Tag: 2012

William Hague – 2012 Speech on Latin America

Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, in Rio de Janeiro on 19 January 2012.

It is a great personal pleasure for me to be here in Brazil. I have wanted to make this visit for a long time, I attach great importance to it and I am pleased to say that it has gone extremely well.

I have come with a message of warm friendship: our relations with Brazil are important to me, and important to my country. We wish to invest in our ties with you, and to look for new ways of working together as equal partners.

This is part of our effort to transform our relations with Latin America and with other emerging powers. Today, when nations such as yours have a growing voice in world affairs and three quarters of global growth in 2012 is expected to come from non-OECD countries, there can be no doubt that this is the right direction for Britain to take.

The history of our involvement with your region began with an auspicious start but was followed by many missed opportunities. We were among the very first countries to recognise the potential of Latin America in the 1800s, when Foreign Secretary George Canning helped negotiate Brazil’s independence. We enjoyed close trading links in the 19th century and played a big part in your early economic development – not to mention the fact that the first game of football in Brazil was arranged by a British man named Charles Miller in 1894. But in the late twentieth century Britain looked away: four of our Latin American Embassies were shut, diplomats were withdrawn and our links faltered just as your continent began its extraordinary rise.

We have now opened a new chapter in this history. The days of our diplomatic retreat from your region are over. We have begun Britain’s most ambitious effort to strengthen ties with Latin America in 200 years, since the days of Canning.

We are cementing this commitment in bricks and mortar, re-opening our Embassy in El Salvador, a new consulate here in Brazil in Recife, and expanding our diplomatic staff across Latin America. British Ministers have made 37 visits to the continent in the first 18 months – nearly half of them to Brazil, and we have set targets to double our trade with Brazil, Mexico and Colombia by 2015. We have moved our diplomatic engagement with Brazil to a wholly different level within British government, because we recognise your country’s growing impact on the economic and political landscape of the world. We have just signed a ‘Science without borders’ agreement which will bring 10,000 Brazilian students to British universities over the next four years. And the British Council has trebled its budget for your country, investing in cultural exchanges, English language training and education. In every way, Britain is back in Brazil and we are proud to be here.

Today, no one can make the mistake of underestimating Brazil.

I have the strongest admiration for your peaceful victory over dictatorship and the thriving, diverse democracy you have built since then;

– for your achievements in raising 40 million of your citizens out of extreme poverty, giving them access to education and opportunity and empowering women;

– for the economic growth which has made you one of the largest economies in the world;

– for your ambition, expressed by your President, to be one of the most developed and least unequal nations in the world;

– and for your commitment to environmental conservation, to clean and renewable energy, to development and to the fight against climate change, hunger and poverty.

I was there in New York for the historic moment when your President became the first female leader to open the UN General Assembly.

Your staging of the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016 will put Brazil in the spotlight of a huge amount of world attention in the coming decade.

All these things convince your friends around the world that the very best days for Brazil are still to come.

We share your confidence in Brazil’s future, and are excited about the opportunities for stronger ties between our people and our economies.

We are already the 4th largest investor here. Our exports to Brazil were up 23% in 2010 and a further 9% in 2011. UK companies such as British Gas, British Petroleum, Rolls Royce and Shell are investing heavily, including here in Rio.

As you continue to develop your knowledge and skills base and invest in science, innovation, education, health and infrastructure, our strengths in all these areas make Britain a natural partner for you.

Our back-to-back hosting of the Olympics provides huge opportunities for our companies to collaborate.

Our membership of the European Union, combined with our competitive tax system and openness to inward investment make us an ideal springboard into European markets.

And we are the leading voice in the European Union against protectionism and in favour of Free Trade Agreements, including the vitally important Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Mercosur which we attach great importance to, and the completion of the Doha Trade Round.

For all these reasons I am optimistic that the best days in our relationship are ahead of us too. I am delighted to announce that Prince Harry will visit Rio in March to attend an event on Sugarloaf mountain that will celebrate all that is great about the relationship between Britain and Brazil.

We also want to develop a better understanding between us in foreign policy.

Your country’s role in international affairs is set to grow significantly this century. This flows naturally from your growing economic weight and the shifting international landscape.

The world has changed profoundly since the end of the Cold War. International relations are no longer dominated by a handful of powerful states that can dictate terms for the rest, and never will be again. That era is over.

We are in a new phase in the concert of nations, in which states that have not traditionally dominated or sought dominance have an equal role to play in world affairs.

Ours is a networked world, in which economic and political power and influence are much more widely dispersed and tilting in the direction of the countries of the South and East. It is not a world that is settling into blocs or a north-south divide – but which has opened up the possibility of far more flexible groupings built on a latticework of connections between nations, societies, businesses and individuals.

This is change that Britain does not fear, but that we welcome and embrace. It has transformed the lives of millions who have been lifted out of poverty and into the middle class by growth and development, and it supports a more stable and equitable world.

And it is quite properly widening the circle of international decision-making. The problems of our time require collaborative responses. No single country holds the answer to how we create a sustainable global economy, address conflict or husband our planet’s resources for all. Today many of the innovative answers to these challenges are being developed in the emerging economies, just as many nations to look at Brazil as a model for successful political and economic development.

In this new global environment our British government is looking further afield for opportunities for our citizens and new ways of working in foreign policy – not replacing our role in Europe and indispensable alliance with the United States, but running alongside them and indeed reinforcing them. Our aim is that the United Kingdom should be at the centre of the networks of the 21st century, including here in Latin America.

We also strongly believe that the institutions of global governance must become more representative, which is why we support reform of the United Nations Security Council including a permanent seat for Brazil.

We know that Brazil has long played a distinguished role in this region; that you prize your long history of peaceful relations with your neighbours and take your international responsibilities very seriously.

In my country, we remember that just as we came to your aid during your wars of independence, so you came to our aid during the first and second World Wars, the only South American country to do so.

As a founding member of the United Nations, your country is older as an entity than the majority of its members, including a significant number in Europe.

You have played a leading role at the UN since its inception, as well as in other bodies such as the Organisation of American States.

We warmly welcomed the decisive steps Brazil took in the 1990s to support the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and your participation in the Latin American nuclear weapon free zone.

We support and admire your leadership in building peace in Haiti; and your skills and knowledge in eradicating poverty, addressing food security and protecting the environment, all of which have global application.

We welcome the fact that you are expanding your diplomatic network around the world – including the opening of your newest European Embassy in Sarajevo.

We therefore see it as very much in both our countries’ interests that we develop a strong and equal working relationship in foreign policy; one that reflects today’s world and our many shared values as fellow democracies.

For the changes I have described also mean that maintaining international peace and security is becoming a broader responsibility. It rests on the shoulders of more nations than it has in the past.

This means that we need to develop a better understanding of how to act together when that stable environment is threatened, and how we translate our democratic values into action.

Brazil believes strongly in human rights. So do we. We both play a prominent role in the UN Human Rights Council, and recently worked together to help establish a UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran.

But of course no two countries think exactly the same way, and we respect your right to take a different view as you did over aspects of the international action in Libya.

As we see it, in Libya limited military force was used to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack and to implement a no-fly zone, only after Colonel Qadhafi had refused to end the violence and when called for by all the countries of the region through the Arab League. It was action that was necessary, legal and right. It was carried on the legal basis of a UN Security Council mandate; it involved working directly with Libya’s neighbours, and it was done without NATO forces on the ground. These conditions – a legal mandate, regional participation and limited objectives – enabled us to be successful. They were consciously based on the lessons learnt not only from Iraq but also from Bosnia, where inaction led to the worst violence in Europe since the Second World War.

Military action is always a last resort and can never be without risk. Each country is different and each case must be judged on its merits. But when human life is threatened and peaceful avenues fail, we argue that we must be prepared to intervene in the way best suited to the circumstances and to be able to do so quickly and decisively.

So while we do not always draw the same conclusions about the best way to act when human rights at threatened at decisive moments, we have a strong common interest in building a better understanding for the future. Your President recently put forward the concept of ‘responsibility while protecting’ alongside the UN concept of the Responsibility to Protect. We welcome this contributing to the international debate and as I said to Foreign Minister Patriota yesterday, we look forward to discussing it and to finding common ground between our different perspectives.

We may well face many more difficult and complex situations in the coming years. So we should try to build a stronger consensus about how we uphold our human rights responsibilities and maintain international security, especially as fellow democracies.

2012 will be a critical year for the Arab Spring. We have a strong common interest in using every diplomatic means at our disposal to encourage positive change in the region while respecting the wishes and choices of its citizens.

In Syria, we are confronted with an appalling threat to human life and regional stability. Protests by people seeking to claim their human rights and choose democracy and freedom have been met with tanks, snipers, torture and over 5,000 deaths. The deterioration of the system risks not only further casualties but a civil war in the most combustible conflict zone in the world.

It is regrettable that the UN Security Council has been unable to speak out and we urge it to do so now. We welcome the leadership shown by the Arab League and it is vital that efforts are redoubled to support their mission and to achieve a political transition in Syria.

2012 could also be a year of crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme. Like Brazil, our objective is to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, which could start an arms race in the region and call into question the very survival of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Britain is seeking a negotiated solution with Iran and is not advocating confrontation. The best chance of averting either a nuclear armed Iran or the potentially devastating consequences of military action is to intensify the legitimate, peaceful pressure on Iran to return to negotiations.

The main purpose of my visit was to open more intensive discussions about how we address these and other global problems. I am optimistic about this, particularly after my discussions in Brasilia yesterday, although such cooperation must be built on trust and shared experiences and will not come into existence overnight. But we share common values and interests that provide a strong foundation for us to build on over time.

Like you we believe in a rules-based international system and more representative international organisations that strengthen multilateralism in the world.

Like you, we think the international community must get better at peace building and tackling the root causes of conflict, which is why we are hosting a major conference on Somalia next month.

Like you, we welcome a stronger role in world affairs for Latin American countries, although where we have our own views over issues such as the Falkland Islands we will always be frank about them. We will always uphold UK sovereignty and the rights of the Islanders to self-determination, while valuing the ability to discuss these issues with Brazil in a framework that respects international law and human rights.

We also share the same deep commitment to tackling poverty, which is why in Britain we are standing firm to our commitment to raise aid to 0.7% of GNI, despite economic difficulties at home. We have promised that we will not build our economic recovery on the back of the world’s poor and we are showing that through our actions.

We both believe in transparent and accountable government, and are working together with more than 50 other countries through the Open Government Partnership.

We are developing new relations in defence and security, with British companies like BAE Systems supporting your procurement programme.

And we work closely together on biodiversity and on climate change. The Rio+20 conference this June will be an important opportunity to set out a way forward on sustainable development and poverty reduction. Our experts are already working together in the field of development, where Brazil can emerge as a global force. Indeed, your knowledge and skills in development and environmental conservation are among your greatest contributions to the world.

Let us build on this track record to become closer partners in support of international peace and security.

