Tag: 2012

Michael Gove – 2012 Speech at Brighton College

Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, at Brighton College on 10th May 2012.

Thank you for that kind introduction.

And thank you Richard [Cairns] for inviting me here today.

It is one of the many pleasures of being Education Secretary that I get to visit outstanding schools ever week – and am constantly impressed by the amazing work of so many inspirational teachers.

We have thousands of superb state schools – some of the very best in the world.

And we have hundreds of superlative independent schools – collectively the best independent schools sector in the world.

And given the quality of the competition, it is a wonderful accolade for Brighton College to be named UK Independent School of the year.

Wonderful, but not surprising.

Because those of us who know Richard (Cairns) recognise that he is one of the most visionary leaders in education today…

Brighton College’s improvement in the last few years has been breathtaking.

Moving from 147th in the Sunday Times league tables in 2006, to 18th this year; the highest-ranking coeducational school in the country, described by the judges as “one of the powerhouses of the independent sector.”

And Richard has done what every school leader determined to secure excellence should do.

He’s been a curriculum innovator.

He’s introduced Mandarin Chinese as a compulsory subject until Year 9.

And he’s made narrative history, locational geography and the great canon of English literature compelling for a new generation of students with a wonderfully inspiring introduction into the glories of our island story.

He recognises that nothing matters more than improving the quality of teaching.

Over the last six years, Brighton College has aggressively recruited, and generously remunerated, talented individuals from a range of backgrounds, in order to boast, in Richard’s words, “the best teachers in the land”.

He’s been ambitious to spread excellence beyond his own school.

Richard has expanded Brighton College’s reach by taking over other schools, enabling hundreds more children to benefit from Brighton’s unique and award-winning recipe for success.

And, above all, Richard has combined an unflinching focus on academic standards with a deeply held social mission.

As well as expanding scholarship access to this school Richard is leading a consortium of independent schools which are sponsoring a new free school in Newham – the London Academy of Excellence – which will help the poorest students make it to our best universities.

Curriculum innovation, investment in great teaching, spreading excellence beyond just one school, demanding higher academic standards, pursuing a social mission to help the most disadvantaged.

These virtues – which Brighton College embodies – are the virtues which mark out the best in our education system – and they demonstrate that there is enormous public benefit in a healthy and progressively-led independent school sector.

The glittering prizes in gilded hands

But, fan as I am of the virtues nurtured here, I can’t help reflecting on some other facts about our society which the excellence of the education offered in our independent schools underlines.

It is remarkable how many of the positions of wealth, influence, celebrity and power in our society are held by individuals who were privately educated.

Around the Cabinet table – a majority – including myself – were privately educated.

Around the Shadow Cabinet table the Deputy Leader, the Shadow Chancellor, the Shadow Business Secretary, the Shadow Olympics Secretary, the Shadow Welsh Secretary and the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development were all educated at independent schools.

On the bench of our supreme court, in the precincts of the bar, in our medical schools and university science faculties, at the helm of FTSE 100 companies and in the boardrooms of our banks, independent schools are – how can I best put this – handsomely represented.

You might hear some argue that these peaks have been scaled by older alumni of our great independent schools – and things have changed for younger generations.

But I fear that is not so.

Take sport – where by definition the biggest names are in their teens, twenties and thirties.

As Ed Smith, the Tonbridge-educated former England player, and current Times journalist, points out in his wonderful new book “Luck”:

Twenty-five years ago, of the 13 players who represented England on a tour of Pakistan, only one had been to a private school. In contrast, over two thirds of the current team are privately educated. You’re 20 times more likely to go on and play for England if you go to private school rather than state school.

The composition of the England rugby union team and the British Olympic team reveal the same trend.

Of those members of England’s first 15 born in England, more than half were privately educated.

And again, half the UK’s gold medallists at the last Olympics were privately educated, compared with seven per cent of the population.

It’s not just in sport that the new young stars all have old school ties.

It’s in Hollywood, Broadway and on our TV screens.

Hugh Laurie, Dominic West, Damian Lewis, Tom Hiddleston and Eddie Redmayne – all old Etonians.

One almost feels sorry for Benedict Cumberbatch – a lowly Harrovian – and Dan Stevens – heir to Downton Abbey and old boy of Tonbridge – is practically a street urchin in comparison.

If acting is increasingly a stage for public school talent one might have thought that at least comedy or music would be an alternative platform for outsiders.

But then –

Armando Iannucci, David Baddiel, Michael McIntyre, Jack Whitehall, Miles Jupp, Armstrong from Armstrong and Miller and Mitchell from Mitchell and Webb were all privately educated.

2010’s Mercury Music Prize was a battle between privately educated Laura Marling and privately-educated Marcus Mumford.

And from Chris Martin of Coldplay to Tom Chaplin of Keane – popular music is populated by public school boys.

Indeed when Keane were playing last Sunday on the Andrew Marr show everyone in that studio – the band, the presenter and the other guests – Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, Radio 3 Presenter Clemency Burton-Hill and Sarah Sands, editor of the London Evening Standard – were all privately educated.

Indeed it’s in the media that the public school stranglehold is strongest.

The Chairman of the BBC and its Director-General are public school boys.

And it’s not just the Evening Standard which has a privately-educated editor.

My old paper The Times is edited by an old boy of St Pauls and its sister paper the Sunday Times by an old Bedfordian.

The new editor of the Mail on Sunday is an old Etonian, the editor of the Financial Times is an old Alleynian and the editor of the Guardian is an Old Cranleighan.

Indeed the Guardian has been edited by privately educated men for the last 60 years…

But then many of our most prominent contemporary radical and activist writers are also privately educated.

George Monbiot of the Guardian was at Stowe, Seumas Milne of the Guardian was at Winchester and perhaps the most radical new voice of all –Laurie Penny of the Independent – was educated here at Brighton College.

Now I record these achievements not because I wish to either decry the individuals concerned or criticise the schools they attended. Far from it.

It is undeniable that the individuals I have named are hugely talented and the schools they attended are premier league institutions.

But the sheer scale, the breadth and the depth, of private school dominance of our society points to a deep problem in our country – one we all acknowledge but have still failed to tackle with anything like the radicalism required.

The scars of inequality run deep

We live in a profoundly unequal society.

More than almost any developed nation ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress.

Those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege in England than in any comparable county.

For those of us who believe in social justice this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible.

And for those of us who want to see greater economic efficiency it is a pointless squandering of our greatest asset – our children – to have so many from poorer backgrounds manifestly not achieving their potential.

When more Etonians make it to Oxbridge than boys and girls on benefit then we know we are not making the most of all our nation’s talents.

When hundreds of primary schools allow children to leave not able to read, write or add up properly we know we are indulging in a form of national self-harm so profound as to be disabling.

Even when disadvantaged children attend schools which perform well overall, they continue to lag behind their wealthier, luckier peers.

At Key Stage one – age 7 – the gap between pupils eligible for free school meals and their peers is already 11 percentage points in maths.

At Key Stage two 58 per cent of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals achieved the expected level in both English and mathematics compared with 78 per cent of all other pupils.

Then at GCSE – while results go up every year there remains a stubborn and unchanging gap in achievement between the number of disadvantaged pupils who achieved five A* to C GCSEs (including maths and English), and the rest of the population.

Look at the number securing GCSEs in the subjects which the best universities and employers value and the picture is even bleaker.

17 per cent of pupils achieved the English Baccalaureate – good GCSES in English, Maths, the sciences, a language and a humanities subject – in 2010, but only 8 per cent of pupils eligible for free school meals even took the exams – and only 4 per cent of children eligible for free school meals actually achieved it.

Pupils from deprived backgrounds are less than half as likely to go on to study at university as their peers. A recent study by the Sutton Trust indicated that the majority of state secondary school teachers would not encourage gifted students to apply to Oxford and Cambridge. One in five of teachers polled said they would “never” encourage their brightest pupils to apply to Oxbridge – something which I doubt very strongly any teacher in the independent sector would say.

All around us, other countries are narrowing and even eradicating the attainment gap.

Deprived pupils in Hong Kong and Shanghai, who struggle with challenges far greater and more debilitating than any we know here, achieve as highly as their English peers from the most comfortable homes.

Only 24 per cent of disadvantaged students in the UK perform better than expected compared with 76 per cent in Shanghai, 72 per cent in Hong Kong and 46 per cent in Finland.

The OECD average is 31 per cent – putting the UK well behind countries like Poland, Greece, Slovenia, Mexico and Chile when it comes to making opportunity more equal.

But the tide is being turned

Despite the evidence that other nations are closing the gap between rich and poor through great state schooling, some in this country still argue that pupil achievement is overwhelmingly dictated by socio-economic factors.

They say that deprivation means destiny – that schools are essentially impotent in the face of overwhelming force of circumstance. And that we can’t expect children to succeed if they have been born into poverty, disability or disadvantage.

I simply don’t accept that.

Not just because other countries show us what can be done.

But because I believe such fatalism in the face of circumstance is a profoundly reactionary doctrine – it denies the possibility of progress through human action, it says to all those driven by idealism to enter the classroom that they are simply spectators in a pageant of futility.

And I am encouraged in my conviction by the knowledge that I am not alone – there are a growing number of schools proving that deprivation need not be destiny – that with the right teaching and the right values they can outperform everyone’s expectations.

As Dr Kevan Collins, Chief Executive of the Education Endowment Foundation, wrote recently in the Times Educational Supplement: “the real myth is the idea that a school where pupils eligible for free school meals do well must be a one-off, or have only a handful of disadvantaged students.”

On the contrary there are more than 440 secondary schools across the country – one in nine – where the average GCSE points score is higher for disadvantaged pupils than it is for all pupils.

These schools are scattered all over the country, and all over the spectrum of disadvantage.

Some have a higher than average proportion of children with special needs, some have a higher than average number eligible for free school meals, some have a higher than average number who don’t have English as a first language – and yet they all outperform schools with much more favoured intakes in much wealthier areas.

What they share is an unwavering, unapologetic focus on standards. Led by inspirational heads and teachers, every day, these schools are proving the pessimists and fatalists wrong.

They show us all that there need be no difference in performance – none whatsoever – between pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and those from wealthier homes.

They show us that a difficult start in life can be overcome, with hard work and good teaching.

And that it is entirely possible for children to break free of the bonds of poverty and disadvantage, transforming a deprived start into a bright future.

If we want more children to enjoy these advantages and opportunities, we have to look at what characterises these successful schools.

And the most important lessons will not come as a surprise to you here – the schools which close the attainment gap – like Pimlico Academy, Lampton Academy, the Harris Academy Merton, Wembley High Technology College, Haberdasher’s Askes Hatcham College, Paddington Academy, Burlington Danes Academy, Mossbourne Community Academy, St Marylebone Church of England School and Brighton College’s own partner school Kingsford Community School – do what Brighton College does.

They demand high academic standards from every student – with Kingsford introducing all its students to Mandarin, and Burlington Danes ranking students in order by every subject every term to encourage a culture of excellence.

They are curriculum innovators with Mossbourne delivering intensive support for students who arrive with poor literacy and Pimlico developing a new core knowledge curriculum modelled on America’s best.

They recruit the best teachers – with schools like the Harris Academies training their own.

They operate outside their own four walls with Lampton Academy leading the Challenge partnership – a school improvement chain working across the country.

And they are all characterised by a sense of burning social mission – with free school meal pupils performing better than their peers in Wembley High and Pimlico.

Our reform programme is intended to ensure the virtues which characterise those schools are embedded across the school system. And we start with a relentless focus on overcoming disadvantage.

Intervention in the earliest years

We are acting across every stage of a child’s life to erode disadvantages of birth and background.

– With 15 hours of free education for the poorest two-year-olds,

– A progress check on all children between two and three,

– 15 hours of free education for all three- and four-year-olds,

– Better qualified staff in nurseries and other Early Years settings,

– A more rigorous Foundation Stage curriculum with more emphasis on literacy and numeracy.

