UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech on Corruption

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at Lancaster House in London on 12 May 2016.

    Introduction

    Today the world has come together in a coalition of the committed to expose, punish and drive out corruption.

    This has been the first summit of its kind and the biggest demonstration of the political will to address corruption that we have seen for many, many years.

    Frankly we’ve known for years what a problem this is; we’ve known for years it prevents us from achieving so many things we want to fix in our world.

    But I’ve really sensed today there is far more political will – not just from words but from actions – that will make a difference.

    There’s nothing as powerful than an idea whose time has come and I believe that’s the case with fighting and driving our corruption.

    When the UK hosted the G8 in Lough Erne in 2013, we took what many had seen as a series of technical issues around tax, trade and transparency and we showed how political will could begin a concerted effort to get to grips with tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance and corporate secrecy.

    When we first talked about ideas like automatic exchange of tax information and registries of who owns each company, many people, I think, wondered what on earth we were on about, and whether any of these things would actually happen.

    But now 129 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the international standard for exchange of tax information on request – and more than 95 have committed to implementing the new global common reporting standard on tax transparency.

    And as the Head of the OECD Angel Gurría has said today, this started, in his words, a “dramatic revolution” that has since brought in 50 billion euros in extra tax revenue and has the potential with automatic exchange of information to bring in 200 billion more. Think of the schools, the hospitals, the roads, the services that could be provided and are needlessly lost.

    Today’s summit has built on these foundations.

    Today it’s not just the G8, but representatives from over 40 countries.

    Not just political leaders but leaders from business, civil society and sport too, all working together to produce a series of ground-breaking commitments that can really transform our ability to tackle corruption.

    Just as at Lough Erne, many of these agreements are quite technical, but their impact is far reaching.

    Exposing corruption

    First, we will expose corruption so there is nowhere to hide.

    If you don’t know who owns what, you can’t stop people stealing from poor countries and hiding that stolen wealth in rich ones.

    That is why it is so important that today 5 countries have agreed to create public registers of beneficial ownership and 6 more will explore similar arrangements.

    This will mean that everyone in the world will be able to see who really owns and controls each and every company in these countries.

    The EU, Iceland, UAE and most of our Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies with major financial centres have agreed to automatically exchange their entire registries of beneficial ownership information.

    This means that law enforcement agencies across the world will be able to access this data – in many cases for the first time – and use it to expose the corrupt.

    Does it need to go further? Yes of course it does, but today is a good start.

    It is no good having laws against corruption, if lawyers, accountants and estate agents find ways around the law.

    So that is why it is so important that at this summit a new professional services statement of support has shown an unprecedented commitment from these professions to stop the facilitation of corruption.

    Again, does this go far enough? Does it need to go further? Of course it does – we need this adopted in every country, not just some countries.

    Public procurement and construction have both been massive areas for corruption around the world for years.

    So a range of countries including the UK will use open contracting in their government procurement, to keep public money out of corrupt hands.

    And here in the UK, we want to clean up our property market and show that there is no home for the corrupt in Britain.

    So all foreign companies which own properties in the UK will have to register publicly who really owns them, who really controls them – and no foreign company will be able to buy UK property or bid for central government contracts without joining this register.

    Punish the perpetrators

    Next, we will do more to punish the perpetrators of corruption and to support those affected by it.

    We know that corruption is a global phenomenon, so it’s essential that we share information and pursue the corrupt across borders, joining the dots to identify and prosecute the corrupt and to seize their assets – a point that so many speakers have made today.

    So the new International Anti-Corruption Co-ordination Centre we are creating will help police and prosecutors work together to do just that.

    But we also need to ensure that when we expose the corrupt, we are able to seize their assets and return them to the countries from which they were stolen.

    That’s why our Global Forum for Asset Recovery will be so important – enabling governments and law enforcement agencies around the world to work together to achieve this.

    We have also agreed today that 22 countries will introduce new asset recovery legislation, 14 will strengthen their protections for whistle-blowers – a discussion we had in the last session and 11 countries will review the penalties for companies that fail to prevent tax evasion.

    Here in Britain we will consult on extending that criminal offence of tax evasion, to other economic crimes such as fraud and money laundering, and we hope others will follow.

    We want firms properly held to account for any criminal activity within them.

    We are also consulting on Unexplained Wealth Orders, reversing the burden of proof so if someone is suspected of corruption, the onus is on them to prove they acquired their wealth legitimately or they will face having it stripped from them by a court.

    Driving out corruption

    Third, we will do more to drive out corruption wherever it is found.

    This requires the political leadership we have seen today – and a sustained effort at changing cultures of corruption.

    One example of this is the twinning of different countries’ tax inspectors to help build a shared culture of probity and honesty.

    And today we’ve seen 17 countries commit to such partnerships between their institutions and professions, and I want to thank Professor Paul Collier for his great work on this.

    We have also had a very frank discussion about changing cultures in sport.

    The world loves sport – and the world knows that sport is riddled with corruption.

    So only when we deal with corruption in sport will people really believe that we are dealing with corruption more broadly.

    Today we have taken an important step towards an International Sport Integrity Partnership that would restore integrity to the games we love and we will be keeping up the pressure to land this at a meeting with the IOC in February.

    We are also raising our own standards of governance and transparency to the highest possible levels here in the UK through the new Sports Charter.

    Next steps

    But today’s summit hasn’t just been about securing these agreements.

    We have also held, I think you’ll agree, a different kind of event.

    Instead of simply having speeches talking to ourselves about we have agreed and we have had open, honest and challenging conversations.

    We have asked tough questions about the challenges in implementing these agreements and explored new ideas and next steps that can really raise the ambition further.

    We have been asked whether we could enforce action against corruption in the same way that we enforce action against terrorism?

    We have been challenged to protect the freedom of the press and the whistleblowers who are so vital in helping them to expose the corrupt.

    We have talked about the need for more action from multinational companies.

    There was a great challenge for anti-corruption organisations to work more closely together – to deliver a more co-ordinated effort.

    We’ve talked about the need for every country to ultimately reach what I call the gold standard of a having a public register of beneficial ownership.

    And I am clear that I include all the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies in that. But it was encouraging to hear praise for what the head of the OECD described as, and I quote, the “exemplary delivery” of our crown dependencies in the steps they have taken so far.

    Finally, we have been clear that this summit will not be a single one-off moment.

    We are building a global movement against corruption.

    As President Ghani said – this cannot be a fashion – we have stay the course on this for the next 10 years and beyond.

    We welcome the commitment from Japan to include this issue and the learnings of this summit in its G7 Presidency.

    We have agreed that we will meet again at the UN General Assembly next year.

    And in the meantime we will continue to track the implementation of everything we have agreed today.

    And let’s just be clear what all these agreements really add up to.

    As I said, some of them are very technical.

    But what we are talking about is stopping the corrupt hiding their loot from the authorities.

    So as John Kerry said – there are “no more safe harbours” for the corrupt.

    It means that when people steal money from your country and hide it in mine – we can expose them and return the money to you.

    It means getting stolen assets returned to people like President Buhari and President Ghani, so they can be reinvested in the future of their countries.

    It means cleaning up our property market right here in London.

    It means helping to secure for all our economies some of the trillions in potential economic growth that is so needlessly lost to corruption.

    It means building an unprecedented global coalition to tackle this cancer of corruption which destroys jobs, traps the poorest in poverty and as Sarah Chayes has argued so powerfully today – even undermines our security.

    It means quite simply – winning the battle against one of the greatest enemies of progress in our time.

    And I say again, if we want to beat poverty, if we want to beat extremism and narrow the gap between the richest countries in the world and the poorest countries in the world, we have to tackle corruption.

    That is our mission. And that is the vital work that we have begun today and I want to thank everyone for their contributions.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech at the Careers & Enterprise Company Conference

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, in Liverpool on 11 May 2016.

    Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and thank you Christine for that introduction.

    It’s a real delight to be here in Liverpool today for this conference, to take stock of what The Careers & Enterprise Company has achieved already and for me, as the Secretary of State, to outline the government’s vision for careers provision, which we believe should be high-quality, consistent, engaging with employers, made up of several rather than one-off encounters, which start early on in a young person’s life.

    Careers provision should focus on giving young people the information, aspiration, advice and training that will allow them to unlock their potential.

    It has been a year now since The Careers & Enterprise Company appointed its CEO, Claudia Harris, and started its operations in earnest. It’s so great to see Claudia here today and I know you’re going to hear her speak later about her own enthusiasm for and dedication to the aims of the company.

    Let me take this opportunity to thank Claudia for all the hard work she, and her team, have put in so far.

    The truth is there is so much energy and enthusiasm in the careers space, and there are huge amounts of talent and excellent practice too, but there isn’t enough co-ordination. That’s why the work of the company is so important – amplifying the work of others as it seeks to ‘join the dots’ from education to the world of work.

    It’s great to see so many of you here today as providers of careers and enterprise services, businesses, and school and college leaders – all seeking to support young people as they make the transition from school to the world of work.

    Making real links between schools and colleges and those who can help young people to unlock their potential is vital to improving the life chances of individuals and delivering the social justice that we, as a government, are committed to. But it’s also vital for our country as a whole and our economy because we can achieve so much more when we harness everyone’s talents.

    As I have said in the past, and as I’m sure all of you know, there is no one route to success. I believe in the academic route and I believe in the technical and skilled route, too – because we all have differing skills and strengths – so I want to see parity between the routes offered to young people, so they can make a real choice in choosing their career.

    At the heart of The Careers & Enterprise Company’s work, as well as the government’s vision for the future of careers provision, is the Enterprise Adviser Network, established to build the long-lasting, regional coalitions that can inspire and prepare young people to make the right choices about their futures.

    The Enterprise Adviser Network is the cornerstone of the company’s work, making it easier for schools and colleges to connect with local employers and careers and enterprise providers across the country. The network is able to stimulate provision where it is scarce or lacking, and filter the quality services where provision is overloaded or confusing.

    Since its launch only 6 months ago, the Enterprise Adviser Network has engaged more than 30 local enterprise partnerships (LEPs), including my own in Leicester and Leicestershire and I was so pleased to speak, alongside Claudia, at the launch of my local Network at the National Space Centre in Leicester last week.

    I know that Leicester and Leicestershire’s own Enterprise Co-ordinator, Abdul Bathin, is here today. His passion and enthusiasm for young people and building links with business is infectious and I know that he will grow a fantastic local network in my area, where he will soon be joined by more enterprise co-ordinators.