Energy, perseverance, creativity, self-reliance, inventiveness, daring, and diversity – these are just some of the qualities that your friends in the world associate with the people of Brazil.

How much easier it will be to address the challenges of insecurity, terrorism and prosperity if countries like Britain and Brazil are active partners in international affairs, and if Brazil brings all these qualities to bear in the world.

Our values, our economic compatibility and our international roles give us great potential to be closer partners. This is our ambition and we will invest in it over the coming years.

January 28, 2016
Charles Hendry – 2012 Speech at Wilton Park Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Hendry, the then Minister of Energy and Climate Change, on 23 January 2012.

Introduction

Thank Wilton Park for opportunity to speak.

Natural gas is a critical part of the UK energy mix today and will continue to have a crucial role tomorrow, and beyond 2030. I am very conscious that just as we want security of supply, producers also need security of demand.

Energy security matters greatly in the UK. And gas imports matter greatly to help ensure the UK’s energy security. In 2011 we imported more gas than we pumped from our continental shelf. Our projections show that this decline in domestic production is a reality, and that it will make us increasingly reliant on imports to secure our energy supply.

I think everyone here today agrees that climate change is a real and growing threat that we need to tackle together, globally, because it affects us all. In the UK we have strict and ambitious targets to meet. Gas will also help us to meet these challenging targets.

So both on the energy security and climate change accounts, for the short, medium and longer term, gas matters greatly to the UK.

I want to cover three key topics today:

– the role gas plays in the UK market today

– our views on the role gas will play in the UK market in the future and

– what that means for European gas markets

Gas in the UK market today

If we look at the UK’s energy mix today, natural gas is the single most important fuel.

We are among the largest gas consumers in Europe. Crucially, in 2011 gas accounted for around a third of the UK’s final energy consumption. The use of gas in the UK has grown dramatically over the past three decades, drawing initially on the significant reserves under the North and Irish Seas and now increasingly dependent on imports. UK domestic production peaked in 2001, and we became a net importer in 2004. By then the UK had already become a large consumer of gas for home heating, electricity and industry.

These high levels of gas consumption are no accident. Gas has important advantages as an energy source:

It is reliable – we have plentiful gas supplies for many years to come from a diverse range of sources; we have a strong market framework with extensive infrastructure – including a 500 per cent increase in import capacity in last decade, and a 25 per cent increase in storage. Furthermore gas generation is readily flexible to provide both base load and back-up generation.

It is the cleanest fossil fuel – on average gas generation emits around half the level of CO2 of coal.

It is relatively cheap.

Gas in the UK market in the future

As I mentioned earlier, the UK is fully committed to ambitious decarbonisation targets. The UK government has made clear its commitment to a legally binding target of 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. We have made public our support for new nuclear and for CCS, and we are taking significant steps to increase energy efficiency. Gas also has a role in helping us achieve an 80% emissions reductions by 2050.

Let me explain how gas will help us achieve our ambitions. I think we need to split this into two time horizons – over the next 10-20 years, and then the longer term out to 2050.

Changes in the UK energy sector over the next 10-20 years will create new sources of gas demand. We will need gas to retain sufficient electricity generation capacity margin in the face of coal/nuclear closures, to manage intermittency from increased renewables, and continue to meet the majority of our heat needs:

In the electricity sector, approximately a fifth (19 GW) of existing capacity is expected to come off the system between now and 2020, principally coal and nuclear generation due to environmental regulation and age. New gas generation will play a key role in filling this gap in base-load/mid-merit generation. Over 11GW of CCGT has received planning consent since 2009, with around 3 GW under construction. I think you’ll agree with me that this is not exactly a “dash for gas”, but rather a significant, and sustainable, increase in the role of gas here in the UK.

As the share of renewables in our electricity mix rises, much of it in the form of intermittent wind, there will be an increasingly important role for gas in providing back-up generation for the times when the wind doesn’t blow.

And gas will continue to provide the significant majority of our heat. Gas is still expected to meet around two-thirds of heat demand by 2030. There will also be new opportunities for gas in meeting some of the extra generation required to power the growth in electric heating.

So our conclusion is that although the precise share of gas in the overall energy mix will be determined by the gas industry, unabated gas is likely to retain a significant role through to the 2030s.

So much for the demand side. We also have a broadly benign view of the supply side. While global gas demand is set to rise rapidly, the global outlook for gas supply is generally good. The IEA has described the global gas resource base as “vast and widely dispersed geographically”, with unconventional gas resources now estimated to be as large as conventional ones: remaining recoverable reserves of conventional gas are equivalent to about 130 yrs of current consumption, and those of unconventional gas could be equivalent to another 125 years.

The IEA also rightly points out that increased use of gas over the very long term (out to 2050 and beyond) without CCS will not be enough to put us on a carbon emissions path consistent with limiting the rise in average global temperatures to 2C. Although gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, we need to put the right policies in place to ensure a balanced and diverse energy portfolio that is consistent with our energy security and our climate change objectives. I believe this is challenging but achievable, this is what the UK is working towards. I will be very interested to hear from Anne-Sophie Corbeau, from the IEA, later on this afternoon about the latest IEA thinking on the global prospects for gas.

In the UK exploration for unconventional gas has recently begun. Initial indications of our potential unconventional resource are promising. While it is too early to say how significant a role it might play in our future gas supplies unconventional gas could make a welcome contribution to the diversity of the UK energy supply in the future, alongside our existing conventional gas fields, piped gas from Norway and from the Continent and LNG.

But we do need to do more. Energy security matters greatly to the UK and we cannot afford to be complacent now, or in the future. We are working internationally to encourage: investment in new gas production, supporting UK companies overseas in that work as well; diverse and efficient liberalised gas markets; restraining global gas demand via energy efficiency; and the opening of new gas supply routes to diversify and enhance the resilience of global gas markets.

I would like to pause for a moment here, while we are talking about our gas supply. There has been a lot of talk and speculation in these last few weeks about Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

The Iranians talk about closing the Strait of Hormuz, but this is a diversionary tactic. They simply don’t want the world to focus on the real issue at play here – the nature of their nuclear programme.

The British government and the Defence Secretary have been clear. The US government have been clear. Disruption to the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz would threaten regional and global economic growth.

Any attempt by Iran to close the Straits would be illegal, and we would be determined to ensure they are ultimately unsuccessful.

The UK does get a large proportion of its imported gas from Qatar, via the Straits of Hormuz. But, in 2011 we imported LNG from eight countries and the infrastructure exists to continue to import large volumes, should we need to.

So far this winter, LNG has supplied 17% of GB gas demand. This level of demand could easily be replaced by alternative sources.

We are second in the EU only to the Netherlands in domestic gas production, the UK can meet near 60 per cent of its gas demand through its own production. We can also import from Norway the Continent through our pipeline connections.

We have an increasingly diverse energy mix – we can call upon coal, nuclear, domestic oil and gas and renewables – and this helps to insure us against even the most exceptional international events.

Now let me turn more briefly to the longer term.

Our 2050 analysis suggests that, even without CCS, gas usage in the UK could still be 60 per cent of 2007 consumption levels by 2050, if heroic decarbonisation efforts are made in other sectors. That is one of the reasons why we are working so hard to demonstrate CCS at commercial scale and encouraging CCS deployment internationally and why our £1bn CCS programme will be open to gas projects as well as coal.

We believe that carbon capture and storage means gas has the potential to be not just a transitional fuel, but a destination fuel.

Gas and the EU

Let me now turn to European gas markets, as indeed the conference is themed around EU and UK gas security of supply. Doing so gives me an opportunity to put what we are doing in the UK in the context of what is happening more widely in neighbouring European markets.

The UK is geographically well-placed as an entry point for gas imports for onward distribution into the EU – both piped gas from Norway, and LNG from the global market. And we have put in place the necessary gas import infrastructure in recent years.

We have had this role over the last few years, and it will if anything be even more important as demand for gas increases, and as EU energy markets also prepare for a low carbon future, with an major role for gas. This role is underpinned by the liquidity provided by GB’s gas market – one of the largest in the world.

The UK has long been an advocate of increased liberalisation and integration of European gas markets. We think such developments work in the interests of all. We will continue to pursue this, and expect the UK market to become increasingly integrated with the rest of the EU.

EU gas markets are changing – and for the better. But we are still some way off from a well functioning, liquid and integrated EU gas market. The Third Package of energy market legislation contains most of the tools to achieve this, so it is important that it is fully implemented in all Member States and that the technical codes provided for in the Third Package are agreed as soon as possible.

These will put in place arrangements to ensure that there is non-discriminatory access to pipelines using market-based methods, providing signals for investment in additional capacity, and hub-to-hub trading.

It is therefore important that all interested parties – Member States, regulators, market players, and the Commission – work closely together to develop these cross-border rules. This should set us firmly on the path towards an EU gas market which gives us the secure, flexible and competitively priced gas supplies we need.

The Third Package will also provide most of the necessary incentives for private sector investment in the new internal EU pipelines needed for our gas security. It will be enhanced by the reverse flow and other infrastructure obligations in the EU’s 2010 Gas Security Regulation, which requires Member States to have energy resilience measure in place to cope with major supply disruptions.

However, a well-functioning single market, with gas moving between Member States in response to market signals without regulatory or physical barriers, is a necessary, but still not sufficient, condition for energy security. Increasing EU dependence on gas imports means we need new pipelines bringing gas into the EU.

While individual pipelines are of course commercial matters, the UK and EU partners particularly welcome projects to bring gas from new sources. That explains our support for the Southern Corridor pipeline to bring gas from the Caspian to Europe. Recent completion of the first Nord Stream pipe, bringing gas into the EU from the Russian system directly to Germany, is an impressive achievement; but it will not increase the EU’s diversity of supply, even if it provides a new route to market.

In this context, we hope that Nord Stream will increase overall gas supply into the EU rather than, as some fear, merely displace existing supply through Ukraine. Similarly, Russia’s proposed South Stream project would diversify gas routes into the EU but not supply sources. So while Russia, Algeria and Norway will remain major suppliers of piped gas to the EU, fuller European gas security requires projects bringing gas directly to the EU from other third countries – notably the Caspian region, initially Azerbaijan and later Turkmenistan via the proposed Trans-Caspian Pipeline, and, in time, the Middle East. We therefore welcome last year’s intergovernmental agreements between Turkey and Azerbaijan that will facilitate gas transit through Turkey and pave the way for further investment towards the development of a Southern Gas Corridor.

To close this opening address I would encourage those here today with a role in making this happen – that is to say development of an EU gas market giving us secure, flexible and competitively priced gas supplies- to continue to play an increasingly active role in doing so.

Conclusion

I am delighted to be able to open such a high-level conference with an outline of the role of gas in the UK and I am honoured that Wilton Park have given me the opportunity to do so.

I am also delighted that you have all chosen to come and meet here today to talk about this very important topic. I hope I managed to set the scene for a productive discussion by outlining the British government’s assessment of the importance gas has in the UK’s energy mix, and indeed on the fact that this is not a short-term arrangement or a passing fad: Gas has, and will continue to have, a significant role in the UK energy mix for many years to come.

