax system that incentivises investment in growth and innovation.

    So far we’re offering Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs), the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and the Seed Investment Scheme.

    And there’s no doubt this trio of measures are working.

    In 2014 to 2015, VCTs issued £435 million of new shares and currently have investments in over a thousand companies.

    And in one year alone the EIS facilitated more than £1.5 billion of investment in not far short of 3,000 businesses.

    It’s pretty clear that it’s playing a pivotal role in supporting a vibrant, early stage equity culture.

    In fact the schemes have proved so successful that we sought and secured State Aid approval for letting them provide additional support to knowledge intensive companies.

    Exactly the kind of companies that will be shaping the future of British industry.

    When those companies are ready to go public, we want it to be as easy as possible for them to do so.

    That’s why we abolished stamp duty on Alternative Investment Market shares and made them eligible for ISA investments.

    We have also worked with the London Stock Exchange as it has introduced such innovations as the High Growth Segment.

    It allows high growth potential businesses to list on the main market with an initial free float of as low as 10%.

    And of course we’re also doing everything we can to make Britain the best place in the world to start and grow a business.

    So we’ve extended the doubling of small business rate relief until 2017.

    We’ve cut corporation tax to the lowest level of any major economy.

    We’ve lifted hundreds of thousands of businesses out of employer National Insurance contributions.

    We’ve set the highest ever permanent level for the annual investment allowance.

    And we’ve got Research and Development tax credits, the Patent Box and Entrepreneurs’ Relief, all of which encourage further investment in innovation and ideas.

    We’ve slashed £10 billion of red tape for business, and are committed to cutting another £10 billion by 2020.

    And the Enterprise Bill, currently before Parliament, will create a new Small Business Commissioner to give SMEs a stronger voice.

    But we can do more, and we are doing more.

    We need to ensure that the UK has the research base and the productivity levers in which innovative high-growth companies can start, grow and compete globally.

    Last summer, as you may have seen, we launched a plan called Fixing the foundations.

    It’s our cross-government plan for increasing productivity right across the economy.

    Our vision for increasing long-term investment in people, capital and ideas, as well as making markets more dynamic.

    That includes everything from increasing the quality and quantity of apprenticeships, to reforming the planning system, to changing the way the government supports growing companies who want to export.

    Alongside this, at the Spending Review, I was able to secure an investment of almost £7 billion as part of the national science capital commitment.

    I also protected today’s £4.7 annual billion resource funding in real terms.

    Together, this underlines my commitment to keeping the UK a world leader in science and research.

    We’ve created Catapult centres that help business and researchers turn great ideas into commercial reality.

    And, building on this, we’ll shortly be publishing a National Innovation Plan to ensure the UK remains an international beacon for bright ideas.

    The plan will bring together ideas, levers and investment from across government, so we can create the right conditions for businesses to innovate and grow.

    These are the businesses that are the key to our country’s economic future.

    And that’s why your role in backing them through their early development and growth phase is tremendously important.

    But it’s not just about cold, hard cash.

    Venture capital and private equity at its best is about more than just providing funding for companies to develop, grow or restructure.

    It’s about nurturing talent too.

    About helping talented yet inexperienced entrepreneurs to devise and implement long-term growth strategies.

    About understanding what it takes to help a high-potential business through the development, early growth and scale-up phases.

    And that’s where the people who been there and done that a thousand times before, people like the BVCA members here tonight, can really add something special to the mix.

    It’s your wisdom, understanding and long-term commitment that brings the greatest rewards.

    And that’s why you can do so much more than any politician or civil servant ever could.

    You’ve been there, you’ve done that, you’ve seen what works and you know what doesn’t.

    And it’s that knowledge, that experience, that will turn the next generation of great British ideas into the next generation of great British businesses.

    That will turn exciting innovations into real-world jobs and growth.

    What you do isn’t easy.

    It isn’t easily understood and all too often it’s not even popular.

    But it is absolutely vital to the future of our economy and our country.

    And I’m proud to say that both myself and the government support you all the way.

    Have a great evening.

  • Baroness Anelay – 2016 Speech at Seminar about Freedom of Religion and Economic Prosperity

    baronessanelay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Anelay on 2 March 2016.

    Good morning everybody. May I begin by thanking Louise Ellman MP, Chair of the APPG on the Baha’i Faith for organising this event; and Jim Shannon MP, Chair of the APPG on International Freedom of Religion or Belief for his kind words of welcome.

    This morning I would like to set out the British Government’s policy on human rights and, specifically, on freedom of religion or belief. Given the role of the APPG for the Baha’i Faith in organising this seminar, I would like to say a few words about the situation for the Baha’i in Iran; and because of its relevance to us all I will touch on Daesh. I hope that this will give you an idea of where the Government stands on these issues, and a sense of the kind of things we do around the world to protect and promote human rights.

    I have said before, and I think it bears repeating, that freedom of religion or belief is not just an optional extra alongside the broad spectrum of human rights. It is a key human right in and of itself.

    Support for human rights and freedom of religion or belief is at the heart of everything we do, not just in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but right across government. We maintain a constant dialogue on all aspects of human rights with our international partners. We do not shy away from raising concerns with them, both in public and in private.

    This Government has pledged to “stand up for the freedom of people of all religions – and none – to practise their beliefs in peace and safety.” We are committed to defending this right, as set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    With intolerance on the rise almost everywhere, from the Middle East to Europe to the United States, this commitment is needed more than ever. We are working hard to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief, through our bilateral and multilateral work, through project work and through increasing the religious literacy of British diplomats. We have refreshed and strengthened our approach since the last election. Our focus is on three themes.

    Democratic values and the rule of law.

    Strengthening the rules-based international system.

    Human rights for a stable world.

    Our support for the principle of freedom of religion or belief runs through them all.

    Let me give you some examples.

    Where Freedom of Religion or Belief is not fully respected, it follows that democratic values and the rule of law are not fully implemented. That is why we fund projects which bridge divides, promote tolerance and encourage dialogue.

    For me, one of the keys to success is education. We need to ensure that children appreciate – from the earliest age – that for a society to flourish, everyone must be valued equally. One of the projects we fund helps to develop lesson plans for primary school teachers in the Middle East to help them instil these values.

    Mindful of democratic values and the rule of law, we also lobby governments when we have concerns about individual cases of discrimination or persecution. For example, in Sudan, we lobbied on behalf of Meriam Ibrahim, who was born a Muslim but charged with apostasy for marrying into the Christian faith.

    Our diplomats in Geneva and in New York are strengthening the rules-based international system by working to ensure that resolutions focus on the full definition of Article 18, not just the issue of religious intolerance.

    Elsewhere, we raise issues with individual countries bilaterally, or under the Universal Periodic Review process.

    For example, in Burma, we have raised our deep concern at the rise of hate speech and religious intolerance with the Burmese authorities and will continue to do so, both publicly and in private.

    We have supported a number of projects, including developing relationships between Burmese youth and different religious communities, and arranging exchanges between activists on religious freedom in Burma and Indonesia.

    In Iraq, we are funding a project to prevent intolerance and violence toward religious communities by strengthening the ability of youth and civil society to advocate the right to freedom of religion or belief.

    Finally, and perhaps of most relevance to the discussion today on the link with economic prosperity, we focus on human rights for a stable world.

    We do this because we know that tolerance and inclusion are the building blocks of stability, not hatred and discrimination.

    We do this because we know stability is the foundation for prosperity.

    And we do this because we know that where people live together in harmony, and economies flourish, extremism struggles to take root.

    I know that there are representatives of the Baha’i faith here today, and I would like to pay tribute to the work of the All Party Parliamentary Group in raising awareness of the suffering they have endured. This Government deplores all forms of persecution, including persecution on the basis of a person’s faith – no matter what that faith might be.

    Turning to Daesh, there is no need – for this audience or any other in the civilised world – to detail the ways in which their intolerance is abhorrent.

    What I will say is that we are determined to defeat this poisonous ideology. We welcomed the UN Secretary General’s Action Plan for Preventing Violent Extremism, with its focus on tackling the root causes. We will support its implementation, not only in the UN but also in individual states, as they develop their own action plans.