    Locally here in the Liverpool city region there have been 4 enterprise co-ordinators in post since February, engaging with 30 schools, and 16 enterprise advisers who have been matched to 7 schools.

    The national network already has 60 full-time enterprise co-ordinators employed by local enterprise partnerships all over the country, co-funded by the Careers & Enterprise Company; and has already signed up 600 schools.

    The huge scale of that success in such a short time is testament to the collaborative leadership offered by the local enterprise partnerships and the dedication of the enterprise co-ordinators and business volunteers. But I know that this is only the beginning and I have no doubt that the national and local networks will continue to grow in the months and years ahead.

    Alongside the Enterprise Adviser Network, The Careers & Enterprise Company is working to transform careers provision across the country, growing the evidence, sharing what works and providing investment, enabling the best programmes to scale up their work and do more in the areas where they are needed most.

    It’s such a pleasure to see the 33 amazing projects backed by The Careers & Enterprise Company in their recent careers and enterprise fund. With government’s investment and by unlocking match funding, £9.5 million is backing the people and organisations working hard in this area, with 75% going to ‘cold spot’ areas where it is needed most.

    What’s remarkable about this is that almost a quarter of a million young people stand to benefit.

    And they will be benefiting from projects like CareerConnect here in Liverpool, a STEM-focussed programme which coaches young people to develop key character traits that will help them to succeed like confidence and resilience; Bridge to Work, from my own area in Loughborough, which offers flexible skills and coaching courses to help students get their careers on the right path; Groundwork UK in Birmingham which, through its enterprise camp, helps unemployed young people to develop their skills and engage with employers; the Ideas Foundation, providing inspiring encounters for young people with advertising and design agencies; and many more.

    I understand that most, if not all, of the 33 programmes benefitting from the funding are here today. Let me say to you, I am so excited to see the impact of your work and looking forward to meeting you all.

    One thing which has been shown to improve the life chances of young people is high-quality mentoring. We know that inspiration has to start young, so that’s why I am delighted that later this year The Careers & Enterprise Company will be launching its mentoring campaign to unlock mentors from across the business community and its supporting fund.

    This exciting and important work will further bridge the gap between education and employment, scaling up proven mentoring programmes across the country, particularly in ‘cold spot’ areas.

    The campaign will target young people and our rightly ambitious aim by 2020 is to reach and serve 25,000 young people a year who are most at risk of disengaging by offering them high-quality, careers-focussed mentoring.

    Unlocking young people’s potential is something that involves all of us – which is why there is such a need for co-ordination and galvanisation if we are to end the postcode lottery that has existed in careers and enterprise provision for far too long. It means everyone involved needs to engage and make sure their voices are heard.

    I’m really pleased to say The Careers & Enterprise Company intends to facilitate powerful, local voices in education to support the Enterprise Adviser Network. The company proposes to convene annually 39 school leaders who represent schools on local enterprise partnership boards. Those school leaders will ensure effective dialogue exists between the network and schools and colleges.

    I have to say that I have been incredibly impressed by the scale of support from employers. A roundtable earlier this year brought together 40 leading employers and I will be convening the chief executives of those companies later this year to further harness their collective influence.

    At the event in Leicestershire last week it was amazing to hear employers talk about their input to the Enterprise Adviser Network and, on the day, we had new volunteers stepping forward to get involved and offer their expertise.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to thank everyone: careers and enterprise organisations, employers and schools for the hard work that is transforming this hugely important agenda.

    The voluntary work of employers is a really important part of supporting the system to become a success and, if you’ve already signed up, please keep working with The Careers & Enterprise Company and your local enterprise partnership to improve the Enterprise Adviser Network, to scale up fantastic provision in your local areas; and sponsor those cold spots where better provision is so desperately needed.

    The willingly collaborative work of our many excellent careers and enterprise organisations has been remarkable over this last year and I know that in continuing to work together so much more can be achieved.

    I know the schools who are already working with the Enterprise Adviser Network recognise its worth to their students and I’d like to encourage all schools to work with the network and local enterprise co-ordinators to build employer engagement plans and take advantage of the Gatsby Tool that Sir John Holman and the Careers and Enterprise Company are launching later this year.

    I’m delighted that our ambitions to improve the life chances of young people all over England are continually being strengthened. I am constantly thrilled to see the great work going on up and down the country to ensure our nation’s young people have every opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential – securing the prosperous future everyone wants and deserves.

    I’m particularly pleased that The Careers & Enterprise Company is working closely with the government’s flagship National Citizen Service programme to look at the ways young people participating in it can benefit from engagement with employers and other organisations.

    I know that if we all continue to work together: government, schools, business, providers and LEPs – then we can make a real difference to the life chances and future prosperity of everyone coming through the education system and heading into the world of work, whilst at the same time growing our economy with the types of skilled jobs it really needs.

    Thank you for everything you do. Thank you for your hard work. And thank you for making a difference to the lives of children and young people.

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on Tackling Corruption

    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 London on 11 May 2016.

    Thank you Patricia, our new and brilliant Secretary General of the Commonwealth.

    Mr President, it is an honour to welcome you here, with united determination to tackle corruption. I pay tribute to the work you have led and leadership you have shown.

    Everyone here today, from Civil Society, from business and from governments around the world stands testament to that determination.

    We are here today because of what we share: The view, forged by experience, founded in evidence, not just, that corruption is an evil in itself – and that surely is so – not just that corruption exacerbates other evils of poverty and extremism and want but that together, as global community, we know endemic corruption can be wiped from this Earth.

    Corruption is the cancer at the heart of so many of the world’s problems.

    But there is nothing permanent about countries being held back by its scourge.

    There is nothing inevitable about the injustice it represents.

    Corruption is made by man and it is within man’s gift to end it.

    It will not be easy. The forces ranged against are powerful and strong.

    But we here are the optimists.

    This week marks the world’s first international summit dedicated to the eradication of corruption.

    The goal is to make the fight against corruption a priority for world leaders.

    The summit will tomorrow discuss, and, with effort, agree to, commitments aimed at seeing a real reduction in global corruption.

    Attended by people from across the world, from countries each at different stages of taking on this challenge.

    For corruption exists in every country to different degrees. No matter what the starting point, what matters is our shared determination to tackle the problem.

    We are bringing together world leaders, business and civil society to agree a package of practical steps to expose corruption, so there is nowhere to hide; punish the perpetrators, and support those affected, and drive out the culture of corruption wherever it exists.

    Now it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on the scale of the challenge, and why we are here to tackle it.

    The cost of corruption

    First, the cost.

    Consider just the economic costs.

    On top of the lives ruined and the immorality.

    The economic costs are stark.

    It is estimated that corruption adds 10% to business costs globally and that cutting corruption by just 10% could benefit the global economy by $380 billion every year.

    Corrupt practices inhibit business; precious resources are whittled away directly in bribes, and indirectly in biased decisions.

    Customers, honest businesses and taxpayers pick up the bill.

    And these direct costs are just the start.

    Other effects of corruption

    Opportunities are lost; lives blighted; investment hindered; and the chance for people to get on and get up and make the most of the world around us and fulfil their potential – all this is held back.

    And it is not the well off who suffer the most.

    It is very poorest who are hardest hit.

    Those for whom there is no escape.

    In their name it is our duty to act.

    And let us share another honest truth.

    Let us openly admit this fault.

    When it comes to tackling corruption, the international community has looked the other way for too long.

    For too long.

    We simply can no longer afford to side-step corruption: we must step up.

    That is our task today.

    What the UK has done

    Prime Minister Cameron has put corruption on the agenda as never before: at the G7, the G20, the OECD and the United Nations.

    We want to work through the existing international infrastructure – not to invent another layer, but to convert the multinational system to the task.

    We are taking the lead in calling the summit.

    And we are not just talking but acting at home.

    It was my privilege to pilot through Parliament the rules to establish a public central registry of beneficial ownership.

    When this goes live next month we will be the first in the G20 to do it.

    It is now in the UK a criminal offence for a company to fail to prevent a bribe being paid.

    We are driving open data, transparency and open contracts.

    And we will now make it a criminal offence for corporations who fail to stop their staff facilitating tax evasion.

    But no government, working alone, can tackle this problem.

    In an increasingly inter-connected world of instant communication and mobile capital, no country is immune from the threat posed by corruption.

    And no country can fight it alone.

    We are making progress.

    Good governance is now at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals to transform the way the international community fights poverty.

    We have created a new international anti-corruption unit in the UK’s National Crime Agency, to recover funds stolen from developing countries and prosecute those responsible.

    Over the next 36 hours we must aim high for an agreement among governments to the next vital steps.

    Yet governments do not operate in a vacuum.

    A strong civil society has a critical role to play, holding us in government to account and driving innovation in the detection and reporting of corruption. Tomorrow we will launch our Open Government Partnership National Action Plan, developed with civil society.

    Technology gives us an opportunity for openness. And business must play its part.

    Conclusion

    We all have our part to play.

    So let us seize this moment.

    This is the time.

    Corruption is a global problem that demands co-ordinated action.

    We must act together so there is no hiding place for those that perpetrate, the corruption that spreads injustice and divides our world.

    Let us today resolve.

    That while, yes, the task is hard.

    Surely, the prize is worth it.

    So let us work to our objective, with optimism and ambition, and deliver our goals in the interests of the citizens who we serve.

  • Justine Greening – 2016 Speech on Tackling Corruption

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, at Marlborough House in London on 11 May 2016.

    Introduction: the cost of corruption

    Thank you for that introduction and thank you to our hosts the Commonwealth Secretariat and Baroness Scotland.

    I’m delighted to be able to join you today. This conference is an absolutely critical precursor to tomorrow’s Anti-Corruption Summit. I know there have already been some important and wide-ranging discussions over the course of today.

    I’m not going to take this opportunity to make a long and detailed argument about why corruption is a bad thing…

    We know corruption is propping up failed and failing regimes, and providing cash for criminals and terrorists. We know how corruption is bad for global economic growth – and adds about 10% to business costs globally.

    We also know how, behind all the statistics, there are people… people being robbed of the life they might have had…women being sexually exploited when they try to get basic services like water and electricity. People who then have no chance to get justice from corrupt law enforcement officials.

    Corruption hurts the poorest most – but in the end it is a threat to the national interests of every country.

