UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2001

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Tackling Child Poverty – Press Conference given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer [December 2001]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Tackling Child Poverty – Press Conference given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer [December 2001]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 13 December 2001.

    Speaking at a press conference today to launch ?Tackling Child Poverty: Giving Every Child the Best Possible Start in Life?, a new consultation document setting out the Government’s strategy to tackle child poverty, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, said:

    “Child poverty is a scar on Britain’s soul and an affront to our sense of decency as a nation.

    Halving child poverty in ten years and abolishing it in a generation – as Tony Blair has pledged – is not just a moral issue, but a litmus test for any political party and a challenge for every person in Britain.

    Every child deserves the best possible start in life.  For too long in the past families with children missed out, both financially and on growing up in a secure environment, with wider opportunities to develop.

    Tackling child poverty and disadvantage is not about providing either more money or better public services; it is about the necessity of both.  As Government supports parents, in turn it is right that parents fulfill their responsibilities too.  We cannot tackle poverty from the centre of Government alone, but must do so with our valued partners in the voluntary, community and faith sectors.  These sectors have a unique role in reaching local communities and needs on the ground.

    Today at Downing Street faith groups, community leaders and leading charities gathered to discuss how together we can win on the war against child poverty.

    This unique gathering has come together because they recognise – as I believe the country recognises – that together we must ensure that no child is left behind.

    Children are not only our single biggest investment in the future – but measures to tackle child poverty are the best anti-vandalism, anti-crime, anti-delinquency policies we can pursue.

    And if every child is to have the best start in life, we will need to do more to cut child poverty.

    Money matters, but the battle cannot be won by money alone.

    Today we are setting out measures to raise family incomes through our new tax credits with a commitment to improving public services and supporting parenting. We are demonstrating our determination to engage not just national Government, but local communities, the voluntary sector and faith groups who must play their part as well.

    Our measures start from our faith in the family and in responsibilities matched to rights as the bedrocks of a stable and healthy society.

    And at the heart of our approach is integrating payments for child support into a new and seamless system, where for the first time, all child support is paid to the mother, the best way, according to all the evidence, to tackle child poverty.

    For twenty years, the living standards of families with children fell behind the rest of the population. By the mid 1990s, the average income for households with children was around 30 per cent lower than for those without children.

    Our new Child Tax Credit will build on the tax cuts we have already delivered for families. And every family needs extra support at key times, in particular, after the birth of a child. So to help ease the pressure on new parents, our reforms – raising maternity pay matched to new paternity pay – are making it easier for mothers to make the choice to stay at home after their child is born – and for much longer than previously.

    Reform also means we should match new opportunities we offer families with the responsibilities we expect of them.

    All parents – must accept their responsibilities for their children.

    That obligation does not end if the relationship between the parents should come to an end. Parenthood is for life, and financial responsibility for children should and will continue until adulthood.

    Where parents live apart, the best arrangements for children are when both accept financial responsibility for their children. But if one parent fails to discharge his or her duties, we will not stand aside.

    We’ve doubled the number of absent fathers paying their maintenance in full since we came to power. Our latest reforms will do more to ensure all children receive at least some of the money collected on their behalf and we have strengthened the sanctions for those who fail to comply.

    Responsibility for children lies with parents, but government can encourage good parenting. Already we have provided £1 million to establish the National Family and Parenting Institute. We have funded Parentline, so parents can receive support from volunteers who are parents themselves.

    And we will be increasing help to the marriage and relationship support services.

    Vulnerable parents need special help. The children of teenage mothers are in turn more likely to be teenage mothers themselves. Their children are more likely to be underweight and to face worse outcomes in later life. We can and will break this cycle.

    As we have said, the Government believes that, if they cannot live in parental home, mothers under 18 should be accommodated in supported housing rather than housed alone and isolated with their babies.?

    Giving children a good start in life requires not only cash help and parental support but also good schools, good health services, and good public services.

    In addition, our new children’s fund is designed to support the innovative and make it commonplace, to turn local successes into country-wide triumphs. It is Government money to back local and volunteer initiatives to tackle child poverty with the emphasis on prevention, not simply coping with failure. Faith-based organizations are being encouraged to apply.

    So our approach combines rights and responsibilities to the best interests of children, a families first policy which provides support for all families; gives an extra helping hand when families need it most; and offers additional support for those who need it most; and involves all of us accepting our responsibilities – as parents, neighbours, citizens and community leaders.

    We ask the whole country to join the crusade to end child poverty and ensure all children have the best possible start in life.”

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Tackling Child Poverty – Giving every child the best start in life [December 2001]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Tackling Child Poverty – Giving every child the best start in life [December 2001]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 13 December 2001.

    The Government’s commitment to giving every child the best start in life, will require further action to improve both incomes and services, the Chancellor Gordon Brown stressed today as he launched a new strategy paper on tackling child poverty. At the same event, Education Secretary, Estelle Morris was able to announce a £10 million boost to the Sure Start programme to help make existing services more accessible to those that need them.

    They were speaking at a seminar at Number 11 Downing Street attended by Ministerial colleagues, religious leaders, key community groups and charitable organizations. Those also attending include Work and Pensions Secretary Alistair Darling, Home Office Minister John Denham, as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi and the Archbishop of Westminster.

    Gordon Brown said:

    “Every child and young person deserves the best possible start in life.  For too long in the past families with children missed out, both financially and on growing up in a secure environment, with wider opportunities to develop.  This Government is determined to put families first and to abolish the scourge of child poverty forever.

    Tackling child poverty and disadvantage is not about providing either more money or better public services; it is about the necessity of both.  As Government supports parents, in turn it is right that parents fulfil their responsibilities too.  We cannot tackle poverty from the centre of Government alone, but must do so with our valued partners in the voluntary, community and faith sectors.  These sectors have a unique role in reaching local communities and needs on the ground.  I am delighted to meet with our partners today and look forward to taking this partnership even further forward.  Together we can ensure that no child is left behind.”

    Estelle Morris, Secretary of State for Education and Skills said:

    “Tackling child poverty means working across Government to improve the services families depend on and increase the incomes they receive. We are determined to work in partnership with local communities, the statutory and voluntary sectors, to deliver the services that parents want and children need.