And I am delighted to be able to stay here for the whole afternoon and look forward to listening to your input and to taking part in the other presentations and discussions that are programmed for the rest of the day.

Thank you.

January 28, 2016
Gerald Howarth – 2012 Speech on European Defence and Security

Below is the text of the speech made by Gerald Howarth, the then Minister for International Security Strategy, at Chatham House in London on 23 January 2012.

Introduction

Thank you Caroline [Wyatt from the BBC] for that introduction.

Defence and security in Europe is at a critical juncture. As relative economic power moves south and east we are beginning to see the geopolitical impact.

As President Obama indicated in his speech at the Pentagon on 5 January, the Pacific region will consume a great deal more of the attention of the United States.

European countries will have to take more responsibility for collective security whether the challenges are within Europe’s borders, on the periphery, or at a distance. Furthermore, the fiscal position of many countries in the north Atlantic region is driving a reduction in public spending, including in defence budgets. It means European countries have to do more with less.

However, it is not all doom and gloom. Whilst there are weaknesses, we should not be blind to our strengths. Our greatest strength is the shared security agenda and shared values embodied in Nato, the cornerstone of our collective security, made up of inviolable sovereign nations.

Another great strength is the range and depth of high technology residing in European defence companies. Our greatest weakness, however, is that, even in Nato, European countries are falling short of the capability, commitment, and resources which the maintenance of our collective security surely requires.

Yet I see this as an opportunity. If European countries can rise to the challenge of deploying meaningful capability, we shall have no stronger ally than America.

To aid us, those institutions and arrangements which are proven and strengthen Europe’s defence and security should receive our full support to make them work even better.

But those which merely duplicate or distract are a dead weight on Europe, draining our increasingly scarce resources while the US looks on increasingly concerned. These themes will dominate your discussions over the next two days, as well as Nato’s Chicago summit in May, and I’d like to set the scene this morning.

Strategic shift

If there was ever any doubt that we live in a volatile world, this was surely laid to rest in the last twelve months. Bin Laden and Gaddafi were removed; we had the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and financial crisis in Europe; we saw long-surviving regimes across north Africa swept away, challenging long held strategic calculations in western capitals.

What will this year bring? What will be the consequences of the political unrest in Syria; dynastic succession in north Korea; an assertive and nuclear determined Iran? How will newly developed economies assert themselves? How will mature economies respond?

Even the United States is being forced to re-think its posture and prioritise like the rest of us. Its defence budget will be cut by at least 500 billion dollars. Its armed forces will be leaner, though (unlike many European countries) fully deployable. And it has chosen to reflect the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region in its strategic posture.

Of course, US and European vital interests regularly coincide outside the north Atlantic area. This includes the Pacific region where it is in all our interests that the emerging powers become responsible members of the international community and help provide stability to the global system.

But this should not mean that the historic trans-Atlantic alliance is no longer of vital interest to both the US and the rest of Nato, far from it. Nor does the importance of the Pacific region in the coming decades lessen the requirement to co-operate elsewhere. Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan are not to be found in the Pacific.

Nato

All of this should compel us to strengthen north Atlantic bonds, in particular, the European strand, rather than weaken them. For the British government, this means Nato above all else when it comes to defence and security.

Nato is the best vehicle to advance our shared security agenda, it is established, proven, and based on shared values. It remains the cornerstone of north american security as well as Europe’s: Nato borders the Pacific as well as the Atlantic.

And it remains the organisation which many other countries look to. When the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973 on Libya, who did they think would implement it?

When sustained multi-lateral action was required, Nato had the only realistic co-ordinating structure prepared for joint and combined operations. Most importantly, Nato remains a community of allies with values, willing to back principles with power.

But Libya showed that the alliance as a whole, and the contribution of some of the allies, fell short of what Nato’s Strategic Concept demands. Let us be very clear. Despite the limited nature of the campaign, the nations of Europe could not have undertaken the operations over Libya without the US.

It is unsurprising therefore that the United States is asking whether it’s sustainable for the US to subsidise the defence of those who could invest more but choose not to.

Why can Nato only generate a fraction of the capability nominally available to it? And it has reaffirmed wider concerns that a two or multi-tier alliance is starting to emerge with some allies less willing to participate in operations than others.

All three of these issues, finance, capability, and political will, demand a proper response from Europe, using all the tools at our disposal.

Finance

First, finance. As the Soviets found to their cost, the lesson from history is that you cannot be secure if you’re broke. In Britain, we see debt as a strategic issue. It’s also undeniable that European defence spending has fallen by 24 billion euros in the last 3 years.

This is set to get worse. We have to prove to a sceptical electorate that the threats to our security are genuine and that we’re making every pound count. In Britain, we’ve already made difficult decisions to bring our fiscal position, including the defence programme, under control. Others will have to follow suit. So in such challenging times, we need to make the case for defence spending.

Even in these austere times, Nato’s 2% of GDP target for defence spending should be achievable. As the former US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, said just before he retired,

If current trends in the decline of European capabilities are not halted and reversed, future US political leaders, those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me, may not consider the return on America’s investment in Nato worth the cost.

So it is frankly depressing that 25 out of 28 currently fail to meet the 2% target, despite reaffirming their commitment to it only last year.

As politicians, we are acutely aware of the need to carry public opinion with us. Spending priorities, in many respects, reflect the politicians’ perceived assessment of public opinion.

Those of us who understand the volatility of the modern world, and the dramatic shifting of the tectonic plates, do have a duty to ensure that those we represent understand the gravity of the situation so that they are in a position to re-prioritise.

All the investment in our schools and hospitals, or indeed welfare, could be set at naught if we fail to provide adequate defence.

Capability

Of course, what we spend individually is only part of the story. As resources are squeezed, we need to spend more smartly and with a much clearer view on the collective capabilities the alliance requires. Making cuts in capability on the assumption that someone else will take the strain is not a viable long-term strategy.

We simply have to find ways of re-balancing who generates and pays for capability, as well as who demands it. In Libya, the shortage of ISR capability could only be met by the US, and only 12 of 43 air-to-air refuelling aircraft came from other alliance members.

The shortage of strategic lift capability is a real constraint on the deployability of EU battlegroups. Nato’s smart defence and the EU’s pooling and sharing initiatives go to the heart of this issue.

The bottom line is that capability has to be additional and deployable without breaking the bank.

So I welcome Nato’s continuing efforts to remove or disinvest in non-essential capabilities and avoid duplication in national inventories. It should help to reduce waste and prevent an uncoordinated rush to an as yet undefined bottom line. Nato must also highlight the worrying capability gaps across Europe which are being created as a result of budget reductions in almost every country.

But this work fails to grab political attention because it is seen as being too “in the weeds”. We need to raise it up and give it a real political push. So we need to develop a far more clear-sighted focus on what we really need in terms of our core military capabilities to maintain our collective security. And set that against an even more objective and sophisticated assessment of how good we really are now.

Political will

The third issue facing European nations is the political will to commit force.

In Afghanistan, Nato has demonstrated considerable flexibility by incorporating countries from as far afield as South Korea, Georgia, and Tonga. While in Libya, Nato’s swift and impressive agility in incorporating Arab states and other non-Nato countries such as Sweden was pretty remarkable.

We should capitalise on this experience by making it even easier for non-Nato nations to contribute to Nato-led operations, to fight as well as facilitate, often without the caveats which some alliance members insist on.

But with 10 Nato allies choosing to opt out of Libya and only six participating in air strikes, it reminds us that Nato is an alliance of sovereign states. Alliance solidarity, in respect of the Article V commitment, must remain sacrosanct. Outside Article V, I entirely accept the right of individual sovereign nations not to act if they believe their national interests are not served by doing so.

But if Nato is going to remain relevant in the 21st century, is consensus at 28 essential when like-minded allies wish to operate together within the framework of Nato to implement the will of the wider international community? Non-Nato nations can invoke the ‘Berlin-plus’ arrangements to use Nato’s SHAPE HQ and assets on EU operations.

Yet when some Nato allies don’t want to participate in certain operations, those who want to use elements of the Nato command structure (which they pay for and man) are not allowed to do so. Should we consider a ‘Berlin-minus’ arrangement where the few can use alliance assets on behalf of the many?

Other defence and security arrangements

I’ve focused on Nato this morning, as I firmly believe in its enduring role as the bedrock of European defence and security. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the other components of multi-layered defence. We should encourage bi-lateral partnerships and regional groupings to flourish, not least where doing so could add value to the capabilities of the alliance as a whole.

For example, the newly-formed northern group of nations, which includes the Baltic and Nordic countries, Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands, as well as Britain, is part of this process for us. So is the UK-France Treaty, which commits us to working together, and we would encourage others to do the same.

And if we are to meet the challenges of a volatile world, we need the full array of economic, developmental, and security levers at our disposal. This means a deployable and interoperable military capability married to a comprehensive approach which is designed to encapsulate the civil and military engagement which I have just mentioned.

Here the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), can complement Nato through its unique set of stabilisation tools, and in promoting further capability development. This allows it to play a useful role in crisis management.

But talking up the EU as an alternative route and adding additional new structures does not address diminishing defence budgets. And there is absolutely no point attempting to duplicate structures which already exist or capabilities we already have.

With two million men under arms in Europe, more manpower is not the issue. What Europe needs is manpower and capability it can deploy. Focusing on process and institution building while struggling to find a medic to support the European training mission for Somalia does not cast EU priorities in a positive light, to put it mildly.

The European Defence Agency has a role in driving forward the EU pooling and sharing initiatives which I endorsed at the Steering Board on 30 November. I pay tribute to Claude-France Arnould’s efforts in these areas, in particular, the EDA helicopter training programme to which Britain has signed up.

I know that, under her leadership, the EDA will concentrate on practical programmes such as this. These are good examples of collaboration within a small multi-lateral agreement to deliver capability with real operational benefit. But co-operation with Nato, not competition, should be the watchword on every European’s lips.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, this is indeed an important moment for European defence and security. European countries need to bring more to the table if Nato is going to remain relevant in what many are calling the “Pacific Century”.

Bob Gates was clear about this when he said,

In the past, I’ve worried openly about Nato turning into a two-tiered alliance: between members who specialise in ‘soft’ humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the ‘hard’ combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of Nato membership, be they security guarantees or headquarters billets, but don’t want to share the risks and costs. This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. And it is unacceptable.

We know more money is not going to be the answer. The challenge is to maximise the capability we can squeeze out of the resources we have.

We must ensure that Nato’s smart defence and EU pooling and sharing initiatives are mutually reinforcing. As our new Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, has said,

We must prioritise ruthlessly; specialise aggressively; and collaborate unsentimentally.

The United States will be watching us closely. So too will our adversaries. The Chicago Summit provides the perfect opportunity to show them all that, when it comes to defence and security, Europe remains committed, capable, and solvent.

January 28, 2016
David Cameron – 2012 Speech in Leeds on Start-Up Britain

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Leeds on 23 January 2012.