Opening the joy of reading for every child

And – one of the most important interventions of all – starting next month – a check on every six-year-old to make sure they’re on track to read effortlessly.

Given that one in six eleven-year-olds is still struggling with reading when they leave primary school we are determined to drive up standards in the crucial skill of early reading.

If children can’t learn to read, they can’t read to learn. We are determined to help all children to become fluent and enthusiastic readers, with the life-changing skill of turning words on the page into images, information and ideas.

In a few weeks’ time, six-year-olds across the country will be checked to see how well they’ve mastered phonics – the method of teaching reading which has been proven to be most successful with all children, and particularly those from disadvantaged homes.

We have been clear that the results for the reading check will not be published in league tables, although schools will be required to tell parents their own child’s results – as parents have welcomed.

But last summer’s pilot saw only 32 per cent of children reaching the level which their teachers decided was appropriate – fewer than a third. By monitoring pupil progress at an early stage, the check will help teachers to identify those who need extra help and ensure that they don’t fall behind – indeed, almost half of schools in the pilot said the check identified pupils with reading difficulties of which they were not previously aware.

We’ve offered match-funding to help schools buy high-quality systematic synthetic phonics resources and training from a new, approved catalogue. Phonics and reading are becoming a key part of the new Ofsted inspection framework, with Ofsted inspectors listening to weaker readers as part of every primary school inspection.

From September, a thorough understanding of the teaching of systematic synthetic phonics will be prioritised in teacher training and required for all teachers of early reading.

And we’re introducing a reading competition to encourage all children to read widely and well, instilling the habit of regular reading for pleasure at an early age. Shockingly, a survey by the National Literacy Trust last year showed that a third of children do not own a single book, while two in five pupils in England never read for enjoyment.

The pace never slackens

We will ensure progress is maintained.

We have introduced a tough new primary school floor standard – meaning that a school will fall below the floor when fewer than 60 per cent of pupils achieve the ‘basics’ standard in both English and mathematics and fewer pupils than average make the expected levels of progress between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2.

At the moment, there are 1310 primaries below this floor – mostly those in poorer areas.

200 of the worst performing primary schools will convert to academy status with a strong sponsor, reopening in 2012. And we’re aiming for academy status for hundreds more primary schools that have been below the floor for the last three years, ensuring all children get the high quality education they have a right to expect.

And for those schools which are stuck in mediocrity a tough new inspections framework will ensure they are held accountable for a failure to get children making progress.

There’s been some criticism recently of the new inspections framework and the new chief inspector.

I’ve listened to that criticism – I’ve considered carefully the arguments made – and I have to say on reflection – it’s misdirected at best, mischievous at worst.

Sir Michael Wilshaw is a visionary school leader who has spent his career in the state sector and has achieved amazing results for children from the poorest homes – when his critics achieve results like him, then I’ll believe their arguments carry the same weight as his experience.

He is determined to improve inspection, drive up standards, encourage great teaching and celebrate good leadership – he deserves the backing of everyone who wants children to succeed – and I shall do everything to ensure that whatever he wants – he gets.

Higher expectations for all

Because the whole point of education is to engage in a restless reach for self-improvement – and all too often, children have been let down by a failure to ensure they are stretched to the utmost.

That’s why we are increasing the number of specialist maths teachers, including prioritising places on primary ITT courses in 2012/13 that offer specialisms in mathematics.

And why we have accepted Lord Bew’s recommendation to assess spelling, punctuation, grammar and vocabulary as part of the writing test at Key Stage 2.

And at secondary:

We’ve introduced the English Baccalaureate to encourage more pupils to study the essential, core academic subjects prized by universities and employers.

In 2011, there were over 150 maintained mainstream schools where not a single pupil – not one – was entered for all the EBacc subjects. I would hazard a guess that it would be hard to find more than a few private schools which would say the same.

In a world where disadvantaged children are all too often barred from elite universities because they don’t know or aren’t told which qualifications they will need, the EBacc’s unequivocal statement of priority is the single greatest aid we have in widening access to elite universities.

And I’m delighted to say that we’re already seeing numbers climbing. From 23 per cent of pupils entering the EBacc combination of subjects in 2011, the proportion has climbed to 47 per cent in 2013 – and hopefully will continue on this upward trajectory, higher and steeper still.

Time spent on teaching history, geography and modern languages has risen by 10 per cent. In 2011 there were around 3400 more teachers teaching in these subjects and an increase of 23,000 teaching hours on the previous year. In languages, for example, the number of pupils set to sit language GCSEs next year has increased by 22 per cent to 52 per cent.

Highly able pupils attending the most disadvantaged schools are also 10 times more likely to take a vocational qualification than those in wealthier areas.

Building on the Wolf Review, we’re making sure that vocational qualifications up to 16 are rigorous and well-respected – and ensuring that vocational qualifications after 16 offer students a high-quality route into employment or further study. Qualifications must be externally assessed and must enable progression to a wide range of study and employment opportunities.

Vocational qualifications are hugely important, and will continue to be so – so we are working hard to ensure that they are just as ambitious and useful as academic courses.

At A Level, Ofqual admits that more than a decade of “persistent grade inflation” which was “impossible to justify” has undermined A levels and GCSEs, we’ve invited top academics and university lecturers to get involved in raising standards and making examinations more rigorous.

And we’ve allowed further education lecturers into schools to share their expertise and experience with as wide a pool of students as possible.

And to ensure the money is there to help accelerate progress in closing that gap, we’ve introduced the Pupil Premium to support disadvantaged pupils, allowing schools to decide how funding is used to answer their pupils’ needs.

Independent schools succeed because leaders give a clear and consistent message about the values of their institution – and every message the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister send to the school system is about one thing – making opportunity more equal.

But independent schools also succeed because as well as setting high expectations – and sending a clear message about values – they encourage professionals to take responsibility for what happens in their classrooms – to innovate in pursuit of excellence.

Freedom to concentrate on what matters

And that’s why we’ve given all schools greater freedoms to meet the standards we expect.

Greater freedoms over the school day, week and year; freedom from excessive, centrally-generated bureaucracy and overwhelming government guidance; freedom to decide who to hire, to get involved in ITT and to devise their own CPD; and greater autonomy in tackling poor pupil behaviour, taking a sensible approach to exclusions and keeping order in the classroom.

And, of course, we’ve invited schools to gain greater independence within the state sector by becoming academies.

Already, over half of all secondary schools are open or in the process of opening as academies, teaching over one and a half million children. During March more than 140 schools applied for academy status (the highest rate since May last year) and every month, now, more primaries than secondaries are applying to convert.

In some parts of the country, more than half of all secondary schools are now academies. In some local areas, it’s almost every secondary school.

And these freedoms are already making a difference.

Evidence shows that sponsored academies are improving at twice the rate of other schools, and have been doing so for a decade.

Across the whole Academies programme, rigorous research from the National Audit Office has shown that the attainment rate for FSM pupils in academies improved by 8.3 percentage points between 2009 and 2010 – almost double the national improvement rate for FSM pupils, 4.6 percentage points.

In other words, the best academies are driving up standards for those children who have the worst start in life almost twice as quickly as other schools. And they’re doing it by giving great heads in the state system the freedom you have in the independent sector – to concentrate on education not bureaucracy.

To take one minor but telling example: one head recently told my Department that since becoming an academy his senior staff have saved 43 days a year previously spent in “irrelevant” local authority meetings.

As well as converting and sponsored academies, Free Schools are being established and driving social mobility, particularly in areas where deprivation is high and parents are crying out for new schools – brilliant centres of innovation like King’s Science Academy Bradford, The London Academy of Excellence, West London Free School and Norwich Free School.

Evidence from America has shown that new schools can bring dramatic improvements in school standards, especially schools for poorer children in poor areas.

And true to form, over a third of the 2011 Free School openers are located in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of the country – half in the 30 per cent most deprived areas.

Although it is too early to confirm, the majority of the groups seeking to open a Free School in 2012 or later have proposed sites which are in the 50 per cent most deprived areas of the country.

Beyond all these structural changes, we’re concentrating on the staff who bring schools to life.

The importance of teaching

Richard’s single-minded focus on high-quality teaching at Brighton was rightly singled out by Sunday Times judges as one of the factors in this school’s meteoric success.

And the recent report on social mobility from the all-party-parliamentary group found that teacher quality is not only the number one factor in educational outcomes, it’s the number one factor in narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

One study from the US found that effective teaching can make a difference of a whole additional year of progress to poor pupils.

Yet schools where more than 20 per cent of pupils are eligible for free school meals are more likely to be rated worse in their teaching, and their teachers are less likely to have come from an outstanding teacher training institution.

Through the new network of 200 Teaching Schools and over 600 National Leaders of Education, we’re giving the teaching profession far greater autonomy over school improvement, recruitment, ITT and CPD, nurturing talent in the next generation of teachers and sharing best practice between schools.

We’ve already designated 1000 Specialist Leaders of Education, testament to the prodigious teaching and leadership talent already working in schools today, and we’re providing incentives for the brightest and best graduates to enter the classroom.

We’re targeting these incentives particularly at the crucial subjects of Maths and Sciences – all the more important when more than half of newly qualified maths teachers don’t have a degree in maths.

Nothing, but nothing, is more important than the quality of teaching.

Conclusion

As you will appreciate, this Government is neither idle nor complacent in the face of the inequality which scars our society.

And that is because we know that progress – for individuals or society – is not a matter of laissez-faire but leadership.

And because we recognise that Governments must take sides in debates – we must be for aspiration, ambition, hard work and excellence – for success based on merit and a celebration of those who do succeed.

How will we know if we’ve succeeded – well success may be decided by events far beyond this parliament – will we, for example, ever see a comprehensive boy or girl ever edit the Guardian? Perhaps not in my lifetime…

But – seriously – we know we are making progress when we hear the opposition from vested interests – from those in trade unions who put adults interests before children’s, from those in local Government who put protecting their power before fulfilling children’s potential, from those who have acquiesced in a culture of low expectations who resist any form of accountability for failure.

That opposition is out there – entrenched, organised, vocal and determined – and it is hoping we in the Coalition Government fail – but if we fail then so do thousands more of our poorest children – and we cannot let that happen.

November 27, 2015
David Gauke – 2012 Speech on Taxation

Below is the text of the speech made by David Gauke, the then Exchequer to the Treasury, on 5th October 2012.

Introduction

I was delighted to receive an invitation to make the keynote speech here today, at this – CIPP’s Annual Payroll and Pensions Conference and Exhibition. Celtic Manor played host to one of the great European Ryder Cup triumphs in 2010. And given Sunday evening’s extraordinary efforts over the USA in Medinah, it seems apt to be here. Excitement, drama, triumph and despair – and unlikely comebacks. We all knew dealing with the tax system can be like that – but now we know that those words can apply to golf too.

It is also apt that I give this speech at CIPP’s annual conference. I have enjoyed very constructive engagement with CIPP, both during my time in opposition and in government, across both policy and operational matters.

And I am pleased to be able to draw attention to an excellent new CIPP initiative here today. Next week CIPP will announce their new national apprenticeship initiative, in conjunction with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The scheme will create up to 600 skilled jobs helping to address the lack of trained resource in financial administration in small and medium sized enterprises. I see this as an excellent example of how short-term Government seed-corn investment, alongside business, can lever a sustained increase in employer investment in skills, to ultimately support growth.

Before turning to the key matters I want to address, forgive me if I take you back to when I first started work for a major City law firm, as a trainee solicitor in 1995. Fee earners did not have their own computers. Communication was through letter, fax or occasionally telex. If you needed to be contacted when out of the office, you could book out the firm’s mobile telephone.