    Sure Start has an important role to play in improving the life chances of young children in disadvantaged areas. It makes a tremendous difference to young children’s learning and development and provides a flying start rather than leaving children trapped in social disadvantage.

    Building on the progress we have already made, I am delighted today to be able to announce a £10 million programme over the next two years to build the lessons of Sure Start into our core services to benefit more children.”

    The £10 million pilots will cover a range of activities to meet local needs including:

    • training up parents in the community to be part of home-visiting teams who provide support and advice to parents-to-be and new parents;
    • schemes to encourage people from disadvantaged areas to take up training and jobs in health and childcare to fill vacancies in their own communities; and
    • re-shaping of health services away from routine visiting to provide more coherent and responsive services for new mothers and mothers-to-be.

    These pilots will focus on developing a culture of prevention and adapting existing services to make them more accessible to the families who most need them. This £10 million is being made available for a number of pilots over the next two years out of the resources allocated to Sure Start as part of the last Spending Review.

    Today’s paper “Tackling child poverty: giving every child the best possible start in life” sets out the Government’s approach to tackling child poverty, with four key strands:

    • providing more support for family finances
    • giving priority to children’s services, especially health and education
    • offering support to parenting for life
    • pursuing a partnership with the voluntary and community sectors.

    The paper sets out the context for policy decisions to come in the Budget and Spending Review of 2002 and the years to follow.  It welcomes others’ views.

  • Dawn Primarolo – 2001 Speech to the British-Swiss Chamber of Commerce

    Dawn Primarolo – 2001 Speech to the British-Swiss Chamber of Commerce

    The speech made by Dawn Primarolo, the then Paymaster General, on 12 December 2001.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I am delighted to be here in Zurich today and very pleased to have the opportunity to address such a distinguished audience. I know that the British-Swiss Chamber of Commerce plays an important role in developing the commercial relationships between our two countries And I applaud the success of your efforts not only in relation to trade but also in promoting friendship and understanding between the British and Swiss peoples. The value of that contribution is fully recognised by the British government and I am confident that your work will continue to strengthen the ties that we are here to celebrate.

    The United Kingdom and Switzerland have a particular affinity as world leaders in banking and international finance. We often find ourselves in competition in the market. But we share a common understanding of the elements that have to be in place to enable our banking and financial sector to develop and prosper.

    Both of our countries have enjoyed a long period of stability in our political structures. And that stability provides an essential foundation for economic prosperity and growth. It has reinforced the attractions of our two countries to international investors and has enabled us to offer a firm base for stable and successful banking businesses.

    As you know, I am here primarily on inter-governmental business and to meet the leaders of the Swiss banking community. And I am grateful to all those that I have met for making their time available to me.

    As the minister responsible for business taxation within Her Majesty’s Treasury, I want to take this opportunity to say a few opening words about our approach to business taxation and then to spend some time on what I see primarily as a banking industry issue.

    The year ahead looks set to be fuller than most of developments in the area of corporate taxation. On the European front, we have the promise of the Commission’s conference on company taxation; and a number of initiatives that they have recently announced in such areas as transfer pricing and cross border loss relief. The Commission has set out its priorities and there will be no shortage of issues to discuss under the Spanish and Danish presidencies. And, of course, my own work, as Chair of the Code of Conduct Group, will continue as we tie together the strands in the tax package for the end of 2002.

    In the UK, we see economic reform as the priority for the European Union and taxation as an issue under that umbrella. In Brussels, there is some danger that discussion on taxation takes on a life of its own. We need to guard against that and against the danger of introspection.

    In our domestic economy, we have continued to work towards a more neutral system of business taxation. But we have also seen it as a responsibility of government to intervene in areas where there has been significant market failure. And to take action where we believe there is an opportunity to bring about change that will help us achieve higher, sustainable levels of economic growth.

    For example, we are currently consulting with business on a range of improvements to our corporate tax system. Among them is a proposal to extend to large companies the system of tax credits for research and development that we successfully introduced for small and medium sized companies.

    Research and development, with its spill-over benefits into the wider economy, is essential to sustainable growth. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has already signalled our conviction that there should be wider support across the European Union, for a higher level of commitment to research and development spending to raise the quality and volume of the r&d carried out in Europe.

    There are many challenges ahead in the process of economic reform and changes in taxation can undoubtedly contribute to the better fulfilment of the objectives set at Stockholm and Lisbon.

    But let me return to the banking industry and, in particular, to the subject of private banking.

    I am particularly pleased to have had the opportunity yesterday and today, to meet representatives of the private banking businesses based in Switzerland and to enter into a dialogue with them.

    I have spent only 24 hours here but, with grateful thanks to my hosts, I already feel that I have a much better understanding of the private banking sector. And a better appreciation of the factors that contribute to a successful relationship between the banker and his client and, therefore, to a successful private banking business.

    It is not simply the efficiency and service levels of the bank itself or the returns on the funds invested. Both of these are important, but to be successful the private banker has to offer more than that.

    There has to be mutual trust. There has to be respect and confidence. And, from the banker, there has to be a sense of obligation – obligation that is more deeply rooted than the simple obligation of a deposit-taker to its depositors. It is these qualities that differentiate the private bank from the mass market provider.

    And underpinning all of this is reputation. Without reputation, at home and abroad, there is no prospect of building a successful private banking business.

    I want to stop with reputation for a moment. Politicians and private bankers. We both rely to an enormous extent on our reputations. In politics, a reputation can be lost irretrievably by a careless word or act, by an omission, by a failure to see that the world has moved on. And through the continual public gaze of media attention.

    Governments of every shade of opinion, around the world, and the individual politicians within them have become increasingly aware of the pressures of public interest and have had to respond to them. The media reflect the public desire to know and it is a brave or foolish politician who tries simply to put up barriers to it.

    Increasingly, we are pressed for greater transparency – in our lives and in our decision-making. And most of us would have to agree, that transparency is essential in a democratic society.

    But these are not pressures that are unique to politicians. I think that it would be fair to say that most of us in this room feel the demands for greater openness and more transparency in the different facets of our everyday lives.

    Within financial services, investors are looking for greater transparency and improved information when financial products are sold; and so are the regulators that serve them. And when it comes to fees, commissions and charges, investors and regulators are looking for that same openness and transparency. We can all point to situations where transparency has been lacking , investors misled and products mis-sold.