Thank you. Thank you very much for that introduction. Good afternoon everyone. Sorry to break up the speed networking – that sounds like a lot more fun than listening to a speech from me. I think we should probably introduce speed networking into the European Union and then those Council meetings, instead of being nine hour dinners, we could probably crack on and get them done in 90 minutes.

Delighted to be here and delighted to be launching this initiative. I said earlier this month that 2012 has got to be the year when we go for it. The year that we light new fires of ambition in our economy. The year when we get behind Britain’s grafters, do-ers, hard workers and entrepreneurs.

This isn’t something we’d quite like to do; this is something we’ve absolutely got to do because enterprise is critical to this country’s future.

As so often, Winston Churchill put it best. He said some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger that needs to be shot. Others look on it as a cow that should be milked but not enough people see it as a healthy horse pulling a sturdy wagon. In other words there is only one sensible and sustainable way to grow your economy and that is through brave people starting and growing businesses, employing people and creating wealth. Now some might say, ‘Well we agree with that but shouldn’t we just try to consolidate our success stories in big business and let them be the ones to drive recovery?’ And yes of course those businesses are vitally important but more important still is the small business, the new, the young – the businesses that haven’t even been born yet. Because over and over again studies show that small, high-growth firms are the engine of new job creation and they punch way above their weight. So if we want to make our economy stronger, this is where we’ve got to focus our fire power, on encouraging more people to start up and helping small businesses to grow.

Now we’ve made a start. We’re rolling back the bureaucratic, anti-business culture we’ve had for too many years in this country and we’re creating in its place a real climate for enterprise. Corporation tax has been cut and we’re cutting it further. Red tape has been cut and we’re cutting it further. Enterprise zones have been rolled out including here in Leeds to get the best and the brightest to start up. Entrepreneur visas have been brought in to get the brightest in the world to come here with great business ideas. And of course there’s entrepreneur relief so that those who start their own company can keep a bigger slice of their gains. Now since the election more than half a million jobs have been created in the private sector but this is not, and never can be, a case of job done. So today I want to tell you about two new things that we’re doing.

First, through 2012 we’re running a big national campaign to encourage more people to start up a business. Its core message is simple: there is a business in everyone. So what is the business in you? We need many more people to see themselves as entrepreneurs. To understand that each success story starts with a first step. Anita Roddick – she began The Body Shop from her kitchen. Richard Branson’s mother found a necklace on a train, clearly didn’t give it back to lost property, but sold it for £300 – interesting story – and that was the start-up capital for Virgin. Starbucks kicked off when three academics, probably with four or five opinions between them, wanted a good cup of coffee in their neighbourhood and they invested a few thousand dollars in a cafe.

Now of course it’s not enough just to exhort people to start up; we’ve got to give them practical help and that’s what this campaign and that’s what StartUp Britain is all about. If you talk to anyone who is starting a business, and they’ll tell you the number one thing they need is obviously money. Now we get that. That’s why we put in place agreements with the banks and targeted government schemes to get more cash flowing to small businesses. The trick is connecting that money to those who need it and that’s what our new online finance finder is going to do. It’s a very simple, very useful tool. Just answer a few questions about your business and the finance finder will tell you where to go to get the money you need.

Another thing entrepreneurs need is good advice. Starting a business is one of the hardest, most stressful things that anyone can do and it’s invaluable to know someone who’s been there and taken those risks themselves. That’s why we lined up thousands of mentors across the country and this campaign is going to connect them with the people who need their advice. But beyond those practical things, what entrepreneurs really need is the inspiration to keep on going when things get tough, as they inevitably do. So thanks to StartUp Britain, a campaign, as has been said, run by entrepreneurs, for entrepreneurs, they’re going to be able to log on and hear the stories of people who’ve done it all before. Now all this is coming together in one place in one campaign online and it’s going to be a real shot in the arm for enterprise in this country.

Now the second thing we’re announcing today is a very simple, very practical idea. It’s about using the spare space that we have in the public sector, in the government sector, to help businesses to grow in the private sector. We’ve heard from so many people who say, ‘Well I’ve got a great idea, I’ve got a little bit of start-up capital, I’m desperate to get it off the ground but I can’t find the space’. Or, people who say, ‘I can find the space but we’ve got to sign a three-year lease and we just can’t afford it’. And then of course you’ve got many people working in business during the day – or in government during the day – wanting to start a business but not wanting to misuse their office facilities or office computers and so what we need is additional space for them, sometimes space at the end of the day or even overnight. What we need is the British equivalent of the Silicon Valley garage – spaces that are cheap, flexible and available right now.

Some of these places are already opening up around the country – in fact I gave a speech in one of them last week. It’s called Hub Westminster. It’s at the top of the building that homes – that houses New Zealand House and you can rent an evening desk space there for just £40 a month. Then if you decide to take the plunge, maybe quit your job, start your own thing, you can start renting a full-time desk space and hire more as your business grows. So this is a brilliant idea and we want to help expand it.

Now, the British government has got a huge stock of buildings at our disposal. The first priority for the ones we aren’t using is obviously to sell them off, but in the meantime many are going to be sitting idle. So let’s match the capacity we’ve got in government with the need that is out there. Let’s provide office space where we can to those who can use it. So we’ve sent a message right across the public sector to government departments, to agencies, saying, ‘Give us your unwanted space. That office that has lain dormant for years; the shop that’s been boarded up; the rooms no one ever uses – the answer is out there: give that space to entrepreneurs for business creation.’

Now the Department of Communities and Local Government have said they’ve got two floors of an office block in Leeds, a large vacant building in Birmingham, another one in Plymouth. In London the Department for International Development has also found some space, so we’re throwing open the doors of government and letting the entrepreneurs in. And frankly this won’t just be good for the entrepreneurs and the business people involved; I’m hoping it’s going to be good for government too.

We’ll have civil servants who will then be sharing the water coolers, the lifts, the corridors with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs that their policies will affect and I think this will be a good connection between public and private sectors. It could even be that the building we’re in today is available for use. So if you’re in Leeds and you’ve got an idea for a business it could start right here. This is the very epitome of a roll your sleeves up government; not waffling on about the theory of how we can help business or shuffle a bit of money around, but doing something practical that will really help.

So we’re doing all this with optimism and confidence because Britain is a country with enterprise running through its veins. I found this on New Year’s Day when my daughter got me out of bed and said, ‘I want to make mince pies’. We made some mince pies and she sold them to my protection team for £1 a time. She’s only eight years old; I thought that was a good spark of enterprise! Some of them are still recovering, but nonetheless…

But this is the country that led the agricultural revolution, that led the industrial revolution, that helped to kick start the technological revolution. We’re the country that invented the jet engine, the DNA, the World-Wide Web, Viagra – almost everything you think of, most of the sports you’ve ever heard of. We’re the country that sells tea to China, vodka to Poland and yes, cheese to France. Enterprise is what we do in Britain so this is the year that more than ever we’ve got to go for it and with StartUp Britain’s help and with all your help, that is exactly what we’ll do.

Thank you very much for listening.

January 28, 2016
Ed Davey – 2012 Speech to the Offshore Oil And Gas All Party Parliamentary Group

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Davey, the then Secretary of State for Climate and Energy Change, in the House of Commons, London on 23 January 2012.

Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Department of Energy and Climate Change which I represent tonight, is, of course, a relatively new Whitehall department.

But the role of Secretary of State on the energy side has long antecedents.

My predecessors in that role include, Secretaries for Mines, Secretaries for Petroleum, Secretaries for Energy, Ministers of Technology, Ministers of Fuel, and my personal favourite….the Minister for Power.

I could get used to that title….

‘A surfeit of riches’

On the 21st December 1965, the Minister for Power, the Rt Hon Frederick Lee, rose in the House to Commons, and announced that by 1967 it was estimated that fifty million cubic feet of gas would be delivered ashore every day from the North Sea.

Just months earlier, in the September that year, British Petroleum’s rig SEA GEM had made the first ever hydrocarbon discovery in the UK’s North Sea waters.

Having read the exchanges that followed in the House, I must admit to having some sympathy for the Minister of Power.

Because that was a good news story, but one MP rose to bemoan the discovery which he claimed would ‘naturally’ lead to pit closures in the coal industry.

And one Scottish MP came close to claiming the North Sea’s riches for Scotland alone.

Some things, it seems, never change.

In exasperation, the Minister of Power said retorted that he hoped the House was not afraid of a ‘surfeit of riches’.

“We are making” he said, “a most remarkable indigenous fuel available to the British people”.

And so it has proven.

With the discovery of oil as well as gas in the North Sea, over the last 45 years: 41 billion barrels of oil and gas have been produced; contributing around £300bn in production taxes to the Treasury; benefiting both Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom; seeing a renaissance in Aberdeen; hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country; the UK’s largest industrial investor for many decades.

“A surfeit of riches” indeed and testament to the drive, determination, and in some cases, sheer bloody doggedness of those working to unlock the riches beneath the sea.

So I want to pay tribute to all those who came before us.

But today, I don’t really want to talk about the past.

I want to address the future and the realities we face.

The future of the further exploration of North Sea resources.

The reality of what that means for the industry, the country, and indeed the planet.

Realities

Let me set out a few as I see them.

Reality number one:

Oil and gas will form an integral part of UK energy mix for decades to come.

Over 70% of the UK’s primary energy demand may still be filled by oil and gas into the 2040s.

With 20 billion barrels or more still to be drawn from the UK’s North Sea fields, having an indigenous source helps prevent over-reliance to imports from more volatile parts of the world.

So the UK Oil and Gas Industry is a vitally important strategic resource now and over the next half century at least – to help fulfil our energy needs – and as a contribution to the UK’s energy security.

Reality number two:

North Sea oil and gas production is crucial to the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom.

We are not a petro-state and we cannot afford for our economy to become over-reliant on any one sector.

But the truth remains that the UK’s oil and gas resources are one of the country’s greatest assets.

The Offshore Oil and Gas Industry is the largest corporate tax payer to the exchequer paying around 20% of total corporate taxes.

Although the exact amount fluctuates, this typically represents around £8 billion a year.

And particularly during this tough time, the contribution of the North Sea industries to helping dig Britain out of fiscal difficulty is essential.

These two realities add up to one thing.

The Government must aim to maximise the economically viable recovery of resources from the North Sea – and where they exists on land too.

Because this will contribute to growth, jobs, the balance of payments, and to energy security.

So the Government has been acting:

Providing a regime that encourages investment and innovation;

Introducing, for example, new field allowances West of Shetland;

Extending the small fields allowance;

And putting in place new allowances for shallow-water gas fields.

The level of investment in new oil and gas projects sanctioned in 2011 was over ten times the amount of 2009.

18 projects with a total value of around £13bn were approved.

In 2012, 29 projects approved with capital expenditure over £11 billion.

In 2013, we are already expecting around 28 new fields to get approval.

So this is really good news – good news that both the Government, and you, the industry can be proud of, and everybody who has been involved in that.