    The brilliant ‘Leaders Manifesto’ published by Transparency International today is an extraordinarily powerful call to arms for why we must take action now.

    Corruption is bad for people. Bad for development. And bad for business.

    And yet – despite knowing how much it costs us – as a global community I believe we have been far too hesitant about getting to grips with corruption. It’s too often been seen as too entrenched, too widespread, just too subsuming to knock down.

    So the questions we’re left with are not whether corruption should be fought but whether corruption can be fought and whether we – as a global community – are prepared to fight it?

    Growing momentum

    The answer to the first question is yes – yes, we can fight corruption and secondly yes, we can defeat it.

    Many brilliant examples of civil society, citizens, businesses and governments fighting corruption have been showcased here today.

    And for the last few years there’s been growing momentum around this agenda.

    The Open Government Partnership, strongly championed by the UK and others as part of our role in driving forward a global movement on transparency, has grown from 8 to 69 countries since 2011. Greatly welcome President Buhari’s commitment that Nigeria will join.

    The Sustainable Development Goals agreed by the world last year acknowledged the vital importance of tackling corruption for defeating poverty – with Global Goal Number 16 committing us to reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.

    I’m very proud of how the UK, led by our Prime Minister David Cameron, has seized the initiative on this these last few years. The government’s 2010 Bribery Act introduced some of the world’s strictest legislation on bribery – making companies corporately liable to prosecution if they fail to prevent bribery. We are first major country in the world to establish a public central registry of who really owns and controls companies that will go live next month.

    But we need to do more – and do more together. Which is of course the theme for today, and indeed for tomorrow, tackling corruption together – all of us, civil society, business, government leaders and citizens.

    The Summit: exposing, punishing and driving out corruption

    So is the world really prepared to take the comprehensive actions needed to stamp out corruption?

    Tomorrow’s summit, hosted by our Prime Minister, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to show that we are. The summit brings together world leaders from Afghanistan to Colombia to Nigeria to Norway, multinational companies, civil society groups, law enforcement bodies and multilaterals like the UN and the World Bank.

    But whether or not this summit will truly be a turning point in the fight against corruption depends on whether this unique coalition will commit to practical, transformative steps that will expose corruption, punish the perpetrators and drive out entrenched corruption wherever it exists.

    We all know the world we want – countries’ resources being used to improve people’s lives not stolen and squandered domestically or hidden abroad – the international legal system effectively recovering stolen funds and the perpetrators being punished – citizens being able to report and expose the corruption if they encounter it in their daily lives – businesses operating in a level playing field.

    So what needs to happen tomorrow to ensure that we get there?

    Firstly, tomorrow’s summit is about developed countries including the UK getting their own house in order and making key commitments.

    In critical areas such as:

    – Lifting the veil of secrecy over who ultimately owns and controls companies

    – Denying the corrupt the use of legitimate business channels and ensuring anyone who launders the proceeds of corruption feels the full force of the law

    – And ensuring the necessary laws are in place to expose and punish corruption, including working together across international borders to pursue and prosecute the corrupt.

    Secondly, and just as crucially, tomorrow is about supporting change in developing countries, because tackling corruption is a two-way street – it’s not ‘us and them’ or ‘here and there’, it’s about sharing expertise, information and best practise – for our shared interests.

    And that’s why it’s so important that developing countries, like Kenya, Afghanistan, Tanzania, Ghana and Nigeria will have a voice at the table tomorrow, so that we can work together, in partnership, to stamp out corruption in all its forms.

    And let’s be clear – supporting these countries to fight corruption should be an absolutely key priority for everyone working in development. In many of the poorest countries, the resources lost through corruption often far outstrip the aid flows they are receiving.

    It’s a key priority for the UK, as set out in our new UK Aid Strategy. I’ve ensured that my Department for International Development has anti-corruption and counter-fraud plans for every country we give bilateral aid to.

    And we’ll be saying more tomorrow about our commitment to boost partnerships between UK institutions and their counterparts in the developing world.

    Of top concern to me is effective and transparent tax systems.

    I believe the Addis Tax Initiative (ATI) launched at Financing for Development last year has the potential to be really transformative. Countries like Ghana, Ethiopia and Tanzania are signing up to put a priority on developing their own sustainable tax administrations – while donor countries like the UK are providing the right support, we’re doubling our support whether financial or technical assistance. It means as growth happens, these countries are better placed to reap the financial rewards.

    To date, 31 countries have committed to the ATI and over the course of this summit we want to see many more step up and make a public commitment to this crucial initiative.

    Thirdly, this summit is not just about governments – we also want to see businesses really seizing the initiative on this.

    To me this is about much more than corporate responsibility – it’s in businesses’ best interests to join the fight against corruption. Corruption is bad for business.

    And in a recent survey of business attitudes to corruption – carried out the by business risks consultancy Control Risks – 34% of respondents from Africa reported losing out on deals to corrupt competitors. That’s why having a level playing field is so important.

    So governments will play their part but the onus is also on businesses themselves to take action on transparency, on procurement and who they’re working with – and it’s crucial that we see more and more businesses adding their powerful voice to the anti-corruption agenda. And I want to see businesses engaged in a race to the top in terms of standards.

    Fourthly, and importantly, tomorrow’s summit must be about empowering citizens to fight corruption – with civil society playing a key role in this.

    This summit needs to offer new hope for citizens – a guarantee that when the dust settles it won’t be business as usual and that corrupt leaders and officials will not have impunity.

    That means commitments for more opening up of government data to citizens, using the latest technology to make it accessible and it means protections for whistleblowers.

    Civil society will continue to have a vital role helping to mobilise citizens to monitor their governments using all the new data available. And I hope that even more civil society groups can play a role in changing attitudes, and changing public expectation over what can be achieved in the fight against corruption.

    I also want to see civil society organisations building innovative partnerships with other players…in particular working in partnership with businesses to stop corruption.

    I look forward to hearing from you on how this could work in the next session.

    Conclusion

    So, in the end, this issue of tackling corruption is for everyone.

    Tackling corruption is not only morally the right thing to do – it’s in our national interest, it’s in every country’s national interest.

    This week is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for developed countries to get their house in order and for developing countries who suffer the most from corruption – and have the most to gain by stamping it out.

    There is no question that corruption matters wherever you are in the world, whoever you are and whatever field you represent.

    That’s why this Anti-Corruption Summit needs to stick – it can’t be a one-off, it has to be the start of a truly global movement to stamp out corruption.

    Governments need to live up to their promises – and civil society and businesses need to hold governments to account but also commit to learning and adapting from each other.

    We won’t eradicate all corruption at the summit tomorrow, but we are taking a crucial step in the journey. And I firmly believe that, with the right global effort, we can turn back the tide of corruption.

    We owe this to the poorest people in the world – we owe it to ourselves. The world and our global economy can’t afford not to tackle corruption. The world needs to look very different by 2020. Let’s make sure tomorrow’s summit is the crucial step to driving just that.

    Thank you.

  • Jack Lopresti – 2016 Speech on Parkrun and Organised Sporting Events

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jack Lopresti, the Conservative MP for Filton and Bradley Stoke, in Westminster Hall on 11 May 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered powers of local government to charge for organised sporting events.

    I have called the debate mainly to highlight an ongoing dispute between Stoke Gifford parish council in my constituency and Parkrun Ltd. It has now developed into a much bigger issue to do with the freedom, authority and ability of directly elected local councils to charge for organised sporting events in their parks and recreational areas. The other question is what actually constitutes an organised sporting event.

    The dispute has led to the intervention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who threatened—in a letter to the chairman of the parish council, Councillor Ernie Brown, who is present in the Public Gallery—to consider the use of legislation to stop Stoke Gifford parish council charging for organised sporting events in its park. In the autumn, I was contacted by a small number of local residents, and I passed their concerns on to the parish council, mindful of the fact that, ultimately, this is a matter for directly elected parish councillors.

    I want to say that, obviously, I fully support and understand the aims of Parkrun Ltd as an admirable organisation for getting people to do exercise. The fact that a small, local community idea, which started in Teddington, now provides organised runs every weekend in 850 locations and 12 countries throughout the world is fantastic. I understand that UK Parkrun Ltd attracts a large number of runners, with some 395 events every Saturday and Sunday. That is clearly great.

    Let me set the scene. Little Stoke park is used regularly by about 3,000 people for organised sporting events, including 12 regular football teams, 12 occasional football teams, four rugby teams, tag ruby league and Australian rules football, and it provides a 3G all-weather football pitch. Little Stoke park has a significant number of other, diverse user groups, amounting to about 1,000 people, who access the existing community hall facilities on a regular basis, and the venue also accommodates occasional bookings, which include the likes of children’s birthday parties and other one-off events. The general public have access to a range of other facilities on the site, including a BMX track, a Jurassic park and a children’s play area.

    In recent years, the average income generated from pitch and hall hire at Little Stoke park has been approximately £35,000 per year. Over that time, there has been considerable investment in the site’s large car park, of £55,000; in parks machinery, of £90,000; and in a large section of path, which has been converted into a pedestrian and cycle route and incorporates solar lighting in the ground to enhance the safety of park users. Furthermore, the construction costs of a 4 metre-wide path on one side of the park were £140,000, while the 3G pitch was also enhanced at a cost of £52,000 during the same period. That all shows me that we are talking about a sensible and responsible parish council, which is making sure that its park is well managed, with good outdoor facilities that can continue to be used well into the future.

    In the past three years, the parish council has welcomed Parkrun, but weekend runs organised by it had begun to dominate the park, with up to 300 runners arriving every weekend. The park is just over 30 acres and has 120 car parking spaces for visitors, but all the parking spaces are filled by the Parkrun runners on Saturday and Sunday mornings.

    Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)

    I hear what my hon. Friend has to say, but does he also agree that sport and, in particular, Parkrun have a really important role to play in bringing people from different backgrounds together, and bringing communities and women together—a lot of women enjoy a park run, with the camaraderie of other women? Obviously, there are cost issues, but does he not think that such activities should be encouraged, rather than discouraged?

    Jack Lopresti

    I am not, of course, seeking to discourage any such activities. As I said in my opening remarks, I appreciate fully what Parkrun does and is trying to achieve, and the benefits of that. The debate is about the ability of a local council to raise money for the maintenance of its facilities, and about what constitutes an organised sporting event, which I will come to later in my remarks.