    Transparency has a cost. It has a cost for politicians as well as for bankers. But it is a cost that we have both to accept. Because without transparency in what we do and how we do it, without the ability to withstand scrutiny, there is no reputation. And without reputation, neither politician nor banker can stay in business for long.

    Coming out of September 11th, I think that all of us have had some re-assessments to make. We have had to look again at what is really important to us and what isn’t. Where our obligations lie and to whom. And above all, how we need to act to be worthy of our reputations. The last few months have been a time of action but they have also been a time for reflection.

    Terrorism is a serious crime. And there can have been few crimes more serious than those carried out in Washington and New York on September 11th.. We rightly take action to strengthen our hand against those within our societies that would seek to damage or destroy them and against those who provide the terrorists with the financial means to do so.

    But these are not the only threats that we face. And this is not the only kind of crime against which we need to strengthen our laws.

    It is easy to turn our backs on other forms of crime, particularly those forms of crime that are much less dramatic, involve no violence against the person and that apparently have no victims. But financial crime is crime none the less.

    When the crime is tax evasion, it shifts the burden from the evader to the honest citizen. And the victims are all of those – all of us who – pay more as a result, or who go without the services that additional tax revenues would have funded.

    I just want to pause here a moment. And to put down some points about taxation, tax competition and tax evasion. Because some of the things that I have read recently make me think there is scope for misunderstanding here in Switzerland and I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding.

    Bruno Spinner, the Swiss ambassador to London, recently summarised the EU and OECD action against harmful tax competition as “…high tax countries… resisting the outflows of capital to countries which impose only modest taxes, or none at all…”.

    I do not share his analysis.

    I have already said a few words about our approach to taxation in the United Kingdom and our views on taxation in the wider context of economic reform in Europe.

    There was a time when the UK taxed investment income at 98% in the hands of wealthy individuals. The highest marginal rate is now 40%. And the present government has provided many opportunities for tax-favoured investment to encourage savings and a strong and dynamic economy. We have also introduced major capital gains tax changes that give entrepreneurs and investors alike the potential to realise their gains at an effective tax rate of 10%. The UK is not a high-taxing country for individuals.

    Nor is it a high tax country for the corporate sector. We have brought down the headline rates of corporation tax to unprecedented low levels. And we are in the process, as I have explained, of simplifying and modernising the system to provide a more consistent and coherent framework. A system that will allow more structural flexibility to companies than they have ever enjoyed before.

    By global standards, the UK is an attractive place to invest. And we, as a government, are proud of our ability to attract, year in, year out, more inward direct investment than any other country in the world except the US.

    So let’s be clear. The harmful tax competition agenda, from a UK perspective, is not a protectionist agenda. It is aimed at levelling the playing field and opening up markets and opportunities to truly global competition.

    Like the Swiss government, we are committed to tax competition. To fair tax competition. And to the sovereignty of the state in tax matters.

    We respect the right – the absolute right – of sovereign states to tax their citizens as they wish. And we do not stand in their way.

    And we expect, in return, that other sovereign states will not stand in our way. Or prejudice our ability to tax our citizens, our residents, in accordance with the laws that our parliament has passed.

    Like the Swiss government, we have a democratic mandate and our taxation system derives its validity from that mandate. We tax our citizens, our residents, on their world-wide income at their marginal rate and give them credit for foreign taxes suffered. There is nothing radical or new in that approach. It is not unusual as a way of taxing individuals and we believe that it is fair.

    Within any society there are, of course, those who want to make sure that they pay as little as possible to the state in taxation. And while they stay within the law, that is their right.

    But there are unfortunately some who want to pay even less than that. And choosing not to report income is one way, albeit a rather crude way, that some of those individuals seek to side-step their obligation to pay tax.

    This is tax evasion. In the UK, as in many countries, it is a criminal offence. Those who evade tax take advantage of government spending on health or education, roads or railways, power or policing. But don’t want to pay towards it.

    Within the European Union, we have joined the fight against this kind of crime. Against tax evasion. We have agreed, without discrimination, to share information freely, openly and automatically between our revenue authorities about cross border flows of interest to those who are resident in our countries. Subject to all the stringent rules and safeguards that prevent the wider use of that information. And, in doing so, we have committed to making it more difficult for individuals who want to evade their responsibilities towards their neighbours and fellow citizens.

    We would like Switzerland to join us in that project.

    I spoke a few minutes ago about the need for relationships built on trust. On confidence. On a sense of obligation. To be successful in private banking.

    I also spoke about transparency and indeed the increasing demand for transparency from both the public and the regulators.

    And I spoke about reputation, which underpins everything else, whether you are a politician or a banker.

    Switzerland has enjoyed an enviable reputation for its banking business. And many Swiss banks have emerged to become banks of truly international standing.

    When I stand back and reflect on that reputation, I have no doubt as to its strength today. And no doubt about the quality of what has been built on it. Or how its strength is nurtured through bonds of trust, respect and confidence and through the sense of obligation that I referred to earlier.

    And I find it difficult to believe that a reputation and a business as strong as this can be balanced so precariously on the pin-point of banking secrecy.

    I think that Swiss banking is stronger and better than that. And I have become more convinced of that the more of its leaders I have met. And I hope that they will have the confidence to see their reputation burnished by a greater transparency rather than cloaked by an over-attachment to secrecy.

    In the UK, banking and financial services are among our most important industries. And we, like the Swiss, started off by being sceptical of a proposal that looked as if it would only damage those industries without achieving its objective. But we worked with the proposal and, with the increasing help and understanding of other member states, it was refashioned into something more logical and more effective. And something that we are confident will not damage the City even though there will be some additional costs.

    We concluded that we could and should take up the responsibility to join a project to help our neighbours. And ask others to work with us and to join the fight against tax evasion.

    If we had turned our back instead, we would surely have lost our reputation and, in time, we would have lost what had been built on top of it as well.

    These are uncertain times. The global economy has been strong but we have entered a period in which none of us can look to the future without some shadow of recent events passing across our minds.

    We have learned, or perhaps re-learned, the strength that can come from acting together. Nation with nation. Voluntarily. Sharing a common goal. Even where the threat is not, initially, a threat directed at us.