    Our counter-extremism work has a conscious focus on human rights and on freedom of religion or belief. In many places we are working with faith leaders.

    In Bangladesh, Mali and Nigeria we are helping communities resist the lure of extremist ideologies.

    In Iraq we are tackling intolerance by inspiring key community leaders to become defenders of freedom of religion or belief.

    In Goma, Eastern DRC I visited a UK-funded project supporting reconciliation and tolerance for sexual violence survivors. We are working with faith leaders to build community support groups, challenging the stigma many survivors face.

    I hope that all this shows our absolute commitment to improving human rights and supporting and promoting freedom of religion or belief around the world.

    I will turn now to the focus of today’s discussion, the link between religious freedom and prosperity.

    I admire the pioneering work of my fellow speaker Dr Grim in this area. His work is needed, because sadly economic cost is often more persuasive than human cost, no matter the misery we see on our TV screens night after night.

    Governments need hard economic proof, and to validate it they need proof from different sources.

    So it makes absolute sense to get business engaged in this agenda, lobbying alongside governments and civil society.

    I know that Professor Grim is keen to see improvements in the business climate to ensure that individuals from all backgrounds and faiths can realise their potential.

    I am pleased to say that we in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office already support his aims through our international engagement. Through our work on business and human rights, we regularly encourage other governments to create an operating environment that is stable, secure and transparent.

    To conclude, I hope I have shown just how seriously we take the issue of Freedom of Religion or Belief.

    I very much value the efforts of parliamentarians, NGOs, think tanks and others, and the emerging work on the link between religious freedom and economic prosperity. I look forward to further collaborating on this with you.

    I will finish with the words of the Prime Minister: “Now is not the time for silence. Now is not the time for inaction. We must stand together and fight for a world where no-one is persecuted because of what they believe.”

    It is an inspiring call to action – let’s work together to make it a reality.

  • Philip Hammond – 2016 Speech on Alternatives to EU Membership

    philiphammond

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, at Chatham House in London on 2 March 2016.

    In just 16 weeks’ time, Britain will face a decision that will shape the course of our nation’s history for a generation or more: Should we remain within the European Union on the terms negotiated by David Cameron or should we withdraw from membership and go it alone?

    The Government’s clear view is that we are stronger, safer and better off remaining within a reformed European Union; Stronger, because our global influence is enhanced by being a leading member of the world’s largest trading bloc, safer because of the work we do together with EU partners to strengthen our defences against organised crime and terrorism, and better off because of our access to a market of 500 million consumers. The deal that the Prime Minister won in Brussels twelve days ago ensures that the UK can remain in the EU with a special status: outside the Euro; outside Schengen; with an opt-in on Justice and Home Affairs matters, an exemption from ‘ever closer union’ and a new mechanism to limit access to our benefits system for EU migrants.

    That deal protects British jobs by ensuring a level playing field in Europe for British business, safeguarding the pound and the Bank of England. It will boost EU competitiveness by completing the European Single Market, prioritising international trade agreements, and cutting the burden of EU regulation. And it provides an emergency brake to limit access to our benefits system for EU migrants and gives us new powers to exclude criminals and to stop exporting child benefits at UK rates.

    I think that’s a good deal for Britain.

    And as the British people decide whether to take it and remain in a reformed European Union, offering Britain the best of both worlds or to take a leap into the unknown, I want to shine some light on what a future outside the EU might look like for Britain. Because the Leave campaign have so far failed to do so.

    On Monday we published a paper setting out the process by which we would exit the EU following a ‘leave’ vote. Today we are publishing a paper outlining the principal alternatives to membership. I am laying the paper in Parliament this morning and it will be available online. I now want to summarise our main findings.

    But first, I want to be clear about the process of negotiating an exit, and our future relationship with the EU. Because it would become the defining national project for several years. A vote to leave on June 23rd would trigger a two year window, under the terms of the Treaties, for the UK to negotiate the terms of our exit from the EU. And in the meantime, we will be able to offer British businesses no assurance at all about their future access to EU, or for that matter, to other markets. We will have nothing to say to American, Japanese, Chinese companies looking for a base in which to invest to supply the EU market. Our economy would literally be on hold, whilst our competitors, including our European competitors, forge ahead.

    And at the end of two years, there is no guarantee at all that we would have reached agreement, but our exit would be automatic unless every single member of the remaining EU agreed to an extension.

    Our access to the Single Market would cease. Our trading agreements with more than 50 markets around the world would lapse, with an immediate and negative effect on confidence, on growth, on investments, and on jobs.

    Years of uncertainty for Britain, just as we are getting back on our feet.

    And, like any divorce, the negotiations with our former EU partners are likely to be difficult. The leaders of the remaining Member States would have their own pressing domestic political calculations to consider. In many cases people in their countries already think that they’ve gone the extra mile for Britain. They’d be frustrated that having done that, to offer Britain a special – and unique – status in the EU, their efforts had been in vain. And frankly they’d be apprehensive as well, apprehensive of the ‘contagion’ that a Brexit might bring to their own countries.

    So let’s be clear, if we reject the special status the Prime Minister has painstakingly negotiated, then we can expect the goodwill that we have seen towards Britain during these negotiations to evaporate with them. The blunt fact is that our former partners in Britain will not feel that they owe us any favours; they will have no interest in helping us to thrive outside the EU.

    And to those who argue, as some have done, that “they need us more than we need them”, I say “sadly not the case”. Even if the only factor was trade, and it certainly isn’t, the fact is that in 2014 half of the goods Britain exported went to the EU – just 7% of the goods the EU exported came to the UK.

    Our exit negotiation and our attempts to forge some sort of new relationship are likely to involve some tough and protracted discussions.

    So what, realistically, are the alternatives?

    At different times, the various Leave campaigns have suggested over 20 different models to choose from including the current EU deals with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Canada, Turkey, Korea, Macedonia. Even Peru and Vanuatu!

    But they have been unable to settle on one. In fact, they have deliberately avoided trying because they cannot point to an example which is better than the special status within the EU that we now have on offer. Every other option has significant drawbacks. And the simple truth is that we cannot know what deal a Britain outside the EU would end up with.

    The evidence, however, and that is what this paper is about today, suggests that there are three basic models:

    – The Norway model;

    – The bilateral model. A negotiated bilateral agreement, such as the free trade deals used by Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Turkey;

    – or as a default, the WTO (World Trade Organisation) model.

    Let me take each in turn.

    Norway

    Norway, along with Iceland and Liechtenstein, is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), but not the EU.

    And Norway is the non-EU country with the greatest, although still not total, access to the Single Market. It does have the same access in services as the UK has now. But it is outside the Customs Union, meaning that all trade in goods between the EU and Norway is subject to customs checks and Rules of Origin. And it faces tariffs in agriculture and fish.

    Norway does also take part in some areas of non-economic co-operation, like counter terrorism. But it pays a price for these privileges. It has to adopt most EU rules, without any say in making them. It pays roughly the same into the EU per person as the UK does.

    And, crucially, it is obliged to accept the free movement of people from both EU and EEA countries: migrants in Norway have the same right to access benefits as Norwegians. Today, there is a higher proportion of EU nationals resident in Norway than there is in the UK.

    The case of Norway neatly demonstrates the dilemma for Leave: the price of access to the single market is freedom of movement. And the more access to the market they promise, the more empty the boast that they would be able to unilaterally control migration from the EU.

    And I say this: If we care about real sovereignty, about being able to shape the decisions which affect us, then the Norway model is definitely not for us.

    Bilateral

    What if we were to make a bilateral agreement? After all, the EU has a broad range of trade agreements with other countries, such as Switzerland, Turkey or Canada.

    Some recommend the Swiss model. But it has taken Switzerland two decades to negotiate more than one hundred separate agreements that it currently has with the EU. Even then, they only have partial access to the Single Market. They face barriers for agriculture and, crucially from our point of view, for services. And once again, they are bound by the principle of free movement of people, with almost four times as many resident EU nationals per capita as in the UK.