I raise these points not as a nostalgic look back at a more peaceful age, but to highlight how much the world has changed in the last 18 years. Despite the Treasury’s well documented tight-fistedness, I not only have access to the internet, but I don’t need to dial in for it.

But until fairly recently, the world of tax was behind the times. In 2005, most of us were already paying our utilities online, but three quarters of those filling in self assessment forms did so by post.

While my search engine seems to know to offer me discounted tickets to see Ipswich Town FC play at home – we have until recently failed to make use of the technology available to make life as easy as possible for taxpayers.

Of course paying tax is rarely going to be as popular an exercise as buying football tickets – even for an Ipswich match. But in many ways, that makes it even more important to make the process as painless as possible.

Regardless of our opinion on tax, it affects us all and is intensely personal. But much of our experience is framed by the method and manner in which it is collected.

And I believe the extent to which technology can improve that process is limited only by our imagination and initiative.

So I want to talk to you today about how we are using technology to improve the taxpayer experience.

To reduce burdens on households and businesses; to improve transparency; to allow taxpayers to take responsibility for their tax affairs; to help HMRC exercise a fair and efficient approach to tax administration, and to help the public hold government to account for the way it raises and spends their money.

Modernising PAYE

To modernise the tax system has been our goal since my party was in opposition. In my role as a Shadow Treasury minister, I was struck by how cumbersome the Pay as You Earn system was. David Freud, advising us on welfare reform, was concerned that in order to move to a universal credit system, we needed earnings information in real time. So for some time, we worked together to find a way to reform radically how PAYE worked.

Since coming into office, we have already made substantial progress to improve the personal tax system, and in particular PAYE, which for too long had been neglected.

HMRC’s new computer system holds all a customer’s PAYE records in one place, for all their employments and pensions. That new system is now delivering much better accuracy and efficiency.

It allows HMRC, for the first time, to see the full tax position of callers to their contact centres as soon as they get in touch – helping HMRC provide a better service.

Through using the new technology, great progress has been made clearing old backlogs – HMRC are over 97 per cent through the legacy cases (those prior to 2007-08) and will clear these by December this year. They are aiming to be completely up to date on later tax years (2008-09 to 2011-12) by April – ready to start 2013/14 with PAYE in the best shape for many years.

RTI

And we are making further investment in Real Time Information – a system that will bring PAYE into the 21st century by allowing HMRC to receive information on employees’ earnings, tax, and National Insurance Contributions as they are paid, rather than at the end of the year.

RTI is the single biggest innovation in the administration of the tax system since PAYE was brought in after the Second World War.

It will make it easier for employers to administer PAYE and will make tax more accurate.

RTI integrates PAYE reporting with normal business practices; enables employers to provide information more frequently; in time it will let more issues be resolved in-year; and makes it is easier to adjust when employees leave or join within the tax year. The majority of the pilot employers questioned expect a reduced burden when end of year is taken into account. And they have told HMRC they see clear advantages in increased accuracy and simplicity – especially around starters and leavers.

And I’m pleased to say CIPP have also been hard at work making the lives of employers easier. Their new Payroll Assurance Scheme should help employers ensure their payroll returns are accurate and complete. I wholeheartedly welcome initiatives of this kind in supporting employers, and by extension HMRC, in the payroll process.

In steady state, we expect our new RTI system to save employers around £300 million net per year in admin costs alone. And we also expect reductions in tax credit error and fraud of £300m.

As a consequence the system is expected to pay for itself within a year.

RTI will also provide a key building block for our reform of the welfare system – which will make sure that work always pays, and is seen to pay.

It will ensure DWP have up-to-date information about employment and pension income, so that Universal Credit awards can be assessed dynamically, without people needing to send information about their pension or employment income.

DWP and HMRC have been working closely to make sure the two projects are appropriately joined up. And that the necessary technology to support RTI for Universal Credit will be in place this month – ready for DWP to use from October 2013.

As you will know, we’ve been piloting the RTI scheme since April, and a couple of months ago I travelled to Solihull to make CIPP’s first RTI submission as they joined.

That provided an excellent photo opportunity of the back of my head as I clicked a mouse button – not quite awarding medals at the Paralympics, but at least I got a small cheer….

From next month, large employers will be able to join the RTI pilot or expand existing involvement, and I would encourage all who have not signed up to investigate the requirements and consider joining as soon as possible – the benefit of doing so cannot be overstated.

From the start of our pilot in April, with just 10 employers, we now have over 1600 PAYE schemes in the pilot – exceeding the target for September by over 15 per cent, and with over 1.9 million individual records sent through the system.

And I am pleased I can say that we have received strikingly positive feedback from the pilot employers. It’s not always the case that the words ‘very easy’ are used to describe an HMRC initiative. And it’s even less often that a tax administration reform is described as ‘pretty cool’ – to quote one Twitter user…

But this reflects the work they have been doing with stakeholders and customers – to ensure that RTI works for them.

The achievement is all the more encouraging given the additional impressive work on data quality taking place, which will ensure HMRC sustains the success as the pilot scales up.

Most employers will begin reporting PAYE in real time in April 2013. All employers will be routinely reporting PAYE in real time by October 2013, in time for the introduction of Universal Credit.

Modernising the personal tax system

But this is only a start of our reforms to bring the Personal Tax system into the 21st Century.

In November last year, HMRC published two discussion documents that took our vision further. They presented our plans for the future, and gave a taste of our ambition.

They spelled out our ambition – to deliver a personal tax system that is more transparent and easier to use for the individual taxpayer.

We want to increase awareness and accountability, making it easier for individuals to know what they have paid, what their overall tax rate is, how it has been calculated and when and why they should interact with HMRC.

While this will not happen overnight, we have started the debate. And we want to engage with individual tax payers to understand whether, what, and how they want to see information on their tax affairs.

Tax transparency

For many, the details of tax are difficult to understand, detached from everyday life, a black box of rates, thresholds and reliefs.

They trust their employers and PAYE to get it right for them, and do not understand the system’s limitations and what can go wrong.

It is little wonder that taxpayers find it difficult to work out exactly how much of every pound they earn they get to keep.

The fact that tax is necessary – to support critical public services – should not give Governments carte blanche to take as much as they can get away with.

Governments need to be accountable for what they raise, how they raise it, and how it is spent. And for that to happen, people need to be in a position to understand what they pay and why.

If I were to summarise Government’s vision for tax it would be transparency, simplicity and efficiency.

And in order to deliver that, I have been clear that I want nothing less than to transform the UK Personal Tax system fundamentally to deliver a better experience, and a more transparent approach for the taxpaying public.

Examples of recent achievements

Other countries are already taking decisive steps to help their citizens engage in their tax affairs. And the evidence shows that allowing customers to view and transact with their own tax leads to greater awareness and understanding.

One idea would be for full online personal tax accounts.

Accounts that would allow those who pay tax via PAYE to access their records online, as is already the case for those who declare liabilities through the self assessment process;

That would allow people easily to check and alter their address details at the click of a button;

That would allow HMRC to correspond with millions of taxpayers at minimal cost through a mailbox system;

That would allow people to manage their tax themselves; see their tax rates; and see how those compare to previous years;

And that would allow employers to do the same.

Ultimately, you could access your online account through your phone – “Putting tax back into your pocket” so to speak…

My gas company has been doing this for years – and perhaps it’s time for HMRC to be in the same position.

Personal tax accounts could be something for the future. A lot of thinking would be needed on how they might best work for the taxpayer. But in the meantime, we have already taken steps to improve transparency.

At Budget this last year we announced that HMRC would introduce a personal tax calculator by April 2012 so that individuals can work out how much tax and NI they may expect to pay, and what their effective tax rate is.

That has been delivered and the mobile app version was downloaded 34,668 times in the first 24 hours, and now has around 220,000 downloads – the Guardian made it ‘app of the week’ and it was the second most downloaded free app in Apple’s online iTunes store.

At the last Budget, we announced we would take this further – with tax statements for 20 million customers every year from 2014/15.

But as well as informing individuals on their tax affairs, it will also make it easier to provide up to date information to HMRC.

Helping increase accuracy, reduce burdens on business, prevent fraud and error, and reduce costs to the Exchequer.

We’re also doing work to help out business. Our new online ‘Business Tax Dashboard’ for example allows businesses to see how much tax they have already paid and how much they still owe. Just one of a number of measures that has led to reduced admin burdens for business up and down the UK.

And these are just some of the ideas we’ve had. I want businesses, individuals, and representative bodies like CIPP to come forward with how we can improve tax transparency further.

Tax/NICs integration

Part of that process involves removing misleading elements of the tax system. While the headline standard rate of tax declined between 1980 and 2010, the level of direct personal tax has remained roughly the same. That is because National Insurance – a tax on income, if not strictly speaking income tax – increased.

Jean Baptiste Colbert, the Minister of Finance under King Louis XIV famously said that ‘The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing”

That certainly seems to have been the approach taken in the recent past, with a persistent policy of keeping tax and National Insurance separate, even though for most intents and purposes, they fall on the same base and go to the same place – the Exchequer. That allowed the previous government to keep headline income tax rates low, despite raising taxes on income.

But I believe people should know how many feathers have been plucked. That is my motivation for tax transparency, and underpins our approach to Income Tax and NICs integration.

As many of you are aware, at Budget 2011 we said we would look at how best to bring together the operation of income tax and National Insurance contributions.

In doing so, our aim is make the tax system more transparent, and also less burdensome. Over the past 18 months we have had excellent engagement with organisations such as CIPP to work through the detail. Operational integration is not straightforward, we knew that when we started. But by working in partnership with organisations such as CIPP we can work through those issues to identify what more we can do to simplify the system for employers and employees. This collaborative approach is essential in such a highly complex area where the potential impacts on employers are significant. It is crucial that major reforms are well thought through rather than rushed.

We also need to consider the impact on the individual as well as business. As set out in the Government’s 2011 publication, “integrating the operation of income tax and National Insurance: next steps” any reforms that make NICs match income tax structure could mean that a significant number of individuals would end up with a different NICs liability. Some could pay more and others less. Therefore before proceeding with any reform, it is our responsibility to ensure we have a clear understanding of the number of individuals likely to be affected and how they will be affected.

I encourage businesses and representative bodies like yours to continue to engage with us on this and other reforms – as I am grateful to you for doing thus far. I hope to be in a position to provide an update on this detailed programme of work shortly.

Conclusion

The ideas of this Government – and the ideas that we are taking on board from taxpayers and their representatives – offer to use technology to transform the way that tax operates.

Ideas that will make it easier for HMRC to keep information up to date and for taxpayers to provide it.

Ideas that will lead to greater individual understanding of and engagement in their tax affairs.

Ideas that could make the administration of the personal tax system easier for employers and fairer for individuals.

Ideas that will increase accuracy, reduce burdens, and cut costs.

Ideas that will benefit the administration of the tax system, but also taxpayers, and – perhaps most importantly – the debate surrounding what we pay and how we pay it.

Thank you.

November 27, 2015
Maria Eagle – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Maria Eagle to the Labour Party conference on 1st October 2012.

Conference.

Families not only under pressure from energy and food prices, but the rising cost of transport too.

And only real reform will deliver a better deal.

Inflation busting fare rises. Record prices at the pump.

Contributing to the cost of living crisis.

And as I’ve travelled around the country during our Policy Review, let me tell you what I’ve heard:

Young people who say they’ve dropped out of college, because the cost of getting there was just too high.

Commuters who say their season ticket now costs more than the mortgage or rent.

That’s a transport system that isn’t working for working people.

And the response from this Tory-led Government?

After two-and-a-half years. And three transport secretaries:

Bus fares up, and one in five supported services facing the axe.

Because the Government chose to cut funding too far and too fast.

Train fares up, by as much as 11 per cent. Not for one year – but three years in a row.