Climate change

But there is another reality – reality number three:

Climate Change.

The draft US National Climate Assessment released this month doesn’t mince its words:

“Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and arctic sea ice are melting. These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity.”

As a planet we cannot go on using unabated fossil fuels at the rate we are now and keep climate change below 2°C.

And as our understanding of the changing climate grows, so does our understanding of what those risks might mean for our people.

An Earth which is hotter, more disaster-prone and more dangerous in the years to come means a more brutal environment for our citizens.

Just as it is this generation’s responsibility to pass on a healthy economy to the next, so it is this generation’s responsibility to pass on a healthy environment to the next.

I see both of these as moral responsibilities – responsibilities we owe to our children and our grand children.

So this Government, like the last, is committed to reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

And part of that drive means a major shift to low-carbon energy supply.

Diversifying our energy mix.

Exploiting every energy source and every technology available to do so.

From renewables, to nuclear, to carbon capture and storage.

So I hope we can work together, particularly on the latter.

The third reality, the reality of climate change, means that this Government will support a fiscal regime that encourages investment and innovation in Offshore Oil and Gas:

That ensures a fair return for shareholders and the tax-payer;

That contributes to energy security;

That will keep the turbine turning and the lights on.

But, that fiscal regime must be compatible with our long-term aims for diversifying our energy mix, reducing our emissions, and building a low-carbon future.

And that is what the Energy Bill is all about.

The work ahead

So there is are significant challenges ahead of us.

In terms of the industry itself, there is important work being done by the PILOT work groups, looking at everything from exploration to infrastructure to technology to workforce issues.

The industry is working collaboratively to tackle these issues and I pay tribute to that.

Extracting the natural resources of the North Sea must be seen as a collective endeavour.

So I have been very impressed in the way these working groups have been operating.

Work is also being done across Government to produce an Oil and Gas Industrial Strategy which will assess where we are now and determine what overarching work needs to be done to address the pressing issues that your industry faces.

This will allow us, together, to set out a plan for the future.

This work has to be a collaboration to be successful.

Collaboration between DECC, BIS, HMT and Industry and also through talks with all the regional and sectoral trade associations, as well as the Scottish Government.

So I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this report and Oil & Gas UK for their help in that process.

It will be consulted on over the next few months and will be finally published for everyone to see at the end of March.

But it should be a living document, not just an event.

It should be reviewed and refreshed regularly to reflect the extremely complex and changing landscape we are operating in.

Conclusion

So in conclusion ladies and gentlemen, with so many projects in the pipeline, the future of the UK’s Offshore Oil And Gas industry is a very bright one.

Oil and gas will be fundamental to our energy policy for decades to come.

The health of the industry is crucial; crucial to Britain’s power needs and economic needs.

And that is why we have created a positive investment environment and continue to nurture the environment to exploit the talents and expertise of the North Sea industries.

The Department I represent has been charged with these two crucial missions, powering the country and protecting the planet.

In the long-term, we will only succeed in achieving our mission, if we demonstrate the pioneering spirit of those who spudded the first wells in the North Sea.

The investors, the risk-takers, the innovators.

This has to be a joint endeavour.

Government and industry working together to exploit the resources the earth has to offer, powering the country, providing prosperity, while protecting the planet for future generations.

So in that spirit, I want to thank the All Party Parliamentary Group and Oil & Gas UK for all your hard work over the last year.

And I want to thank all of you in the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry for the invaluable contribution you make to British society, now and in the years to come.

January 28, 2016
Greg Clark – 2012 Speech on Strengthening Our Cities

Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the then Minister of State for Decentralisation and Planning, at City Hall in London on 23 January 2012.

In 2005, humanity became a mostly urban species. For the first time in the history of the world, there were more people living in cities than outside of them. By 2050 it is projected that cities will account for three-quarters of the global population. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that cities are the future.

Of course, urbanisation is at its most dramatic in the emerging economies. For instance, China now has more than one hundred cities with a population of more than one million.

By 2050 it is projected that cities will account for three-quarters of the global population.

But cities are of crucial importance to the western world too. In fact, the argument that I want to make today, is that the battle for growth – for Britain’s economic future – will be won or lost in our cities.

In doing so, I want to focus on the long-term. Because while there is no doubting the seriousness of the immediate economic challenges that we face right now, we also have to understand the underlying causes.

In particular, we have to face up to the fact that, as a country, the world does not owe us a living. The only way to pay for the standard of living that we aspire to is to produce high value goods and services that the rest of the world wants to buy and in the provision of which we can offer a comparative advantage. This is a constant challenge in a world where the awesome economic potential of China and India is constantly moving forward.

One of the ways in which we do – and can – offer a comparative advantage is in our ability to cope with complexity. According to the Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann;

The difference in wealth and income between nations is closely related to the ability of firms to take on complex tasks.

He notes that in America the average employee collaborates in some way with 100 co-workers. In India, he says, the equivalent figure is just four. The relevance to urban policy is that cities are engines of complexity: their primary purpose, their raison d’etre, is to facilitate human interaction to a degree that would not be possible anywhere else.

The battle for economic growth- for Britain’s future, will be won or lost in our cities.

Cities are often compared to living organisms. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two. Generally, the larger a living creature, the slower its metabolism. For instance, an elephant has a slower heartbeat than a mouse. In a successful city, the opposite is true.

In a city that succeeds, the larger an urban population, the faster the exchange of money, information, ideas and all the other interactions that fuel a dynamic economy. Of course, there are costs to supporting a larger population. But crucially these don’t have to increase as fast as the benefits.

Again, this is down to the power of complex interaction. In particular, the way that cities enable people to share the energy and infrastructure resources they depend upon. For instance, the size and density of a city population allows forms of mass transit that just wouldn’t be viable in other areas. In this respect cities transcend the limits of the natural world: they grow, but don’t slow. Contrary to their popular reputation, cities can be the most environmentally-friendly places on earth.

However, cities are not the only engine of complexity. Consider the impact of globalisation. Political and technological progress has enabled new connections to be made on a completely different scale – worldwide communication networks, international markets, global supply chains. With the whole planet to choose from, the possibilities are endless. Certainly, greater than can be offered by any local economy. This has been good for some cities – especially centres of global trade, but bad for others – particularly centres of industries where competitive advantage has moved elsewhere.

And yet, as is becoming obvious, globalisation is not without its own limits. As an engine of complexity it depends upon its capacity to sustain long-distance relationships – something which is coming under strain from a number of different factors:

– energy prices are pushing up the cost of travel and transportation

– the financial crisis is undermining trust in cross-border institutions

– and the rise of domestic consumption in Asia will mean more alternatives to exports to the West.

This doesn’t mean that the world is about to de-globalise, but rather that the age of easy globalisation is over.

And that’s a big opportunity for our cities. They too can support the complex interactions which a dynamic economy needs, but they do so on the basis of proximity not distance. This has several advantages:

– lower transportation costs

– the availability of local knowledge to inform investment decisions

– and the trust and understanding engendered by face-to-face, as opposed to electronic, communication.

This doesn’t mean that we’re going to see a wholesale re-location of manufacturing from east to west. That would be unrealistic and in some ways undesirable. But the balance is shifting. And our cities – the meeting point of complexity and proximity – are in pole position to benefit.

This matters to us because Britain has the potential to be a world beater at doing cities well. We have the advantage of being the first country in the world to have modern, industrial cities. We have many generations’ experience in working out how to manage cities and keep them functioning.

To take a topical example, our land use planning policies and procedures have helped ensure that the economic, social and environmental consequences of development are considered together. It is very clear that economic growth cannot be sustained in a relentlessly degrading environment. As cities in developing countries look at how to cope with growth, there are many lessons that we can share on how, with the right polices and structures, growth can make places better not worse.

And, generally, we have been successful. London today – in its energy, beauty, diversity, and as a cradle of opportunity and excellence – is one of the most admired cities the world has ever known. Our great cities outside London have been household names all over the world. After decades of decline in the second half of the last century, the last 25 years have seen a real sense of renaissance – city centres reversing the flight of population, and creating more jobs.

But for all that, I believe our cities can do much better. Take, for example, the eight largest English cities outside of London: Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Nottingham, Bristol and Birmingham. Known collectively as the ‘core cities’, together they contain:

sixteen million people, almost a third of the population of England
more than a quarter of our highly skilled workers
and half of the country’s leading research universities.
Unsurprisingly, they generate a huge part of England’s wealth – 27 per cent – which is more than London. And yet, there is strong evidence that, compared to the national average, most of our core cities are doing worse than the equivalent cities in Germany, France and Italy.

For instance, in Germany all eight of the biggest cities outside Berlin outperform the country in terms of GDP per capita. The same goes for all but two of the Italian core cities. In France, three of the eight outperform the national average and none fall significantly below it. But for England, seven of the eight core cities underperform – with Bristol as the only exception. Much the same pattern applies when it comes to the percentage of the workforce educated to tertiary level and to per capita rates of innovation. Despite the regeneration we’ve undoubtedly seen in our cities over the last 25 years, there is room for improvement.

So, what do our cities need to compete globally?

Let me start with what they don’t need, which is over-reliance on the public sector. Perpetual debt-funded job creation is simply not sustainable. And not just because it is unaffordable. Compared to their European counterparts, the core cities hold their own when it comes to the proportion of highly qualified workers that they have – but they do much worse when it comes to innovation as measured by patent applications per capita.

The causes of this gap are complex. But if the brightest and the best people all work for the state, then they are obviously not available to drive the commercial innovation that is the only way of creating jobs that pay for themselves. The need to rebalance the economy away from government and finance is something that applies to the whole country, of course – but no more so than in our cities. Policy makers are not job creators – at least, not directly. Rather, our task is to provide the best possible conditions for those who are – the entrepreneurs who create jobs on the basis of productivity not subsidy.

For cities, the highest priority must be to attract these innovators. To become the place where the most mobile and dynamic people in the world choose to live and work. In doing so, the challenges facing our cities is to combine their two great advantages: complexity and proximity.

Doing this successfully surely requires an in-depth knowledge of the people and places each city brings together. That is why urban policy has to involve vesting more powers in cities themselves – rather than seeking to run them as franchises of Whitehall. Cities themselves must take the lead. And leadership counts.

Nations, corporations, teams, schools, cities – all can be well-led or poorly-led. And in each case it makes a big difference whether they are or not. In helping our cities to flourish, it seems to me we should do what we can to widen the opportunity for strong leadership. I believe that it is no coincidence that the world’s leading cities usually have a visible leader with a clear executive authority – just as nations and corporations do. A look at nations and companies makes it clear that having a clear leader does not guarantee success. But it helps.

Few people in London – whoever they plan to vote for in May – think London is better off without having a mayor to stand up for them. Our second city – Birmingham – is twinned with Frankfurt, Milan, Lyon and Chicago, all of whom are led by an executive mayor. I believe that an elected major is not a substitute for the multi-layered co-operation that is what cities are all about, but as the embodiment of this ideal:

– as the human face of a responsive local democracy

– the honest broker of an active civil society

– the chief ambassador of a thriving urban economy.