    Others point to Turkey as a model to follow. Now Turkey of course is a candidate country for membership and has been in a Customs Union with the EU since 1995. It has full access to the single market for industrial and processed agricultural goods, where it is subject to EU regulations, but no access for raw agricultural products nor again, crucially, services.

    As part of the Customs Unions, Turkey must align its external tariffs with the EU. And when the EU signs a trade deal with a third country, Turkey must open its market on the same terms. But this is not reciprocal, and the third country is not obliged to open its market to Turkish exports.

    Turkey does not take part in policing and criminal justice measures; has only limited co-operation on international security, and it has no say in EU decision-making.

    And our conclusion is that the Turkish model would clearly not work for Britain.

    What about Canada? The EU-Canada deal has taken seven years and counting to finalise and has still not been approved by the European Parliament! When it happens, and it will happen, it will be the most extensive bilateral agreement the EU has ever made. It gives market access without the free movement of people, and without paying into the EU budget. But Canada is not a European country. And let’s be clear: the Canadian trade deal does not even remotely replicate the access we have as an EU member.

    Canadian manufacturers will only have tariff-free access if they meet EU ‘rules of origin’. So Canadian products, like cars, with complex international supply chains may still face tariffs. Canadian financial services providers can’t supply directly to the EU market. They have to set up subsidiaries inside EU member states operating under EU regulations; exporting Canadian jobs. This would really matter for Britain: our services sector is four-fifths (80%) of the UK economy. We are the second largest exporter of services in the world. And the EU is our largest market for those services.

    The EU also sets regulatory standards on many products: cars, pharmaceuticals, toys, foodstuffs and Canada won’t have a say over any of them.

    The fact is, none of the bilateral free trade models would offer anything like the access we have now to the Single Market and many of them would require adoption of EU regulations and freedom of movement rules. What about Britain’s trade with the rest of the world? We currently benefit from EU trade deals with over 50 different countries. And these deals have been based on the negotiating muscle of a bloc with 500m consumers and a quarter of the world’s GDP. Renegotiating them as a single country would take many, many years. Years in which British businesses would be squeezed out of traditional markets and with no guarantee at the end of the process we could get terms as good as we have now.

    Some have said we should focus our attention on deals with the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth. But the EU already either has, or is negotiating, trade deals with all the biggest Commonwealth countries, and none of our allies wants us to leave the EU. Not Australia, not New Zealand, not Canada, not the US. In fact, the only country who would like us to leave the EU is Russia. That should tell us all we need to know.

    WTO

    Let’s look for a moment now at the default option – the World Trade Organisation rules, which is where we will end up if we leave without a deal agreed. For anyone who wants to ensure a clean break with the EU, the WTO model is the only honest model. WTO rules mean we could sell into the Single Market, but at a price: The EU imposes a ‘common external tariff’ on goods and services from countries outside the EU who don’t have free trade deals agreed.

    10% on cars. 30% on confectionary. 36% on dairy produce.

    Our exports would cost more and so be less competitive. That will cost British jobs. And if we reciprocated, our imports would cost more too meaning higher prices in our shops.

    And that would not be all. Under WTO rules, we couldn’t differentiate between countries. So, for example, if we decided to allow Irish goods to enter the UK tariff-free, we would have to do the same for all 160 countries in the WTO – putting British jobs at risk from foreign competition.

    Because, as EU members, the common external tariffs protect our industries from undercutting from outside the EU, while allowing us to import from Europe without tariffs pushing up costs. Outside the EU, it would be all or nothing under WTO rules.

    And for our crucial services sector, without a preferential trade agreement, UK businesses would only be guaranteed access under the General Agreement on Trade in Services. This is a much more basic framework, providing much less access to markets.

    So on even a cursory inspection, the WTO model does not deliver for Britain. It would be bad for business; bad for jobs; bad for growth. Bad for Britain.

    Our choice: leadership of a reformed EU or a leap into the dark
    The truth is, the Leave campaigns cannot point to a credible alternative. They are unable or unwilling to address their core dilemma: the price for any significant level of access to the single market for goods, let alone services, is acceptance of free movement of people. The EU has been remarkably consistent in its dealings with other European countries. And the more access to the single market the Leave campaign promises, the more hollow their pledge to limit EU migration.

    So what should we conclude from this analysis? That none of the ‘post-exit’ options offer anything close to the best-of-both-worlds, special-status, deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated in the European Union. And the most often cited model, Norway, would offer us, quite literally, the worst of both worlds. Paying as if we remained a member of the European Union, subject to the European Union and obliged to observe the principle of free movement to gain access to the single market that we have now, without any say in how those rules are made and without any say over how the European Union is run.

    Negotiating any kind of arrangement with 27 countries we that have just rejected will almost certainly take years, will not give full access to the Single Market without contributing to the budget, accepting all the rules, allowing free movement, and will leave us with no seat at the table. To me, that’s less sovereignty, not more sovereignty.

    Balancing the burdens and the benefits, none of the options that are remotely likely to be deliverable comes close to matching the deal that we already have on the table.

    So why would we take a leap in the dark?

    Why would we risk the effect of years of uncertainty on the British economy?

    Why would we take that chance with our children’s future – risking our influence, our prosperity and our security?

    When by voting to remain, we can have the best of both worlds in a reformed EU; rather than the worst of both outside. A powerful voice inside Europe; instead of a lonely voice outside. A Great Britain, stronger, safer and better off within the EU.

    Thank you.

  • Rob Wilson – 2016 Speech on Social Investment

    robwilson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rob Wilson, the Minister for Civil Society, at Hogan Lovells in London on 2 March 2016.

    Good morning everyone, it’s a great pleasure to join you at this Social Investment Academy.

    Thank you to Worthstone for putting on what I’m sure will be a very useful event. Here at Hogan Lovells you are in good company – with people who really want to make a difference.

    Hogan Lovells has helped 30 social enterprises secure investment by providing free legal advice. It is one of a growing number of businesses recognising that social enterprises play a crucial role in tackling and addressing social and community problems and, at the same time, enhancing the economy.

    I’m pleased to inform you today that this government has embarked on a somewhat overdue and ambitious reform programme for charities and social enterprises.

    It is my aim to deliver a sector that is more independent, more resilient and more sustainable. Better able to meet the many challenges that it faces.

    Over the past year or so, my Office for Civil Society has ensured the creation of a new fundraising self regulator, led by Lord Grade, making certain it has the legislative powers to give the public confidence that fundraising scandals are behind the sector. A chance to restore the public trust and confidence that it needs so that a generous public continues to donate to causes that matter most to them.

    I recently piloted the Charities Bill, soon to become an Act, through Parliament. This Act will give much tougher powers to the Charity Commission to enable it to regulate the charity sector more effectively.

    Several confusing regulators abolished, but replaced with a new one, whilst enhancing the Charity Commission’s powers. In essence ensuring our charities have a framework fit for 2016 and beyond, operating with the minimum bureaucracy but with robust powers.

    And the Charities Act also clarifies the law around social investment, enabling smaller charities to have the confidence to get involved in this hugely beneficial area.

    Social investment is growing. It will play an increasing role in how the sector will be funded and there is a role for all of us in achieving this. Social investment can accelerate the growth of new businesses, transform the impact of our public services and support stronger communities to tackle the social challenges that they face.

    The UK is recognised as a world leader in social investment. We created the world’s first social investment bank, first social investment tax relief and the first ever social impact bond. I want this leadership to continue and the government is therefore supporting this market to remain a world leader. We have already created 32 social impact bonds (SiBS), more than the rest of the world put together.

    SIBs work on the principle that government only pays for the outcomes that we want to see and agree should be delivered. Social investors provide the up-front investment needed to scale up innovative services. The investor is then repaid by government based on the outcomes that have been delivered. Hopefully this involves a return on investment.

    SIBs are being deployed to get to the heart of some of the biggest challenges that we face as a country. They often focus on prevention and early intervention, which will help us to contain the ever expanding demands on our public services. The delivery organisations, in many cases, will be charities and social enterprises who have the experience of delivering successful programmes across local areas.