Because the Government chose to increase the cap on fare rises, then told train companies they could hike some tickets by even more.

And when Labour forced a vote in Parliament last month?

Not one Tory or Liberal Democrat MP voted to limit fare rises to one per cent above inflation.

And just when commuters thought things couldn’t get any tougher:

A planned new ‘super peak’ fare.

So your season ticket won’t even be valid on every train.

Even though most people can’t just pick and choose the hours they work.

And, as if fares weren’t complex enough:

Giving the green light to requests from train companies to close ticket offices.

And fuel prices up too: thanks to a decision to drive VAT up to 20 per cent.

A Government completely out of touch with the impact of rising transport costs.

Labour would be making different choices.

Protecting support for local bus services.

Legislating to make train companies apply the fare cap on every route.

Reversing the increase in VAT, while times are tough.

Immediate measures to ease the pressure on families.

But let’s be honest:

This Government has made things worse, but transport costs were already too high.

Because there are fundamental, long term problems with our transport system.

And only real reform will deliver a better deal for fare-payers and tax-payers.

This Government’s economic failure means we will inherit the toughest pressure on public spending.

So the old answers just won’t work anymore.

Remember back to 1997?

One of our proudest achievements:

Free bus passes for pensioners.

But in a deregulated bus market, there was only one way to deliver it:

We paid the bus companies, and we watched as profits soared.

Now let’s go forward to 2015, and the new challenges we face:

Like helping those young people that I met, who said they couldn’t afford to get to college.

But if the 1997 solution was just to pay the bill, the 2015 answer can only be reform.

So, in return for the profits they make in a subsidised industry:

Requiring bus companies to deliver concessionary fares for young people aged 16 to 19 in education or training.

It’s what we mean by predistribution:

Companies acting responsibly, so that tax-payers don’t have to step in.

In Government we passed legislation to make it possible:

Introducing Quality Contracts, enabling transport authorities to reverse bus deregulation in their area.

But it remains difficult in practice.

So when the Integrated Transport Authority in Tyne and Wear decided to get a better deal for passengers, how did Stagecoach react?

They threatened to close depots, sack drivers and take buses off the road overnight.

Sir Brian Souter claimed he’d rather “take poison” than enter a Quality Contract.

And his Managing Director accused the elected, accountable transport authority of “operating in the same camp as Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.”

Just for wanting a better deal for taxpayers’ money.

And now Lib Dem Transport Minister Norman Baker has stacked the rules on bus funding against transport authorities that pursue reform.

I say to the Government:

Restore a level playing field to Better Bus Area funding.

Consider the case for Deregulation Exemption Zones.

Work with councils, not against them.

And to the bus companies, I say:

You operate successfully in a regulated system right across Europe, and you can do so here.

And only real reform will deliver a better deal on rail.

So that we can end the era of above inflation fare rises, while still delivering vital investment:

The rolling programme of electrification, set out by Labour in government.

The Northern Hub.

A new generation of inter-city trains: to be built in the North East, thanks to Labour.

What a contrast to a Tory-led Government exporting jobs by building the trains for Thameslink in Germany. An appalling mistake that they must not repeat with Crossrail.

And HS2. Delivering new capacity. Cutting journey times across Britain, benefitting cities like Manchester.

I say to the new Transport Secretary: it’s time to get behind this project in a way your predecessors failed to do.

Let’s work together on a cross-party basis to legislate for the whole route in this Parliament.

We began the job of reforming the rail industry in government.

Tackling the legacy of a botched Tory privatisation.

We created Network Rail as a not for dividend company.

Yet tax-payers still don’t get a good enough deal:

Not for the three and a half billion pounds they put into the rail industry each and every year.

We saw again this year: an out of control bonus culture, exposing a corporate governance structure at Network Rail that is not fit for purpose.

So we need greater accountability.

But the real waste comes from the costs of fragmentation:

Like the taxpayers’ money paid to private train companies, just so Network Rail can repair the track.

Even through it’s essential to run their services, and make a profit.

The same companies paid to put on the replacement bus service.

And handed £172 million last year to compensate for delays.

Even though very little found its way to the passengers who’d been inconvenienced.

And then, time and time again, the public sector picking up the pieces after private failure.

Not just the disaster of Railtrack. But companies failing to fulfil contracts to deliver services. Not once, but twice on the East Coast line.

And what have we seen, since it is no longer run for private profit?

£187 million returned to taxpayers this year. £170 million the year before.

Profit that next year will once again be shared with shareholders.

That’s if the contract isn’t won by the German, French or Dutch state railway, who already run large parts of our rail network.

Exporting profits to deliver lower fares on the continent, at the expense of passengers in Britain.

So if we were in government today, we’d provide long term certainty and stability on the East Coast line.

Not privatisation for its own sake: but a real public sector comparator.

And if resolving the franchise fiasco on the West Coast Main Line means the Government has to run that on the same basis? Then we will support them.

Labour’s Policy Review will continue to look at what we can learn from other countries, where the structure of their rail industry is more efficient – and fares are lower as a result.

And we’ll continue to look at how best to empower communities to have a greater say over local and regional rail services.

Because only reform can deliver a better deal.

And motorists need to see change too.

Instead of just talking about it, Ministers should act on their promise to crack down on profiteering by petrol companies.

And tackle the abuses in the car insurance market that drive up premiums.

And when two-thirds of the journeys that we make are under five miles:

Let’s make alternatives to driving, not just a possibility, but an attractive choice.

Not just affordable public transport. But supporting cycling and walking too.

Easing the pressure on the household budget.

And in a year when we’ve seen a 12 per cent increase in pedestrians killed on our roads and the appalling tragedy of eighty-eight cyclists losing their lives, we must have a renewed focus on safety.

I know that Patrick McLoughlin agrees.

So I urge him to restore the axed targets to cut deaths and injuries on our roads.

I congratulate The Times on their Cities Fit for Cyclists campaign.

The Government should implement the campaign’s manifesto for change. In full.

Separated cycle-ways. Redesigned junctions. Advance green lights for cyclists.

Setting aside a proportion of the roads budget to make it happen.

Supporting local authorities to extend 20mph speed limits in residential areas.

Better cycling facilities at train stations and on trains.

Safe routes to schools.

And learning the lessons for England from the innovative Active Travel legislation being taken forward by the Labour Government in Wales.

Conference:

A government out of touch with the impact of rising transport costs.

New thinking from Labour.

Immediate steps:

Protecting bus services.

Capping rail fares.

Reducing VAT on fuel.

Reform to meet fundamental long term challenges:

Empowering transport authorities to regulate bus services.

Tackling fragmentation in our rail system. Putting passengers before profit.

Cycling and walking: a genuine priority.

Because only real reform will deliver a better deal on transport.

November 26, 2015
Edward Davey – 2012 Speech at CBI Breakfast

Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Davey, the then Secretary of State for Energy, on 18th October 2012.

Introduction

I want to thank our hosts for bringing everyone together this morning.

The CBI has been on a journey, much like Government policy, as both have grappled with how to decarbonise the economy and tackle climate change while ensuring the UK remains competitive and energy affordable.

The CBI is a strong and powerful advocate for the green economy and I very much welcomed the report, The Colour of Growth, which drew attention to the vital role energy can play in terms of investment, jobs, and growth.

The case for EMR

Today I want to focus on the reforms that I know CBI members understand are critical if we are to attract the massive investment we need in our energy infrastructure and secure a supply chain for low carbon technologies in the UK. Neil has outlined how important regulatory certainty is to investors and we believe our energy reforms can achieve that certainty.

The challenge is well known. Demand for electricity is set to double, as economic growth returns and then as we use more electric cars and heating. But a fifth of our power plants are closing because they are too old or too polluting.

So with supply reducing and demand increasing over the next decade and beyond, we need massive investment: investment at double the current rate, a total of around £110bn between now and 2020. That’s a huge investment in new, low-carbon electricity generation and grid infrastructure – representing around half the UK’s infrastructure investment, the equivalent of seven Crossrails.

It will make sure we keep our homes heated, our industries and consumer electronics powered and our lights on. It will diversify our energy mix – with gas, renewables, CCS and nuclear all playing their part – and thereby protect our energy security and insulate business and domestic consumers from fossil fuel price spikes. It will help us meet our legal obligations on climate change, including our emissions and renewables targets.

And it present a big opportunity for jobs in every nation and region of the UK, and a boost to the supply chain, giving British business opportunities both at home and in export markets.

This opportunity for growth and jobs comes now, when we need it, not a decade down the line. The CBI’s report said that the UK’s green business grew in real terms by 2.3% in 2010-11, beating even the global green business growth rate to take a share of over £120 billion in the global market of £3.3 trillion.

The Government is looking to support this through sector-specific strategies, which will ensure there is sufficient supply chain capacity to support growth sectors including nuclear, renewables, oil and gas.

I want Britain to be the best place in the world to invest in new, clean energy infrastructure. But Britain’s electricity market, as it stands, cannot deliver investment on the scale we need. That’s why we’re reforming it, and why we’re introducing the Energy Bill within weeks.

We’ve had pre-legislative scrutiny, we’ve listened to industry and others, and today I intend to announce a little more detail in some key areas.

And today I can also confirm we will be publishing the Energy Bill, as we always planned, next month, for second reading before Christmas. So given that imminent publication, I wanted to use today to make my case for electricity market reform.

Contracts for Difference

For the ultimate goal, let me reassure you, has nothing to do with Government intervention. Quite the contrary. Eventually I want to see low-carbon power sources competing on cost alone. But we can’t just flick a switch and make that happen instantly. So our energy reforms will come in four phases.

Let’s start by admitting that the current arrangements – phase zero, you might say – are actually quite dirigiste. We have the Renewables Obligation; we negotiate bilaterally on potential new nuclear power stations; we have the competition led by my Departtment for commercial-scale carbon capture and storage.

There’s a good case for that statist approach now, but our reforms are explicitly intended to move to a market-based, price-discovery model.

So in phase one, we’ll introduce a mechanism that will offer reliable contracts, delivered in a way that is trusted by investors. That mechanism is the Feed-in Tariff with Contracts for Difference. Prices will be set administratively, aiming to bring all technology groups down in cost and begin levelling the playing field.

Here’s how it works. We set a fair price for low-carbon electricity. The generator sells its electricity in the market, and is paid a variable premium to top up if necessary. And if the market price is higher than the strike price, the generator pays back the difference.

The key thing here is certainty. Contracts for Difference can help smooth out market volatility, not only minimising costs to the consumer, but also making investment and financing decisions easier. And because energy still needs to be sold in the market, there are still powerful incentives to encourage operational efficiency.

Global fund managers have told me that the uncertainty of the current arrangements has put them off investing. And they prefer the long term contracts we are proposing – because they would give them the predictable revenue streams they need to invest in big projects, and with lower costs of capital. In a contract.

Of course, we don’t want a hiatus in investment pending our reforms taking full effect in 2014. So I’ve undertaken to explore what form of comfort might be given to keep investments on track for project developers looking to make progress over the next 15 months or so.

We are talking to EDF about what this can do to help bring forward new nuclear at Hinkley, but let me stress that this offer is intended to benefit all low-carbon technologies.

My department has been approached by some half dozen renewables developers, in wind and biomass, to understand how the availability of early comfort could help them.

So I can announce that I will seek powers in the Energy Bill to give the market certainty on these arrangements and demonstrate our commitment to supporting new investment.

In phase two, as different technologies mature and become more widely deployed, we’ll see the first technology-specific auctions where prices will be set competitively by the market and (for example) onshore wind generators will start to compete with other onshore wind generators, as early as 2017.

Then in phase three, when most current technologies have matured, we’ll move to technology-neutral auctions. So in the 2020s, low-carbon technologies should start to compete with each other in a true low-carbon electricity market.

Finally, when all technologies are mature enough, and if the carbon price is high enough and sustainable enough, all generators could compete without any intervention.