    The parish council is not seeking a large amount from Parkrun Ltd—a contribution that would have equated to less than a pound a runner, put towards the maintenance and possible future enhancement of the facilities. The chairman of the parish council, Ernie Brown, even offered to apply for a grant for Parkrun—all Parkrun had to do was to ask him officially, but it has not done so. The parish council has also made it clear that the dispute is not about charging individual runners—just as it would not charge individuals who go for walks, or runs—but only about charging for regular organised events.

    Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)

    I am one of the vice-presidents of the Local Government Association, and I chair the all-party group on local democracy. That is on behalf of the National Association of Local Councils, which represents 7,000 town and parish councils. So I can understand what my hon. Friend’s parish council is going through. The Government talk about devolution and more local powers, so I am shocked that we have to have this debate, to be honest, especially as the council had gone to so much trouble even to get Parkrun involved and to help it apply for grants. How can we talk about devolving powers more locally, only for the Government to stick their nose in? How can that be right?

    Jack Lopresti

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we are talking about flies completely in the face of localism and the devolution agenda; a sledgehammer is being used to crack a nut, on an issue that should not be a matter for the Secretary of State or any national Department—this is a local matter.

    The point is, with up to 300 people turning up every Saturday and Sunday, and stewards organising and timing the runs, the event is most definitely an organised one. I run regularly in the Bristol half-marathon and the Bradley Stoke 10 km, both of which it is worth noting that I pay for—I accept that, because they are organised sporting events. This year, I know that the Bristol half costs £38, because I entered it in the past few days. Moreover, when my daughter, Sophie, as a teenager, played football for Stoke Lane Ladies at that very park, all the players had to pay £2.50 per game per week, to contribute to the maintenance of the park and its facilities. She has now gone to play rugby in America, while she is studying at university, which I am hugely proud of.

    The fact that Parkrun refuses to make a contribution, on principle, to the park for its events means that other local groups and organisations are beginning to question why they have to make a contribution, when Parkrun clearly does not. It is important to note that Parkrun in the UK is a limited company, and not a registered charity. Parkrun only publishes abbreviated accounts, so we cannot see whether it pays its directors or any staff—I have heard it does, but I cannot confirm that. Perhaps the Minister can help us with that in his remarks.

    Parkrun has numerous sponsors and supporters for which the full sponsorship details—how much and in return for what—are also not noted in the accounts. Sponsors listed on the website include Fitbit, Intersport, Alzheimer’s Research UK and VitalityHealth. The supporters listed include the London Marathon, the mobile phone company Three, and Muckle LLP, a law firm.

    People have made the point that Parkrun Ltd events are organised by local volunteers. That is great, but we must never forget that Stoke Gifford parish council are volunteers who work tirelessly for their local community, as do other volunteers who run many other organised sporting events in the park and make a financial contribution to its upkeep. Incidentally, Parkrun’s website has a shop link on it from which sales are made on behalf of Wiggle Ltd.

    I am not against Parkrun making profit and paying staff. I do, however, object to the argument that it should have the right to use Little Stoke park for free for organised events that dominate the park when all other local organisations have to pay to do so. The pressure that some of the Parkrun lobby have put on our democratically elected parish councillors has been appalling: they have received an influx of aggressive emails from non-constituents, 50 freedom of information requests and letters with threats of changes to the law from the Secretary of State. Parkrun has also threatened a judicial review, which would be massively expensive for a small parish council to fight and a further waste of local taxpayers’ money. I have been told, and I take this seriously, that some local councillors feel that a hate campaign is being waged against them.

    I would like to highlight some of the legislation referred to in the letters between the Secretary of State and Stoke Gifford parish council. Parish councils have the right to charge for organised sporting events under section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which gives local authorities the powers to provide various recreational facilities, including

    “premises for the use of clubs or societies having athletic, social or recreational objects”.

    The Act gives the local authority the power to provide those facilities

    “either without charge or on payment of such charges as the authority thinks fit.”

    The Secretary of State mentioned in a letter that, under section 151 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, he has general powers to make regulations to amend or revoke any pre-existing powers for the local authority to charge. However, having looked into that with the House of Commons Library, I see that section 152 of the 1989 Act, which defines the relevant authorities that section 151 refers to, does not include parish councils, which suggests that the Secretary of State cannot do that. Recent legislation that the Secretary of State and I voted on in the Localism Act 2011 allows local authorities the power of competence

    “to do anything that individuals generally may do.”

    Under that power, section 3 of the Act has provisions regarding charging, which, as far as I can see, the parish council meets.

    None of that has been tested in a court of law, and hopefully the Secretary of State would not like to embark on an expensive legal battle with a small parish council. Stoke Gifford parish council’s decision to charge Parkrun for the use of its local park is not a matter for central Government and that should remain the case. The truth of the matter is that Parkrun Ltd, however admirable, has become a victim of its own success: it has now reached a size that overwhelms local facilities, so—like other sporting organisations—it needs to make a contribution to the facilities it uses. I do not want to discourage runners—being one myself, I fully appreciate the benefits of keeping fit—but Parkrun Ltd is no longer a small voluntary group; it is an organisation with nearly a million users registered on its website.

    I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that we want people to be realistic about the actual cost of running local services and we want to promote the localism agenda by giving local representatives the power to run their facilities on behalf of local people as they deem fit. The Government have stated their commitment to devolving greater powers to local authorities, but an exception seems to be made when the local parish council does something that Secretary of State does not agree with.

  • Julie Cooper – 2016 Speech on Domestic Violence Refuges

    Below is the text of the speech made by Julie Cooper, the Labour MP for Burnley, in Westminster Hall on 11 May 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered Domestic Violence Refuges.

    Domestic violence is violence or abuse inflicted in the home by one adult on another, often in the context of an intimate relationship. It may be psychological, physical, sexual, emotional or a combination of these. I acknowledge that men may also be victims, but I intend to focus today on domestic violence against women and the support that is available in refuges.

    It is important to consider the scale of the problem. The Office for National Statistics revealed that in the last year domestic violence accounted for 16% of all violent crime and that 1.4 million women were victims. One in five children witnessed domestic violence and 62% of children living with domestic violence are directly harmed by the perpetrator, in addition to the harm caused by witnessing the abuse of others. Perhaps most shocking is the fact that two women are murdered in Britain every week by their partner or former partner. I am sure all hon. Members agree that that is appalling. These women need the Government’s support.

    The problem is not new. Back in 1874, Frances Power Cobbe wrote a paper, “Wife Torture in England”. When the then Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, read it, he apparently wept and promised there would be an inquiry. There was an inquiry, but the sad fact is that nothing of substance happened until 1971, when Erin Pizzey opened the first women’s refuge.

    Jenny Smith was an early beneficiary of Erin Pizzey’s refuge in Chiswick. I was moved when I heard her speak recently of the abuse she endured at the hands of her mentally unstable husband. The early 1970s was a time when there was no law against marital rape in the UK, when a lone woman could not apply for a mortgage and when domestic violence was rarely mentioned. Jenny Smith endured vicious beatings, knifings, burns, bites and attempted drowning. One day, she saw a tiny newspaper ad with a phone number offering help. She plucked up the courage to call and within hours she had left her home in Hackney, east London, and was standing outside the women’s refuge, an ordinary terraced house in west London, with her seven-month-old daughter on one arm and her 23-month-old at her side. She was safe.

    Instead of receiving support, victims of domestic violence are often criticised. How often we have heard: “It’s her own fault; she should have left him”? That is easy to say, but we must remember that, apart from the physical difficulty of escaping from a controlling, violent partner, women who have been abused, beaten and degraded have little confidence. Their self-esteem is at rock bottom. Sandra Horley, chief executive of Refuge, said:

    “Domestic violence is one of the only crimes where it can feel like the victim is being punished, rather than the perpetrator. Even with the full force of the law in place, there are many cases when a woman is not safe in her own home and where her ex-partner is determined to seek revenge. We know of women who have been too scared to leave their heavily locked homes to go to the shops, or who have sprinkler systems installed in case their former partner tries to burn the house down. They become prisoners. And when they do try to break free? We know of one woman who recently left her home to go to the shops, only to be followed by her abusive ex-partner. He viciously attacked and raped her to show that he was always watching; always in control.”

    Women’s refuges play a crucial role. They are so much more than a roof over a head. Lives are transformed as specialist refuge workers support women to stay safe and access health services and legal advocacy, and provide immigration advice. Most important of all, refuges are safe places in anonymous, secret locations where women can be sure they will not be tracked down by a violent partner. Refuges provide an invaluable service for those who need it most. Without adequate refuge provision, women experiencing domestic violence will be faced with a stark choice: flee to live rough on the streets or remain with their abuser and risk further violence or even worse.

    Earlier this year, the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), said in a written answer:

    “Under this Government, there are more refuge places than ever before.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 130W.]

    The hon. Lady is mistaken. Under this Conservative Government, 17% of refuges have been forced to close because of funding cuts. Erin Pizzey said recently:

    “The closing down of refuges over the last two years is a source of great worry for me. The majority of women coming into my refuge needed long-term therapeutic care with their children”.

    Despite two women being killed every week by domestic violence in our country, unprecedented funding cuts to local authorities mean refuges are being closed one by one, ending essential services that provide victims of domestic violence with a safe space, support, healthcare and everything else needed to rebuild a life shattered by abuse.

    The amount of money allocated to women’s refuges is not ring-fenced or protected by the Government. Instead, the majority of funding comes from local authorities. As they have been subject to drastic cuts, cash-strapped councils have been forced to close many refuges. Despite their life-or-death importance, refuges are often one of the first front-line services to go. In addition to the places that have been shut down altogether, many have been radically cut, with new time limits on length of stay. Research by Women’s Aid shows that 30% of the 145 domestic violence services asked said they expected to get 30% less funding than last year and a shocking 17% said they did not know whether they would get any local authority funding at all.

    On top of that, 48% of 167 domestic violence services in England said they were running services without any funding. Devon has been particularly badly hit by cuts and there are no refuges left. In my area, Lancashire County Council needs to save a further £262 million over the next four years, so it will no longer provide funding for the non-statutory part of the Supporting People budget. This funding is essential if we are to retain Lancashire’s nine refuges, which provide a lifeline for victims of domestic abuse across the county. In my constituency, 1,530 domestic abuse incidents were reported to the police in the last year. Many of the women admitted to the refuge were assessed to be at high risk of serious harm or homicide. When they escaped, they brought their babies, children and young people with them.