    SIBs help to foster a genuine partnership between government, Big Society organisations and social investors – bringing in the additional investment needed to support these organisations, who can innovate in ways that big government simply can’t.

    Perhaps most importantly though, they focus on delivering meaningful outcomes for people. For example, supporting a child out of residential care into an adoptive home, a young person into their first job, or a rough sleeper into supported accommodation.

    The Prime Minister recently announced our new 80 million pound Life Chances Fund, which is an important next step on a journey that will show how social investment can transform public services. This is a down payment on a SIB market that I hope and expect to be worth more than 1 billion pounds by the end of this Parliament. The growth of SIBs will continue into the next Parliament and will become the norm for the way many public services are funded.

    Social impact bonds are barely mentioned in the media today. In a few years time they will be the most talked about funding mechanism for government social projects. I will be talking about them a lot.

    In its different forms, social investment is already making a huge difference to the lives of thousands of people throughout the country

    For example, Aspire Gloucestershire and Ambition West Midlands, 2 programmes focused on supporting young people who are homeless and out of work, have raised over 900,000 pounds in investment through a social impact bond to support 490 young people to improve their lives.

    Part of this investment was raised from high net worth individuals who wanted to use their money to change lives as well as generate a financial return. These investors were also able to take advantage of the social investment tax relief.

    Another example is Golden Lane Housing, who were able to use a Retail Charity Bond to raise 11 million pounds to buy and adapt housing for people with learning disabilities while providing investors with an annual return of over 4%.

    What I really hope you go away with today, is the sense that this is a no-brainer, that we can invest for positive social returns that can change people’s lives. And that you can all help to make this happen.

    You are the pioneers. The fact that you’re here means you know this is something to think about, to pay attention too. You don’t need me to tell you that the demand is there – that 73% of investors are now interested in making a social investment. This market will be taking off and I hope you’re here to make the most of it.

    We’ve had the social investment tax relief now for nearly 2 years, and we’re now seeing the impact in communities across the UK.

    It’s getting more investors involved, giving them that extra incentive they need to consider something a bit different, and opening their eyes to these amazing organisations that really are changing people’s lives. We are working to expand the relief, leading the process with the European Commission as we speak.

    But what about you? You are the gatekeepers. The ones that investors trust to provide advice and guidance. I’m pleased to announce that we’re working with Worthstone to develop an accredited social investment education and training module for retail investment advisers.

    This will give you the tools and knowledge you need to carve out your offer and to push this market forward.

    More widely than that, we also think that regulation is an area that might need a fresh look. The government is committed to doing anything it can to remove unnecessary burdens, while not eroding consumer protection or the integrity of the financial system.

    I’m extremely pleased that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is recognising the growth of this market and is currently gathering evidence on regulatory barriers to social investment.

    This is your opportunity to share experiences of what would make it easier for your profession to move this market even faster and make a real difference to communities across the world.

    This government is absolutely committed to growing the social investment market and making it easier for socially-motivated investors to invest in line with their values. I hope to announce further plans on this later in the year.

    But now it’s over to you. Feedback to the FCA to make sure you’re operating in the right regulatory environment. Do the deals, talk to your clients and push the boundaries.

    The time for social investment, ladies and gentlemen, has arrived and it’s here to stay.

    Thank you.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2014 Statement on the Hallett Report

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2014.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on follow up to the Hallett report into the on-the-runs administrative scheme which was laid before this House on 17 July.

    In response to the recommendations in the report and on the basis of all the advice I have received, I have decided that the statement I make today is the fairest, promptest and most effective way to reduce the risk to future prosecutions, and to provide the clarity called for by the Hallett report.

    I make this statement on behalf of the Government, having consulted with the independent police and prosecuting authorities who have seen this statement and agree that it represents the best way forward.

    Lady Justice Hallett emphasised on a number of occasions in her report that the letters, however phrased, were not an amnesty.

    They were not a commitment by the state that individuals would not be prosecuted, whatever the strength of the case against them.

    They were only ever at statements of the facts, as they were believed to be at the time, as to whether an individual was wanted for questioning by the police or not.

    They were not intended to preclude investigation or prosecution on the basis of new evidence emerging after they were sent or on the basis of fresh assessment of the existing evidence.

    But in the light of her report, and in the light of the Downey case, it is clear to me that urgent clarification is needed as to what, if any, comfort can be derived from those letters now.

    There are 2 key points which it is important that all concerned should be clear about:

    First, the letters described by the Hallett report, issued in whatever form (and any similar or equivalent statements not made in letters) do not represent any commitment that the recipient will not be investigated or prosecuted, if that is considered appropriate on the basis of the evidence available now.

    Those who received individual or composite letters (or any other form of indication) stating that they were ‘not wanted’ and who derived comfort from that, should cease to derive any such comfort.

    In short, the letter recipients should cease to place any reliance on those letters.

    Secondly, decisions about investigation and prosecution will be taken simply on the basis of the intelligence and/or evidence relating to whether or not the person concerned committed offences.

    That means that in any of their cases (and whatever was said in the letters sent to them or statements made in the past) decisions today and in the future will be taken on the basis of the views that are formed about investigation and prosecution by those who now have responsibility for those matters.

    Their views may be the same as the views that led to the letters being sent in the past, or they may be different.

    It is the views of those who are taking the decisions now (or in the future) that matter.

    All the evidence will be taken into account, regardless of whether it was available before the letters were sent or whether it has emerged subsequently.

    This does not mean that all those who received ‘not wanted’ statements in the past are now considered ‘wanted’.

    It simply means that they are in the same position as any other member of the public.

    If there is considered to be evidence or intelligence of their involvement in crime, they will be investigated by the police and if the evidence is sufficient to warrant prosecution, they will be prosecuted.

    This was always the intended status of the scheme but the issues raised by the Downey case and highlighted in the Hallett Report have made today’s clarification necessary.

    I regard this as being the appropriate position to take, and not an unfair one, for the following general reasons.

    The implementation of the scheme was highly unsatisfactory and suffered from a series of systemic failings, as set out in the Hallett Report.

    It was developed piecemeal and without appropriate direction.

    There were various different forms of letters and the content of a number of those was unsatisfactory.

    We know that errors of fact were made and it may well be that errors of judgment were also made when cases were considered under the scheme.

    It is now clear that at least some of the letters were issued on an unreliable basis.

    The defects in the scheme identified by the Hallett Report mean that there is a serious risk that this will turn out to be the case in relation to other letters as well.

    The public interest in investigating and prosecuting serious crime is too important for there to be a risk of it being undermined by a scheme which, it is now clear, suffered from such significant flaws in its implementation.

    There is a particularly strong public interest in decisions about investigation and prosecution being taken on the basis of the current views, based on assessment now of all the evidence, of those responsible for investigating and prosecuting serious crime.

    The letters have generated a serious degree of confusion as to precisely what their legal effects might be, whether alone, or when set alongside other facts (as in the John Downey case).

    It is very important, particularly in the context of serious crime, for there to be clarity.

    It is to be recognised that, correctly or not, some of the recipients will have derived some comfort from a ‘not wanted’ letter.

    It may be that some ‘not wanted’ letters were issued in error or were based on flawed judgements at the time and that recipients of such letters were given a degree of comfort that was in fact unwarranted even on the basis of the information at the time.

    That is greatly to be regretted.

    Such errors should never have occurred.

    But two points are to be noted in any such cases (in addition to the more general points I have just made):

    First, the public interest in mounting an investigation or prosecution, if the evidence warrants it, would remain very powerful.

    It should be a rare case indeed in which such an error should prevent such a prosecution, all the more so if the crime in question is a very serious one.

    And second, those who have received such statements now know in clear terms what position the Government takes.

    They now have fair and clear warning that such comfort as they may have derived from the statements can no longer be taken.

    There is no continuing basis for any reliance on the past statements.

    This scheme is at an end.

    All those who sought or received statements through the administrative scheme should take note of this statement today.

    I have deliberately made it in the public setting of Parliament, recognising and intending that it should be widely publicised as a result.

    I will take further steps to disseminate it.