The move from price setting to price discovery will be complete, with low-carbon electricity sources competing on cost to provide clean, affordable, secure energy for UK consumers.

And through this 4 staged reform, we will ensure that demand-side response, and additional storage and interconnection, can all play an increasingly important role in Britain’s reformed electricity markets, helping to manage supply.

So the reforms in the Energy Bill are about building a framework for a new, competitive electricity market – bringing down the cost of capital, unlocking a huge amount of investment, and all the time moving our energy mix towards the diverse, low-carbon mix we need for our energy security and to meet our climate goals.

So as we prepare to introduce the Bill to Parliament next month, we’re already taking practical steps now to make the electricity market reforms a reality.

Just this month National Grid published its Call for Evidence , which is the first step in establishing the first strike prices for Contracts for Difference.

Decarbonisation target

At the same time, I believe a strong case has been made by many investors in energy infrastructure for a decarbonisation target range for the power sector. Such a range would help make clear our continued commitment to our climate goals. Believe me when I say that no one would be happier to see the politics taken out of energy policy. What could make life easier for the Energy and Climate Change Secretary than political consensus? So

I hear your message Neil and I can say with confidence that the coalition is united behind these energy market reforms.

Security of supply

As well as stimulating low-carbon investment, I am determined to ensure the long-term security of our electricity supplies.

Our market has, to date, delivered us a high level of electricity security. But the picture is changing, and we cannot be complacent.

Over the coming decade, a large proportion of our existing capacity is set to close, and more low-carbon plant will enter the system.

That means that other types of capacity will run less often, and can be less sure of revenues. That increased uncertainty could threaten the investment in non-intermittent capacity that we need, and run the risk of shortfalls – for example, during cold, windless periods.

So we need to be ready to act to secure our electricity supplies for the long-term. This was underlined by Ofgem’s recent assessment of future capacity margins, which clearly set out the potential for capacity margins to decline from their current high levels.

Many of the actions that we are taking – securing investment in low-carbon generation, reducing demand through the Green Deal, enabling consumers to manage their energy use actively through smart meters – will help to reduce the risks. But these actions may not be sufficient to ensure security of supply in the long-term.

That’s why we are intending to legislate for for a Capacity Market – which will ensure that we have the right long-term incentives to provide us with the reliable capacity that we need.

The Capacity Market would work by guaranteeing a steady payment for providing reliable capacity, giving developers of new power stations the certainty they need to invest. And it would work for households and businesses by securing their electricity supplies and insulating them against the steep price spikes that can occur in very tight markets.

Many investors in gas plant have made clear to me that they see the capacity market as important. . Gas is crucial to the UK’s security of supply, and will continue to play a major role in our electricity mix over the coming decades, alongside use of carbon capture and storage technology and of course with significantly increasing renewables and nuclear.

But the Capacity Market is not just about traditional generation – we are designing it so that other approaches such as demand side response and storage capacity can also participate.

So we will, later this year, set out more of the detail of the scheme – giving investors the certainty they need to take decisions.

Liquidity

To secure the best value from our reforms we also need a diverse and competitive wholesale market.

The liquidity of our wholesale power market is low relative to some other major European power markets and to international commodity markets. The issue is particularly pronounced in the forward markets, which are important for independents.

We all know that liquidity helps competition and entry in any market, and allows participants to manage their risks. Independent electricity generators and suppliers are no exception. It is also crucial to the efficient functioning of the Contracts for Difference.

That’s why I support Ofgem’s objectives as it takes forward potential reforms. I am keen to see swift and appropriate action from the regulator.

The industry itself has also taken steps to improve transparency and day-ahead liquidity. I welcome those efforts too, and would encourage industry to move further and faster, especially with respect to liquidity in the forward markets.

And, while supporting the efforts of the regulator and industry, I do believe Government needs to stand ready to step in and act if those efforts are not promoting competition to the benefit of consumers.

So I want you to feel confident that Government is ready to act if necessary. So as we complete the fine details of the electricity market reform, we will make sure they promote competition at every stage. And we are looking closely at backstop powers in the Energy Bill to promote market liquidity and improve competition for long-term contracts, particularly with independent renewable generators.

CfD Payment Model & Allocation

The Energy Bill will set out our choice of payment model for Contracts for Difference and, alongside the Bill, the allocation process for Contracts for Difference. Developers and investors in the renewables sector in particular have told us that they want a single strong counterparty to these contracts, and earlier certainty of their contract allocation and strike price, and I want to assure you that we are listening.

Of course, Contracts for Difference will provide much earlier certainty than is available currently, with developers entering into legally binding contracts, with set levels of support, potentially years ahead of when pricing certainty is achieved under the Renewables Obligation.

But in response to feedback on our initial proposals, I am attracted to the idea of giving developers much earlier certainty on allocation of contracts than we previously proposed. In particular, a process that would allow developers to enter into a Contract for Difference as soon as relevant planning approvals and grid connections are agreed, so long as the developer ALSO commits to progress their project at a reasonable pace.

This could better match the needs of developers, whilst also giving Government appropriate comfort that the available budget will be used effectively and protecting energy consumers.

We have listened to the concerns industry raised about the CfD payment model – in particular the need for a robust counterparty to the contracts. I have taken the concerns on board. I know this is a key issue for developers and others in the sector, and central to unlocking the investment we need.

We have been looking at these concerns over the summer and have been assessing the benefits and workability of creating a single counterparty, probably a company owned by Government, which could give the certainty you need to come forward and invest.

My Department has this very week finalised our plan and when we announce it next month I believe we will show that Government has worked constructively with the industry to address your concerns.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

I’d like to turn to two measures closely related to our energy strategy and reforms which we propose to introduce through the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, which the Chancellor is introducing in Parliament today.

You may know that Ofgem planned to launch in April 2013 a Network Innovation Competition in the gas industry, which would have seen industry invest £160m over an eight-year period in innovation and greater efficiencies in the grid.

But Ofgem found itself unable to move forward because of a legal ambiguity in the Gas Act 1986 which threatened the planned funding mechanism. Ofgem has therefore proposed to delay the Competition until this issue can be resolved or another funding mechanism can be found.

I know that the gas network companies and Ofgem are disappointed by this, and I think they are right.

So I can announce that we will remove this regulatory barrier altogether in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill so that the Competition can go ahead at the earliest opportunity.

The second measure relates to Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Planning decisions on major energy infrastructure projects were examined under this section of the Electricity Act, before the Planning Act came into force.

There remain around 9 projects still awaiting a decision from Ministers under Section 36, and around 30 projects that have consent but have not made a final decision to build.

Unlike Planning Act consents, section 36 consents are inflexible. Once given, a developer must build its new plant to the specification permitted by the consent.

For example, currently if a biomass developer with Section 36 consent wanted to change the type of fuel it burns type, or a wind farm developer with consent wanted to add a couple more turbines, they would have to submit a completely new application to the Planning Inspectorate under the Planning Act – a process which could take over a year.

I see that as unnecessary red tape, and we will use the Growth and Infrastructure Bill to cut it.The changes we will make will mean that developers wishing to apply for changes to to their projects Section 36 consents will in most cases need to undertake only a 3 month consultation on those changes. This could unlock investment decisions across a range of technologies, bringing thousands of new jobs and billions of pounds of investment to the UK economy.

The recent good news that the Carrington gas power plant near Manchester has confirmed financing and will now go ahead might have come significantly earlier if this reform had already been in place.

Demand-side reforms

A key issue raised in Parliament, during scrutiny of the draft Energy Bill, was that the Government should be driving permanent reductions in electricity demand. I agree that this is a crucial issue and we will be shortly setting out our ideas alongside our energy efficiency strategy.

That’s in addition to the measures we’re already taking on energy efficiency, including of course our flagship Green Deal programme, which will enable homes and businesses to pay for energy efficiency improvements through savings on their fuel bills.

The Green Deal will save money, save carbon – and make a real contribution to economic growth: supporting new jobs and businesses, and unlocking unprecedented choice for consumers. It’s a programme that will to run not for years but for decades, and should establish a vibrant new market in energy efficiency, one that could attract over £10bn of new energy efficiency investment in the residential and business sectors over the next decade.

Conclusion: CBI’s six tests, and consumer benefits

Reform is always controversial.

You may have heard or read criticism of various types: that our reforms are too complex, possibly deliberately so to conceal some secret subsidy for new nuclear; that we’re abandoning our climate goals in favour of a new dash for gas; or that we’re replacing a market-based approach with an illiberal, statist one.

Those critics are all a long way wide of the mark. I prefer the six tests – six entirely sensible tests in my view – which the CBI has said it will use to evaluate electricity market reform.

I hope that it’s clear from what I’ve set out today that our plans will indeed:

– one, remain market-oriented – indeed, in the longer term, we are blazing a trail to pure competition;

– two, remain technology-neutral – a diverse generation mix remains at the heart of our strategy;

– three, safeguard existing investments – indeed, we are committed to the principle of no retrospective changes and I’m acting to help existing investments out of the pipeline and into delivery;

– four, be politically durable – the very heart of Contracts for Difference is that they are long-term, stable contracts that provide certainty to industry;

– five, minimise the cost on energy users – and I’ll come back to this;

– and six, enable sufficient investment in low-carbon power generation and supporting technologies: that’s the driving force behind the reforms.

The fifth test – the need to minimise the cost on energy users – is a test through which I put all policy in my department.

Our reforms will stabilise consumer prices. With the increased diversity in the energy mix they herald and the long-term contracts for suppliers, we will shift decisively away from the current situation where volatile global gas prices determine the market electricity price.

So our reforms are good news for consumers, including for business consumers. They are long overdue.

November 26, 2015
Alan Duncan – 2012 Speech on the Arms Trade

Below is the text of the speech made by the International Development Minister, Alan Duncan, made at the International Institute for Strategic Studies on 17th May 2012.

Every country has the right to defend itself. Indeed, it is the first duty of government to protect its citizens.

Over the last few decades, global efforts to prevent and reduce violent conflict and civil wars have grown and strengthened. International peace operations – often based on new alliances between the North and the South – have played a vital role in bringing stability to fragile states. But for many countries, conflict and instability remain intractable problems, fuelled by the unregulated and irresponsible trade in arms.

This year, the world faces a new opportunity to prevent and reduce violent conflict as nations come together in New York in July to try to conclude negotiations on a new arms trade treaty.

Over the last forty years there have been many negotiations dealing with aspects of arms and defence. There were the series of negotiations aimed at reducing the bloated armouries built up during the cold war. There were then a series of nuclear anti-proliferation discussions. More recently there have been conventions that have addressed specific aspects of the arms trade, such as the Ottawa Convention that bans the sale of landmines, or the UN Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons. The latter has commendable aims and has begun to address the problem of small arms and light weapons but is limited in its focus, is non-binding, and has been hampered by disagreement.

Through the Arms Trade Treaty we now have the chance to agree a mechanism which comprehensively regulates the trade in all conventional weapons, big and small.

This is a development issue just as much as it is security issue. Without security, children cannot go to school, hospitals cannot function, farming cannot take place and commerce cannot thrive.

In short, violent conflict and insecurity engrain poverty. They threaten our chances of setting this world on a path to peace and prosperity. We have witnessed time and time again conflict and violence being fuelled by the illicit trade in weapons. It is the small arms – the guns and rifles – that have empowered armed groups, and which have escalated armed violence, resulting in millions of deaths.

The illegal trade in arms costs lives and blights futures

More than 740,000 men, women, and children die each year as a result of armed violence. Two thirds of these deaths occur in countries that are not in conflict. What does this show us? It shows us that easy access to portable weapons is a major factor in causing these deaths.

This Government is determined to do everything within its power to make sure that the most rigorous international standards are applied to the export of, and trade in, arms. It is the only way to stop weapons falling into the wrong hands.