    The bond between the Swiss and the British people is strong. The bond between Swiss and British businesses is strong. And we can celebrate that. And if we value it as well, we can and must continue to work together towards common, achievable goals that will reinforce and strengthen our economic and cultural relations.

    Thank you.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Consumer and Industry to benefit from changes to Banking, Mortgage and General Insurance Regime [December 2001]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Consumer and Industry to benefit from changes to Banking, Mortgage and General Insurance Regime [December 2001]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 12 December 2001.

    A better deal for consumers across a range of financial services together with a streamlining of regulation which will benefit business was announced today by Economic Secretary Ruth Kelly.

    She set out the good progress made by the banks in implementing the recommendations of DeAnne Julius’s Review Group aimed at improving services to bank customers. Ruth Kelly also announced that the FSA is to regulate mortgage advice, a move called for by the Julius Group, consumer groups and industry, and, in parallel, the sale of general insurance products. These measures will ensure that a coherent regulatory framework exists.

    The measures set out today will:

    • Benefit millions of consumers by regularising standards and providing safeguards and minimum standards of mortgage advice;
    • Benefit banking customers through easier account switching and clearer account information;
    • Streamline and simplify regulation for mortgage advice and general insurance advice;
    • Allow brokers to compete for insurance business in other EU countries.

    Ruth Kelly said:

    “Buying a mortgage is the biggest financial decision of most people’s lives, they need to get it right and high quality understandable advice is crucial. Regulation will ensure a high standard of advice is available across the board to the large number of people, 1.2 million in 2000, who take out mortgages every year. In the rare and unfortunate cases where things go wrong the Financial Ombudsman will be the single body for handling customer complaints.

    “DeAnne’s review highlighted areas where improvements should be made to benefit banking customers. There has been a very constructive response with the majority of the recommendations being accepted by industry. The measures being taken forward will benefit customers, for example through making account switching easier and stimulating competition in personal banking.

    “The Julius Review group argued that mortgage advice should be regulated, echoing the sentiments of many consumer groups and industry. We have listened to these views and after reviewing the policy believe regulation will bring benefits to both consumers and businesses.”

    DeAnne Julius commented:

    “I am delighted with the Government’s decision to regulate mortgage advice. This was supported unanimously by our Review Group, because we felt it would help both consumer and mortgage providers. I am also pleased that the banks have agreed to take on board the majority of our recommendations for changes in their self-regulatory codes. With the new cleaner process for code review I am hopeful that in due course those changes they have not yet accepted will also find favour.”

    Ruth Kelly added:

    “Many of the 12,500 UK mortgage brokers also sell general insurance. In order to maintain a consistent and streamlined approach, the sale of general insurance products will be regulated by the FSA. Brokers who deal in two or more lines of regulated business will deal with a single regulator, not several, and will be able to compete in European markets. Additionally the Government will look at insurance sold as part of a package with another product – for example, travel or extended warranty – to consider the implications of the new regime for them.”

    “Today’s measures will benefit industry by simplifying and streamlining regulation.  The watchword in developing the new frameworks will be proportionality.  We and the FSA will be working closely with the industry and others to design a regime that understands the market, and is targeted precisely at maximising benefit to the consumer, and not loading industry and ultimately the consumer with unnecessary costs.”

    “I am grateful to GISC and MCCB for all the hard work they have put in to raising standards in their respective industries. Today’s announcement is in no way a criticism of what both bodies have achieved. I hope that they will both be able to work closely with the FSA to ensure a seamless transition to the new regime.”

    The timing and details for the implementation of regulation will be discussed with industry. It is anticipated that regulation for both mortgage and the sale of general insurance products will come into force simultaneously, following consultation by the FSA.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : IMF Report on UK Economic Performance [December 2001]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : IMF Report on UK Economic Performance [December 2001]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 11 December 2001.

    The “remarkable performance” of the UK economy “owes much to the government’s strong policy framework”, report the International Monetary Fund today. Concluding their recent examination of the UK economy, the IMF say that “the symmetric inflation targeting framework has enabled the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to respond promptly to demand shocks, including the recent global slowdown”, while “fiscal policy should continue to meet the high standards of prudence and predictability that have characterised it over the last few years.”

    Commenting on the projections in last month’s PBR, the IMF say that GDP growth at 2-2½% in 2002 “is only slightly above [the IMF’s] central forecast”.  Moreover, the “cyclically-adjusted overall deficits of about 1 percent of GDP over the medium term would not compromise the strong underlying fiscal position achieved in the late 1990s”.

    The IMF conclude that “the budget and pre-budget reports, as well as the frequent consultations between the government and the public, in many respects set an international standard of best practice,” and support “the strengthening of the UK’s anti-money laundering rules, which are considered, in many respects, an international model.”

    The IMF endorses many of the structural reforms the government has embarked on to raise growth in the UK, and describe the government’s strategy in this area as “appropriate”.  Overall they conclude that “the track record of sound policy design and implementation in recent years bodes well for continued success in a more uncertain world economy.”

    Commenting on the IMF’s statement, the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, said:

    “I welcome this confirmation from the IMF that our prudent approach to economic policy leaves us better placed to withstand the ups and downs of the world economy. According to the IMF, the UK will grow faster than any other G7 country this year.

    I also welcome the IMF’s support for the structural reform agenda we are pursuing to raise long term economic growth in the UK and improve productivity, which will mean rising living standards for all.  As the IMF say, this agenda ‘should continue to be pursued vigorously.”

  • Gordon Brown – 2001 Speech on Enterprise and the Regions

    Gordon Brown – 2001 Speech on Enterprise and the Regions

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Manchester on 29 January 2001.

    Introduction

    It is a pleasure to be here in Manchester this morning.

    For two centuries Manchester and the North West have been a world wide centre for manufacturing strength. This region led in the 19th Century and now it can lead again.

    And let me say how pleased I am to be speaking here at UMIST. Founded early in the nineteenth century by the business community of Manchester, it enters the Twenty First Century a leading centre for scientific research, its links with business stronger than ever – promoting growth, jobs and opportunity for the North West region and beyond.

    Today I want to show how in the North West and the other regions of our country, the high ideals and public purpose contained in the economic goal of 1944 can be achieved.