    I will be drawing it to the attention of each of those who made requests on behalf of named individuals, reflecting the channels through which the communication of the original letters was made.

    In these ways, I can be confident that fair and proper notice will have been given to those affected by this statement, including those to whom letters were sent under the scheme.

    I commend this statement to the House.

  • Eric Pickles – 2014 Statement on Rotherham Council

    ericpickles

    Below is the text of the speech made by Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities, in the House of Commons on 10 September 2014.

    One of the most important duties of local authorities is the protection of vulnerable children. Professor Jay’s recent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham has painted a horrific and awful picture that the council utterly failed its children.

    As Professor Jay noted:

    No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013.

    In just over a third of cases, children affected by sexual exploitation were previously known to services because of child protection and neglect. It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated.

    There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators. This abuse is not confined to the past but continues to this day.

    Following the publication of the Jay report, my Rt Hon Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House on 2 September 2014 that I was minded to use my powers to commission an independent inspection of the council. In parallel, I would also be considering the implications of the report’s findings for all local authorities in England.

    With clearly documented failures by the council on so many levels, the rare step of a statutory inspection is in the public interest. I have now decided to exercise my powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 to appoint Louise Casey CB to carry out an inspection of the compliance of Rotherham metropolitan borough council with the requirements of part 1 of that Act, in relation to the council’s exercise of its functions on governance, children and young people, and taxi and private hire licensing.

    In undertaking her inspection, I have directed her to consider whether, in exercising its functions on governance, children and young people, and taxi and private hire licensing, the local authority:

    – allows for adequate scrutiny by councillors

    – covers up information, and whether “whistleblowers” are silenced
    took and continues to take appropriate action against staff guilty of gross misconduct

    – was and continues to be subject to institutionalised political correctness, affecting its decision making on sensitive issues
    undertook and continues to undertake sufficient liaisons with other agencies, particularly the police, local health partners, and the safeguarding board

    – took and continues to take sufficient steps to ensure only “fit and proper persons” are permitted to hold a taxi licence

    – is now taking steps to address effectively past and current weaknesses or shortcomings in the exercise of its functions, and has the capacity to continue to do so

    As the statute allows, I also intend to appoint on her recommendation, assistant inspectors to ensure that she has all the skills and experience available to her which she believes are necessary for her to fulfil her remit. Louise Casey will report to me by 30 November 2014, or such later date as I may agree with her, whether or not the council is meeting this duty to secure continuous improvement in respect of its governance, the services it delivers for children and young people, and taxi and private hire licensing.

    I have appointed Louise Casey to carry out this sensitive task rigorously and independently. I am confident that with her track record of working in public service and particularly in challenging established practices in regard to the most vulnerable – for example, in reducing rough sleeping, as Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses and in her current role as head of the Troubled Families programme – she has the experience and skills to undertake a robust and independent inspection which will provide a full and comprehensive report on these matters.

    Beyond the terms of reference I have set out in this statement, it is for Louise Casey, with any assistant inspectors I appoint on her recommendation, to decide how to carry out this inspection, and her findings and conclusions will be a matter for her alone.

    Louise will continue to lead the Troubled Families programme. While she is carrying out the inspection in Rotherham, arrangements are being put in place to ensure that progress on troubled families is maintained.

    If I am satisfied that an authority is failing to comply with its duty under part 1 of the 1999 Act, that Act gives me the power to statutorily intervene in that authority. Intervention may take a number of forms, including directing the authority to take any action that I consider necessary or expedient to secure its compliance with the 1999 Act duty, or directing that certain of the authority’s functions be undertaken by me or by a person – a commissioner – appointed by me for that purpose. The inspection report that I receive will assist me in reaching my view as to whether or not Rotherham metropolitan borough council is meeting its duty under part 1 of 1999 Act.

    As part of my consideration of the implications of the Jay report for all authorities in England, I shall be asking Louise Casey, in addition to and outside the scope of the statutory inspection, to explore the links between Rotherham metropolitan borough council and the police and justice system, and highlight issues that local authorities, police forces and the justice system should consider in their work on child sexual exploitation, and my Rt Hon Friend the Home Secretary welcomes this.

    I will also ask Louise Casey to report to me on whether she considers, as a result of undertaking the inspection or otherwise, there are any further matters which might appropriately be drawn to the attention of authorities and other local service providers generally to assist them to improve the delivery of their services, particularly those relating to children and young people.

    In order to assist Louise Casey and help my consideration of the wider issues I will be writing to all leaders of principal councils asking them to consider the implications of the Jay report for their own authority.

    I will make a statement to the House in due course on the completion of this work and after due consideration of the report.

    We cannot undo the permanent harm that these children have suffered. But we can and should take steps to ensure that this never happens again and make sure that all local authorities deliver on their essential duty to protect vulnerable children.

  • John Whittingdale – 2016 Speech to Oxford Media Convention

    johnwhittingdale

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Whittingdale, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, in Oxford on 2 March 2016.

    Good morning. It is a pleasure to be back in Oxford to open this year’s Media Convention.

    Having been following media policy for longer than I like to remember, I have been a regular attendee.

    Looking back, I found that over the past ten years I have sat on panels discussing analogue switch over, internet regulation and ISP responsibility: at least two of which we are still discussing today.

    And last year, I took part in a panel discussion entitled “What is the Point of the DCMS?”

    In what turned out to be a wise career move, I argued that the DCMS played an important role in Government and certainly should not be abolished. Happily, not only did my fellow panellists agree but it turned out that so did the Prime Minister.

    Since becoming Secretary of State, I have become even more convinced. The DCMS covers many policy areas but at the heart of its mission lies the promotion of our creative industries. A sector which represents over 5 per cent of our GVA and which has been growing at at least twice the rate of the rest of the economy.

    In our television, film, music and games industries Britain leads the world. And not just leads but sells around the world. Just in the last 6 months I have helped President Xi of China explore the Tardis and shared a stage in Mexico with Shaun the Sheep.

    But it is a sector which also faces extraordinary pace of change. The digital revolution is up ending business models and creating huge new challenges and opportunities. It is a fascinating time to be responsible for Government policy.

    I want to talk about some of the challenges later. But first, I want to give an update on our progress on one of the immediate tasks facing the Government: the renewal of the Charter of the BBC.

    It is a topic that a lot of people feel very strongly about and on which much has already been said – with even more contributions due by the end of today’s convention.

    I am grateful for the submissions from the BBC itself, from other industry players, from my colleagues on the House of Commons and the House of Lords Select Committees, and from the 192,000 people who responded to our consultation paper.

    Yesterday, we published three documents all of which will have a major influence on the new draft Charter.

    The first document which we published yesterday was a summary of the consultation responses we received. And I would like to reiterate what I’ve said previously. I very much welcome the fact that so many took the trouble to tell us what they thought.

    Every response we received matters. Every response we received has been read. And every response we received has informed the document we published yesterday.

    As they themselves have boasted, an overwhelming majority of those responses to the consultation were triggered by the organisation Thirty Eight Degrees. I am grateful for their help in publicising it.

    Despite their claims to the contrary, I have made clear that every response is valid. And having been to see the team responsible for reading them all, I can confirm that they were not just cut and pasted but were well thought through.

    But when you receive an email inviting comment on claims that Murdoch and the Government plan to destroy the BBC and that Newsnight may become riddled with adverts, not only is that wildly misrepresenting the Government’s intentions, it will also naturally colour the type of responses we received.

    Just as, if someone had used social media to promulgate the message that we planned to triple the licence fee, and remove accountability we would have seen a different influx of responses.

    That said, the consultation does make for interesting reading.

    It makes clear that the public do value the BBC, with 80% saying it serves audience well or very well. It makes clear that the public believe it produces high quality and distinctive content – three quarters said that,

    And it makes clear that the public want the BBC to remain independent – an overwhelming majority shared that sentiment.

    On content – at its best – the BBC produces brilliant, world class TV and radio.