    Even before the latest round of funding cuts, demand for refuge accommodation far outstripped supply. At this time, when all the evidence shows that we need more refuges, Government funding cuts are forcing them to close. It is a fact that without long-term sustainable funding many more refuges will close and others will be forced to make experienced, trained staff redundant. Consequently, they will become little more than hostels. This is another worrying outcome. According to Women’s Aid:

    “The tendency towards funding generic rather than specialist domestic violence services will result in the loss of 35 years of acquired expertise in relation to domestic violence.”

    Currently, fewer than one in 10 local authorities run specialist domestic violence services and 32 of the domestic violence services that have closed since 2010 were specialist services for black and minority ethnic women. The closure of these services is dangerous for all women, particularly those who rely on specialist domestic violence services, such as women of colour or trans women.

    Escaping domestic violence is a traumatising and emotional process. These women have specific needs that are often not catered for by generic domestic violence services. It is vital that when an abused woman tries to escape from her abuser, she has somewhere to go. Many of the refuges that remain open have been forced to reduce their capacity, and Women’s Aid reports that 6,337 of the 20,000-plus women looking for help at a refuge were turned away last year. The most dangerous point of an abusive relationship is when women try to leave. Before embarking on an escape, they need to know that they have somewhere to go, because being forced to return to their abuser is unthinkably dangerous.

    David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)

    I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining the debate and pay tribute to Women’s Aid, which does tremendous work in my constituency. Does she agree that one difficulty in the past has been the reporting of domestic violence, whether it be sexual or another type of violence? In my area, we found that domestic violence was not separated from social violence; the figures were not there. We have now managed to achieve that and are seeing the true figure, and I have seen a big increase in domestic violence in my constituency during the past 12 months. It is important that it is reported.

    Julie Cooper

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I totally agree: the first step to tackling domestic violence is ensuring that it is recognised and reported as such.

    Another worrying effect of the funding cuts is that many local authorities are introducing local connection rules, meaning that only local women can access support. When refuges are not permitted to take women from outside their area, women whose safety depends on their putting distance between themselves and the world of their abuser have nowhere to go.

    The Government actions to cut local authority budgets mean that there is no longer any sustainable funding for women’s refuges. The Government’s actions are shamefully irresponsible. In March 2015, the Government provided £10 million for domestic violence services to support the national network of specialist refuges and, in December 2015, a further £3 million of funding for domestic violence support. That additional emergency funding for specialist domestic violence services was welcomed, but it is no substitute for the provision of long-term, sustainable funding.

    I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), has confirmed, in answer to a question from me, that the Government intend to provide

    “£80 million of dedicated funding up to 2020 to tackle violence against women and girls. This funding will provide core support for refuges and other accommodation-based services, a network of rape support centres and national helplines”.

    I was also pleased to hear that in April 2017 a new violence against women and girls service transformation fund will be introduced. That fund will

    “support local programmes which encourage new approaches that incorporate early intervention, establish and embed the best ways to help victims and their families, and prevent perpetrators from re-offending.”

    The Minister said that the criteria for applications to the fund

    “will be published in due course.”

    That announcement raises more questions than it answers. When exactly will the application process open? When will the criteria be announced? How much of that funding will refuges be able to access? Will the funds made available be enough to prevent any more closures? Does the Minister here today know how urgent the situation is? Is he mindful of the fact that two women are murdered every day? Many of the refuges are the difference between life and death and they are set to close. Without clearly defined, sustainable funding, other refuges will be forced to shed staff—staff who already have the expertise to know the best ways to help victims.

    I hope that in his response to the debate the Minister will provide answers to those important questions. I also hope that he will let the Chancellor of the Exchequer know that at the end of every cut he makes to local authorities, there is a woman who will die, avoidably, at the hands of a man who once promised to love her. Cuts to public spending are creating orphans who could have grown up with parents. I beg the Minister to ensure that this Government do not unravel 40 years of good work. I beg him to listen and to act without delay.

  • Baroness Neville-Rolfe – 2016 Speech on Intellectual Property

    baronessnevillerolfe

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State and Minister for Intellectual Property, in London on 10 May 2016.

    Good morning, and welcome to the Department for Business. Today I am going to be talking about some of the challenges we are facing from the meteoric growth of illegal streaming services.

    I am also going to discuss how we might work together to tackle this challenge head on, and that of course starts with you in this room.

    But first, I want to talk about the wider enforcement landscape for intellectual property, the role of government, and to explain the framework that we have developed to guide our work over the coming years.

    Intellectual property has been very important to the UK for a long time. We were at the forefront of developing patent rights. I understand that there is some evidence of a patent like system in ancient Greece, but in England, John Kempe and his company were granted letters patent in 1331. That’s nearly 200 years before Columbus reached America.

    Similarly with the Statute of Anne in 1710, the UK effectively invented the concept of copyright. Now there are 170 states signed up to the Berne convention.

    Again with trade marks, the first trade mark legislation was passed by the English parliament, in 1266.

    And of course we have made good use of these intellectual property rights once they were brought into being. The UK has led the world in publishing. Only 7 fiction books have ever sold more than 100 million copies, and 5 of those were from British authors. And to be clear I’m not including the Bible, or the Quran in the fiction category – there’s a headline I don’t want to be reading tomorrow.

    Again with music, there have only been 7 artists so far to sell over 250 million records – and 4 of them were from the UK.

    And of course we have, and continue to be, at the forefront of technological innovation protected by patents. From steam engines, to televisions, to graphene, again the UK punches well above its weight, and we are investing in great initiatives like the Digital Catapult, to spur ever more innovation.

    But of course I don’t need to tell you how central IP is to the UK. Most of you here in this room work in professions, or for companies that would not exist without IP rights, the licensing that takes place with those rights, and the investment that supports in content, in technology and in brands.

    The problem we all face, is working out how we can ensure that these valuable IP rights are usable, and how we can ensure that their value is preserved in the face of relentless infringement on an enormous scale.

    Professor Hargreaves stated it quite plainly in his 2010 report:

    IP rights cannot succeed in their core economic function of incentivising innovation if rights are disregarded or are too expensive to enforce. Ineffective rights regimes are worse than no rights at all…

    And that is where government comes in.

    We often say that IP rights are private rights. In some cases the appropriate redress is through the civil courts, and rights holders can be left to get on with it. The problem is that when infringement is so widespread, and so damaging, that legitimate businesses are in danger of collapse, then that is no longer a private matter.

    We are a government that stands right behind businesses, creators and innovators of all types. We cannot sit by while rights that have been developed over a long time to nurture innovation and encourage investment, are rendered useless. This is true whether it is caused by the deliberate behaviour of serious infringers, or by the unthinking actions of people who just don’t appreciate the harm that is caused by watching free streaming sites or buying bargain counterfeit goods.

    In our manifesto we pledged to make Britain the best place in Europe to innovate, patent new ideas and set up and expand a business. We pledged to protect intellectual property by continuing to require internet service providers to block sites that carry large amounts of illegal content. And we have pledged to build on our voluntary anti-piracy projects to warn internet users when they are breaching copyright, and to work to ensure that search engines do not link to the worst offending sites.

    To sum things up more broadly than these specific pledges, we are committed to ensuring that the bargain between creator and the IP system is honoured. There must be a framework which supports the effective and appropriate enforcement of all IP rights. That framework has to be accessible, and it must keep pace with new models and channels of infringement.

    I am taking the opportunity of this seminar today to launch our new strategy, ‘Protecting creativity, supporting innovation: IP enforcement 2020’. This document lays out the areas that we see as the most pressing priorities, and some of the work that we see as most necessary to make sure that IP enforcement works.

    In some ways we start from a favourable position. The UK has done well in recent years, being ranked highly for its IP system, and its enforcement environment in particular. But we must work tirelessly to keep ahead of the game.

    The first piece of this puzzle, and the reason we have organised this seminar today, is to ensure that we know our enemy. Good evidence, and clear intelligence, about the harm caused by infringement and the business models that facilitate and profit from it, are central to an effective response.

    That is why I have asked the Intellectual Property Office to develop a robust methodology for measuring the harm caused by IP infringement. I have tasked them with developing a comprehensive scoreboard to be published annually, combining data on the prevalence of civil and criminal IP infringement with the outcomes of enforcement activity and the best available estimates of their impact.

    This means better reporting in the criminal justice system, better reporting of court cases and a deeper understanding of consumer behaviours and emerging trends. The IPO has been supporting industry and enforcement agencies with its IP Crime Intelligence Hub, and has built links into the police and trading standards to share that intelligence.

    We must also stem the tide of infringing material online. The Prime Minister has announced a universal service obligation for broadband of 10 megabytes for every household by 2020. That will be amazing for consumers and legitimate online businesses, but an open door for pirates to push out yet more infringing content.

    We need to make it easier for consumers to recognise legitimate content, and to understand the harm caused by piracy. We also need to find a new model for notice and takedown which does not require rights holders to send millions of notices only to see the same content reposted as soon as it is taken down.

    We have had some successes here, with the creation of the Infringing Website List now beginning to starve pirate sites of the advertising money they need to survive, but we must push this approach out further, to other intermediaries and to other territories.

    Of course despite this focus on exciting new technologies and the online world we cannot afford to take our eyes off the physical world either. Counterfeiting remains a huge problem – causing harm for brand owners in lost sales and harming consumers with substandard and sometimes dangerous goods.

    We will continue to provide a dedicated intelligence resource to help enforcement agencies tackle counterfeiting. We will continue to tell anyone who will listen about the deep rooted and well proven links between IP crime and other criminal behaviour. We will champion the use of Proceeds of Crime seizures in IP investigations. Again – we don’t just want to follow the money, we want to take it back from the criminals who have stolen it.

    Now I spoke earlier about the idea that IP is a private right, and I hope I explained why I believe government has a central role to play in this fight. But I also believe that the most effective remedies come from helping people to help themselves.

    Our strategy also commits us to look at the entirety of the legal framework, to ensure that whatever type of infringement, and whatever the IP right, creators and innovators are able to access recourse that is effective, and proportionate.

    We have announced our intention to toughen penalties for online copyright infringement. We have also called on the EU as part of their work on the digital single market to protect the system of website blocking injunctions we have developed in the UK, and to ensure those same injunctions are available in other member states.