    Full employment – defined as in 1944 as ‘high and stable levels of employment’ – was a reality for the country as a whole for twenty years after the Second World War.

    But not only did rising unemployment in the 1970’s and beyond undermine these goals but so too did persistently higher unemployment in our regions

    As recently as 1997, one in five working age households had no one in work in seven of our twelve regions and nations.

    Some believe that full employment can be achieved only by a return to macroeconomic fine tuning.

    Others believe that in the new more open economy governments cannot hope to meet the 1944 objectives.

    I reject both the dogma of insisting on old ways and the defeatism of abandoning the objectives. But to achieve full employment in all the regions is a large and ever present challenge and demands new approaches not the old ways.

    So since 1997 the new Government has been putting in place a new framework to deliver our growth and employment objectives.

    Last year I set down four objectives:

    – first: stability – a pro-active monetary policy and prudent fiscal policy to deliver the necessary platform of stability;

    – second: employability – a strengthening of the programme to move the unemployed from welfare to work;

    – third: productivity – a commitment to high quality long term investment in science and innovation, new technology and skills;

    – fourth: responsibility – avoiding short termism in pay and wage bargaining across the private and public sectors, and building a shared sense of national purpose.

    These conditions – requirements for stability, employability, productivity and responsibility – are and have always been the necessary conditions for full employment.

    The first condition, stability, is needed to ensure a sustainable high demand for labour. The second, employability, promotes a sustainable high supply of labour. The third, raising productivity, provides a sustainable basis for rising living standards. And the fourth, responsibility in bargaining, ensures a sustainable basis for combining full employment with low inflation.

    But there is a fifth condition I wish to discuss in detail today – the need for regionally balanced growth, essential if there is to be opportunity for all in all regions.

    Now the first generation of regional and urban policies – starting in the thirties – amounted essentially to ambulance work – first aid measures, urgently needed assistance and relief in areas of high unemployment.

    The second generation of regional policies came in the sixties when then the emphasis was on large capital grants and tax incentives for regions anxious to encourage mobile capital into our regions as inward investment.

    Now we are entering a third generation of regional policies inaugurated by Stephen Byers, David Blunkett and John Prescott, where we concentrate on indigenous measures – strengthening, within the regions, the essential building blocks of self generating growth. And on tackling the imbalances that prevent economic strength:

    – first, bridging the investment and enterprise gap;

    – second, bridging the skills gap;

    – third, bridging the technology gap, including support for e-commerce;

    – fourth, bridging the employment gap.

    Indeed, as these challenges suggest, now, as the economy starts to strengthen, is the perfect time to think not in a short termist way about our economic future but to think and plan long term; and to bring together strategic plans for our future.

    And I want to suggest that with the creation of the new regional development agencies – for which I believe John Prescott deserves our congratulations – we are not only recognising the many regional centres in Britain today and giving them new strength and powers. But we are creating, at a regional level, the economic policy instruments of the future: the measures that will foster innovation, develop the skills for the twenty first century economy, build a strong enterprise culture open to all and help us lead in the digital revolution and ensure all of us benefit fully from our participation in Europe.

    But the emphasis is not simply on local needs but on local initiative. Our reforms show that we are entering an era in which national government, instead of directing, enables powerful regional and local initiatives to work, where Britain becomes as it should be – a Britain of nations and regions where there are many and not just one centre of initiative and energy for our country.

    With regional development agencies and the flexibilities we are offering them there is for the first time both a shared understanding of the challenges the region faces and a strategic means of meeting them.
    Investment and enterprise

    In our Pre Budget consultation we welcome further proposals for encouraging enterprise in high unemployment areas.

    The 2001 Budget – and our future plans will continue this Government’s policies to offer greater incentives to business, remove unacceptable barriers that prevent people with enterprise getting on and, from the classroom to the boardroom, widen and deepen the spirit of enterprise in Britain.

    The Government’s ambition is to make opportunity for all the foundation of a more dynamic enterprise economy, breaking free of the old dependency culture in high unemployment areas.

    In an enterprise Budget we will consider extending capital gains tax relief and the 10p rate.

    In an enterprise Budget we will consider extending our R and D tax credit by examining proposals to do so from the CBI, EEF and others interested in improving Britain’s R and D effort.

    In an enterprise Budget we will consult on new reliefs for corporation tax including for intellectual property.

    As we move to an enterprise Budget we will consult on capital gains tax relief for the sale of substantial shareholdings.

    As we move to an enterprise Budget we are considering improvements in our enterprise management incentive scheme, the share options we offer new and dynamic companies.

    As we move to an enterprise Budget we will consider new incentives for urban renewal and inner city development.

    And an enterprise Budget means measures to encourage an enterprise culture in high unemployment areas where the greatest need is not more benefit offices but more businesses as we move from a dependency culture based on entitlements to a dynamic business culture based on enterprise.

    Instead of acquiescing in the old giro culture – simply paying benefits to compensate people for their social exclusion – we must back success rather than accept failure. And to do that we must extend fiscal and other financial incentives that open up economic and business opportunity in high unemployment areas, and encourage and reward new enterprise.

    If we are to achieve higher start-up rates in high unemployment areas, economic stability is critically important to business confidence, as we found in the early nineties when the recession not only destroyed existing businesses but discouraged new ones.

    So in the Budget our aim is to create the stronger enterprise culture that America enjoys, reduce the costs of business failure and address the sharp regional and local divergences in small business creation.

    Behind the creation of regional development agencies is our view that the way forward is one of empowering local people with skills and confidence.

    Indeed, our old cities and estates should be seen as new markets with competitive advantages – their strategic locations, their often untapped retail markets, and the potential of their workforce.

    And so it is right to put in place the best possible incentive structure to stimulate business-led growth as well as much bigger flows of private investment.

    So, to meet the challenge of increasing private investment in high unemployment areas by one billion pounds, we will now consult before the Budget on targeted tax incentives in four areas – cuts in stamp duty, reduced business rates, changes in capital gains tax and a new community investment tax credit.

    But changing our culture to one that favours enterprise in every area needs not just incentives but a real shift in attitudes too. And that will come about quickest if it starts, not in the boardroom, but in our schools.

    I want every young person to hear about business and enterprise in school; every college student to be made aware of the opportunities in business; every teacher to be able to communicate the virtues and potential of business and enterprise.