    On all those points, I would have said the same. But the responses also suggested that there are areas where the BBC falls short for some viewers. That it needs to do more to reach BAME and young audiences, and to represent the lives of the people of our nations and regions. This is a finding supported by the BBC Trust’s own research and the recent Committee reports from both Houses.

    On distinctiveness, there is no doubt that at its best the BBC makes programmes which no-one else would do. Programmes like The Night Manager. Or another example which I saw just a few weeks ago when I watched the filming of the new Ben Elton comedy about Shakespeare: Upstart Crow.

    But I also agree with the Director General’s aim “to create a BBC that is more distinctive than ever – and clearly distinguishable from the market”.

    This is not just about showing more documentaries than ITV, or spinning a more varied playlist than Global.

    It is about the BBC being distinctive in their own right – not just on a service level, but across its output.

    And on independence – the government agrees entirely.

    A free, impartial and editorially independent BBC is vital not only to our media market but also to news provision and plurality, and we are determined to find the right way to protect those values, whilst ensuring it is accountable and held to the highest of standards.

    There is – of course – much more in the summary of responses. My team took many months to read every response we received. Indeed, we had to draft in extra staff from across Government as well as temping agencies to draw this all together. But the hours the public put into writing, and those staff put into reading will prove hugely helpful in informing the White Paper.

    We’ve also commissioned further polling and focus group work to unpick some of the issues highlighted, and to ensure that some of the minority views of certain parts of society aren’t lost as we take this forward. And we have held a series of roundtables including two with “creatives” which Armando Iannucci helped organise at my invitation in response to his MacTaggart lecture last year.

    The second document which we published yesterday was Sir David Clementi’s report into Governance and Regulation of the BBC.

    Sir David has gone to enormous lengths over the last five months to talk to as many people as possible, and to make sure that his recommendations are fully evidence based. I am enormously grateful to him for all his hard work.

    At first sight, BBC Governance appears to be one of the less controversial aspects of the Charter. It is also fair to say that, while it dominates the debate amongst a small sub-set of BBC watchers, it is an issue that excites the public a lot less. And that was reflected in the responses to Charter – many of which skipped the Governance section entirely.

    That is perhaps understandable. Because Governance is an area that to the average viewer can seem dry and technical and – until they have an issue they want to complain about – something of no real relevance to them.

    But Governance and Regulation do matter greatly. There have been notable failures in the past. And the future performance of the BBC will be hugely determined by its governance structure:

    How the BBC is managed.

    How the BBC delivers against its remit.

    How the BBC is held to account for the public money it spends.

    How the BBC relates to – and works with – its partners and rivals in the market.

    All of these are fundamental questions to the Charter process. And they are questions central to Sir David’s review.

    I know Sir David will be presenting his paper in detail later on this afternoon.

    And I’m not going to formally reply to it today.

    But what I will say of Sir David’s paper is this.

    He has not only characterised the current arrangements very fairly – both in terms of its strengths and weaknesses…

    But he has also set out a clear, sensible, vision for how the BBC can be reformed for the better.

    And his ideas for the principles of simpler Governance structures and streamlined regulatory arrangements that have public interest and market sensitivity at their heart, are ones that it would be very difficult for this – or indeed any – Government to overlook.

    The third and final document published yesterday was the report we commissioned from independent media consultants – O&O and Oxera – into the BBC’s market impact.

    And the key finding of that report was that – perhaps unsurprisingly – the BBC currently has both negative and positive market impacts.

    But the report shows that they could do more to enhance their net impact…

    And it cautions against the idea that the current positive market impact is a justification for future expansion. One simply doesn’t cause the other.

    In fact, the report suggests that the BBC could be a better partner by working more collaboratively with the sector.

    I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to say that the BBC’s partnership record is fitful. Excellent at times. Falling short at others. And – as the BBC themselves have admitted to me – partnership is too often something they’re seen to do to people rather than with them. This is something that needs to be addressed.

    The report also shows that in some areas the BBC has become less distinctive in recent years – particularly on BBC 1. It also flags up that Radio 1 and Radio 2 are less distinctive than the BBC claim and that the soft news element of the BBC’s online services is of limited public value.

    The report goes on to suggest that a more distinctive BBC would provide benefits both for the organisation itself, and for the wider media sector…

    Because not only would it deliver greater variety for licence fee payers, it could also have a positive net market impact and increase commercial revenue by over £100m per year by the end of the next Charter period.

    Of course – again – the report says a lot more than that. It is over 200 pages long. It is based on some very thorough analysis. And it will be considered very thoroughly by myself and the Department…

    But what the headline figures show, is that the Director General’s drive for greater distinctiveness can be good for the BBC, good for Licence Fee payers, and good for the wider sector, and that is something that the next Charter should encourage and embrace.

    So those three documents – Sir David’s report, the summary of Consultation Responses and the Market Impact Study, will play a key role in informing our thinking.

    We also agreed with the BBC in July that the Government would update the legislation setting the licence fee to close the so-called iPlayer loophole. When the Licence fee was invented, video on demand did not exist. And while the definition of television in the legislation covers live streaming, it does not require viewers to have a licence if they watch BBC programmes through the iPlayer even if it is just a few minutes after transmission.

    The BBC works on the basis that all who watch it pay for it. Giving a free ride to those who enjoy Sherlock or Bake Off an hour, a day or a week after they are broadcast was never intended and is wrong.

    So, having discussed this with the BBC and the BBC Trust, I will be bringing forward, as soon as practicable, secondary legislation which will extend the current TV licensing regime not only to cover those watching the BBC live, but also those watching the BBC on catch-up through the iplayer.

    It is not just the BBC that is affected by the digital revolution. It is affecting every media business and, as the pace of change accelerates, no-one can predict what our future media landscape will look like.

    This time ten years ago, most TV sets were Cathode Ray tubes receiving analogue signals, catch-up was mainly done with a VHS tape recorder and Netflix was a DVD home delivery service.

    Today, consumers are no longer passive recipients, organising their lives around the Radio Times, but are now able to watch what they want, when they want and on a range of different devices from an smart phone screen to one which is 65” in Ultra HD.

    What is even more remarkable is that for the consumer, services like Google, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify, and Candy Crush are all free. Music, video, and electronic games can all be enjoyed for nothing – with the result that a generation of consumers is growing up who do not expect to pay.

    Yet all of these products and services – and thousands more – are the result of the creativity, hard work and financial investment of vast numbers of people. They have a right – and a need – to be rewarded. Unless they are able to be paid or make a return, those industries may not survive.

    In almost all, they are able to do so in large part because of advertising. Commercial TV, Radio, newspaper websites, streaming services, search engines, and many games and apps all rely on advertising. In some cases, they also receive subscription payments from a small minority who are willing to pay to avoid advertisements.

    The newspaper, music, film and games industry are all having to adapt to a world in which consumers are no longer as willing to pay as their parents were. In almost every case, advertising revenue now plays an essential part in their new business models.

    And so I completely understand the concern that a lot of people have expressed to me about the expansion of ad-blockers.

    Ten years ago, the music and film industries faced a threat to their very existence from online copyright infringement by illegal file-sharing or pirate sites.

    Today, ad-blocking potentially poses a similar threat. One industry estimate suggests that – within one week of going on sale – the top 3 mobile ad-blockers in the App Store were downloaded nearly 175,000 times. And in the 12 months to June last year, there was a 48 per cent growth in ad-blocker use in the USA and 82 per cent growth in the UK.

    Mobile phone manufacturers are now integrating ad blocking features into their browsers. And ISPs are beginning to do the same as they see it as a way of saving money by freeing up capacity on their networks.

    Meanwhile, some of the ad-blocking companies are drawing up their own rules of acceptable advertising or offering to white list providers in return for payment. Many see such practices as akin to a modern day protection racket.

    This practice is depriving many websites and platforms of legitimate revenue. It is having an impact across the value chain, and it presents a challenge that has to be overcome. Because – quite simply – if people don’t pay in some way for content, then that content will eventually no longer exist.

    And that’s as true for the latest piece of journalism as it is for the new album from Muse.

    However, it is not all bleak.

    Industry research suggests that consumers do not dislike online advertising per se.