    But we are also looking at new areas where we might need to create new legal tools to tackle new modes of infringement.

    We will look for example at whether or not new legislation is needed to respond to the role of fulfilment houses, an odd term I know, and drop shippers in the distribution of counterfeit goods.

    Following today’s discussions we will look at the legislation around set-top boxes, and whether we have enough effective remedies to tackle their misuse.

    We will also look across the framework, to ensure that there are effective sanctions, when there is infringement to be tackled.

    Set-top boxes capable of accessing infringing broadcasts were initially an issue in business premises especially of pubs taking the opportunity to screen football matches without a valid subscription.

    But more recently, as we will hear later, these set-top boxes have entered the mainstream consumer market. And I can see the appeal. If the only factor guiding a purchase decision is price, then a set-top box which allows you to watch countless premium channels for a modest one off payment is an attractive option.

    But perhaps this also gives us an insight into the solution. We must work to educate consumers as to what exactly their bargain entails. If they knew that by buying these boxes and watching infringing streams they were directly damaging the future of their favourite programmes they might think twice.

    This is not an easy message to get across. But in truth this is the tragedy of the commons writ large. Consumers understand that deliberate infringement has consequences, but many don’t think they themselves really bear any responsibility. That is the mind-set we have to change.

    Working with businesses to promote diverse sources of legal content will help to ensure that ‘it’s easier to infringe’ or ‘I can’t get it elsewhere’ are no longer valid excuses for infringement.

    And educating consumers directly as to the effect their choices have, following the mould of the ‘Get it Right from a Genuine Site’ campaign, will help us build momentum for behaviour change.

    IP is by its nature international. We will continue to engage closely with Europe in the light of the current digital single market programme.

    But looking further afield a 2014 UKTI survey found that 1 in 4 UK businesses were deterred from entering an overseas market due to the risk of IP theft.

    While some of this can be written off to unfamiliarity, language barriers, different legal systems and so on, there is clearly a real challenge for us here as well.

    That is why our strategy also lays out our plans to build on the IP attaché network, to build influence in key UK markets and provide training and practical support to emerging markets, and to strengthen our links with established trading partners.

    We will continue to share best practice with law enforcement and judiciary overseas, and we will continue to engage operationally where infringing activity crosses borders.

    As I have mentioned, the issue of set-top boxes is a perfect example of a modern IP enforcement challenge.

    Set-top boxes and IPTV constitute a disruptive technology. Both the boxes, and the online services which they access have legitimate uses, but they have been subverted on a massive scale.

    The business of satellite and cable broadcasting is a multi-billion pound industry in Europe and brings a wide range of cultural, sporting, educational and leisure programmes to an immense audience.

    Broadcast content is an area where the UK has a strong position. The reach of content like the English Premier League is truly global and there is hardly a corner of the earth that does not know about Manchester United and other British teams. I understand Leicester City led to chanting in the streets in Thailand and is being wooed for a Harvard Case Study.

    Now broadcasting has come a long way since John Logie-Baird demonstrated the first working TV. The days of a monolithic central broadcaster producing all of their own content and beaming it out into the world with a big transmission tower are long gone.

    Broadcasters and content owners today support a massive network of jobs and industry. In addition the infrastructure of the delivery companies creates employment and revenue that benefits the community and governments as well as shareholders.

    Examples of this ecosystem include the domestic manufacturing industry that makes the receiver kit – decoders, the software industry that provides the systems and the security around them, the call centres that handle consumer issues…the list goes on.

    The value of protecting the delivery of pay to view broadcasts was and has been recognised in the extension of legislation to protect the decoders necessary to receive the signal, allowing subscription services to generate income. It is already illegal to circumvent the security of such devices.

    However as technology has developed and broadband speeds have increased, it is now entirely possible to receive programmes in high quality over the internet avoiding the use of decoders entirely.

    Quite simply the original broadcast is captured at illegal data centres that can be located anywhere and is then re-transmitted as streamed signals over the internet.

    Set-top boxes, which I must stress have perfectly legitimate uses, are then supplied pre-loaded with apps that can either be used to subscribe to an illegal site or get content for free whilst the site operator generates income from advertising.

    These devices have quickly become widely available. In the first instance they appeared in pubs and clubs and the industry has invested huge time and effort in challenging them, However, they are now so prevalent that individual consumers are buying them in their droves, and getting free access to copyright material from any broadcaster, anywhere in the world.

    The threat this poses to the industry is huge and already we have seen specialist providers such as one London-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) serving the ex-pat Chinese community being put out of business, with the loss of 50 jobs in London.

    But this is not an easy problem to crack. The industry in the UK has done everything to ensure that where action can be taken it is. And we are confident that data centres streaming content illegally are very rare in the UK. But the internet knows no borders, and services based in more tolerant regimes overseas are having a direct impact upon our broadcasters, and our content creators.

    We also have the fact that the devices themselves are not illegal – as I have mentioned they have legitimate uses and we cannot forget that.

    Because it is the use they are put to, rather than the devices themselves which are the problem – it is unlikely that they can be successfully regulated like de-coders. In any case as smart TVs become more widely used set-top boxes will not be needed, as the TV itself will just need the right apps to access illegal content.

    But this does not mean we are powerless. Officials in the UK and Europe have sought to influence our Chinese colleagues, so that they consider how they might restrict their manufacture and supply. I myself have visited China as a minister and have discussed exactly these sort of issues.

    We are also acting at home, to prove to the world that we are willing to clean up our own back yard as well and tackle the demand side of the equation. Recently arrests have been made under conspiracy to defraud legislation, targeting those criminals who commercially order and supply set-top boxes with the intention that they will be used to illegally receive IPTV.

    We think this is an effective approach and our work has been a major help to Hong Kong Customs in developing their own ability to prosecute traders in set-top boxes using similar legislation.

    But despite these small glimmers of light, it is clear that we need some new thinking in this area. The satellite and cable industries and broadcasters continue to invest in better security and enforcement, but it is also clear that the criminals are serious and this sort of organised crime generates huge profits.

    It is no coincidence that data centres for illegal streaming services tend to be concentrated in places like Russia and the Ukraine and are linked closely to dedicated fraud sites.

    Now this is the part of the speech where I would love to be able to propose a solution, or to announce some targeted new law which would make everything better, but we are not there yet. That is why we have asked you here today. We must first gather the evidence and intelligence we need. Only then can we look at the legislative framework, at the role of education and awareness raising, and at how we can facilitate closer work within the industries affected.

    There is no single device or clever trick which solve these sort of problems, but as our strategy lays out, we need instead to develop and maintain an entire toolbox of interventions and remedies.

    I very much look forward to hearing more from you all on this very topical subject, and I hope that by the end of today we have moved at least a little forwards in developing a few new tools for our collective toolbox.

  • Justine Greening – 2016 Speech to European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Meeting

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, to the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development annual meeting in London on 11 May 2016.

    I’m delighted to be here with you at the EBRD’s 25th Annual Board of Governors meeting.

    Over the last quarter of a century the EBRD has played a unique and powerful role on the world stage, helping countries transition towards market orientated economies and democratic principles.

    More than 30 countries, from Bulgaria, to Mongolia, to Jordan, to Tunisia now benefit from the Bank’s investment and expertise.

    My key message today is that in our age of crisis, with all the challenges the world is facing, a strong and effective EBRD – an international institution with a European heart – has never been more important. More than ever we need the private sector to be centre stage in tackling the global challenges we face – and the EBRD’s leadership on this remains absolutely essential.

    We know the world is facing unprecedented challenges to our global prosperity and global security.

    Uncertainty in the markets, the threat of climate change, the impact of protracted displacement crises such as we are seeing in Syria and the region.

    And the reality is we have a shared responsibility for meeting these challenges. If we choose to neglect the problems beyond our borders today – they become our own tomorrow.

    So we must work together to tackle the root causes of poverty and instability.

    The past 25 years have shown us that trying to build development and to help transition in any country without a solid foundation of peace and stability simply doesn’t work.

    Stability is not only about war and conflict – it’s about countries having strong economies, a strong private sector, healthy and educated populations and, crucially, it’s about the strength of their institutions.

    Today, we are gathered in the City of London – the world’s leading financial centre and home to many multinational firms. And not too far from this building you will also find the sites of many of Britain’s great institutions from the London Stock Exchange, to the Bank of England, to the Royal Courts of Justice.

    These institutions were vital to Britain’s own development. Without rule of law, without parliamentary democracy, without open markets – Britain would never have prospered in the way we have – and that’s true for so many of the countries represented here.

    So institutions matter – to citizens and to businesses as well. And it’s not only national institutions that matter – the strength of our international institutions is critical as well. The UN, the World Bank, the IMF and, of course, the EBRD.

    Twenty-five years ago when this Bank was formed, just after the Berlin Wall had fallen and with it, symbolically, Europe’s Iron Curtain. It was a time of great hope but also great uncertainty. There were no guarantees that former Soviet bloc countries could easily transition into democratic, market orientated economies.

    But in response the world’s leaders did not sit back and wait to see what happened. Just as they had once forged new alliances after the Second World War – the end of the Cold War paved the way for new and enduring partnerships, and ultimately a more stable, more peaceful, more prosperous Europe.

    The EBRD was formed with a unique economic and political mission – that focused on the creation of open market economies in countries committed to multi-party democracy and pluralism.

    And the Bank has played a critical role supporting: banking systems reform; the liberalisation of markets; replacing inefficient state monopolies with greater competition; and the creation of proper legal frameworks for property rights.

    This has helped foster the kind of open societies and open economies where jobs, growth and enterprise can thrive – and individual rights to liberty and property are safeguarded. All of which, in turn, opens the door to greater private sector investment and a virtuous circle of growth.

    Of course the challenges of 25 years ago are different from the challenges we face today. The EBRD has to evolve and adapt in a changing, and often turbulent, world.

    And under Sir Suma’s leadership the EBRD is rising to this challenge.

    In response to the Arab Spring, the EBRD rapidly expanded into the Southern and Middle Eastern Mediterranean countries region – with support from the UK and others.

    In light of the economic and financial challenges facing Ukraine, and in recognition of the new government’s resolve to undertake comprehensive reforms and combat corruption, the EBRD has reconfirmed its commitment to support Ukraine in this reform process. In fact the Bank is the largest international financial investor in Ukraine.

    And I’m pleased that the EBRD and the UK will be collaborating on our response to the refugee crisis in Jordan.