    I want businessmen and women to visit our schools and talk to their enterprise classes; I want every student to have a quality experience of working in a local business before they leave school. I want management training scholarships to be available even in the poorest areas and I want every community to see business leaders as role models.

    Regional coordination and accountability

    But let me say something more on our proposals for regional co-ordination – which will form our next five years’ programme for economic growth in our country – and the central role we see for regional development agencies as the strategic leaders of economic policies in the regions – in employment, skills, innovation and regeneration.

    The New Deal has already brought into being new partnerships between companies, the world of education and training, and the employment service.

    Regional approaches to the delivery of the New Deal and to training will become ever more important.

    The enterprise centres mean companies, universities and government must work together.

    The regional approach to venture capital funds, coordinated by the regional development agencies and the small business service, again requires business and government to work in partnership.

    To benefit fully from the university for industry, companies, educational authorities, schools and colleges themselves will want to form new partnerships.

    And local government – casting aside any idea that it should look inwards – must, as it looks outwards, be involved in all these initiatives.

    And we are ensuring the resources and flexibilities that regional development agencies need, but in return we are demanding strenuous targets be met in skills, innovation, business creation, new technology and employment. This is the new regional policy – locally sensitive and locally delivered, local people meeting local needs through local agencies.

    At every regional level, businesses, local authorities and the world of education will want to work together on their bids for funds and resources, and at the same time to make their case not just in Britain but abroad.

    And in making this happen the new local and regional centres of initiative in this country will show that leadership in Britain can come from every regional capital as much as from London itself.

    But as we develop regional policies that are locally generated and managed there has to be local and regional accountability too.

    Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland moved from 1997 to elected bodies. The Manifesto on which this Government was elected set out the options for elected regional government in England where there is popular consent for it.

    As we expand regional institutions – regional government offices, regional development agencies – so too we must expand regional accountability.

    John Prescott and I believe that in the consideration of new and better regional systems of accountability we need a greater role for both the House of Commons and the regional chambers.

    I hope that the regional chambers established in every region will hold annual hearings to examine the RDAS”’ annual reports and review progress against their published strategies – and report back on their findings. We should ensure they have the resources to meet this duty.

    By extending the scope for region by region initiatives and by complimenting these with greater accountability at a regional level and through the select committee system in the Commons, we are improving our ability to ensure that regionally set objectives are met.

    Combined with our national economic policy measures for stability, productivity, skills and responsibility, the third generation regional policy that I am describing is in my view the route to full employment in each region, that is employment opportunity for each region’s citizens.

    More than that, these are the means by which Britain is becoming a Britain of regions and nations with a new dynamism and where for locally generated initiatives we learn anew from each other, and where our diversity can become a source not only of new energy but of national strength.

    So our new development agencies both make sense of regional sentiment and respond to the challenges of the next millennium.

    Regions building new strengths from the ground upwards.

    Regions not looking in on themselves but looking outwards to the challenges of the global economy.

    Regions in which we make the connections so that schools and colleges, companies and local authorities work in a coordinated way for the same objectives – addressing inequalities within our regions.

    Conclusion

    I believe what is happening in each region today is showing the growing vitality of a new Britain, where there are new local and regional centres of initiative leading Britain.

    We are moving away from the old Britain of subjects where people had to look upwards to a Whitehall bureaucracy for their solutions – to a Britain of citizens where region to region, locality to locality we are ourselves in charge and where it is up to us.

    And where as a result Britain becomes stronger as each nation and region learns from another.

    In so many areas of our national life individual regions are leading the way.

    And what a strong country we can be when we are enriched by the different cultures and centres of initiative which together make up Britain.

    We are indeed stronger together, weaker apart.

    So, this morning I have suggested how we can strengthen our regional and national economy.

    I have said we must rediscover the national purpose that allows us to break from the old conflicts which have divided us.

    I look forward to a Britain in which instead of public versus private, state versus market, management versus workers, we have public and private, government and markets, employers and managers and workforces working together for the high levels of growth and employment we need for long term prosperity.

    I have pointed the way to full employment in this region in our generation.

    It is a challenge for all of us, a challenge that together we can meet and surmount.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Andrew Smith announces a scheme to fund summer placements in Whitehall [February 2001]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Andrew Smith announces a scheme to fund summer placements in Whitehall [February 2001]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 1 February 2001.

    ANDREW SMITH ANNOUNCES A SCHEME TO FUND SUMMER PLACEMENTS IN WHITEHALL

    A scheme to fund ten academic summer placements in Whitehall, starting in June 2001, was announced by the Chief Secretary, Andrew Smith today. The aim of the scheme is to strengthen the links between the academic research community and Government policy development.

    Andrew Smith said:

    “This Government has worked with the research community from the outset, but we are very keen to build on this with new channels of communication between us. The contacts provided by these placements should help strengthen these links further and underpin effective Departmental policy formation.

    I am very pleased that 5 central Government Departments have agreed to take part in this scheme, which closely follows a tried and tested system in the United States.”

    Applicants are being invited to submit research projects that are relevant to policy formulation, with proposals either identifying emerging policy issues or aiming to increase understanding of existing ones. As well as the Treasury, DSS, DETR, DFEE and MAFF have agreed to take part.

    Each placement will carry a grant of £10,000. Successful applicants will be expected to carry out at least two months of research, of which at least four weeks must be spent within the relevant Department.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Brown hails new family tax cut – Putting Families first [February 2001]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Brown hails new family tax cut – Putting Families first [February 2001]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 5 February 2001.

    ALISTAIR DARLING OUTLINES NEW MEASURES FOR THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

    The Children’s Tax Credit – a family tax cut which will help 5 million families with children get up to £442 off tax bills – was launched today by Chancellor Gordon Brown, Social Security Secretary Alistair Darling and Paymaster General Dawn Primarolo.

    A major £4.7 million national advertising campaign will encourage families to apply for the tax cut, helping them when they need it most – when children are growing up. A Helpline is available – 0845 300 1036 – for more information and help.