    What they dislike is online advertising that interrupts what they are doing. They don’t like video or audio that plays automatically as soon as a web page has loaded. Or pop-ups that get in the way of their browsing experience.

    And this research also indicates that most consumers would prefer an ad-funded, free internet over a subscription model – which suggests that many consumers do understand that content isn’t free.

    But we need to educate consumers more on how most online content is funded. And we need the whole advertising sector to be smarter. If we can avoid the intrusive ads that consumers dislike, then I believe there should be a decrease in the use of ad-blockers.

    I am not suggesting that we should ban ad-blockers but I do share the concern about their impact. And I plan to host a round table with representatives from all sides of the argument to discuss this in the coming weeks.

    Once I have heard their views, I will consider what role there is for Government.

    My natural political instinct is that self-regulation and co-operation is the key to resolving these challenges, and I know the digital sector prides itself on doing just that. But Government stands ready to help in any way we can – as long as this does not erode consumer choice.

    This is an extraordinarily exciting time for your sector. It is exciting for those who love your products.

    And most of all it is incredibly exciting to be Secretary of State.

    I look forward immensely to continuing to work with you to ensure that this country remains at the forefront of all these developments.

  • Tobias Ellwood – 2016 Statement on Syria

    tobiasellwood

    Below is the text of the statement made by Tobias Ellwood, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in the House of Commons on 1 March 2016.

    The Syrian conflict is now almost in its sixth year. As a result of Assad’s brutality and the terror of Daesh, more than 250,000 people have lost their lives, half the population have been displaced, and more than 13.5 million people are in need of humanitarian aid.

    Russia’s military intervention last autumn compounded the violence. Russia claims to be targeting terrorists, yet it has carried out strikes on moderate opposition groups and civilians. More than 1,300 civilians have been killed and 5,800 injured by Russian or regime airstrikes since the start of Russia’s campaign.

    Our goal is for Syria to become a stable, peaceful state with an inclusive Government capable of protecting their people from Daesh and other extremists. Only when that happens can stability be returned to the region, which is necessary to stem the flow of people fleeing Syria and seeking refuge in Europe. The last few months have seen some progress towards that. The International Syria Support Group came together at the end of 2015 in Vienna to help to facilitate a return to a process leading to a political transition in Syria.

    In December, opposition groups came together to form the higher negotiations commission, representing the widest possible range of opposition views, and nominated a team to negotiate with the regime. Proximity talks between the regime and opposition began under UN auspices in January, but were paused as a result of a deteriorating situation on the ground. The ISSG met again in Munich at the Munich security conference on 11 February, agreeing that there should be a cessation of hostilities and humanitarian access to named locations in Syria. Since then, the US and Russia have agreed at the highest levels on the terms of a cessation of hostilities. The agreement was codified in UN Security Council resolution 2268 on 26 February.

    The cessation of hostilities is an important step towards ending the terrible violence in Syria and bringing a lasting political settlement. It came into force on 27 February. Since then, we have seen a reduction in violence, which is of course a huge step forwards, but we need to see that sustained and to see a reduction in the number of reported violations.

    We have received reports of a number of violations, which we have passed to the UN and the ISSG co-chairs in Geneva. We need swift action to reduce those violations. We look to Russia in particular to use its influence with the regime to ensure that the cessation endures and that there are no further violations. It is crucial that the opposition see action being taken in response to allegations of violations to ensure their commitment and that of their Syrian constituents to the process.

    It is essential that the cessation of hostilities supports the wider political process. We support UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura’s plans to resume peace negotiations on 7 March. Those negotiations must deliver a political transition away from Assad to a legitimate Government that can support the needs and aspirations of all Syrians and put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people.

    At the same time, we call for complete and unfettered humanitarian access across Syria and an end to all violations of international humanitarian law, as set out in UN Security Council resolution 2254. We are relieved that desperately needed aid convoys are now arriving in some besieged areas of Syria, including those named in the Munich ISSG agreement of 11 February. It is imperative that that continues.

    The international community and particularly Russia, which has unique influence, must put pressure on the Assad regime to lift sieges and grant full and sustained humanitarian access. As I have said, there must be a political solution to the crisis in Syria. It is imperative that the steps I have described are implemented by all parties and that the cessation of hostilities endures. The UK is working strenuously to make that happen and will continue to do so.

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on Open and Transparent Government

    Matt Hancock
    Matt Hancock

    Below is the text of the speech made by Matt Hancock, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 1 March 2016.

    This government is committed to making government more transparent, so taxpayers can hold the state to account both on how their money is being spent and how decisions are made which affect their lives.

    The Freedom of Information Act is one of the pillars on which open government operates. We are committed to supporting the Act. Yet after more than a decade in operation, it is appropriate to review, in the whole, how it has operated in practice, and establish how its mechanisms could be improved.

    Consequently, in July 2015, we established an independent, cross-party Commission on Freedom of Information. The Commission has now submitted its report. Given the keen public and media interest in the report, we are promptly publishing it alongside our preliminary views on its recommendations.

    We are very grateful to the Commission for its thorough and thoughtful work in this significant and complex area. The Commission’s review has attracted considerable interest and should be commended for an even-handed approach to gathering evidence from across a very broad spectrum. This approach is reflected in the balanced set of measures put forward in the report.

    The Commission makes 21 specific recommendations. It notes that whilst some of its recommendations require legislation, other improvements can be made without legislative change. The government’s views on some of the most salient recommendations are as follows:

    Charging for Freedom of Information requests

    The government agrees with the Commission’s view that it is not appropriate to introduce fees for requests, over and above the existing narrow circumstances in which a requestor can be currently charged for disbursement costs. We appreciate that some public authorities are concerned by the burdens imposed on them by the Act and the associated costs. However, the introduction of new fees would lead to a reduction in the ability of requesters, especially the media, to make use of the Act. We believe that transparency can help save taxpayers’ money, by driving out waste and inefficiency.

    The Cabinet veto

    The Commission recommends the introduction of a narrower and more limited veto provision. The government agrees with the Commission’s analysis that Parliament intended the executive to be able to have the final say as to whether information should be released under the Act. In line with the Commission’s thinking, the government will in future only deploy the veto after an Information Commissioner decision. On the basis that this approach proves effective, we will not bring forward legislation at this stage.

    Updating practice guidance

    The government agrees with the Commission’s recommendations to review the operation of section 45 of the Act to ensure that the range of issues on which guidance can be offered to public authorities under the code of practice is sufficient and up to date. Public authorities should have sufficient guidance and advice to properly manage information access requests and to continue the government’s mandate of being the most transparent government in the world. This does not require legislation.

    Publication of Freedom of Information statistics

    The Cabinet Office already publishes detailed statistics on a quarterly and annual basis on the operation of the Act within central government. It is important that other public authorities should be similarly transparent. We know that many other organisations already publish such data, but this does not happen consistently. The publication of such data not only provides accountability to the public, but allows the Information Commissioner to identify and target poorly performing public authorities more effectively. We will therefore issue guidance in the revised section 45 code of practice to set a standard that public authorities with 100 full time equivalent employees or more should publish such information.

    Public interest and risk assessments

    Noting that the Commission did not provide a formal recommendation regarding risk assessments, the government agrees with the Commission’s analysis that considering the public interest remains the best way to assess whether specific risk assessments should be released. This will allow the important balance between providing robust protection for sensitive information and transparency to be maintained.

    Handling vexatious requests

    The Commission recognises the difficulty that genuinely ‘vexatious’ requests can place on public authorities. We agree with the recommendation of improved guidance, via a revised code of practice, to allow public authorities to use section 14(1) in the rare cases where it is necessary and appropriate. The exercise by citizens of legal rights also brings with it responsibilities – and access to information rights should not be abused to cause distress or a means of harassment. Equally, the ‘vexatious’ designation is not an excuse to save public officials embarrassment from poor decisions or inappropriate spending of taxpayers’ money. This will not require legislation.