    At the London Syria Conference earlier this year, the international community took its first step in recognising the global public good that neighbouring countries like Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey are providing by hosting the vast majority of Syria’s 4.6 million refugees.

    Together the world pledged vital, record-breaking billions to meet the urgent humanitarian needs – and made historic commitments to provide education, jobs and, in doing so, hope for refugees stuck in a permanent emergency situation.

    Again, the EBRD will play its part and has already engaged with government agencies, donors and other stakeholders to identify where and what investment is needed. As a result the UK has agreed a £30 million grant to the EBRD to support a series of investments in Northern Jordan. This will focus, firstly, on improving overstretched infrastructure in refugee-hosting cities.

    And, following the crucial commitments at the London Syria Conference to open up work permits to up to 200,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan, the EBRD will help deliver some of these opportunities by identifying skills and engaging with the private sector to offer training and work based learning opportunities and routes into jobs.

    I also want to commend the EBRD and Sir Suma for your work promoting inclusion, in particular the Bank’s strategy for the promotion of gender equality.

    It is now increasingly recognised that women’s economic empowerment is one of the biggest potential levers we have for boosting global prosperity. That’s why the UN Secretary General has set up the UN’s first ever High Level Panel to kick-start a global movement on women’s economic empowerment – and I’m proud to be one of the founding members of this Panel.

    The EBRD has a crucial role, working with businesses, to create new opportunities for women’s economic participation. As much as any other reform law, it is how we underpin and unlock growth.

    I believe it’s critical that all of us working together – including the EBRD – continue to up our game on this and break down the remaining barriers that prevent girls and women from fulfilling their potential and contributing fully to the global economy. We can’t afford not to.

    In today’s world, with all the challenges we face, the EBRD’s mission is as relevant and as important as ever.

    Aid alone will not be enough for delivering sustainable development and global prosperity – we need business, more jobs, growth and enterprise. And that means dramatically increasing and improving our performance in leveraging private sector financing.

    The UK believes that the EBRD with its in-depth knowledge, experience and expertise must be at the heart of helping to solve some of the most difficult and urgent challenges we face – whether that’s the displacement of people and the refugee crisis or helping countries transition to low carbon economies or empowering women economically.

    The EBRD, by committing to its private sector mission, by continuing to concentrate more of its efforts and resources in the poorest and most fragile areas it works in, and by focusing on inclusion, gender equality and results, can and must play a fundamental role in delivering sustainable, inclusive development over the next 25 years, working alongside other multilateral organisations.

    A quarter of a century ago investing in former soviet bloc countries was morally the right thing to do – but it was right for our national interests too.

    Today we have a fresh set of complex global challenges but we need to show the same determination, innovation and ambition.

    Then, as now, our best chance of rising to the challenges we face is by working in partnership – working together to build the more stable, peaceful and prosperous world we all want. With the EBRD continuing to play a central, unique role on behalf of our continent.

    Thank you.

  • John Whittingdale – 2016 Speech on the Business of Sport

    johnwhittingdale

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Whittingdale, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to the Business of Sport Conference on 11 May 2016.

    It is a pleasure to be here with you at this Business of Sport conference, not least following this country having just seen one of the most extraordinary sporting achievements of all time.

    I will leave it to others to determine whether Leicester City’s Premiership triumph is a bigger shock than Boris Becker winning Wimbledon at seventeen, or Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson, or indeed what Brian Clough achieved with Derby County and Nottingham Forest.

    Two things are certain, however: what Leicester have done has got the whole world even more excited about English football – and Keith Vaz is going to keep wearing his Leicester City scarf unless someone can wrestle it off him.

    It has been an exciting year across all of sport. I have had the good fortune to attend – amongst other events – three huge sporting occasions here in the UK. Wimbledon. The British Grand Prix. And the Rugby World Cup.

    The first two are annual staples, and among the most celebrated sporting events on the planet. The Rugby World Cup, meanwhile, was widely seen as the best ever. It was a real testament to the appetite for live sport in this country that – despite England’s exit after just three games – fans still filled stadia up and down the country throughout the tournament. And that appetite for sport has helped to make it big business in the UK.

    Sport is a key element of the Government’s broader growth agenda – and a highly successful one.

    The Premier League is the best on Earth. Not only are more fans than ever watching in fantastic stadiums, it is one of this country’s most recognised brands – generating £3.4 billion in GVA in 2013/14 and supporting more than 100,000 jobs. 800,000 tourists attended a match last year. The Premier League is broadcast to 730 million homes in 185 countries.

    Sport-related consumer spending is worth around £30 billion annually. Motorsport Valley in the Home Counties employs 40,000 people in 3,500 companies.

    The Tour de France’s 2014 visit to Yorkshire added £100 million to that county’s economy, and helped draw the world’s attention to the beautiful Dales.

    There is of course a very strong link between sport and the tourism sector – for which my department is also responsible.

    Just as cycling has enticed people to Yorkshire, so football entices them to Manchester and Liverpool, and tennis brings them to Eastbourne and London.

    The sport-tourism link also supports a wide range of jobs in hotels, bars, restaurants, sports marketing and much else besides. One of the reasons that the Government is so much in favour of hosting international sporting events is the economic boost they give to cities and towns.

    The Cricket World Cup is coming here in 2019, providing opportunities for places like Southampton, Taunton and Durham.

    In 2017, Cardiff will host the Champions League Final.

    When Wembley hosted the same event in 2013, London was awash with the red of Bayern Munich and the yellow of Borussia Dortmund – many fans coming over to sample the atmosphere – and spend money – even though an estimated 100,000 didn’t have a ticket for the game.

    The Rugby World Cup generated nearly a billion pounds, and provided some terrific entertainment – such as Japan’s historic victory over South Africa. The Rugby League World Cup in 2013 was also a big success – with the final enjoying the biggest ever crowd for a rugby league international.

    Most impressive of all, the overall impact of hosting the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics is expected to be as high as £41 billion of GVA. London was an incredible place to be throughout both.

    And we now have the NFL starting to bring games to this country, with three further games this year. This will provide another massive boost. And if a franchise locates here permanently, that will only increase.

    A lot of the money that sport in this country generates comes via television rights.

    Television has had a revolutionary impact on sport. It famously transformed the domestic popularity of snooker several decades ago, but that enthusiasm has now spread to China – and indeed China’s Ding Junhui recently came within a few frames of becoming the first Asian world champion.

    Sky – and now as well BT – have generated huge sums for the sports they screen, whilst helping to grow and sustain interest and participation.

    We do not propose to reopen discussion on Listed Sporting Events. Rather than dictate to individual sports, I believe that it is better to allow national governing bodies and other rights-holders to decide for themselves the right balance between reaching a wide audience and generating as much revenue for their sport as they can. But it is our view that the starting point should always be how to ensure the broadest audience can experience live sport.

    The consultation leading up to our sports strategy found a widespread eagerness for more coverage of smaller sports and women’s sport. This is something I very much wish to encourage. I know, for example, that weightlifting fans think that Eurosport’s coverage of the sport has been excellent.

    I also welcome the Premier League cap of £30 for away supporters for the next three seasons, funded – in part – by their record-breaking TV deal. And I applaud the efforts of some clubs in the Football League to reduce season ticket prices and introduce concessions for young fans. I hope to see much more of this.

    A principle of the Voluntary Code of Conduct on the Broadcasting of Major Sporting Events is that a minimum of 30 per cent of net broadcasting revenue is put back into grassroots development within that sport. This is very welcome.

    Whenever a sport makes significant money from a television deal, I hope it will plough a substantial amount into its grassroots.

    For the grassroots of sport are critically important. We want people of all ages and abilities to be inspired to make sport a central part of their lives.

    The benefits of this are huge and varied. We know that sport has a positive impact on health, crime, wellbeing and social cohesion. It also has an economic impact. Physical activity adds £39 billion to the UK economy every year – half of which comes from people’s involvement in grassroots sport. The more people get active, the more the economy grows. It’s a virtuous circle.

    This was why my excellent Minister for Sport, Tracey Crouch, launched our new Sports Strategy last year, which explores the many ways we can get many more people active. This includes our consulting on how the corporation tax system might expand support for grassroots sport.

    We are determined to back all levels of sport. I also want to see the elite end of sport pulling its weight and supporting the grassroots on which it depends.

    After all, in 2012 Jamie Vardy was playing for Fleetwood Town. Now he has several England caps and a Premiership winner’s medal.

    Moreover – as I am always quick to remind anyone who will listen – Alastair Cook started his career at Maldon Cricket Club, of which I am a Vice-President. He is an honorary life member and regular visitor – a useful reminder that all the best sportsmen and women remember where they came from and that sport belongs to all of us.

    I recently met Leon Smith – the brilliant captain of the first GB team to win the Davis Cup since 1936. It was a superb achievement, but I was equally pleased to learn that one of the first things he did after that win was to use the momentum created to start enthusing more youngsters to play the sport.

    Along with Annabel Croft he is overseeing a scheme called “Tennis for Kids”, working with coaches to get children involved in the sport and to create an environment where they don’t just try tennis but stick with it. It is great to see elite coaches and athletes give back to their sport in this way.

    Some governing bodies have done good work too – such as the RFU through its CBRE All Schools programme, which aims to increase the amount of rugby in schools and encourage new players to join local clubs. The RFU invested 32.5m last year in the grassroots game, an increase of 5 per cent from previous year.

    And we are also extremely fortunate to have so many unpaid volunteers up and down the country – without whom sport would collapse. We are supporting those volunteers and the grassroots, where some of our best talent starts.

    The Premier League, which will earn over £5 billion over three seasons, already makes a significant investment in the grassroots of the game. However, the fact that it goes from strength to strength should have a commensurate impact on the lower levels of the sport.

    The Premier League has agreed with the Government that it will at least double its investment into community football over the coming three seasons. That means over £100 million for the next three years will go to grassroots facilities and programmes where it is needed the most.

    The funding details are dependent on the outcome of the Ofcom investigation into the sale of the Premier League’s audio-visual rights in the UK. Government does not control the timing of this, but will maintain a keen interest in how it develops.

    The British public has an immense appetite for sport – as participants and spectators. We must not, however, abuse that position.

    There has been a spate of shocking allegations and revelations in recent months. What has happened at FIFA is reprehensible and appalling. Accusations of match-fixing in tennis and snooker and allegations of doping in athletics are deeply disquieting.