Britain already operates one of the strongest arms control systems in the world, demanding the highest standards from our defence industry so that we can be sure that we are not fuelling these dreadful trends.

It is encouraging to see that the world community is now planning to come together and agree legally binding, international high standards for the trade and transfer of arms. Internationally, there is now a strong will to make an Arms Trade Treaty a reality.

The UK has been promoting the Arms Trade Treaty from the outset. The UK introduced the initial Resolution in the UN in December 2006 calling for an Arms Trade Treaty. The Resolution was co-authored with six countries: Australia, Argentina Costa Rica, Finland, Kenya and Japan. Negotiations began in 2010 and the final Negotiating Conference will be in July this year.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be leading the negotiations and the Departments for International Development, Defence, and Business Innovation and Skills will be represented on the delegation.

Achieving consensus by the end of the Negotiating Conference on a Treaty text which meets our objectives will be challenging. However, we are very determined and will make every effort to attain this goal. Between now and July, the UK Government will be working to raise the profile of and support for this Treaty. We will be working with our counterparts across the world to bring them on board. We will be demonstrating to our public why we believe this is so important.

I want today to explain just why we feel so strongly about this and why we are pushing for global standards.

First I would like to examine the scale of the problem. Second I want to look at how unregulated arms transfers affect development. Third I would like to offer some thoughts as to what an arms treaty should look like.

Why do we need a Treaty?

Currently a variable patchwork of regulation exists across the world. Some Governments have very robust arms trade control systems in place, but other Governments are fuelling the illicit and irresponsible trade in arms by not having any control systems at all, or by only having weak systems. Overall, there are no common international standards for the arms trade. This results in gaps and loopholes which can be exploited.

So, first, let’s look in a bit more detail at the impact of unregulated and irresponsible arms sales.

Every year, armed violence kills nearly three quarters of a million people. To pick a few examples:

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, close to 4 million people have died in armed conflict over the last decade.

In Nepal, ten years of conflict has left more than 12,000 people dead and hundreds of thousands displaced.

In 2011 an estimated 70,000 people were displaced from eastern Darfur in a wave of ethnically targeted attacks.

Corrupt or irresponsible dealers are selling and diverting weapons into war zones, fuelling conflict.

For example, in Uganda armed groups are known to have previously operated surreptitiously to obtain weapons from Sudan – these weapons ultimately led to an enormous cost in human life. The suffering caused by the illicit market in arms was immense. In Uganda, at least 23,000 children and adults were abducted by the Lord Resistance Army, the LRA. Young boys were trained as child soldiers. Young girls were taken to work as slaves, while others were raped and abandoned. Some children have been killed or injured in cross-fire, armed attacks and cattle raids.

In Sudan, a similar picture emerges. Women and children are the most vulnerable in Sudan’s internal conflict. Not only are they caught in the crossfire of conflict, but they are targets of inter-community raids. They are most affected by a lack of access to clean water, food, healthcare and education in areas where conflict persists.

The groups who perpetrated these atrocities would not have been able to operate without access to a constant source of weapons and ammunition. Just because a weapon is small and light does not mean it is not a vicious driver of conflict and suffering.

Easily transported, small arms and light weapons account for an estimated 60 to 90% of conflict deaths as well as tens of thousands of additional deaths outside actual war zones. It is estimated that more than 95 per cent of small arms in Africa, for example, come from outside the continent.

Another example is Yemen, where 60% of families report ownership of weapons. With approximately 10 million small arms for a population of 23 million people, Yemen is considered among the most heavily armed countries on earth.

The availability of weapons in Yemen is frequently linked to the rapid escalation of armed violence, as witnessed during the instability sparked by the Arab Spring, and to the aggravation of disputes over land and water resources, in which up to 4,000 people are reported to die every year. The end effect is hindrance to the county’s development in both rural and urban areas.

I believe an Arms Trade Treaty can make a major contribution to reducing and preventing this sort of conflict. It will make it much harder for armed groups and governments that commit human rights abuses to acquire a ready flow of arms.

As if violent conflict was not bad enough in itself, it also has a significant bearing on a country’s potential for development.

It is clear that armed conflict and armed violence prevent countries from benefitting from the social and economic development they might otherwise enjoy. The internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education, all by the target date of 2015. While progress is being made in areas such as the fight against communicable diseases, conflict has now become one of the greatest enemies of development.

About two thirds of the countries least likely to achieve the MDGs are in the midst of – or emerging from – conflict.

Even when conflict is simmering and not quite exploding, how can governments provide universal health care or primary education when their budgets are being diverted to corrupt or irresponsible arms purchases?

There is no way a State can build up a comprehensive health system when there is no stability and security and where they are being forced to address the challenges of bloodshed and injury caused by armed violence ahead of other healthcare demands.

How can a State provide universal primary education when armed violence is preventing or deterring children and teachers from simply getting to school?

Economic growth is the route out of poverty but violence and conflict is a fast route back into it. It is estimated that each year Africa foregoes wealth creation to the sum of 18 billion US dollars, as a result of armed conflict.

Vulnerable hit hardest

Make no mistake, the irresponsible trade in arms hits the most vulnerable the hardest.

Of course, the problems do not stop when the fighting stops. Taking the experience of many countries which have faced conflict, it takes 20 years for an economy to recover after the actual conflict has ended.

To understand this picture fully we have to ask what is driving this phenomenon.

At one level, the defence business is one of the most technologically pioneering and inventive sectors of industry. But we have to be honest – in addition to the legitimate arms business, the arms trade is subject to some of the most unscrupulous, greedy and immoral practices of any industry. So many times we have heard of arms dealers who are criminals, selling illicitly, and often getting away with it. A recent example is that of the Viktor Bout, convicted on terrorism charges after being accused of planning to smuggle arms to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). It has been reported that over many years Bout supplied arms to some of the most brutal regimes and civil wars of the last two decades. We can’t allow this to continue in an unregulated, tacitly authorised way.

There are many defence companies and States – those with good controls and good practices – who support an Arms Trade Treaty. The Treaty will establish a fair and equitable foundation for legitimate arms trading.

I am today appealing for all countries to push for an Arms Trade Treaty, so we can ensure that no more arms deals take place outside a framework of global standards.

What could the Arms Trade Treaty look like?

So let me now turn to what an Arms Trade Treaty could look like.

An International Arms Trade Treaty will ensure the global trade in arms is subject to high standards. The Treaty will be a legally binding agreement, supported by monitoring and reporting mechanisms, that sets out very clear standards for arms transfers across international boundaries.

Before exporting arms, States will have to assess and consider an important list of criteria. This list must include the risk of the exported arms being used in human rights abuses, or to fuel conflict, the potential impact of the export on sustainable development, and the risk of the trade being subject to diversion or corrupt practices.

To be effective and worthwhile the treaty must be broad in scope, covering all elements from fighter jets to ammunition. Small arms and light weapons must be in the scope of the Treaty; if they are not, the opportunity to regulate a major contributor to conflict and suffering will have been missed. The UK, working hand in hand with most of the world’s developing nations, will push to ensure small arms and light weapons are in the scope of the Treaty. Leaving them out would be an act of negligence.

Under the terms of the Chair’s document and under the terms of the treaty we want, States will need to demonstrate transparency in their arms trade and they will be required to introduce reporting and transparency measures. This should include publishing a National export control list and detailed national reports on arms exports. States will also need to demonstrate their progress on implementing the Treaty requirements by submitting regular progress reports. Reporting will enable our citizens to hold us to account for the arms transfers we make.

Corruption is a major problem in the arms trade. The unregulated, covert trade in arms, conducted by corrupt individuals or companies, leads to the diversion of weapons into the illicit market or to dangerous end-users. Corruption also undermines the ability of nations to ensure they are paying a fair and uninflated price for the weapons. Corruption allows individuals to profit from a nation’s pain with impunity.

I will push for the Arms Trade Treaty to address the issues of corruption, bribery and the lack of transparency that allow these practices to continue unnoticed. One of the ways I want the Treaty to do this is by including measures to control arms brokering. This could be achieved by all States having a register of arms brokers. Such measures will close loopholes by ensuring brokers are accountable to the law wherever they are operating. States will have to prosecute brokers and all other individuals involved in corrupt practices.

I believe the Treaty’s provisions must also recognise the impact of irresponsible and illegal arms transfers on the most vulnerable, including women. Strong provisions on human rights will assist in this respect. However, considering the disproportionate impact armed violence has on women we also hope to see reference to this included in the Treaty’s preamble.

This is an ambitious project. Many States do not have export control systems at all and it will be a significant commitment for these States to establish systems which adhere to the strong standards of the Arms Trade Treaty. It will therefore be important that the international community recognises and responds to the need for international cooperation and assistance, including technical and financial assistance to countries which will need help in effectively implementing an Arms Trade Treaty.

The UK believes that this must be a strong, effective Treaty. However, we also realise that compromises will have to be made. Whilst many States are as supportive of a Treaty as we are, there are others who have their reservations. I will be working with international counterparts to try and overcome such doubts.

I am concerned that some do not see the value of having criteria on sustainable development in the Treaty, or they mistakenly interpret this as threatening developing States’ sovereignty, and their right to defend themselves and to spend their budgets as they see fit.

Others do not want ammunition or small arms and light weapons in the scope of the Treaty. I believe the inclusion of these weapons is critical. If small arms and light weapons were not included in any agreement, it would dangerously undermine its impact.

In our view a country’s record and approach to human rights should determine whether or not it is a fitting buyer of weapons and we want to see this provision contained in the Treaty. I am concerned that some States are still resisting this inclusion.

Do not misunderstand me. We are encouraged to see the breadth of support that does exist for the Treaty. The EU, sub-Saharan Africa and much of the Caribbean are vocal supporters. The co-authors of the Treaty resolution are continually pushing for the most ambitious scope and provisions.

The P5 [five permanent members of the Security Council] have come a long way and issued a supportive statement last July. The majority of UN Member States want to see criteria regulating the export of arms, they want most conventional weapons in the scope, and they believe that States must retain some record of their arms transfers.

Meanwhile, UK civil society and industry are demonstrating their support, showing the world that all in the UK are united in their support for the Treaty.

Our opportunity

In July, all the States of the United Nations will meet in New York for four weeks of negotiations. The UK will be at the forefront of these negotiations, working hard to ensure the Conference ends with a robust Arms Trade Treaty which the majority of Nations will sign.

The UK fully believes in the value of such a Treaty and is determined to agree one which will achieve real change. We cannot have a Treaty that does not introduce legally binding regulations, or that does not include those weapons that are causing the most human suffering.

Let me stress, a treaty will not prevent any country from being able to defend itself. Indeed, a state’s security force, when properly trained and resourced, can play a valuable role in ensuring stability and creating a climate in which development can flourish.

An internationally agreed treaty will, however, close loopholes and gaps in legislation and it will ensure that globally high standards are in place to prevent irresponsible arms transfers taking place. It is long overdue.

Let no one be in any doubt about our determination. I hope that all countries will share our view.

The world will be watching to see who refuses to sign up to the Arms Trade Treaty.

November 26, 2015
Alan Duncan – 2012 Speech on Business and Aid

Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Duncan, the then Minister of State for International Development, on 18th October 2012.

Business has a vital role to play in economic development, reducing poverty and helping to build countries that will be ever more valuable trading partners for the UK. What is good for business should be good for society.

Last year, DFID set up a Private Sector Department to spearhead a new level of engagement with the private sector. I want to spend the next few minutes telling you about why the private sector is important and how we are harnessing the power of private enterprise to generate opportunity and prosperity for poor people in developing countries.

The private sector’s role in poverty reduction

We know that economic growth is the primary driver of poverty reduction and that the private sector is the engine of that growth; creating new jobs, opportunities, markets and prosperity. For example, 90% of jobs in the countries in which we work are generated by the private sector.