    Greater transparency on pay and perks of senior staff

    The Commission recognises the advances that have been made to increase transparency about senior executives’ pay and benefits. Further steps will be taken to ensure this transparency is delivered across the whole public sector. The default position should be that such information from all public bodies is published; that the public should not have to resort to making Freedom of Information requests to obtain it, and data protection rules should not be used as an excuse to hide the taxpayer-funded payments to such senior public sector executives. We will now consider what additional steps should be taken to address any gaps in published information, and in particular in relation to expenses and benefits in kind as recommended, including more broadly than at present.

    The government will carefully consider the Commission’s other recommendations.

    The government has already demonstrated our commitment to openness through the publication of around 23,000 datasets on data.gov.uk. We are proud of the recognition we have received as the world’s leading country on open data through the World Wide Web Foundation’s Open Data Barometer. Our next Open Government Partnership national action plan, to be published later this year, will set stretching new commitments to take UK transparency further.

    A copy of the Commission’s report is being placed in the libraries of both Houses, and will be published online on GOV.UK.

  • Robert Goodwill – 2016 Speech on Customers with Disabilities

    robertgoodwill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Goodwill, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, at the Airport Operators Association annual dinner held on 1 March 2016.

    Thank you.

    I’m delighted to join you tonight.

    And it’s a real pleasure to be back here in the magnificent setting of the Grosvenor House Great Room once again.

    Not only one of the largest ballrooms in Europe. But also, one of the most historic.

    Over the decades, this room has served as:

    An ice rink, in fact it was here where Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen Elizabeth II, learned to skate at just 7 years of age.

    A mess for US officers during World War II, when General Eisenhower and General Patton were frequent visitors.

    And, in the 1960s, the venue for a Beatles concert – and many leading title fights when this was known as the home of British boxing.

    This room has also become established in recent years as the home of the AOA Annual Dinner.

    And a fitting backdrop for one of the best nights in the aviation calendar.

    So I’m very grateful to Ed [Anderson – Chairman] and his team for inviting me this evening.

    6 years of change

    I’d like to start tonight by taking you back to the 2010 AOA dinner.

    The guest speaker that year was Sir Tim Clark, President of Emirates.

    Tim’s opening words were:

    Well, what a torrid, volatile, 18 months this has been.

    Multiple banking failures.

    Multiple airline failures.

    Multiple travel trade failures.

    And all in an election year.

    What a difference 6 years make.

    Britain today is in a completely different place.

    Record employment.

    A much reduced deficit.

    And a strong, growing economy.

    Governments like to take credit for big achievements like these.

    And I’m not going to change that tradition tonight.

    But we’re only partly responsible.

    The people who are actually delivering growth.

    Creating jobs.

    And making the country more prosperous.

    Are you.

    Wherever you look across Britain, airports are preparing for the future.

    Building bigger terminals.

    Opening new markets for British business.

    Expanding into ventures like business parks.

    This is one of the most entrepreneurial sectors of our economy.

    Which is why UK airlines have enjoyed sustained growth.

    Why passenger numbers at UK airports have reached record levels.

    And why I believe this industry is going to flourish further over the next decade.

    Hidden disabilities

    Great businesses flourish for all sorts of reasons.

    But there’s one advantage they all share.

    They understand their customers.

    One of the challenges for airports is the sheer diversity of the customer base.

    That means you have to be increasingly sensitive to passengers’ different needs.

    Take people with a disability, for example.

    Airports do a good job of helping physically disabled passengers.

    But what about people whose disabilities are not immediately noticeable.

    Those with hidden disabilities?

    For dementia sufferers, air travel can be confusing, and even frightening.

    Crowded terminals. Security checks. And fear of flying itself.

    All these factors can deter people from travelling.

    According to CAA research, as many as 7% of all people could be avoiding air travel because of a hidden disability.

    That’s a sobering statistic.

    And when the CAA did a review of airports’ and airlines’ current arrangements, they found a wide variation in standards and practices.

    Some airports were described as ‘significantly under-prepared’ for this type of traveller.

    However, there were some impressive examples of good practice too.

    At Gatwick, for instance, more than 80% of front line staff have received Dementia Champions and Dementia Friends training.

    On top of this, the airport’s introduced its own NVQ Level 2 Certificate in dementia care.

    Manchester Airport has a range of measures to help autistic children.

    Including a downloadable autistic awareness pack on its website which provides a virtual journey through the airport.

    Recently I met with members of the Prime Minister’s Dementia Taskforce.

    They told me about how they’ve been working with the aviation industry on this issue.

    I was particularly impressed by the feedback they received from someone who cares for a dementia patient.

    Who praised the outstanding door-to-door service they’d received from EasyJet on a recent trip.

    So there’s lots of great work going on.

    We just need to see more of it across the industry.

    So the CAA is now working with the taskforce and other disability organisations to develop tailored guidance for the industry.

    The airports guidance is expected to be launched in the summer.

    This is a great opportunity for the industry to move forward as a whole.

    First – to ensure every airport and airline is meeting minimum EC standards of compliance.

    But then to deliver over and above.

    There is real scope here for airports to learn from each other.

    And follow the lead of Gatwick and Manchester.

    Which I know some of you are already doing.

    But this isn’t about ‘one size fits all.’

    Each airport will find its own solutions.

    So I urge you all to consult with dementia passengers and organisations.

    To really understand and respond to their needs.

    So more people who currently avoid air travel can enjoy the huge benefits of flying that the rest of us take for granted.

    South-east runway

    I understand why many in the industry were disappointed that we delayed the decision on location of the additional runway we need in the south-east.

    But opponents of expansion.

    Who hailed the delay as some sort of victory.

    Could not have been more wrong.

    The decision was delayed because it was the right thing to do.

    The responsible thing to do.

    To make sure we’re fully prepared.

    So we know we will get the job finished.

    You understand better than most.

    That Britain’s infrastructure-averse culture.

    Has a history of derailing transport schemes.

    This government is changing that culture.

    But to risk any chance of failure at this stage would be unacceptable.

    It’s why we’ve been so thorough with HS2, the new high speed railway.

    Six years of intense planning.

    The biggest consultation in government history.

    Building the case, town by town, region by region.

    Making sure HS2 is the very best it can be.

    And that’s what we’re doing with aviation capacity.

    Sir Howard Davies’ report gave us a wealth of data and analysis but you can never have too much evidence, particularly in the light of our emerging understanding of air quality issues and diesel cars.

    We’re using this time to make the case for new capacity even more watertight.

    Additional work to get the best possible outcome.

    So we can deliver it by 2030.

    Conclusion

    As I said earlier, aviation is one of the UK’s success stories.

    And we need that success to continue.

    Alongside the decision on south-east capacity, there are a host of other important issues we are continuing to work on.

    For example, we’re working with the industry to improve airport access.

    Including up to £1.75 billion of investment in roads around Gatwick, Manchester, East Midlands, Birmingham, Heathrow and Stansted.

    We’re making improvements to airport rail links – from Crossrail to HS2 to the Northern Hub.

    We’re working to develop a skilled aviation workforce.

    Support regional connectivity.

    Manage airspace.

    And reduce climate change, noise and other local environmental impacts.

    I know that the issue of Air Passenger Duty (APD) is never far from your hearts.

    Today is when the exemption in APD for under-16 year olds comes into effect.

    Which will save a family with two children £142 on a typical holiday to Florida.

    These are all national issues.

    And they deserve a national conversation.

    And it goes without saying that airports need to be at the heart of that conversation.

    Since the 2013 Aviation policy framework the industry has moved on.

    And Britain has moved on.

    So we will be asking you this year to help us design the next Framework.

    We want you to tell us about the past 3 years.

    What have we done that’s helped you?

    What haven’t we done to help you?

    And how can we work together more effectively?

    The AOA has always been very clear about where it agrees and disagrees with government.

    I welcome that.

    Just as I welcome all the feedback I get when I visit airports around the UK.

    It’s a privilege for me to work with you as Aviation Minister.

    And I very much value the close dialogue I have with the AOA.

    It works, above all, because we share the same fundamental aspiration.

    To support a growing airports industry.

    That delivers for customers.

    That delivers growth and jobs.

    And that delivers for Britain.

    Thank you.