I believe that the restoration of mayors to our great cities has the potential to be a major factor in bringing a new assertiveness and confidence to government outside London.

We have made this choice possible through the Localism Act, which received Royal Assent last year. In May we will give the people of eleven of the largest cities in England the opportunity to decide whether or not to have an elected mayor. Another, Leicester, chose last year to become a mayoral authority. And if enough local people ask for one, the Localism Act also allows other cities to hold a mayoral referendum too.

The Localism Act provides many other freedoms to local communities – as do our housing and planning reforms. However, we regard these measures as the foundation, not the capstone of our commitment to localism.

Having inherited the legacy of decades of centralisation, this Government has had to drive the process of decentralisation from the centre. By definition, only those that have power can give it away. But with the progressive empowerment of our communities, we need to think about decentralisation in a very different way.

In particular, cities should have an ever bigger part to play in shaping the ongoing process of reform. The Localism Act gives cities a right of initiative. This means that instead of ministers deciding what new powers should be given away, city leaders should be able to put forward their own proposals – to make the case for taking control of specific resources and responsibilities currently held by central government. We believe that a bespoke process of decentralisation is the best way of giving cities what they need to unlock economic growth and social progress in their communities.

Clearly, each case will be different. It will require a specific deal to be struck between the city and the various departments and agencies of central government. That is why we have created the Cities Unit at the heart of the government; not to tell cities what to do, but to facilitate city-led initiatives – working with the full authority of Downing Street to hammer out agreements across Whitehall.

In many ways, this turns the established order on its head. But this is as it should be. To attract entrepreneurs to our cities, city leaders must themselves be entrepreneurial, acting proactively to constantly improve the liveability and workability of their communities. To do so, they must come to Whitehall not as supplicants, as in the past, but as equal participants in an open and constructive deal making process.

We are already negotiating with the eight core cities. But this is only just start, the first wave of deal making process that will be expanded in the coming months. Indeed, I’ve been greatly encouraged by the desire that other cities have shown to be part of the City Deals initiative. That’s just as well – because as today’s report makes clear, the rebalancing and revival depends on all of Britain’s cities, not a favoured few.

So I would encourage every city represented here today to consider the vision that you have for your community – and the deal that you need to make it happen.

As Cities Minister, I greatly look forward to hearing your proposals.

January 28, 2016
William Hague – 2012 Speech on UK and Australia Relations

Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil on 24 January 2012.

Over the last two days we have conducted the meetings we know as AUKMIN; which are detailed and substantive consultation between Britain and Australia’s Foreign and Defence Ministers.

I am very grateful to Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith for travelling here with such a senior delegation, and for the excellent tenor of our talks.

We believe that close consultation between Britain and Australia has never been more important and I think I can confidently say that our approach to world affairs has seldom been more in step with each other.

Our countries are strategic and global allies.

We share democratic values and the will and determination to play a leading role in world affairs.

Our membership of the Commonwealth means that we are not just allies, we are also family. But while this is a partnership rooted in history it is also relentlessly forward looking and practical, which is why we attach such importance to it in the British government.

Australia’s neighbourhood is of growing importance in world affairs. We particularly appreciate Australia’s understanding the Asia-Pacific region and of the emerging powers, just as I know Kevin, Stephen and their colleagues appreciate our leading role in the foreign policy discussions of the European Union.

Our talks reflected our interests and priorities over the next decade, including preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Yesterday the European Union agreed to a phased ban on the import of Iranian oil, and action against Iran’s central bank. This is a significant increase – a major increase – in the peaceful, legitimate pressure on the Iranian government to return to negotiations over its nuclear programme. Until it does so, the pressure will only increase and Britain and Australia share the same sense of resolve about that.

We have discussed cooperation in the Asia-Pacific. We share close views about the development of the region and we discuss it regularly among ourselves and with our mutual ally the United States of America.

We have a valuable information-sharing relationship which is critical to our security. This morning Kevin and I have signed a new agreement which will increase this area of our cooperation.

We exchanged views on cyber security, following last year’s London Conference on Cyberspace. We explored how better to protect our governments, our industry and our national infrastructure from cyber attacks, and how we can work with others to mitigate cyber threats while championing human rights and the social and economic benefits of the internet. Both our countries are committed to developing our partnership in the cyber arena.

We discussed preparations for the London conference on Somalia next month, and later we will also discuss the situation in Nigeria, where we condemn the appalling acts of terrorism and stand behind the Nigerian government and people.

We have agreed to work closely on the Arab Spring, including assistance to countries in transition to more open, democratic government.

We support the work of the Arab League. Both our countries believe the United Nations Security Council has a responsibility to speak out and will work to that end.

We looked ahead to the important NATO Summit in Chicago, as the next milestone in the transition of security in Afghanistan to Afghan control.

And we discussed our bilateral ties. I am pleased that British exports to Australia increased by 30% in the first ten months of last year and we will take every opportunity to build on this success.

The deep trust at the heart of our relationship will be reflected at the meeting of our National Security Council later today which both visiting Ministers will attend and fully participate in.

I thank them both for the energy, friendship and intellectual rigour they have brought to our discussions and for the many areas where we have agreed we will work more closely this year; and am delighted to hand over the floor to Kevin Rudd.

January 28, 2016
Chris Grayling – 2012 Speech on Government Perspectives on Employment

Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Grayling, the then Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, in London on 24 January 2012.

This morning I am here to talk to you about the Government’s perspective on employment.

And as the Government Minister who goes on television each month to present the latest employment figures, I am perhaps more focused on the detail behind the headlines than most.

Last week’s unemployment figures demonstrate the challenging economic climate we currently face.

Unemployment remains high and dealing with it continues to be a priority for the coming year.

But beyond the headlines the figures show that there is still a lot of movement in the labour market.

This month’s figures also show a small rise in employment.

The numbers of unemployed people have increased in part because people who were previously not looking for work – particularly women and students – have decided to try to get a job.

And the numbers claiming unemployment benefits has broadly flattened out, despite welfare reforms adding to the numbers claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.

The figures also show that there are opportunities available for those looking for work. 300,000 people stopped claiming out of work benefits last month, and Jobcentre Plus took nearly 350,000 new vacancies.

Indeed over the course of the last year something like six million people have started a new job.

There are 10,000 new vacancies advertised through Jobcentre Plus every working day. This is estimated to be around half of all potential vacancies in the UK.

Even in difficult times there are vacancies and opportunities available for unemployed people.

And many people get themselves back into work quite quickly.

More than half of unemployed people leave benefits within three months.

But there are some people who find it much harder to get back into work and are unemployed for much longer periods.

And the longer someone is out of work the more difficult it can be for them to find another job. Their skills and experience become less relevant to the jobs market, their confidence may suffer and they may become indoctrinated by the welfare system and alienated from the world of work.

There are one million people of working age who have been claiming benefits for 10 years or more.

And 1.84 million children living in homes which are currently workless.

Of those 300,000 children live in homes where no one has ever worked.

And what is really sad is the way an attitude that being out of work is acceptable can pass down through generations, so entire families expect nothing more than a life on welfare.

Almost unbelievably inner London has the highest proportion of children in workless households – inner London – an area in which Jobcentre Plus takes an average of 15,000 new vacancies a month.

It is clear to me that, even in these difficult times, the supply of job vacancies is not the problem.

We must help people gain the skills, experience and motivation they need to get back into work.

And this support must be tailored to meet the needs of the individual, of employers and the local labour market to have the best chance of success.

To deliver this support we have created the Work Programme and contracted the best of the private, voluntary and public sector to deliver it.

This Programme is bigger than any previous employment programme and it will serve an unprecedented range of people, some of whom will need more help finding and keeping a job than others.

Organisations delivering the Work Programme are therefore paid variable amounts which are dependent upon the perceived complexity of getting an individual into work.

So, the more difficult it is to get someone into the work the more we will pay for that support.

Maximum payments for supporting people into sustained employment will range from around £4,000 for typical jobseekers to almost £14,000 for the hardest to help, reflecting the differing levels of support required.

This in itself is a unique approach for Government but what is really revolutionary is that we have not dictated the terms of this support.

The Work Programme is being delivered on an almost entirely payment by results basis.

How the providers get those results is broadly up to them.

But they receive a significant part of their fee only when they get someone into work and the rest of the payment when they keep them there.

In just over 12 months we have completely redefined employment support to focus on sustainable results.

And in doing so we have designed a contracting Framework that is deliberately flexible enough to bring in other forms of social intervention to support people in to work.

This means other parts of central and local government can use the Framework to deliver support in a much more holistic and comprehensive way.

We have built something that can go much further than tackling unemployment, and we are now looking at developing a sophisticated system of social interventions based around the payment by results model, with the Work Programme at its core.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is committed to extending payment by results to increase accountability and transparency as part of wider public service reform.

At the same time we are pushing power out from central Government and down to Town Halls.

The Localism Act gives local councils more power over the services they provide.

It frees local councils to make their own decisions about the services they deliver and shape their services around the needs of the people they serve.

On another level we are also giving Jobcentre Plus managers and advisers more discretion to tailor the services they provide to the needs of the jobseeker.

Jobcentre Plus staff understand far better than those of us in Whitehall what someone needs to help them get into work.

We have improved the service by encouraging our own staff to focus on results and giving them much more choice and flexibility in the services they provide.

We are also encouraging them to forge partnerships with local government officials, employment support providers, health and charitable organisations to deliver effective, holistic support.

And these partnerships make a real difference to successfully helping unemployed people back into sustainable employment.

I have visited virtually all of the Work Programme prime providers now to see how they are getting on.

And it is those that are forging links with the local government services, with Jobcentre Plus, with locally based charitable organisations, community organisations and crucially employers that appear to be performing the best.

It is those providers who have developed the strongest networks that are delivering more for their clients.

Because they are able to draw upon a much richer reserve to help people overcome their barriers to work – whether those barriers are a lack of skills and experience or something else – an addiction, or a criminal record.

We are already using the Work Programme Framework to develop similar partnerships to provide support from some of the most troubled families.

There are a small but significant number of families – around 120,000 – who are truly struggling and contribute a disproportionate amount to Britain’s social problems.

These families often have multiple problems and are well known to Local Authorities as they are already being supported in different ways by a host of local services.

Turning the lives of these families around and enabling them to fulfil their potential is a priority and would bring real social benefits.

Using European Social Fund money we are investing £200 million in drawing together that support to deliver real change for troubled families and help them get back in to work.

The ultimate aim is to break the inter-generational cycle of worklessness and get families working.

But a similar non-prescriptive, payment by results model to the Work Programme will mean providers have the resources and the freedom to really work holistically with these families, bringing together a comprehensive package of support that rewards progress towards work as well as starting in a job.

Local Authorities have played a key role in getting this service up and running.

I know you have been working extremely hard with officials at the Department for Work and Pensions and with the providers to get this provision in place.

And you will continue to play a critical role in making sure we see a strong flow of family referrals to make this provision a reality.