Private enterprise is not just a generator of wealth. The majority of goods that poor people buy and many basic services that they need are also provided by the private sector. Poor people buy some of their healthcare provision from private and other non-state providers – over 50% of parents in sub-Saharan Africa, and over 80% in South Asia – or choose to pay for their children’s education – more than half of the children in school in Lagos, Nigeria attend low-fee private schools. New thinking within the private sector offers insights in to how to ensure better access to these vital goods and services.

How we are working with the private sector

I am now going to briefly outline how DFID is working to maximise the development impact of business to increase investment opportunities; support new approaches; and help business to act responsibly.

Firstly, we are helping to accelerate growth by increasing investment in poor countries.

We have revitalised CDC – the UK’s Development Finance Institution – which has almost £2bn invested. CDC now has a clear focus on poor countries.

Our £75m contribution to the International Finance Corporation for a new finance facility for small and medium enterprise will share risks with banks to increase lending to small and medium enterprises. The facility is expected to increase investment capital available to some 200,000 SMEs over the coming years.

Secondly, we are developing new approaches to business that generate profits and have strong developmental impact.

For example, we have helped transform a rural sales programme that generates income for rural women in Bangladesh from charity into a private company – JITA – through technical assistance from DFID’s Business Innovation Facility. JITA’s door to door saleswomen sell affordable basic goods, such as soap, toothpaste, washing powder or vegetable seeds. So far, JITA has provided income earning opportunities for over 2,800 women and expects to reach 12,000 by the end of 2014.

DFID also supports UK and European retailers to test innovative approaches that develop or expand routes to market for African food producers, through the Food Retail Industry Challenge Fund. One project, led by Taylors of Harrogate – who are here today – works with Rwandan factories and smallholder tea growers to help improve production and processing techniques. This has resulted in a secure, direct source of premium tea for Taylors and contributed to higher returns being shared equitably amongst factory owners and over 10,000 tea growing smallholders.

Thirdly, we promote business that is responsible.

DFID is committed to raising standards; encouraging the private sector to invest and operate in developing countries in a way that is socially responsible, environmentally sound and legally compliant.

Of course, DFID provides support to the global Fairtrade system through our £12m Programme Partnership Arrangement with Fairtrade International. Our support, along with that of other donors, is helping to strengthen, broaden and deepen the impact of Fairtrade.

Our work on codes and standards is complemented by specific interventions aimed at improving the working conditions for people in developing countries, often working in international supply chains. For example, we provide support to the Ethical Trading Initiative, which drives better working conditions for 8.6 million workers in 40,000 supplier companies. We help retailers and civil society organisations change working practices in factories that make ready-made garments for the UK market, through our Responsible and Accountable Garment Sector programme. Projects have shown that private enterprise can be both good for business and good for society. Workers pay and working hours have improved, simultaneously with improving business results.

Why Fairtrade is important

Since the launch of the first Fairtrade label in 1988, to becoming the most widely recognised ethical label globally, Fairtrade’s unique proposition has always been to help farmers and workers get fair prices and improve the quality of their lives. Today, Fairtrade supports over 1.2 million farmers and workers in over 66 countries, which is a magnificent achievement.

We see Fairtrade as a good example of how consumers, producers, businesses, non-governmental organisations and governments can work together to help improve the lives of poor people.

Yes, there are critics of Fairtrade, and we know that we need to build the evidence base so that we can see more clearly the impact certification is having on the lives of poor people. Fairtrade is already involved in work that is helping them to better monitor and evaluate their impact.

There are challenges ahead, but we have many examples of how Fairtrade helps retailers and brand owners engage more directly in their supply chains, enabling them to demonstrate the social and environmental impacts of their buying decisions.

As you know, there have been a number of large scale commitments made by big companies to Fairtrade. In 2008, Tate & Lyle announced their commitment to convert 100% of their retail branded sugar to Fairtrade. Kraft’s Cadbury Dairy Milk and Nestle’s Kit Kat committed to go Fairtrade in 2009, and this year, Mars Maltesers gained the Fairtrade mark.

These commitments bring about real change in people’s lives, and are testament to the growing efforts being made by business to integrate fair and sustainable sourcing into their core business practice. Of course, we must not forget the number of small and medium enterprises and dedicated fair trade companies who have promoted ethical business for many years, and continue to do so today.

The UK currently leads the world in driving Fairtrade. We account for over a quarter of global Fairtrade sales. Half of UK consumers say they regularly purchase Fairtrade products. I wish you all well for a productive and engaging conference and challenge you all to reach new heights in harnessing the power of responsible enterprise for development.

November 26, 2015
Alan Duncan – 2012 Speech at the Launch of the Global Hunger Index

Below is the text of a speech made by the International Development Minister, Alan Duncan, at the launch of the 2012 Global Hunger Index. The speech was made in London on the 15th October 2012.

I am delighted to be here at the UK launch of the 2012 Global Hunger Index.

As the latest report by the International Food Policy Research Institute confirms, there has been some progress in reducing global hunger. However, it can only be described as modest progress, as many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people remain in serious danger of hunger and malnutrition.

The Global Hunger Index report explicitly highlights the especially worrying situation in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Almost a billion people are still going to bed hungry every night. Another billion lack the necessary nutrition to live healthy lives.

According to the 2012 Global Hunger Index, 20 countries had levels of hunger that were “alarming” or “extremely alarming.” That’s without even taking into account the food crises in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel region. Some of the countries with the highest hunger burden – such as Somalia, Burma and the Democratic Republic of Congo – were not included because there quite simply just isn’t enough accurate data.

Nobody quite knows how many hungry people there are in the world. Whatever the specific number, it is clear that levels of hunger and malnutrition are quite simply unacceptable. And what we do know about probably understates quite significantly the wider problem.

This is why, since 2008, the UK has more than doubled its spending on tackling malnutrition and has significantly increased its programmes, which now cover 15 countries within our direct bilateral activity.

Just last week I visited Yemen, where I saw at first hand the pressing need to address the hunger crisis that is escalating there. I am pleased to report that DFID has recently launched a new programme which will focus on the prevention and treatment of acute malnutrition for up to 1.6 million Yemeni women and children. Over the next three years, specifically out of our £200m programme, £35m will be invested in tackling this critical issue. I think it’s true to say that when you lift the lid on Yemen you find that nearly a quarter of infants are malnourished.

Other examples of the UK’s work include Bangladesh, where we are delivering vitamins, minerals and other nutrition support to adolescent girls, pregnant women, and to 225,000 children under the age of 5. In Zambia, the UK is using Coca-Cola’s distribution channels to expand the provision of oral rehydration and zinc supplements for the treatment of acute diarrhoea.

Between 2011 and 2015, the UK will reach 20 million children under the age of 5 with nutrition programmes. We will also ensure that another 4 million people including adults have enough food through the year.

The recent high level event on hunger hosted by the PM at Number 10 galvanised global efforts to reduce wide scale malnutrition. Government representatives, non-governmental organisations, and private companies all forged a strong partnership to act on the challenge together. I also recently spoke at the Scaling Up Nutrition event in the margins of UN General Assembly, which brought together key partners to address this important issue, and I’m pleased to say that when I was in Yemen last week, they too agreed to join the initiative themselves.

We’re not only supporting nutrition-specific programmes. We are also making sure that other sectors, for example agriculture, deliver better outcomes in the fight against global hunger.

We’re making sure that our programmes help people to become more resilient to shocks and disasters, so that they can protect their food security and livelihoods, and continue to work their way out of poverty once an emergency is over.

For our programmes to be effective in transforming the lives of those most in need, it’s essential that we have access to reliable data. The UK recognises the importance of data analysis and rankings not only to promote accountability and transparency, but also to help track trends and emerging issues. The Global Hunger Index has helped create a better picture and establish greater understanding of this crisis.

But, more data is needed. We need to strengthen the quality of data on hunger and malnutrition. For us to be successful in our efforts to eradicate hunger, we need better information on who is hungry, when, where and crucially why. We need it faster. We need to reveal and tackle where the problems are the worst. We need commitment from everyone, including from responsible governments, donors, implementing agencies, and academic experts. We all need to be more accountable for the action we have taken and ensure that our deployment of resources is effective.

The UK Government is committed to helping end hunger and malnutrition. We believe that this ambitious goal can be achieved by working in close partnership with countries, with the private sector, with multilateral organisations and with NGOs. Organisations like Concern, the International Food Policy Research Institute and German Agro Action have a vital role to play in helping us achieve this goal.

So I am very pleased to reiterate my endorsement of and support for all you are doing, and to give my full endorsement to the Global Hunger Index. And with a metaphoric ribbon, consider yourself duly launched!

November 26, 2015
Mary Creagh – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Mary Creagh, the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Rural Affairs and Food, to the Labour Party conference on 1st October 2012.

Conference, in 2010 no-one knew what a foodbank was.

Well we do now.

I have spent the last nine months visiting foodbanks, where people collect and distribute food to families who cannot afford to feed themselves.

In 2012.

In Britain.

In Norwich, organiser Grant Habershon told me how demand at his foodbank had risen by 50 per cent compared to last year as more parents struggled to feed their children during the school holidays.

In Bradford, I packed a food parcel for a mum who skipped meals so her children could eat –dry toast with no jam.

In Harlow, in Skelmersdale, Halesowen, Dorset, the story was the same.

Cuts to lunch clubs, breakfast clubs, changes to tax credits and housing benefit are all forcing proud parents to rely on charity.

I saw the daily struggle of families to put a hot meal on the table.

And I learned about the work of churches, and charities like the Trussell Trust, FoodCycle and Fareshare.

The Trussell Trust will feed 200,000 people this year.

FareShare feeds 36,000 people a day through their network of 700 charities.

We are the seventh richest nation in the world yet we face an epidemic of hidden hunger, particularly in children.

Working families relying on charity for a daily meal.

But there is more than enough food to go round. Food is not the problem. The problem is a Tory-led Government making the wrong political and economic choices.

A Government so out of touch that their farming minister didn’t even know the price of a pint of milk.

A cost of living crisis.

But what is the cost of hunger?

Hunger costs millions in poorer educational results for children too hungry to concentrate in class.

Hunger costs millions in lost productivity.

This is the poverty trap. This is the real cost of hunger.

Last year, Conference, I asked you to join ‘Back the Apple’, our campaign to save the Agricultural Wages Board, to protect the pay and conditions of rural workers in England and Wales.

I am pleased to say that, despite the Tories and Liberal Democrats, voting to abolish the AWB, thanks to our campaign alongside Labour MPs, Unite the Union and the Welsh Assembly Government, the Government has not managed to get rid of it.

Today, 1 October, what may be the last Agricultural Wages Order comes into force. Today over one hundred and fifty two thousand farmworkers, fruit pickers, food packers will get a pay rise – thanks to you.

Next year, if the Tories have their way, they won’t.

But I will be working with my Shadow team to expose how out of touch the Tories and Lib Dems are with rural areas.

I want to thank my fantastic shadow Ministers Huw Irranca-Davies, Gavin Shuker, Tom Harris, in the Commons; Jim Knight and our very own dairy farmer John Grantchester in the Lords; our whip Susan Elan Jones; team PPS Chris Evans; and Fiona O’Donnell and Heidi Alexander who have now left the team.

And what have the Tories been doing in rural areas?

Youth unemployment rose faster in rural areas than in cities in the first two years of this Government.

Decimated rural bus services.

Delayed the roll out of universal broadband.

Making it harder to start and grow a business in the countryside.

So what can Labour do to tackle this cost of living crisis and create green jobs?

We have focussed on three big areas.

First, people are struggling to pay their water bills.

Bad debt adds £15 a year to everyone’s bill.

We want water companies to cut that bad debt by taking tough action on those who won’t pay in order to help those who can’t pay.