    Gordon Brown said:

    “All parents should have more support when they need it most – when children are growing up – and all, including absent parents, have a duty to fulfil their responsibilities. Our approach is firstly, to ensure the tax system acknowledges the costs of bringing up children – every family with children should have more support, improving family prosperity and reducing child poverty; second, we want to make it easier for parents to spend more time with their children by helping families balance work and home; and third, we want to ensure that all parents take seriously their responsibilities to their children, even where they are not living with them day-to-day.

    Today, with the national advertising launch of the Children’s Tax Credit – our family tax cut – the tax system, which for years has ignored the very existence of children, is now recognising the very real costs of bringing up children. Building on the foundation of Child Benefit, paid to every one of 7 million mothers in the country, the new Children’s tax Credit is central to the new system of financial support for families.

    The maximum amount of £442 a year is on top of Child Benefit – for a family on £30,000 a year, that’s the equivalent of nearly 2 pence off the basic rate of tax; for a family on average earnings of £25,000, it’s the equivalent of 2.5 pence; and for a family on £15,000, it’s equivalent to 5 pence off the basic rate. People should apply by the end of February to see the difference in their April pay packet.

    But I want to do more to support families in the Budget, and to meet the needs of parents who wish to stay at home for longer after the birth of a child; getting people back into work with incentives such as WFTC and the 10p rate has been our priority, but now it is time to do more for mothers who want to stay at home, particularly in the first months and years of their young child’s life; I am confident that we will be able to take steps to improve arrangements for families facing additional costs and pressures where there are new born children.

    Our approach, now and after the next Budget – rising Child Benefit for all, the family tax cut for millions, helping parents to balance work and family responsibilities, and ensuring all parents take responsibility for their children.”

    Alistair Darling outlined the steps the Government has taken to ensure parents take responsibility for their children:

    “Most parents are happy to meet their responsibilities, but a minority try to evade their duty, and by doing so deny children their right to a decent start in life. That is why our reform of child support is so important; over one million children will benefit when the new, simplified assessment system come into force at the CSA, getting more money, more quickly, to more children.

    But we have to ensure those absent parents who evade their responsibilities do their best for their children. Our new powers, introduced this week, will ensure absent parents share in the care of their children. But in April, we will get tougher – courts will crack down on those who repeatedly avoid their responsibilities by removing driving licenses. A strong reminder that rights bring responsibilities, and a small price to pay to give children a better start in life.”

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain [February 2001]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain [February 2001]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 6 February 2001.

    A committee including landscape designers, architects and art experts has been set up to advise on the most suitable location and preferred design for a fountain in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, and to supervise the detailed process leading to its installation.

    The Fountain Design Committee will be chaired by the Hon. Rosa Monckton, a member of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Committee. It will advise the Memorial Committee on a suitable site for the fountain within one of London’s Royal Parks. The Memorial Committee will then announce its final choice of location.

    The Memorial Committee believes that a fountain would be an appropriate additional memorial to complement the four commemorative projects already established. Once a suitable site has been chosen, the Fountain Design Committee will supervise a design competition for an appropriate fountain, taking account of landscape and other considerations particular to the selected site.

    The most suitable designs will be submitted to the Memorial Committee for consideration before a final decision is taken and the installation process can begin.

    It was also announced today that Lord Luce, the Lord Chamberlain to the Royal Household, will succeed Lord Camoys on the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Committee.

    NOTES TO EDITORS

    1. The terms of reference of the Fountain Design Committee are:

    2. The Fountain Design Committee will advise the Memorial Committee on the choice of exact location and actual design of the fountain, and oversee the whole process from the preparation of the specification, the selection of the design team, consultation with interested parties, to the work to construct the fountain.

    The members of the Fountain Design Committee are:

    Hon Rosa Monckton (Chair)

    Chair of ‘Kids’ charity for disabled children; close personal friend of Diana, Princess of Wales and member of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Committee.

    Richard Cork

    Chief art critic, Times; former trustee Public Arts Development Trust; member advisory group on the Vacant Plinth in Trafalgar Square; exhibition organiser.

    Edward Jones AADipl Hons RIBA

    Architect in private practice: projects include Royal Opera House; buildings for Henry Moore Foundation, Leeds; National Portrait Gallery; and housing in New Delhi.

    James Lingwood

    Co-Director, Artangel Trust, which commissions and produces major new works by contemporary artists, eg Rachel Whiteread’s House.

    Sandra Percival

    Director, Public Art Development Trust, which promotes commissioning, restoration and preservation of art in public, and public education about art in public places.

    David Sylvester CBE

    Former Chairman, Arts Council of Great Britain; member of the South Bank Board; exhibitions curator, writer on art.

    William Weston

    New Chief Executive, Royal Parks Agency; previously Secretary to the Governors and General Manager of the Royal Shakespeare Company.

    Kim Wilkie

    Principal, Kim Wilkie Associates; landscape design expert; member of the Royal Parks Advisory Board.

    Dr Giles Worsley PhD FSA

    Architecture correspondent, Daily Telegraph; member of Somerset House Trust, Building Committee of the Trustees of the National Gallery; former member Royal Fine Art Commission.

  • Andrew Smith – 2001 Speech to the Better Public Buildings Conference

    Andrew Smith – 2001 Speech to the Better Public Buildings Conference

    The speech made by Andrew Smith, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 6 February 2001.

    Good Morning,

    It is important that we involve people across the whole of the public sector in promoting good design, and I am glad to see such interest at today’s conference.

    It is important to recognise that well designed buildings can reduce the overall costs of providing services, and they can increase the effectiveness of those services. Good design is fundamental to value for money. If we thought that ?best value? meant ?cheap?, and ignored the long-term savings good design can bring, we would be making a false economy. Best value is not the lowest price, but the best combination of whole life costs and quality. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the highest cost is best value either.

    Modernising Public Services

    The benefits good design brings are more important now than at any time in the last twenty years: Public services have faced years of neglect by previous Governments, and we have been faced with the challenge of investing in these services and in Britain’s infrastructure.

    When we took office, we faced both a record of chronic under investment in public services and a £27 billion deficit on the public finances, so our first task was to create stability and sustainable public finances. We have made the tough choices we needed to. We have set clear fiscal rules over the economic cycle: and today we not only have low inflation and stable growth but sound public finances and the national debt falling towards 30 per cent of GDP.