It is written into the contracts that families must be referred by their Local Authority and that suppliers must work with local services to deliver support.

I know that this work is already well underway; contracts went live earlier this month, the first families have been referred and the first action plans are being developed right now.

But this is just the beginning.

We are already looking at a number of other options, including using this approach to provide services to tackle drug and alcohol addiction and rehabilitate ex-offenders.

Ultimately, this comes down to a more sophisticated appreciation of public service delivery.

And a growing understanding that social change cannot be achieved simply through ever increasing spending, we have to be smarter than that.

Payment by results can help us deliver better public services by providing a real opportunity to shape services around individual need and in doing so really change people’s lives for the better.

January 28, 2016
Ed Vaizey – 2012 Speech to Oxford Media Convention

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Vaizey, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, at the Oxford Media Convention on 25 January 2012.

Delighted to be opening the tenth Oxford Media Convention. In 2002, I wasn’t even yet a Parliamentary candidate, and people in my constituency were campaigning for dial-up internet access. Nobody knew what a smartphone was, and very few people had digital television,

So we have come a long way.

But one theme that perhaps links the two dates is the continued success of what we now call – thanks to Chris Smith – the creative industries.

Let me begin by saying what a privilege it is to represent the creative industries in Government. It’s a commonplace nowadays to talk about the success of the creative sector in the UK, but it’s a commonplace because it’s true.

You know how successful you are but it is always good for a Minister to rehearse your success in public.

As I might say if I were presenting the BAFTAs, “let’s pause and look back on a successful year”…

In the last twelve months we’ve seen:

– UK films – from Harry Potter to the InBetweeners top the UK box office for 20 weeks in the UK;

– the King’s Speech become the most successful independent movie in history, earning £46 million in the UK and £266 million worldwide;

– Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, made in the UK, earning more than any other 2011 release (over £73 million in UK, which is the third highest ever);

– The highest ever amount of UK film production activity growing by 7% to £1.16bn;

– UK acts charting at number 1,2 and 3 in the same week in the US for the first time in 25 years, with Adele’s album, 21, the best-selling digital album of all time;

– UK TV formats dominating television schedules all across the globe, accounting for two in every five global programmes;

– and of course Downton Abbey continuing UK success at the Globes; exports of UK television content are worth more than £1.3 billion per year;

– the BBC’s global reputation for excellence cemented, with BBC Worldwide supporting the creative industries and increasing international sales by 9.6% in 2010-11;

– the UK consolidating its place as the European hub for video games, with 35% of video games software sold in Europe being developed by UK studios, with almost half of the world’s top 100 development studios based in the UK;

– UK-based games companies taking the lead in online markets:Jagex’ online multiplayer;

– Hand Circus’ iPhone App; Playfish’s social network games;

– VFX company Double Negative winning an Oscar for Inception;

– the VFX hub in Soho is home to four of the largest VFX companies in the world;

– one of the most innovative and successful advertising industries in the world grow despite the recession: 2010 revenue growth of 5.9 per cent to £15.5 billion, with forecasts of 1.4 per cent growth in 2011 and over 5 per cent in 2012. A recent PwC report predicted that the size of the UK advertising industry would grow 4.8 per cent in the next four years to £17.7 billion;
– one of the most successful and creative fashion capitals anywhere in the world continue to flourish, with Burberry a UK company increasing its sales by a quarter;

– and the largest of the UKs creative industries, the UK publishing industry, adapt and remain one of the most successful in the world for the breadth, depth and quality of content it creates, as well as the multiple ways in which that content is brought to market.

Publishing in the UK has a turnover of £19 billion.

Before I talk about the future, I hope you’ll indulge me further as I also want to highlight some of the achievements of my Department.

In the last 18 months we’ve established the Creative Industries Council and Creative England; merged the UK Film Council and the BFI and increased Lottery funding for film; brought forward revolutionary plans for local television; settled the licence fee until 2017; secured S4C’s future; launched our plans for digital radio switchover; put in place ambitious plans for broadband, both mobile and fixed; continued to implement the DEA and make progress on copyright infringement; implemented the e-privacy directive; launched the e-accessibility plan; persuaded the DfE to revolutionise the computer science curriculum …I could go on.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the officials in my Department who have worked to make this happen, as well as some of the organisations we work with, particularly Ofcom, which I think does an outstanding job.

Anyway, I’m now beginning to sound like I am delivering an Oscar acceptance speech. So. The future.

We know we have some of the tech savviest consumers in Europe: two-thirds shop on the web; one in four already have a smartphone; and soon one in four will have a tablet too. So again it’s become traditional to predict the end of big media, and the dominance of new internet companies. Throw in a prolonged downturn, and the doom mongers seem to hold all the cards.

But hold on a minute. This afternoon you’ll hear from Channel 4 how they have turned around from where they were a few years ago, angling for licence fee money; the BBC is launching the Space, a hugely significant cultural event; ITV has hugely ambitious plans focused on content; more and more international companies like Discovery are investing in UK content.

In the last two years, linear television viewing has increased by almost 8 per cent;86 per cent of people who can time-shift still choose to watch linear television; 9 out of 10 us together still consume a billion hours of radio a week.

The future’s not binary. It’s evolutionary. In a digital age, content is crucial.

It may seem odd to say this given the concerns we have around digital copyright infringement, but my view is that technology provides huge opportunities for the content industry in the UK. Technology may change the platform through which we view or hear content. But it will not remove the desire for the consumer to access great content. Our viewing habits will evolve – but they will not change fundamentally. And in a digital age, the chance to monetise content through advertising may well increase, as enhanced and targeted advertising commands higher prices.

In a world in which much is changing, but more will stay the same than perhaps we think, Government’s role is to provide regulatory certainty, and the right infrastructure for business. The publication of the Green Paper is imminent, but let me focus on just a couple of issues.

Infrastructure

To give us the infrastructure we need, we’re investing more than three-quarters of a billion in digital infrastructure – rural, mobile and urban – that will give us the best broadband network in Europe by 2015. This adds to BT’s investment of £2.5 billion as part of the most rapid broadband investment in the world. And Virgin Media has recently announced it is investing to double the speed for its existing customers.

The largest part of the Government funding is £530 million to extend superfast broadband to 90% of the UK and to ensure universal availability of standard broadband. We have asked local authorities and the devolved administrations to match this funding, to give total public funding of around £1 billion, which we expect to be supported by a further £1 billion of private investment.

Our aim is to complete this roll-out by 2015. This gives us a very tight timetable. We have asked local authorities to submit draft Local Broadband Plans by the end of February and to have these signed off by the end of April, so that they can complete procurement by December. I can announce that today we will have signed off the broadband plans for almost a third of the total areas in England, which is fantastic news.

As well as broadband, we’re looking at how spectrum policy can underpin innovation. In a world of mobile data, spectrum is the new railway. Ofcom has announced its plans for a 4G spectrum auction later this year. We’ve committed to releasing 500MHz of spectrum over the next ten years – more than double the amount being made available in the 4G auction. And we’re monitoring the trial of the use of white space in Cambridge to see how we can use this to stimulate innovation. All in all Ofcom estimates the net value of unlicensed spectrum might be as high as £100 billion over the next 20 years.

In short, we want to create the conditions to ensure that effective use of spectrum can continue to support economic growth and innovation, which is why it will feature heavily in the forthcoming Green Paper.

Content Regulation

As well as infrastructure, we need to put in place the right business conditions to support UK creative industries and encourage inward investment. We will address the regulatory environment across the board in the Green Paper, but today I want to focus on public service broadcasting.

Despite digital television, we still believe the obligations placed on public service broadcasters are important, to ensure a vibrant production sector throughout the UK. But the quid-pro-quo, of free, scarce spectrum, is not what it was.

So we need to find new ways to reward public service broadcasters who invest in UK content, and also to perhaps broaden our definition of what a public service broadcaster is.

One idea we are keen to explore is the potential for Government to encourage investment in UK content through the Electronic Programme Guide.

At present the EPG, though statutory, is governed by a Code of Practice policed by Ofcom. The main PSBs are meant to be given appropriate prominence, but the broadcasters have some discretion, and Ofcom does not have the power to prescribe or guarantee a position. Further, current regulations only apply to linear television.

In addition, many non-PSB channels invest in UK content that could fall within the traditional definition of public service content – obvious examples are news, current affairs, children’s television, documentaries and quality drama. So we need to look at whether the prominence rules could be used to reward those who invest in that kind of content.

So we have commissioned research on this issue, and we will seek further views in the Green Paper. It’s important that any new regime is sufficiently flexible and does not prejudice the UK’s huge success in attracting inward investment.

While we might look at one or two areas where we think regulation might help, I want to make it clear that we believe very firmly in self-regulation where possible. We have seen how the implementation of the e-privacy directive has caused huge problems for business. And we have now seen draft proposals from the Commission on amendments to the data protection directive, which will need careful scrutiny.

So we need to take a step back, and consider what it is we want to achieve. If viewers can access content in many different ways, top-down regulation won’t work on its own. We need to do two things – give viewers the tools to protect their kids from inappropriate content, and give viewers the guidance they need to choose what they want to watch.

We’ve seen this operate with some success already: the PEGI ratings for on-line games; the BBFC’s work in classifying websites; and UKCCIS’s work in encouraging ISPs to make parental controls available to their customers.

And given that data is now king, it is absolutely right that consumers should have a say in how their data is stored and used – so that means transparency, education and the right of redress where appropriate. Self-regulation, and engagement from industry in this area, can help reduce the burdens on business and ensure that you can continue to innovate.

Conclusion

These are just some of the successes and challenges facing this sector. It is a unique moment of change for the media, as we enter a new phase of the digital revolution, one that is transforming our lifestyles and touching deeper into personal and public life than ever before.

Predictions aren’t easy. We’ve got some very difficult balances to strike, but I’m confident that with your help, we can find the right solutions and keep British creative industries at the forefront of the new digital economy that’s emerging.

January 26, 2016
David Cameron – 2012 Speech on the European Court of Human Rights

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 25 January 2012.

Once in a generation, each member has the honour of leading the Council of Europe.

Today, I want to speak about the once-in-a-generation chance we have, together, to improve the way we enhance the cause of human rights, freedom and dignity.

We have an ambitious agenda for the coming months…

…to reinforce local democracy…

…to combat discrimination…

…to strengthen the rule of law across Europe.

But the focus of our Chairmanship, as you know, is our joint effort to reform the European Court of Human Rights.

The role of the Court has never been more challenging.

As the Council has expanded, more and more people have applied to seek justice.

We need to work together to ensure that throughout these changes, the Court remains true to its original intention: to uphold the Convention and prevent the abuse of human rights.

So today, I want to explain why I believe the Court needs reform and set out some of the proposals on the table.

UK Commitment to Human Rights

First, I want to make something clear.

Human rights is a cause that runs deep in the British heart and long in British history.

In the thirteenth century, Magna Carta set down specific rights for citizens, including the right to freedom from unlawful detention.