A Labour Government would force all water companies to offer social tariffs to help those most in need. But this Government wants to leave it to water companies to decide for themselves.

Second, we want the food industry to create the new green jobs that Britain needs.

The food industry is our largest manufacturing sector. It turns over £76 billion a year, with export earnings worth £12 billion pounds.

Big numbers, big opportunities.

The world will need to feed an extra billion people by 2025.

We need food security here at home and to export more to a world hungry for Great British food.

We want a fair deal on food.

That means a fair price for the milk that dairy farmers produce and a Groceries Code Adjudicator with real teeth.

Labour have been working alongside the Consumer Association for clearer pricing in supermarkets to ensure special offers really do offer a good deal.

Third, our strategy for new green jobs means we’ve got to stop talking about waste and start talking about natural resources.

Businesses need a secure supply of raw materials. They are struggling to source those materials in the UK as we export so much of our waste.

When we export waste, we export jobs. If we keep it here we keep those jobs in the UK.

We will raise our recycling targets and give waste processors the certainty they need to invest in new facilities and create new green jobs.

And in a world where food prices are rising and people are going hungry we think it is wrong that edible food goes to landfill.

We can create low carbon jobs collecting that food and getting it to people who need it.

But this Government just doesn’t have a plan.

Conference, families need a Labour Government that is on their side.

But even in opposition we can do our bit.

This Saturday, 6 October, I will be standing outside a supermarket in Wakefield with the whole Labour team asking people to donate one food item to FareShare’s Million Meal appeal.

You can join us by going to fareshare.org.uk. The twitter hashtag is #MealAppeal.

Across the country, hundreds of Labour MPs, councillors and party members will be doing the same.

Sign up to stand up at fareshare.org.uk.

We may not make the rules in government but we can still make the change we need on the ground.

Conference, Labour has changed.

Let’s show people we are the change the country needs.

November 26, 2015
Vernon Coaker – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Vernon Coaker, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to Labour Party conference on 4th October 2012.

Conference. Northern Ireland is a great place and I’m very privileged to be Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State.

Let me say that one of Labour’s greatest achievements was to help bring about peace in Northern Ireland.

We should never be afraid to say how proud we are of that and how strongly we feel about protecting its legacy. And that’s because Northern Ireland has changed and changed for the better since the bad old days of conflict, violence and isolation.

A fortnight ago I visited the new Giant’s Causeway Centre in North Antrim that already is attracting thousands of visitors. During the summer I toured the new Titanic Quarter and saw the very positive difference the regeneration of that part of Belfast is making.

I’ve been to cities, towns and villages, from next year’s City of Culture in Derry~Londonderry to the twin cathedrals of Armagh and the picturesque Fermanagh lakes around Enniskillen.

What makes Northern Ireland special is its people.

But they are being let down by this Tory-led Government at Westminster. One out-of-touch Secretary of State has been replaced by another. But changing the Tory faces at the Northern Ireland Office isn’t what counts.

They need to change the Tory policies on Northern Ireland.

Unemployment has risen to over 8%.

Nearly one in four young people are without a job. Almost half of those without work have been unemployed for over a year.

Time and again we see that this Government has all the wrong priorities.

Because when hundreds of thousands of people – families, communities and businesses – across Northern Ireland are suffering in these very difficult economic times, the Tories are giving millionaires a £40,000 a year tax break. Giving the richest more money, but at the same time taking money away from those who can’t afford to lose it.

As I told the Northern Ireland Pensioners’ Parliament, 90,000 older people in Northern Ireland – 1 in 3 pensioners – are being hit by the Tory-led Government’s ‘Granny Tax’. And 20,000 families with children will lose out because of changes to tax credits.

And businesses are suffering too.

But after two years of talking about devolving corporation tax powers to Northern Ireland there is still no agreement about whether it should happen and what it would cost.

And with estimates of the cost to the block grant varying from £200m to £700m, there is still a significant gap between the Treasury and the Executive that needs to be bridged.

But rising unemployment and the recent announcements of major job losses show that Northern Ireland’s economy can’t wait. The Tory-led Government needs to catch itself on. The Secretary of State and the Treasury need to stop dithering. Northern Ireland needs action now.

Major decisions that impact upon people in Northern Ireland are still taken at Westminster.

On tax and spend, welfare reform and the overall economic direction taken by the UK. And on all of these the Government is making the wrong decisions.

That’s why Labour has a real plan for jobs and growth in Northern Ireland. We want to support the First and Deputy First Ministers, and the Executive, to build and develop the economy.

So we would reverse the Government’s damaging VAT rise for a temporary period to give immediate help to high streets and struggling families and pensioners in cities, towns and villages across Northern Ireland.

We would bring forward long-term investment projects to get people back to work and strengthen our economy for the future. Northern Ireland’s construction industry needs that help.

We need to build skills through apprenticeships and training that will equip our young people for the future.

And we would give a one-year national insurance tax break to every small firm that takes on extra workers, helping to create jobs and grow local businesses that make up the bulk of Northern Ireland’s private sector.

We would reduce VAT on home improvements, repairs and maintenance, helping to create work for our young tradesmen and women and stop them having to move to Canada and Australia. They are needed at home.

And we would have a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses to fund a real jobs guarantee that would help 2,000 young people in Northern Ireland back to work.

Because I know that young people will be the driving force behind further progress in Northern Ireland. But they are being let down by this Tory-led Government.

The young men and women I meet are ambitious for themselves and their communities. But they can’t realise those ambitions if they aren’t given the chance to get on.

No job, no hope and no future are no choices at all.

We can’t be complacent about the challenges facing Northern Ireland. The threat from those who want to destroy the peace and progress remains high.

I want to thank the Police Service of Northern Ireland for all that they do to keep people safe and secure. I’ve been privileged to meet police officers drawn from every community and serving every community with dedication and integrity. They have my admiration and our support.

Recent weeks have also shown that sensitivities about parades are still very evident in some areas, particularly in Belfast. The reality is that many communities in Northern Ireland are still deeply divided and that sectarianism is an ingrained and uncomfortable truth across all sections of society.

But a shared future can only happen through building shared spaces and shared experiences with shared prosperity and shared responsibility.

That includes taking responsibility for what happened in the past. Because we need to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s Troubles, the death of 3,000 people and injuries and trauma for tens of thousands more. We can’t truly move forward until we do.

I’ve met so many people – families and friends of those who died during the terrible conflict of the past – who simply want justice and to know the truth about what happened to them or their loved ones.

Our view is clear. We need a comprehensive, inclusive process to deal with the past, and victims and survivors should be at the heart of it.

It won’t be easy.

There are many challenges and complications. And there is no consensus about what that process should look like. But then there was no consensus at the start of the negotiations that led to the Good Friday agreement.

The Agreement showed that you have to get people talking and keep people talking until you find a way forward.

But the Tory-led Government says nothing.

Does nothing.

Even when the Assembly asked the Secretary of State to help facilitate talks between all parties.

They did nothing.

If I’d been in that position, I’d have heeded the call of political parties and victims and survivors in Northern Ireland and convened talks to discuss how we move forward.

Because unlike the do-nothing Tories, I won’t hide away or shirk my responsibility on this or any other issue, and neither will any Labour government.

Ed Miliband and I feel strongly that we, the Labour Party, made a promise to a generation in Northern Ireland that theirs would be a better future.

Because as I said at the outset, one of Labour’s proudest achievements is helping to bring about peace in Northern Ireland.

We know that there is still work to be done.

We know that big challenges remain.

And we know Northern Ireland still matters.

That’s why I will keep standing up and speaking up for Northern Ireland, and keeping to the promises we made for a better and brighter future for all.

November 26, 2015
Vernon Coaker – 2012 Speech to Irish Labour Party Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Vernon Coaker, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to the Irish Labour Party in Galway on 16th April 2012.

It is a huge honour and privilege to be here representing my party, the British Labour Party, at the centenary conference of your party, the Irish Labour Party. I want to thank your Leader, the Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore, and your General Secretary, Ita McAuliffe, for their kind invitation. I carry with me the best wishes of my party leader, Ed Miliband, and colleagues from throughout the Labour Party and the trade union movement to all of you.

In the one hundred years of your existence, you have provided inspiration to democratic socialist parties across the world, and nowhere is your influence felt more than in my party and the trade union movement in Britain. What Edinburgh and Liverpool gave you in Connolly and Larkin has been repaid in many more cities in Britain so many times over, and that such a large number of my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party have Irish backgrounds is a testament to that. Indeed in my own constituency of Gedling in Nottingham, the Chair of the Labour Party is Seamus Creamer, a Tipperary man.

The ties between Britain and Ireland are bonds of people, places and history. Our shared past is complicated, intense and has often been marred by conflict and division. But in this year, the one hundredth anniversary of the Irish Labour Party, the third Home Rule Bill and the Ulster Covenant, the relationship is transformed. We stand shoulder to shoulder now as friends and neighbours and the special link between our countries has deepened, widened and developed as we both strive for a fairer, more equal and more just society where opportunity is available to all regardless of background, gender, ethnicity or sexuality.

What has happened in Northern Ireland is an example of that. We in the Labour Party will speak up for the peace and progress – as the party who in government helped with others to bring about the Good Friday Agreement and all that flowed from it – and we will stand up for fairness in tough times.

We will hold the UK Government to the promises that were made to help deliver a real peace dividend for Northern Ireland. Because whilst there has indeed been much progress made, we must make sure that the political focus does not prematurely move on. We need to continue working together on Northern Ireland – in a way that is appropriate to the devolved settlement – and while applauding the continuing progress, we still need to understand the threat which remains and recognise the special circumstances that exist.

We all know that the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives, including our friends and sister party the SDLP, are still wrestling with the consequences of the past as they move forward, and this is no time for us to fail to give them a priority that they both demand and deserve. For my part, working on behalf of the British Labour Party, I will try my very best to meet the challenges of supporting the peace process, standing up for Northern Ireland and helping to build the future and prosperity its people deserve.

But what Britain and Ireland also share are values. The values of Irish people, and the Irish in Britain, are Labour’s values too. The importance of fairness, family, looking out for each other, working together, pride in identity, pride in community, and pride at playing a part in doing your bit to make society better. Your President, Michael D. Higgins, visited Britain during his campaign for election. And many members of my party were involved in helping him win his historic victory. I’m delighted that he has appointed one of my party colleagues, Sally Mulready, to the Council of State in Ireland, another example of the close connections between our two countries.

In my own city of Nottingham just a few weeks ago I saw those values on display in the Market Square for the St Patricks Day Parade. The hurlers, footballers, dancers and musicians. It was even more than just a celebration of culture, it was a celebration of community and the pillars of strength which bind communities together.

And when I visited Dublin last month, for the first time as Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I saw those values being lived when I visited Croke Park. What a wonderful organisation the

Gaelic Athletic Association is. That basic concept of giving to others freely what was given to you, rooted in communities across Ireland and providing, inspiring and creating in equal measure. And these are difficult times in which to live out these values. But as Labour people we aren’t averse to hard work. And we are not afraid to assert these values and stand up for them with pride in what we believe.

And we in the Labour Party in Britain have a tough job to do to get back in government. Although I’m sure you would agree that being in government isn’t easy. And I think the hardest thing we need to work on is getting in to government at the same time! This hasn`t proved easy in the first hundred years of our parties’ existence so let’s try to make it happen a bit more often over the next hundred years.

So I finish by thanking you again. For your friendship, your comradeship and for what you, the Irish Labour Party have done and are doing for your country. You, the members, young and old, men and women, from all backgrounds and walks of life, led by Eamon Gilmore, are an example and an inspiration to us in the Labour Party in Britain, and I hope our two parties will – like our two countries – deepen and develop our special bond in the years ahead. By doing so we can together build that better fairer future that is our common goal.

Thank you again for this very special honour.

November 26, 2015