    This is damaging the reputation of sport. All corruption must be rooted out and dealt with. It is vitally important that sports bodies at home and abroad uphold the highest standards of governance, transparency and accountability.

    Tomorrow, the Prime Minister is hosting an international Anti-Corruption Summit, the first of its kind. He will be welcoming international governments, businesses and organisations leading the fight against all corruption, including sports bodies.

    It is the right thing to do. Government invests millions in sport, and has a responsibility to the taxpayer and Lottery player to see that their money is well spent. We have a responsibility to tackle corruption wherever it is to be found, whether in sport or anywhere else.

    We want to inspire other governments to take a similarly robust position. Across the world, governments are the single biggest investor in sport – whether in the grassroots, elite funding or major events.

    Domestically, we have a good record, but more needs to be done, especially if we are to lead the world by example. UK Sport and Sport England are drafting a domestic code, which will be launched later in the year. It will include new rules on governance, financial transparency and diversity.

    There are cases where certain minimum standards are not being met, in regard to independence, conflicts of interest and term limits. This is a betrayal of athletes and the public alike. In future, where these standards are not met, we will not invest public money.

    I was disappointed to learn that the FA have again rejected the opportunity to reform their out-dated and unrepresentative governance model.

    So I will be writing to the FA to make clear that if they don’t make sufficient progress on reform, they will not get a penny of taxpayers’ money in the future. We would look instead to route money for grassroots football to other organisations that will adhere to the code of good governance.

    It is also vitally important that fans continue to feel connected to their clubs.

    In January the Government’s Expert Working Group published a report on football supporter ownership and engagement. It has been well received by the football authorities and by supporters’ groups.

    The report contained proposals on improving dialogue between fans and clubs and about making it more realistic for fans to bid for ownership of their club, when such opportunities arise.

    From next season, club owners will be expected to talk with a representative group of supporters about matters of strategic importance – giving them more information and a chance to hold key people to account.

    This year will be another momentous one for sport. We have three major events in Euro 2016, the Olympics and Paralympics.

    We are looking forward to an exciting European Championship in France and wish the English, Welsh and Northern Irish teams good luck for a successful tournament.

    Memories of the London Olympics and Paralympics in 2012 are still fresh in all our minds, and the Government remains committed to their legacy. We had an excellent settlement in the Autumn

    Statement, whereby we are increasing central government funding for elite sport. We want to keep the medals count up at Rio this year and Tokyo in 2020!

    Sport is something that we are great at. It is one of our biggest drivers of talent, it boosts our economy, it gives us international clout and national pride, and it is hugely enjoyable.

    This government is making a record investment in sport, because sport in this country has the potential to be even bigger and better.

    We want to see all corruption sniffed out and strangled, and as many people as possible from all backgrounds enjoy the multiple benefits of a sporting life.

    We will therefore continue to implement all the goals in our sports strategy, and we will continue to work with all of you, to deliver all these benefits.

    Thank you.

  • Chi Onwurah – 2016 Speech on Housing in Newcastle

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, in Westminster Hall on 10 May 2016.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered housing in Newcastle.

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to have secured this short debate on a subject that is so critical to my constituents.

    I am sure that everyone present is an avid reader of my website, chionwurahmp.com, and so will know that I publish pie charts that summarise the issues that constituents come to me with. At the moment, March’s pie charts are up, showing that I dealt with 36 housing issues that month—just behind the 37 benefits issues. Since I was first elected six years ago, housing has consistently been in the top three issues in Newcastle upon Tyne Central, and often No. 1, which is why I have secured several debates on housing and related issues, including on empty properties in 2012 and on local authority funding settlements and holdbacks in 2013.

    Earlier this year, I held a ward summit in Blakelaw in my constituency that was attended by local councillors, residents groups and other organisations. The minutes are on my website, and show that, again, housing was the No. 1 issue. Late last year, I held another ward summit, in Benwell and Scotswood, where housing was also the No. 1 issue. Just last week, I held an informal surgery with the Sisters Study Circle group at the Tawheed mosque in Elswick, and housing was of great concern to them.

    Why, I was asked, is it now next to impossible to get a council house in Newcastle? I tried to explain that there are 6,000 households on the waiting list, of which 4,000 are actively bidding for properties, but only 185 properties become available each month. I also explained that much of the council housing stock has been sold off and that, really, it was now available only to those with the greatest need. “Why did the Government not build more houses?”, they asked me. “Did they not realise the impact bad housing has on health, crime and education? How can young people focus on studying or getting a job if they haven’t got a decent roof over their head? How can parents give children the support they need if they are worrying where they are going to be living next week?”

    After some time, I grew tired of trying to explain the Government’s logic while at the same time thinking, “I myself don’t understand.” My job is not to justify the Government but to hold them to account. I am sure the Minister agrees that my constituents are right to be concerned about the lack of housing in Newcastle. I applied for this debate to find out from him exactly how he believes Newcastle City Council can overcome the barriers preventing it from building more houses to improve the lives of the thousands of people in my constituency who need a decent home.

    Last year, the Government presided over the building of just 9,590 homes for social rent, compared with the 33,180 delivered in Labour’s last year in office. Last year’s was the lowest level of affordable homes built for more than two decades. Having knocked on a great many doors over the last few weeks—indeed, over the last few years—I know that they bear testament to the last Labour Government’s investment in our housing stock. Labour could, and should, have built even more homes, but the decent homes programme—visible in new doors, windows, kitchens, bathrooms and the very fabric of so many homes in Newcastle—effectively renewed the existing stock so that it could last for another generation.

    That programme contrasts with this Government’s record of cutting investment and of building just one new social home for every eight sold off through right to buy—a Government whose use of the term “affordable rent” is not recognisable to most people; who thought up the unfair bedroom tax, which has affected half a million households; and who have overseen a 22% rise in private rents in Newcastle since 2011, when incomes have barely risen at all.

    Newcastle is a growing city. It is estimated that by 2021 there will be 16,200 more people living in our great city, and the Government have a duty to ensure that local authorities have the means—both the funding and the powers—to provide the homes that local people need. Newcastle needs 16,400 new homes between now and March 2030: around 1,000 new homes per year, not including student accommodation for those studying at our world-class universities. Residents quite rightly do not want to lose any of our fantastic greenfield assets in and around Newcastle, so much of the land available for building these homes for Newcastle is brownfield, with high clean-up costs.

    Providing the homes required in such circumstances is already a huge challenge for the council, given the ideologically and politically driven extent of the cuts to central Government funding, yet the Government seem insistent on piling on further pressure and putting further barriers in the way. The 1% cut in social housing rent over the next four years will leave a hole of £593 million in the council’s 30-year financial model—that is £0.6 billion. That investment was earmarked for building the homes that the city needs and for investing in the city’s stock. Although a 1% cut in social rent may seem a good thing for social tenants, it is the council that pays for it, not the Government. It will take money away from the capital investment needed for repairs, improvements and, critically, new homes.

    If the Government were so concerned about saving social tenants’ money, they would abolish the grotesque bedroom tax. By the way, the Government are actually the greatest beneficiary of this rent cut, because the housing payment bill for the Department for Work and Pensions will fall considerably. It is the Government who will benefit from this cut, not social tenants.

    It is not hard to see that when housing authorities’ incomes are cut, they will have less to invest—more than half a billion less, in the case of Newcastle City Council. Trampling over locally elected and accountable councils’ planned infrastructure investment in such a way deserves its own debate. But there is more: that hole in the city’s investment plan will be widened even further by the Government’s forced sale of higher-value housing to pay for the new right to buy. Building a new home in Newcastle costs a minimum of £120,000, but the result of the much criticised Housing and Planning Bill will be the selling off of homes at an average price of £80,000—so, £80,000 in income versus £120,000 to build them. Even if all the income were reinvested, at best we would replace only two thirds of all homes sold.

    I hope the Minister is aware of the analysis published by Shelter last month, which showed that Newcastle will need to sell more than 400 homes every year to raise the £52 million annual contribution to the Government’s policy. That £52 million contribution must be paid for by selling off homes. That is 100 more homes than are built each year now, before the Government’s housing Bill bites, with its inevitable knock-on effect on investment.

    My constituents who are on the lowest incomes already find it much more difficult to buy homes, even at the lower end of the market, than they would in other parts of the country. The council has done some brilliant work in recent years: delivering much needed specialist house building; building more affordable homes; returning vacant private sector properties to the market, which is very important; and working to reduce homelessness. But it is under attack from a Government who seem determined to dismantle our social housing stock from Whitehall. I simply cannot see how the council is supposed to meet the needs of local people, given the straitjacket that the Minister is putting them into. Those I have spoken to in Newcastle believe, as I do, that Government locally and nationally have a duty to provide homes for people. I want to see a healthy mix of tenures. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister is looking on his mobile phone to see how that can be achieved.

    The actions of the Government and the housing Bill will throw up more barriers to building homes that, frankly, seem designed to destroy social housing altogether. Will the Minister tell us what role he sees for councils in building and providing homes, and how much discretion they should have in fulfilling that role? What modelling have his Government done on the effect of the 1% cut in social rents on investment in Newcastle and across the country, and will he publish that modelling? Does he not agree that decisions on rent should be with the local authority, and that if central Government want to cut rent—a laudable aim—they should provide the money to pay for it, rather than punish future generations? What modelling has he done on the forced sale of council homes to fund his right to buy policy? Does he agree with the analysis that Shelter has done on this and, if not, will he publish his own sums?

    On the subject of the right to buy policy for housing associations, I wrote to the Minister last year about constituents of mine who are unable to sell their properties because the freehold is owned by the St Mary Magdalene & Holy Jesus Trust, which refuses to extend the leases. In his response, he said that my constituents should write to the advisory body LEASE, which they did, to no avail. There are three different housing Acts that affect three different types of properties and the rights they enjoy. The Minister said he would consider this further as part of the Housing and Planning Bill. Has he any hope, or indeed any clarity, to offer my constituents on that issue?

    What would the Minister say to my constituents who cannot get a council home and cannot afford the rising rents in Newcastle? Does he think that his housing Bill will enable Newcastle City Council to build enough homes in the next 30 years and can he explain how? If it will not, how does he expect the private sector to fill the gap at affordable prices for different types of tenure? Finally, will he take a leaf out of the book of the new Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and commit to ensuring affordable housing in Newcastle?