In the seventeenth century, the Petition of Right gave new authority to Parliament; and the Bill of Rights set limits on the power of the monarchy.

By the eighteenth century it was said that:

“This spirit of liberty is so deeply implanted in our constitution, and rooted in our very soil, that a slave the moment he lands in England, falls under the protection of the laws, and with regard to all natural rights becomes instantly a free man”.

It was that same spirit that led to the abolition of slavery…

…that drove the battle against tyranny in two World Wars…

…and that inspired Winston Churchill to promise that the end of the “world struggle” would see the “enthronement of human rights”.

As he put it, victory in that war was the “victory of an ideal founded on the right of the common man, on the dignity of the human being, and on the conception of the State as the servant, not the master, of its people”.

These beliefs have animated the British people for centuries – and they animate us today.

When the Arab Spring erupted, the UK was a principal supporter of resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council.

We are leading EU partners in maintaining pressure on Syria.

We have played a key role in securing EU sanctions against Iran.

Through the UN, we are working to empower women in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East.

We have pledged additional money to the Special Fund for Torture Prevention.

And we are contributing to the Council of Europe’s own Human Rights Trust Fund.

All these are clear signals of our belief in fundamental human rights.

And if called to defend that belief with action, we act.

When the people of Libya were reaching for the chance to shape their own destiny, Britain stepped forward with our allies to help.

Visiting Tripoli a few months ago, seeing the crowds of people who were jubilant and free, I was reminded of what Margaret Thatcher once said:

“The spirit of freedom is too strong to be crushed by the tanks of tyrants”.

It is our hope that this spirit of freedom spreads further – and we will continue to support those reaching for it across the Arab world.

We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust.

This has a lot to do with Britain’s national character – a love of freedom and an instinctive loathing of over-mighty authority.

But it is also about our national interest – to live, travel and trade in a more open, secure world.

When a government respects its citizens’ human rights, that makes for a more stable country – and that is good for all of us.

It was that great champion of freedom, Vaclav Havel, who said it best:

“Without free, self-respecting, and autonomous citizens there can be no free and independent nations. Without internal peace, that is, peace among citizens and between the citizens and the state, there can be no guarantee of external peace”.

In other words, a commitment to human rights is both morally right and strategically right.

Achievements of the Council and the Court

So I want no one here to doubt the British commitment to defending human rights…

…nor the British understanding that the Council of Europe, the Convention and the Court have played a vital role in upholding those rights.

But believing these things does not mean sticking with the status quo…

…because as we are agreed, the time is right to ask some serious questions about how the Court is working.

Over sixty years ago the Convention was drafted with very clear intentions.

It was born in a continent reeling from totalitarian rule…

…shocked by the brutality of the holocaust…

…sickened by man’s inhumanity to man.

Its purpose was clear: to spread respect for vital human rights across the continent – for life, liberty and the integrity of the person.

It has achieved some vitally important things over the decades: exposing torture; winning victories against degrading treatment in police custody; holding heavy-handed states to account.

And since the Berlin Wall fell, it has played a major role in strengthening democracy across central and Eastern Europe.

Of course, we should remember that oppression and brutality are not just facts of Europe’s past.

As we sit here today, in Belarus there are people being thrown into prison for their political beliefs.

Dissidents’ voices are being silenced and their rights are being crushed.

What is happening less than a thousand miles from here underlines the continuing importance and relevance of the Council, the Convention and the Court.

It reminds us that now, more than ever, we need a Court that is a beacon for the cause of human rights, ruthlessly focussed on defending human freedom and dignity, respected across the continent and the world.

It is in that spirit that I have come here to speak to you today.

Because today, the ability of the Court to play this vital role is under threat.

As I see it, there are three inter-linking issues that should cause us concern.

Too many cases

First, the Court is being compelled to do too much, and that threatens its ability to do what is most important.

We have seen a massive inflation in the number of cases.

In the first forty years of its existence, 45,000 cases were presented to the Court.

In 2010 alone, 61,300 applications were presented.

This has created a huge backlog – more than 160,000 cases at its peak.

There can still be a delay of some years before cases are heard, which means tens of thousands of people with their lives on hold.

These will inevitably include some of the most serious cases: of detention; torture; people who have had their fundamental rights denied.

Let me be clear: impressive steps are already being taken to filter out inadmissible cases more quickly.

The Court should be congratulated on that – but a new problem is emerging.

More and more of the backlog is now made up of admissible cases that, according to the current criteria, should be heard in full.

Again, the Court is doing good work to deal with this.

A system to prioritise the most important cases is in place.

But the sheer volume risks urgent cases being stuck in the queue.

That means the very purpose of the Court – to prevent the most serious violations of human rights – is under threat.

Court of the fourth instance

This flood of cases is linked to the second issue.

The Court is properly safeguarding the right of individual petition – and it’s a principle the UK is committed to.

But with this, comes the risk of turning into a court of ‘fourth instance’…

…because there has already been a first hearing in a court, a second one in an appeal court, and a third in a supreme or constitutional court.

In effect that gives an extra bite of the cherry to anyone who is dissatisfied with a domestic ruling, even where that judgement is reasonable, well-founded, and in line with the Convention.

Quite simply, the Court has got to be able to fully protect itself against spurious cases when they have been dealt with at the national level.

A good start has been made with Protocol 14, which makes clear that cases aren’t admissible if there is no significant disadvantage to the applicant.

The initial case where the protocol has been used shows exactly the kind of thing I mean.

The applicant was taking a bus company to court for 90 Euros compensation, because they felt their journey from Bucharest to Madrid hadn’t been as comfortable as advertised.

One of the matters at issue was that they didn’t provide fully-reclining seats.

The domestic courts had turned him down, and he was taking his case to the Court.

Now I think we can all agree that fully-reclining seats would be very desirable on a trip from Bucharest to Madrid…

…but we can also agree that this is a completely trivial case, and is not the kind of case that should be heard here.

The Court agreed – and quite rightly rejected the claim.

But this case just underlines how important it is for the Court to have that consistent power to control the cases it admits.

Slim margin of appreciation

The third issue is that the Court is, quite rightly, determined to make sure that consistent standards of rights are upheld across the 47 member states…

…but at times it has felt to us in national governments that the ‘margin of appreciation’ – which allows for different interpretations of the Convention – has shrunk…

…and that not enough account is being taken of democratic decisions by national parliaments.

Let us be frank about the fall-out from this issue.

As the margin of appreciation has shrunk, so controversy has grown.

You will know that in the UK there is a lively debate about the way human rights law works, and how our own national courts interact with Europe.

Yes, some of this is misinterpretation – but some of it is credible democratic anxiety, as with the prisoner voting issue.

I completely understand the Court’s belief that a national decision must be properly made.

But in the end, I believe that where an issue like this has been subjected to proper, reasoned democratic debate…

…and has also met with detailed scrutiny by national courts in line with the Convention…

…the decision made at a national level should be treated with respect.

Another example of this – and one we can all agree on – is in the area of immigration.

At Izmir, we collectively invited the Court, “to avoid intervening except in the most exceptional circumstances.”

All states agreed that the Court was, in some cases, too ready to substitute its judgment for that of reasonable national processes and all agreed that that was not its role.

In other words, it should not see itself as an immigration tribunal.

Protecting a country from terrorism is one of the most important tasks for any government.

Again, no one should argue that you defend our systems of rights and freedom by suspending those freedoms.

But we do have a real problem when it comes to foreign national who threaten our security.

In Britain we have gone through all reasonable national processes…

…including painstaking international agreements about how they should be treated…

…and scrutiny by our own courts…

…and yet we are still unable to deport them.

It is therefore not surprising that some people start asking questions about whether the current arrangements are really sensible.

Of course, no decent country should deport people if they are going to be tortured.

But the problem today is that you can end up with someone who has no right to live in your country, who you are convinced – and have good reason to be convinced – means to do your country harm.

And yet there are circumstances in which you cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them.

So having put in place every possible safeguard to ensure that ECHR rights are not violated, we still cannot fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them.

Together, we have to find a solution to this.

These concerns are shared by many member states.

And at the heart of this concern is not antipathy to human rights; it is anxiety that the concept of human rights is being distorted.

As a result, for too many people, the very concept of rights is in danger of slipping from something noble to something discredited – and that should be of deep concern to us all.

Upholding and promoting human rights is not something governments and courts can do alone…

…it is something we need all our societies to be engaged with.

And when controversial rulings overshadow the good and patient long-term work that has been done, that not only fails to do justice to the work of the Court…

…it has a corrosive effect on people’s support for human rights.

The Court cannot afford to lose the confidence of the people of Europe.

Right moment for reform

Taken together, these issues threaten to shift the role of the Court away from its key objectives.

The Court should be free to deal with the most serious violations of human rights; it should not be swamped with an endless backlog of cases.

The Court should ensure that the right to individual petition counts; it should not act as a small claims court.

And the Court should hold us all to account; it should not undermine its own reputation by going over national decisions where it does not need to.

For the sake of the 800 million people the Court serves, we need to reform it so that it is true to its original purpose.

Already 47 members are agreed on this, and great work has been done.

Now we would like to use our Chairmanship to help progress that work.

This is the right moment for reform – reforms that are practical, sensible and that enhance the reputation of the Court.

Our proposals

So we are looking to improve the efficiency of the Court.

New rules could enable it to focus more efficiently and transparently on the most important cases.

We want to improve the procedures for nominating judges.

The Assembly needs consistently strong shortlists from which to elect judges – and clear guidelines on national selection procedures could help with that.

And we are hoping to get consensus on strengthening subsidiarity – the principle that where possible, final decisions should be made nationally.

It is of course correct that the Court should hold governments to account when they fail to protect human rights.

In these instances it is right for the Court to intervene.

But what we are all striving for is that national governments should take primary responsibility for safeguarding their citizens’ rights – and do it well.

Subsidiarity is a fundamental principle of the Convention, and at Izmir, we were all clear that more needed to be done to give it practical effect.

For that reason, we will shortly set out our proposals for pushing responsibility to the national system.

That way we can free up the Court to concentrate on the worst, most flagrant human rights violations – and to challenge national courts when they clearly haven’t followed the Convention.

Of course, re-balancing this relationship is a two-way street.

The other side of the deal is that members get better at implementing the Convention at national level.

That is why, in the UK, we are investigating the case for a UK Bill of Rights, and thoroughly examining the way our liberties are protected.

Parliaments also have a key role – and we are proud of the role that our own Joint Committee on Human Rights plays.

And of course, this Assembly makes a vital contribution, helping states to honour their obligations.

Together, through these institutions, we can reduce the number of violations and ultimately ease the burden on the Court.

Conclusion

Let me finish today by saying this.

With this Chairmanship we have a clear opportunity to agree a practical programme of reform.

Built on the noble intentions of the Convention.

Forged through consensus.

Driven by a belief in fundamental human rights and a passion to advance them.

This is undoubtedly a challenge – but it is a challenge we can meet together.

January 26, 2016