    It is this sustained improvement in our public finances that makes possible the prospect of sustained investment in our public services. In the three-year spending review last summer, we announced an additional £4 billion of capital spending this year, and net investment by the public sector is set to double over the next three years.

    This is a massive investment in rebuilding public services, and we expect a return for that investment. The public expects and deserves high quality services to be delivered on time, and the taxpayer deserves that they are delivered at the best value and to budget. Our overriding aim is always to secure better value for money in all forms of procurement – not as a cost-cutting exercise, but as a way of delivering more, better services and facilities from public investment.

    Benefits of Good Design

    Good public buildings are a demonstration of our respect for public spaces and communities. Landmark buildings, like the Tate Modern, can give new life and new identity to areas, and create new and valued public spaces. But there is room for better design in all public buildings, no matter how small.

    I am particularly interested in the role of good design in regenerating our most disadvantaged communities. The air of neglect, abandon, and hopelessness which blights poor areas is both a consequence and a cause of poor design as well as low investment – a vicious and debilitating circle of degeneration.

    Turning this into reverse in partnership with local people and businesses is one of our most urgent priorities. Good design, coupled with investment in everything from primary care facilities, to children’s play areas, to business start-up units will send a powerful and confidence-boosting signal that we care, we are listening to them, we are involving them and that we are making a difference.

    The benefits of good design are not just skin-deep. Well designed buildings can better serve the needs of the people who use them.

    They can reduce the costs of providing services over the whole life of a building, they can have a positive impact on the welfare and the productivity of the staff who work in them.

    There is a strong correlation between a high quality learning environment and good teaching, attitudes and behaviour. Well designed schools can have lower truancy rates and improved attendance, and better design in schools can also free staff and resources for the activities that matter. For example, one primary school found that by building a new one-storey building, it needed fewer teachers monitoring breaks, and three fewer lunchtime assistants. These are savings which can be put into educating children instead.

    Another study, by the University of Sheffield, of a purpose-built psychiatric unit in Hove, found significant improvements in outcomes for patients. Treatment times were reduced by 14%, patients spent less time in enforced isolation, and there were far fewer attacks on staff. Good design has added a great deal of value for both staff and patients, and this has delivered a significant improvement in terms of cost.

    Good design can actually save money. Well designed buildings are appropriate to the use they will be put to: their staff have a better working environment, and at the early stages, designers can take account of the costs of operating the building over its whole life.

    By taking account of the whole-life costs of a building at the earliest design stages, we can reduce them. Design improvements which improve the effectiveness of staff, or decrease the costs of running and maintaining a building, can pay for themselves many times over during the lifetime of the building.

    Taking an example from the private sector: BAA’s (British Airports Authority) office buildings had design and construction teams working together from the outset, and the result is an overall saving of 30% of costs. The public sector can and should learn from private sector projects like this.

    To make the most of the benefits of good design we do need a new approach to procurement, and a commitment at the highest. We need committed and aware procurers, well-constructed specifications, and integrated teams of designers and constructors, who can work together to ensure the final building does its job well, on time, and on budget.

    What Government is doing to promote good design

    PPP and PFI have also forced the public sector to raise their game, and become a better partner and a better procurer of public services. To get the right outcome for the citizen and the taxpayer, the public sector needs to be able to specify its requirements clearly, to negotiate with the private sector on equal terms and ensure the best value for taxpayers. And because PPP and PFI are not appropriate in all circumstances, we need to draw on our experience to deliver better deals and better buildings when using conventional procurement options.

    The Office of Government Commerce has been set up by this Government to promote best practice in all sorts of procurement across the public sector: the OGC has already produced the Better Public Buildings document with DCMS. It will help departments with their own projects, and where a Government-wide approach is needed it will manage or facilitate commercial relationships on behalf of departments.

    If the public sector is to make the most of good design, it is important that we are able to accurately asses the benefits of proposed designs. The Treasury’s ‘Design in PFI’ guidance has improved understanding of these benefits.

    The creation of CABE, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment in 1999, was another important step, and we welcome the work of the Construction Industry Council and CABE in developing key performance indicators and in providing help and advice on design and design procurement to public sector organisations.

    Prime Ministers Award

    Procuring better designed public buildings needs a strong commitment to good design from the very top. That applies to central Government, as well as to individual agencies and authorities. The Government is committed to better design, and that commitment will be carried forward by fourteen Ministerial Design Champions, who will drive forward better design in their departments.

    The number of public buildings which are outstanding examples of design, construction, and delivery, is growing every year. These embody high quality at reasonable cost and represent best value to the procurers, the users, and the public. To recognise these achievements, and as another sign of our determination to improve design, I am very pleased to announce today the ?Prime Ministers Better Public Building Award.”

    This award reflects the Prime Ministers personal interest in excellence in public buildings, and his commitment to raising the standard of public building projects by identifying and rewarding high-quality design and construction. The award will made to the most outstanding public building, and will be announced at the British Construction Industry awards on 24th October, the UK’s premier accolades for all-round excellence in design, construction delivery and performance.

    The award will be sponsored by CABE and OGC on behalf of all of Government, and it will be administered and judged under the aegis of the BCIA. The British Construction Industry awards have been made annually since 1988. They are promoted by the Daily Telegraph and the magazines The Architects Journal and New Civil Engineer, and have an extremely rigorous judging process, culminating with detailed visits to the short-listed projects during which all those responsible – client, designers, and contractor – are put through their paces. – The Judging panel is made up of eminent architects, engineers and contractors and always chaired by a heavyweight representative of the client sector – this year, it will be Sir Stuart Lipton, chairman of CABE.

    Entry forms will be available from the 22nd February, so I would like to invite you to enter for this important new award, any new public buildings projects of any size which you are proud of, whether as a client, a designer, a builder or a user. To qualify they need to have been completed and brought into use in 2000.

    Conclusion

    Prudent, targeted long-term public investment is not only a social good, but, in a changing and often insecure world, it is an economic necessity. It is only by investment in our frontline public services and infrastructure that we can equip ourselves for future economic challenges.

    The Government has already substantially increased capital spending, and we are determined that this spending should go as far as possible, to give the public the high-quality public services they deserve, and to create buildings and facilities we can all be proud of. There is a great deal we can gain from better designed buildings, and with your help and your commitment, I look forward to seeing many more outstanding public buildings in the future.